Schaffert (2009)


LMS
PLE
challenges & shifts
role of learner
learner as consumer of pre-defined learning materials, dependent on the “creativity” of the teacher
active, self-directed, creator of content
shift from consumer to “prosumer”, self organisation is possible AND necessary
personalisation
... is an arrangement of learning assignments and materials according to a (proposed or pre-defined) learner's model, based on an underlying expert system
... means to get information about learning opportunities and content from community members and learning services fitting to the learner's interests (via tags/RSS)
competence for usage of several tools and a self organisation is needed
content
developed by domain experts, special authors, tutors and/or teachers
the infinite “bazaar” of learning content in the Web, exploring learning opportunities and services
necessary competences to search, find and use appropriate sources (e.g. Weblogs)
social involvement
limited use of group work, focus on the closed learner group (e.g. in the LMS), collaboration and exchange not primarily in the focus
the community and the social involvement (even in multiple communities) is the key for the learning process and the recommendations for learning opportunities
community and collaboration as the central learning opportunities
ownership
content is generally owned by the educational institutions or the students, due to technological reasons, this ownership can not always be realised
content is organised in multiple, Web-based tools, ownership is controlled by the learners themselves and/or (commercial) service providers
awareness of personal data is needed
educational & organisational culture
imitation of classroom learning, course-orientated, teacher-orientated features
self-organised learner in the focus
change of learning culture and perspective – move towards self organisation and self determination
technological aspects
classical learning content needs interoperability between LMS and data repositories
Social Software tools and aggregation of multiple sources
required interoperability between LMS and the Social Software


Chatti: http://mohamedaminechatti.blogspot.com/2010/03/lms-vs-ple.html
In contrast to Learning Management Systems (LMS), Personal Learning Environments (PLE) have the following characteristics:

  • Personalization: A LMS follows a one-size-fits-all approach to learning by offering a static system with predefined tools to a set of many learners around a course. A PLE, by contrast, is responsive and provides a personalized experience of learning. It considers the needs and preferences of the learner and places her at the center by providing her with a plethora of different tools and handing over control to her to select and use the tools the way she deems fit.
  • Informal learning and lifelong learning support: A LMS is not supportive of informal or lifelong learning. It can only be used in a formal learning setting, managed and controlled by the educational institution. And, in a LMS, learning has an end. It stops when a course terminates. A PLE, however, can connect formal, informal, and lifelong learning opportunities within a context that is centered upon the learner. A PLE allows the learner to capture her informal and lifelong learning accomplishment and develop her own e-portfolio. In a PLE learning is fluid. It continues after the end of a particular course.
  • Openness and decentralization: Unlike a LMS, which stores information on a centralized basis within a closed and bounded environment, a PLE goes beyond the boundaries of the organization and operates in a more decentralized, loosely coupled, and open context. A PLE offers an opportunity to learners to make effective use of diverse distributed knowledge sources to enrich their learning experiences.
  • Bottom-up approach: Within a LMS there is a clear distinction between the capabilities of learners and of teachers, resulting into a one-way flow of knowledge. In contrast to a hierarchical top-down LMS, shaped by command-and-control and asymmetric relationships, a PLE provides an emergent bottom-up solution, driven by the learner needs and based on sharing rather than controlling.
  • Knowledge-pull: A LMS adopts a knowledge-push model and is concerned with exposing learners to content and expecting that then learning will happen. A PLE, however, takes a knowledge-pull model. Learners can create their very own environments where they can pull knowledge that meets their particular needs from a wide array of high-value knowledge sources.
  • Ecological learning: A PLE-driven approach to learning is based on personal environments, loosely connected. A PLE is not only a personal space, which belongs to and is controlled by the learner, but is also a social landscape that offers means to connect with other personal spaces in order to leverage knowledge within open and emergent knowledge ecologies. Rather than belonging to hierarchical and organization-controlled groups, each learner has her own personal environment and network. Based on their needs and interests, different learners come together for a learning experience. They work together until the learning goal is achieved and thereby do not have a permanent relationship with a formal organization or institution. The distributed PLEs can be loosely connected to build a knowledge ecology. Unlike LMS- driven groups/communities, which are closed, bounded, structured, hierarchical, and organization-controlled, a PLE-driven knowledge ecology is open, distributed, diverse, emergent, self-organized, and learner-controlled.


external image LMS-vs-PLE.png

Lubensky 2006
The structure, features and policies of most VLE implementations tend to perpetuate the traditional instructivist models of education. The primary purpose of the systems is to organise course content for transmission to enrolled students. Only some VLEs provide shared file areas and collaborative facilities like chat and discussion forums. In universities, VLEs often act as secure gateways to digital indexes and research journals. Unless students manually copy materials out of the VLE walled garden, all traces of their learning experience through the VLE are lost once they complete their studies.
The notion of a PLE arose in response to the technical and policy constraints imposed by institutionalised VLEs and LMSs in both educational and workplace settings, which are perceived to impede personal learning choices. University administrators view access to external web services as a risk to the institution rather than an affordance for learners and faculty. Hence, they prefer the more limited view of PLEs as a configurable extension to a VLE, especially when they continue to see themselves as the monopoly technology service providers for their learning community (eg online enrolment, email addresses).

PLE comparado con LMS (en Martindale 2010)
- LMS est centrado en el contexto del curso
- todos los recursos estaán integrados en la estructura general del curso
- relacion asimtrica entre el docente y el alumno en término del control sobre la experiencia de aprendizaje
- el rol del alumno es la aceptacin pasiva del contenido y los permisos limitados dentro del LMS
- cada alumno experimenta el contenido de la misma manera e interactúa con el de la misma forma

Los investigadores (JISC-CETIS, 2007) han identificado estas causas de fracaso de los entornos de aprendizaje actuales:
- las barreras de accesibilidad permanecen
- la institucionalización de la tecnologia de apendizaje crea una barrera adicional
- la práctica pedagógica es centrada en el docemte
- el proceso educativo es más centrado en la institución que en el alumno.

A diferencia con el LMS, los PLEs intentan gestionar las relaciones entre el estudiante y varios servicios web. No intentan integrar todas esas herramientas en un mismo entorno sino mas bien facilitar compartir el contenido. La relacin entre el estudiante y el PLE es simétricó porque el estudiante puede producir y recivir información dentro del mismo sistema. Finalmente, el rango del PLe es global, porque no existen limitaciones de su uso.

PLE supone una serie de cambios para el estudiante, la institucion, y el contenido. Anderson ha describido una serie de ventajas de PLE sobre el LMS tradicional. En un PLE, el estudiante tiene el sentido de identidad que se extiende fuera de clase. Porque puede controlar su aprendizaje, tiene control sobre el entorno en el que trabaja. En vez de operar dentro del entorno institucional, el mismo organiza su entorno de aprendizaje. Es responsable por su propio contenido. No es un consumidor pasivo, es el propietario. Tomando parte en varias comunidades de practica, desarrolla su personalidad online (Anderson, 2006).

Schaffert and Hilzensauer (2008) identificaron diferencias entre PLE y LMS en cuanto al rol del estudiante, personalización, el componente social, la propiedad del contendio, y cuestiones técnicas. Han describido unos retos que enfrenta el estudiante al cambio de LMS a PLE:
- necesidad de seleccionar y revisar independientemente el contenido
- uso de combinación de varias herramientas a la vez
- entender las fortalezas de varios servicios y aplicaciones web 2.0
- apreciar la propiedad intelectual
- motivación interna para el aprendizaje.

(Dans 2009)
Tradicionalmente, la educación a través de la Red ha recurrido a herramientas estandarizadas, o de desarrollo propio, para llevar a cabo la interacción entre los diversos participantes en el proceso (profesores, alumnos, supervisores, tutores, encargados de administración, etc.); dichas herramientas son conocidas como Learning Management Systems o LMS. Las citadas plataformas o LMS ofrecen a los alumnos un entorno cerrado y controlado en el que las instituciones académicas pueden establecer elementos correspondientes a funciones, tales como foros de participación, herramientas de retroalimentación, módulos educativos de contenidos, mecanismos de comunicación, etc., intentando proporcionar un ambiente lo más uniforme y familiar posible (Coates y otros, 2005).

La evolución de la Red, mientras tanto, ha sufrido importantes cambios durante los años comprendidos entre 2005 y 2009, con el desarrollo de la denominada Web 2.0: se trata de una tendencia con un funcionamiento cada vez más participativo y bidireccional, en la que los usuarios no se limitan a leer o visualizar contenidos, sino que incrementan su nivel de implicación produciendo sus propios contenidos y publicándolos mediante herramientas sencillas. El crecimiento del ancho de banda en el ámbito doméstico, la evolución hacia conexiones de banda ancha y de funcionamiento permanente, y el desarrollo de herramientas sencillas como los blogs determina un cambio importante en la fisonomía de la Red, así como en la forma de relacionarse las personas entre sí y con los contenidos.

Otro de los planteamientos llamativos de la evolución de la Red ha sido el paso de los esquemas ordenador-céntricos del siglo pasado, a otros red-céntricos, en los que los usuarios no emplean únicamente un ordenador y un disco duro, sino que acceden a la Red mediante una amplia variedad de dispositivos y desde prácticamente cualquier lugar. El mismo alumno que se conecta desde el ordenador del aula lo hace desde su casa, desde su portátil, desde un netbook o desde un teléfono móvil. En cada uno de ellos, utiliza diferente hardware, sistemas operativos o programas, mientras que sus datos se sitúan sin excepción en la propia Red, única manera de mantener su integridad. Esta tendencia, iniciada en el mercado de consumo mediante herramientas como el correo electrónico GMail, gestores de favoritos como Delicious, y repositorios de fotos como Flickr o Fotolog, de presentaciones como Slideshare, o de vídeo como YouTube se continúa ahora con un fuerte empuje y competencia en el mercado corporativo, como prueba indudable de una tendencia ya consolidada.

(...) el uso de una plataforma cerrada supone un paso atrás, una regresión al pasado, una situación antinatural. La idea de trabajar con las opciones que una única plataforma propone, que además suelen tener, por sí mismas, prestaciones inferiores a las ofrecidas por las alternativas especializadas habituales en Internet, supone, sobre todo en el caso de los alumnos más avanzados en el uso de la web, renunciar a una filosofía de trabajo aprendida mediante la práctica a través de horas de navegación. Pero en el caso de aquellos alumnos no formados en las herramientas actuales, supone hurtarles la posibilidad de aprender y desarrollar las habilidades en el nuevo entorno, privarles del aprendizaje de una nueva manera de trabajar que formará parte de su experiencia en los próximos años de su desarrollo personal y profesional. La diversidad de la web es, en este caso, su mayor riqueza.

(...) Parece necesario, sin embargo, replantearse en cierta medida la función de la plataforma. Inicialmente, ésta servía para ofrecer a la comunidad educativa, tanto a alumnos como a profesores, un entorno controlado y familiar. En la época en que la enseñanza online comenzó a popularizarse, a principios de 2003, este tipo de atributos eran sumamente necesarios: en general, las capacidades de los usuarios se limitaban a la consulta de páginas web, pero se encontraban sumamente limitados en cuanto a la posibilidad de generación de contenidos. La herramienta habitual para este tipo de funciones era el foro, popular prácticamente desde los inicios de Internet y los grupos de Usenet, mientras que otras herramientas como los blogs o los wikis estaban puramente en sus inicios. Así, las LMS planteaban una manera fácil de desarrollar la interacción, y la flexibilidad suficiente como para integrar contenidos en un entorno de manejo sin excesivas barreras de entrada, algo crucial en un momento en el que, para muchos, el simple desarrollo de interacciones a través del medio electrónico planteaba un cierto nivel de inseguridad.

A medida que el desarrollo de herramientas en la web fue progresando en paralelo con las habilidades de los alumnos para manejarlas, empezó a darse un interesante
fenómeno: la institución facilitaba a sus estudiantes la plataforma para el desarrollo del curso, pero éstos pasaban a coordinarse, cada vez en mayor medida, mediante herramientas externas a dicha plataforma. El uso de mensajería instantánea creció con la incorporación de nuevas generaciones de estudiantes en las que esta herramienta gozaba de una enorme popularidad, y creció igualmente el porcentaje de enlaces externos a los que los alumnos hacían referencia. El papel del profesor, igualmente, fue cambiando: en un entorno de hiperabundancia absoluta de información, éste ya no podía aspirar a ser quien más sabía de un tema determinado, sino a ser capaz de escoger o destacar, en cada momento, la información más adecuada, que en muchas ocasiones había sido aportada por uno de sus alumnos. El profesor empezó a ser, en cierto sentido, un supernodo conductor, con visibilidad sobre toda la comunidad, y que debía ser capaz de proporcionar cierta estructura y programa
a la misma.


Cormier (2010)
I came to the idea of the PLE as an alternative to the LMS (learning management system, blackboard, moodle, desire2learn etc). There is a sense in which it is the opponent of the institutional sponsored and controlled LMS and as that I am quite fond of it as a student controlled alternative. Recently, however, institutions have been getting themselves (or have considered doing so) into the PLE business and have set up locations for students to have their own personal learning environment (ELGG at athabasca comes to mind). This can take away from some of the advantages of students being responsible for their content and feeling a sense of ownership for their content. It can, however, remove the somewhat tricky task (not to mention digital dividing task) of having a student setup their own PLE location and managing it themselves.
POINT 1. The PLE differs from the general usage of the LMS in that it is not course focused, but rather focuses on the learning the student is doing over the length of their learning journey. By extension it tends to allow for the student to control the way their own work is organized.

7Things (2009)
Los PLE son muchas veces contrastados con los LMS en que un LMS es centrado en el curso y un PLE en el estudiante. Pero estos dos entronos se pueden combinar permitiendo que los individuales incorporen elementos de un LMS institucional en su propio entorno de aprendizaje. Por ejemplo, un PLE tipicamente incorpora blogs que comentan información encontrada en la web. Mientras que la mayoría de discusiones sobre PLEs se centran en los entornos en línea, el término abarca toda clase de recursos que un alumno utiliza para responder preguntas, crear contexto, o ilustrar procesos. No es una aplicación o un servicio concreto sino una forma de ver la realización de la tarea de aprendizaje.

Anderson (2006a)
Advantages of PLE’s
Advantages of LMS
Identity:
  • Learners have existences beyond formal school, that can be used to both help learners contextualize their own understanding and for others to understand their epistemological legacy. The PLE tools integrate this outside life with formal study.
Persistence:
  • The reflective posting of a blog are a digital record of the learning process. They can be an integral part of the lifelong learning accomplishment and e-portfolio of the learner. They should not disappear at the end of a course.
Ease of Use:
  • PLE environments can be customized and personalized allowing education to flow into the learners’ other net applications
  • The learning curve associated with forced immersion in multiple LMS systems is eliminated
  • A PLE can be infinitely customized by both teachers and learners and is not confined to the monolithic tool set included by the commercial LMS package or the tools supported by a customized Open Source institutional LMS.
  • Blogging is rapidly becoming easier and more accessible with mobile (PDA) and email entry allowing off line activity (see Trafford)
Ownership:
  • Control and responsibility: The PLE centers the learning within the context created and sustained by the learner – not one owned by the institution. This leads to sense of and practical application of educational self direction.
  • Copyright and re-use: The old saying that possession is 9/10 of ownership doesn’t really mean much in the electronic era, but there is a sense that contributions on an institutional site are owned (or at least access is controlled to them) by the institution. Contributions to a PLE are very definitely owned by the learner and thus can be used and re-used as that owner sees fit.
Social Presence:
  • Our work on social presence (see communityofinquiry.com) alerted us to the need for systems and a supportive online culture to allow learners to project themselves socially and emotionally. Posting to an external class from within one’s own system, with which the user is comfortable and has customized to their own requirements, likely ensures higher levels of efficacy, comfort and greater capacity to create social presence.
Capacity and Speed of Innovation:
  • PLEs and their component pieces of social and networked information management tools are VERY rapidly evolving (see for example Judith Meskill’s list of over 380 social software applications. Although, it is unfair to categorize all LMS by the glacial speed of change of some of the larger examples, the inheeent plug and play environment of the PLE insures that new applications can be developed and integrated quickly and by the individual owner.
  • The PLE is a second generation network application in that unlike the LMS that was designed to enact the classroom on the Network, the PLE is designed primarily as a personal lifelong learning environment. It extends learning beyond classroom and teacher centered model.
  • Purposefully designed
  • The capacity and functionality of tools designed to facilitate a net enabled class are now commonly understood by both learners and teachers and fit well with a cohort model of formal teaching and learning.
  • Institutional, teacher and student concerns over IP, privacy and support have been largely been addressed in current LMS systems.
  • Mature
  • LMS systems have been around for about ten years and the primary interaction tools – threaded discussion groups for an additional 20 years, They are reliable, well supported by both vendors, development communities and typically institutional IT staff
  • Universal – Adapative technologies are often available within LMS with little configuration required by learners or teachers.
  • Safe and Secure
  • Educational institutions have long developed traditions of being safe places for the pursuit of learning and scholarship. One can reasonably expect to be treated fairly (or at least openly) and there are formal and informal norms adopted and enforced within contexts controlled by the institution. Such security is not provided on the open Net.
  • Learning at its best is personal and transformational. To accomplish this may require a sense of security whereby ideas, tones and emotions can be developed and shared. Learners have expectations that their comments, images and ideas are created and shared within this protected environment and are not available on the Open web, nor capable of being archived for decades and brought back to haunt the future.
  • Ease of Use
  • While developments in syndication technologies are rapidly improving, the challenge for a teacher or a learner to read through postings and their responses, in threaded or time stamped formats remains a challenge. Modern LMS systems default to easily support search, sort and organize postings in multiple formats.
  • Providing support to students for a single LMS system is relatively easy for learning services support staff. Such service can often be outsourced to 7*24 help desks if required.
  • Categories for postings are easily made, edited and expanded by teachers (for example typical LMS systems allow creation of informal coffee-room chats and threaded discussion areas, workspaces for teams and theme or chronological ordering of discourse. Categorization of blog posting even for those designed for a particular class are problematic, but become greater when a single PLE is used to contribute to personal, educational and vocational entries.
  • Storing, uploading, archiving, editing and retrieval of course content is relatively easy in full featured LMS systems and usually undertaken by someone else – a prime requirement for effective backup!
  • LMS are the educational tools of today. The busy teacher or learner needs to invest little personal time and energy, but can ‘fall into” the supportive routines provided by educational support systems and expend their innovation energy in other directions

Attwell 2010:
The idea of Personal Learning Environments emerged from a discussion over the future of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) in education (Wilson et al, 2006). VLEs were seen as a walled garden, unable to connect with the many different web based spaces and social software applications students were using for researching and publishing their work. PLEs were seen as allowing students to bring together the different contexts in which learning takes place, in the home and in the workplace as well as in education institutions. And PLEs were to be owned by the user, thus shifting the balance of power from the institution to the learner.

Corlett 2005:
For all the benefits of a well-run institutional Virtual or Managed Learning Environments (VLE and MLE), there are a number of significant shortcomings with respect to their value to the individual. First, they are not intrinsically learner-centred. Courses are largely created and structured around the curriculum and administrative organisation of the institution, which leaves little freedom for involvement in the design by the learner. A PLE is structured by the learner, for the learner.
Second, individualisation is weak. Although the learner will see their own selection of courses and may be able to make some graphical modifications (mostly in the interest of accessibility), there is little scope to choose a personal suite of tools or resources according to individual learning styles and work habits. A PLE contains the tools of the learner’s choice and resources as chosen and managed by the learner.
Third, VLEs and MLEs offer collaboration tools (discussion, chat, whiteboard) but these are only available to members of the course and often only for the purpose of the course. Our previous research (Corlett and Sharples, 2004) has shown that students are much more flexible and informal in their approach to collaboration, with many work-based discussions taking place in social spaces and vice versa. They also want to determine who they communicate with and how, and may not want all their exchanges to be visible to a course tutor. A PLE should ensure that a variety of communication tools are available to the learner, and that he or she can choose with whom they communicate, and who is privy to this. A wider variety of collaboration means should also be available, including electronic support for face to face sessions as well as entirely online ones.
Fourth, technology needs to be situated (Jonassen and Land eds, 2000). In order to practice real-world situations, learners need to be in real-world situations. This means that the learning environment also needs to be present and appropriate to the situation. In many cases, a live connection to the internet is not possible (in various laboratories, work places, social environments etc.), and without an offline client to the VLE, there can be no electronic interaction. Even though most mobile phones can provide data services, these are still prohibitively expensive. Wireless networks (WLAN) are still not widely available or economic. Again, a PLE should overcome this problem.
Fifth, learning happens everywhere and at all times. A VLE or MLE cannot be ubiquitous. A single thought or conversation can be a learning experience and it is important that ad-hoc, informal experiences as well as planned or formal ones are supported and recorded. Even where a connection to the Internet is possible, the design of most institutional systems prohibits quick, simple interactions. First, generally a full-size browser client (PC or similar) is required, with internet connection. Then the user must log in and select a specific course, then take part in some structured activity. This also presumes that there is a relevant part of the VLE for the experience that is taking place. A PLE must provide appropriate services, information and connectivity at all times and in all places.
Finally, a PLE must support Lifelong Learning. This requires support over time, amongst institutions, and through a variety of technologies (Gemmell et al. 2004). Learning habits are changing. It is not unusual for learners to be studying at more than one institution at a time, often whilst also engaged in work. A PLE should provide access to all relevant electronic resources, at all times and without logging on to multiple web sites, email accounts etc. These resources should also be available when the learning episode is formally finished, for reflection and revision purposes.

Wilson 2006:
El diseño dominante
El diseño alternativo
Enfasis en la integracion de herramientas y datos dentro del contexto del curso
  • El diseno general de un VLE integra una serie de herramientas (foros, quizes), y datos (alumnos, contenido) dentro del comtexto de un curso o modulo. Esto refleja el padron general de la educacion formal de modulariozacion de cursos y la isolacion del aprendizaje en unidades diferenciadas. En algunos VLE ni siquiera es posible compartir el contenido entre varios cursos en el mismo sistema.

Relaciones asimetricas
  • Dentro de los sistemas de aprendizaje acuales hay una distinccion clara entre las aptitudes del esrudiane y las del docente. Esa asimetria resulta en un mensaje incoherente alos usuarios: por un lado, tienen que ser creativos, participativos, y tomar control sobre su propio aprendizaje, por el otro, se ven restringidos a un rol pasivo de consumidores de la informacion dentro de un VLE.

Experiencia homogenea de contenido
  • En modelo organizacional centrado en el curso y las limitaciones del estudiante de organizar su espacio crean un contexto mayormente homogeneo, todos los estudiantes experimentan el sistema de la misma manera, ven el mismo contenido, organizado de la misma manera, con las mismas herramientas. Esto replica el padron general de la educacion que pone enfasis en la experoencia comun de estudiantes dentro de un contexto. Esta en conflicto con la necesidad formulada de aprendizaje durante de toda la vida de experiencia individualizada segun necesidades y prioridades personales.

El uso de estandares abiertos
  • Algunos estandares como IMS o SCORM fueron adoptados pero otros como RSS no.

Control de acceso y gestion de derechos
  • El VLE tipicamente limita acceso al contenido y conversaciones al grupo de estudiantes, y lo protege de ser visto desde exterior. Esto esta en contra de la idea de aprendizaje en toda la vida, que busca unificar las experiencias de aprendizaje en trabajo y en casa, y entre organizaciones. La mayoria de VLEs no estan accesibles al mundo exterior, y muchos estan cerrados cuando termina el curso.

El ambito organizativo
  • El ambito en el que opera un VLE es normalmente la organizacion que instala y controla el software o la informacion. Un VLE dificilmente incluye organizaciones externas, o alumnos que no estan de alguna manera registrados dentro de la organizacion.
Centrado en coordinar conexiones entre el usuario y los servicios
  • Mas que integrar herramientas dentro del unico contexto, el sistema deberia centrarse en coordinar conexiones entre el usuario y un amplio rango de servicios ofrecidos por organizaciones y otras personas. El PLE posibilita una serie de contextos que soportan las metas del usuario. Esto es consistente con el enfoque al aprendizaje orientado a competencias, y explicitamente reconoce la necesidad de integrar experiencias en un rango de entornos, incluyendo educacion, trabajo, y actividades de tiempo libre.

Relaciones simetricas
  • El sistema deberia apoyar relaciones simetricas, cualquier usuario debe poder a la vez consumir y publicar recursos utilizando el servicio, y los usuarios deberian poder organizar sus recursos, controlar contextos, y adoptar herramientas que responden a sus necesidades.

Contexto individualizado
  • El sistema no propone una experiencia homogenea del contexto porque los usuarios pueden reorganizar la informacion dentro del contexto y escoger informacion y herramientas que consideran oportunos.

Estandares abiertos y APIs propietarios
  • Porque el alcance del sistema expande fuera de los servicios ofrecidos por instituciones, el rango de estamdares y protocolos utilizados para interactuar con los servicios crece, y no se puede basar solamente en estandares desarrollados para las necesidades del sector de la educacion. Al cambio, los sistemas necesitan interactuar con servicios que ofrecen suspropios APIs como Google Maps o interfaces que soportan estandares generales web como ATOM. Desde la perspectiva de PLE, las conexiones son mucho mas importantes que la conformidad, y es mejor ofrecer un amplio rango de servicios que restringir las posibles conexiones.

Contenido abierto y la cultura de remix
  • El PLE esta centrado en compartir recursos, no protegerlos, y subraya el uso de licencias creative commons que pemiten editar, modificar, y republicar los recursos. Mas que objetos de aprendizaje, los recursos en un PLE son tipicamente entradas de blogs, resenas, comentarios, y otros artefactos de comunicacion. El PLE facilia la creacion de listas de recursos y compartirlos con otros para la construccion colaborativa de conocimiento.

El ambito personal y global
  • Mientras que el VLE opera dentro del ambito organizacional, el PLE opera al nivel personal coordinando servicios e informacion relacionados directamente a su usuario y propietario. Sin embargo, el PLE puede tambien ser considerado del ambito global porque el rango de servicios que puede coordinar no esta relacionado con una organizacion particular.


Control institucional

Algunas instituciones van a sefuir desarrollando sus propias soluciones para el PLE dentro del campus, como portales o aplicaciones dedicadas a ayudar a los estudiantes a organizar sus recursos y publicar reflexiones. Pero como el control institucional esta en conflicto con la idea de PLE, muchos educadores preferiran utilizar aplicaciones como iGoogle o My Yahoo! que ofrecen plataformas adecuadas para un PLE centrado en el usuario. (7Things, 2009)