This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution/NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International Public License - CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
sa/4.0/legalcode.es
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
eISSN: 2661-6661
revistasinergia@soyuo.mx
Pag 1-28
Received: March 03, 2021
Approved: June 21, 2021
Assessment of digital tools in Personal
Learning Environments in Higher
Education students
Evaluación de las herramientas digitales en los Entornos
Personales de Aprendizaje en los estudiantes de Educación
Superior
Teresa Ordaz Guzmán*
Anahí Isabel Arellano Vega*
Abstract
Higher Education institutions have the challenge of including flexible and
open methodologies for learning, which allow to take advantage of the
educational potential of Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT). An example of that is the Personal Learning Environments or PLEs
emerge as a pedagogical approach strongly tied to digital tools. The
objective of this article is to finalize the profiles of higher education
students in relation to their perception of the digital tools they use for their
learning strategies. Thus, this research corresponds to a quantitative-
descriptive design of transversal cut. A survey-type technique was used to
collect the data. The present study was applied with the sample was 376
students. It was found the students who prefers traditional Tools for learn
and the student use the digital tool for search information but not to create
and share. The higher education institutions need to generate scenarios for
the training of students and offer opportunities to build knowledge to take
advantage of the use ICT.
Keywords: Higher Education, PLE, ICT, Digital tools
* Doctorado, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro,
Querétaro, México teresa.ordaz@uaq.mx
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5594-467X
* Doctorado, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro,
Querétaro, México, anahi.isabel.arellano@uaq.mx
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5452-6660
Article
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
2
Resumen
Las instituciones de Educación Superior tienen el desafío de incluir
metodologías de aprendizaje flexibles y abiertas, que permitan aprovechar
el potencial educativo de las Tecnologías de la Información y la
Comunicación (TIC). Un ejemplo de ello son los Entornos Personales de
Aprendizaje o PLEs, estos emergen como un enfoque pedagógico
fuertemente vinculado a herramientas digitales. El objetivo de este artículo
es describir los perfiles de los estudiantes de educación superior en relación
a su percepción de las herramientas digitales que utilizan para sus
estrategias de aprendizaje. Esta investigación corresponde a un diseño
cuantitativo-descriptivo de corte transversal. Se utilizó una técnica tipo
encuesta para recolectar los datos. El presente estudio se aplicó con una
muestra de 376 estudiantes. Se encontró que los estudiantes prefieren las
herramientas tradicionales para aprender y las herramientas digitales para
buscar información, pero no las utilizan para crear y compartir. Es así que,
las instituciones de educación superior necesitan generar escenarios para
la formación de los estudiantes y ofrecer oportunidades de construcción de
conocimiento para aprovechar el uso de las TIC.
Palabras clave: Educación superior, PLE, TIC, Herramientas digitales
Introduction
Nowadays Higher Education institutions have the challenge of
including flexible and open methodologies for learning, which allow
to take advantage of the educational potential of Information and
Communication Technologies (ICT) in general and Web 2.0 and the
Web semantics. These methodologies are expected to promote
experiences so that students can select and recognize the digital
resources and tools that favor their own learning (Adams et al.,
2017). Within the framework of this challenge, the Personal
Learning Environments or PLEs emerge as a pedagogical approach
strongly tied to digital tools. PLEs can be defined as learning
ecosystems that are favored by the intersection of formal and
informal contexts in which people unfold (Salinas, 2013).
The use of PLEs is based on constructivist theories of teaching-
learning processes, which, on the one hand, suggest that learning is
an active process of construction on the part of the individual; and,
on the other hand, they conceive teaching as an orientation to such
construction, rather than to the transfer of knowledge (Castañeda &
Adell, 2014).
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
3
In that sense, PLEs offer opportunities to develop didactic situations
centered on the students; and, in turn, encourage the acquisition and
development of skills for the demands of the world that surrounds
them. Therefore, it becomes a need for teachers to integrate the
opportunities provided by the PLEs and that, based on the learning
strategies that we know that students use in informal environments
design more effective formal education processes (Martínez, Nolla,
Vidal, & de la Torre, 2016).
In this sense, the construction of a PLE in formal education requires
a participation in communication processes between students and
teachers, in such a way that it is function for the teacher to propitiate
the students' ability to build their own environments giving enough
freedom and space to them to feel ownership of their own personal
environments (Haworth, 2016).
In fact, the PLEs are based on a social component that produces an
immediate and durable interaction that is integrated from
a Personal Learning Network (PLN) (Martínez et al., 2016). And for
all this, a series of resources, tools, and connection are used with
other people, and this is where ICTs have a prominent role, since
they favor all of these(Coll & Engel, 2014). This interaction allows
us to extract information, share current information, reflect on the
information to achieve the learning objectives that people suggest
(Castañeda & Adell, 2013; Patterson, Stephens, Chiang, Price,
Work, & Snelgrove-Clarke, 2017). And besides, the social
component provides an active role for people to customize
their PLEs, requiring several strategies to regulate their own learning
process from resource management at hand and the development
of meta cognitive skills (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2011).
These learning strategies are defined as a planned action that
requires a sequence of activities to achieve learning objectives. They
are intentional to the extent that decisions and processes are involved
on the part of the person that adjust to the fulfillment of the goal or
objective (Valle, Barca, González, & Nuñez, 1999) Achieving a
learning strategy requires skills according to the context and
objectives to be met. These skills allow planning goals, goal
settings, identifying resources and tools within reach,
execute actions and evaluate the results (Haworth, 2016).
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
4
On the other hand, and this is where we come full circle with ICT,
skills students need to develop a PLE are linked to the technological
component that defines them. Not in vain but based on the
opportunities of Web 2.0 and the ubiquity of technology (Patterson,
et al., 2017). Technological tools have functions and characteristics
that allow to mainly search and selection of information, create, and
edit content, share experiences, and collaborate and interact with
others.
In this same context, the skills necessary to develop learning
strategies in the PLEs have to do with self-management and
selection of information and resources, self-regulation, and the
development of metacognitive skills. Self-management refers to the
ability to select and organize information. And, in turn, this implies
the administration of resources and learning experiences to adapt
them to their own needs(Attwell, 2007; Haworth, 2016). Ultimately,
this self-management is a skill that demands decision making on
what tools and resources are required, what information is needed,
how to organize information and with whom and where they want to
earn (Castañeda & Adell, 2013; Coll & Engel, 2014; Rahimi, Van
Den Berg, & Veen, 2015).
On the other hand, self-regulation is a skill that compromises the
subject to fulfill their own learning objectives. From planning your
learning, articulating the tools at your fingertips, developing, and
sharing content, interacting, and evaluating their learning
(Castañeda & Adell, 2014).
Finally, the skills for the development of metacognitive skills
involve reflection and problem solving. It is necessary that the
subjects are active and aware of the decisions they make to learn. It
requires knowledge of an active role in which the best way to learn
is recognized (Castañeda & Adell, 2013; Chaves, Trujillo, & López,
2015; Rahimi et al., 2015) . Reflection favors the analysis of the
effectiveness of strategies, resources, and connections used
in each specific learning situation(Manso-Vazquez & Llamas-
Nistal, 2015).
As you can see, the reflection on the PLEs is not only technological,
but has very interesting ramifications of deep pedagogical roots.
Therefore, if we return to PLE from a pedagogical approach, we need
to know how to use digital tools for training students and learning
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
5
strategies. Thus, having a complete picture of potential needs of
students to help us promote the development or learning strategies
for training have.
Because of all the above reflection, the objective of this article is
to finalize the profiles of higher education students in relation to
their perception of the digital tools they use for their PLEs. And, as
specific objectives, we find the following:
• Describe the tools that students use management and
planning information.
• Describe the tools that students use to self-regulate their
learning
• Describe the tools students use to reflect and
develop metacognitive skills.
Materials y methods
The present study corresponds to a quantitative-descriptive design
of transversal cut. A survey-type technique was used to collect the
data, which describes the students' perception on how they use
technology to learn and their study habits. This study aims to know
the characteristics and properties to describe with more specificity
the use of digital tools in students’ PLE. That is why a descriptive
study was chosen because, as mentioned by Hernández, Fernández
& Baptista (2010) a study of this nature allows describing the
profiles of people, groups, communities, and processes.
The population that is studied in the present investigation is formed
by the students of a state public universities. In total, a population of
16,114 students is considered. For the calculation of the population
sample, the probabilistic method stratified by clusters is used. The
sample is statistically representative with parameters of a
≥95 % reliability level and an error of ≤5 %. Applying the
corresponding calculations, results in a sample size of n=374
students. For the present study, the questionnaire of the project
"Competencies for permanent learning based on the use
of PLEs (CAPPLE in Spanish)" was used, which aimed to study
how PLEs of higher-level students in Spain are (Prendes-Espinosa et
al., 2016).
It was decided to use this questionnaire for two reasons. The first is
the scientific rigor that the questionnaire has since it has a complete
process to guarantee its validity and reliability. The second reason is
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
6
for its conceptual orientation, which frames the questionnaire from
a complex perspective of the PLEs that takes into consideration both
the technological and the pedagogical aspects.
The questionnaire includes 8 nominal questions, 30 questions of
frequency on a scale of 5 levels. It also includes 5 questions with a
scale of 5 levels ranging from agreement to disagreement (Prendes-
Espinosa et al., 2016). In addition, there are 5 questions with the
contextual characteristics of the population (age, sex, faculty, area of
study and campus).
The authors of the questionnaire carried out the construct validation
that included an expert judgment carried out by 8 professionals in
three consecutive rounds. The experts reviewed the questionnaire
individually to validate the congruence of the items with the
theoretical and methodological content and analyze the clarity of the
questions (Prendes-Espinosa et al., 2016). Once validated by the
experts, they conducted cognitive interviews with 24 subjects with
10 items to check the validity of the procedure and content.
Applying the questionnaire, those variables of the questionnaire
were selected for the present article, which described the perception
of the students on the use of digital tools to favor their learning
strategies. The variables were classified into three dimensions: (1)
variables describing the tools and resources they use for
management and planning information; (2) variables that describe
the tools and resources they use to regulate their learning process;
and finally, (3) variables that reflect the tools and resources they use
to reflect and develop metacognitive skills.
To verify the reliability of the questionnaire Cronbach’s alpha was
applied in accordance to the dimensions proposed in this article as
described in Table 1, showing more than acceptable levels according
to the requirements of our knowledge area.
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
7
Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability
Dimension
Resources and tool for management and
planning information
Resources and tools for self-regulation of
learning
Resources and tools for reflection and
metacognitves skills
The investigation was carried out in three stages. The first consisted
in the selection of the questionnaire. Next, the instrument was
applied to the data collection. Finally, the data was analyzed with the
SSPS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) program in order to
describe the profiles of the students from analyzing those variables
that offered relevant information for the present study.
Each of the dimensions was analyzed first from a general
perspective. In a second stage, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality
tests were applied and significant differences between gender,
training areas, and age were sought. However, the latter was not
considered relevant since most of the sample is concentrated
between 19 and 24 years. For the training area, the faculties were
included considering the classification of the National Association
of Higher Education Universities of Mexico (ANUIES in
Spanish). This results into 5 areas of knowledge: Health Sciences,
Natural and Fine Sciences, Social and Administrative Sciences,
Education & Humanities, and engineering and technology.
In the normality tests, the result for each of the variables analyzed in
the present study is p ≤ 0.05 which indicates that the sample does not
follow a standard distribution. Although all the clusters exceeded the
threshold of 30 informants and the theory of the central limit could
have been applied to admit any test of variance, it was preferred to
proceed conservatively and perform non-parametric tests.
The U test by Mann-Whitney was chosen to analyze the gender, for
two independent samples, to check for significant differences
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
8
between the sex of the students. For the training area, the Chi-
squared test was chosen for K independent samples.
Results
Regarding the minimum characterization of the sample, a final
sample of 374 questionnaires was obtained, they were answered by
college students. 52.4% of the sample consisted of men and 47.6%
of women. Regarding age, 15% was 18 years old or younger, 97%
was between 19 and 24 years old and 2.7% are over 25 years.
It is important to mention that the scale was formed from 5 to 1, and
that " always " was the maximum score and "does not use" the
minimum rating. Regarding the use of the internet, it is observed that
students access mainly to communicate, being chosen the option
"always" by 69% of them (
𝑋
"
#
=4.55, SD=.839). Followed by the
variable to look for information in which the 56.7% of students also
chose the option "always" (
𝑋
"
#
=4.44, SD=.81).
In terms of access to the Internet for entertainment purposes, for
social relations, and for work it was observed that students choose
“always” in a 53.2% (
𝑋
"
#
=4.15, SD=1.14), a 47.9 % (
𝑋
"
#
=4.11,
SD=1.11) and 31.3 % (
𝑋
"
#
=3.54, SD=1.39), respectively. However,
there is a significant decline in the use of the Internet in terms of
training and organization purposes, since only the following chose
"always" 24.3 % (
𝑋
"
#
=3.55, SD=1.18), and 7 %
(𝑋
"
=2.62,
SD=1.19), respectively. Figure 1 describes in more detail the
distribution of the sample with respect to internet use.
Figure 1 Purpose of internet use
69
56,7
53,2
47,9
31,3
24,3
7
23
36,4
23,8
29,9
29,9
31,6
17,3
4,3
3,5
12,8
12,3
14,7
27,3
27,3
1,3
1,1
5,1
4,8
9,6
8,5
27,2
2,4
2,3
5,1
5,1
14,5
8,3
21,2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Comunication
Information
Leisure
Networks
Work
Training
Organization
Percentage
Internet access
Always Often Sometimes Little times Never
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
9
Resources and tools for self-management and planning
For the analysis of this dimension, we consider 4 categories with
different variables each. The first category analyzes the students'
perception of the use of tools and resources for their
learning. According to the variables given in the questionnaire for
this category, it is noted that frequencies of these variables are in
"always" and "often" (Table 2).
Table 2 Reason for the use of network tools
Reason for
the use of
network tools
Frequency of use
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
N
Average 𝑿
"
SD
The importance
I give to
learning
193
124
38
8
11
374
4.28
.94
The time I have
for that
learning
153
142
56
14
9
374
4.11
.95
The academic
or professional
assessment that
this learning
will have
139
144
60
12
19
374
3.99
1.05
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
10
The impact it
will have on my
network
prestige
62
60
60
63
129
374
2.63
1.49
Part of the conformation of a PLE is the activity and use that are held
in the network that leads to the construction of a digital identity
(Álvarez, 2014).
On the other hand, Castañeda & Camacho (2012), describes two
facets in the digital identity, on one side, the interest we show in the
contributions of other users, our influencers, and the people we
influence, and who therefore have an impact on the prestige we have
in the network.
That said, in the analysis of the present study, it is striking that
students rarely or never use digital tools because of the prestige that
they can give them in the network. These data support the data found
by Castañeda and Camacho (2012), who say that only one out of
every four students is worried about their digital identity in their
professional future. In their study, they realize that students are
concerned about their image in the network, but in an immediate
social way and not necessarily the impact on their professional future
and employability.
In a second category, the preference in the student's tools to search
for information is described. It is observed that 93.2 % of students
do searches on general search engine
(Google, Yahoo, etc.); followed by library, and databases in the
network, option chosen by the 85 % of them. As for the specialized
thematic search engines, this option is chosen by 68.2 % of the
sample. It continues with specific search engines and social
networks options chosen by 58.4 % and 58.1 %,
respectively. Finally, several search engines and general forums are
selected only by the 51.2 % and 50.7 %, respectively. These
features describe the preferences of tools use for planning and
managing their learning and provide knowledge as to which may
be areas of opportunity to promote their use in students.
Regarding the study of the difference, we have found significant
differences in terms of sex for the variables "When I want to learn
something new I go to Wikipedia or encyclopedias in the network"
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
11
and for the variable "When I want to learn something new I go to
experts in the subject in person" with p ≤ 0.05. In table 3, it is
observed that the mean of the first variable is higher for men and in
the second variable it is higher for women. For the other variables
analyzed, no significant differences were found between men and
women.
Table 3. U by Mann-Whitney for gender
WHEN I WANT TO LEARN SOMETHING NEW, I GO TO WIKIPEDIA
OR ENCYCLOPEDIAS IN THE NETWORK
n
𝑿
"
SD
Mdn
U de Mann-
Whitney
Z
P
MEN
192
3.20
1.41
3
14865
-1.967
.049
WOMEN
174
2.90
1.41
3
WHEN I WANT TO LEARN SOMETHING NEW, I GO TO EXPERTS IN
THE SUBJECT IN PERSON
n
𝑿
"
SD
Mdn
U de Mann-
Whitney
Z
P
MEN
192
3.24
1.60
4
14114
-2.414
.016
WOMEN
174
3.73
1.302
4
In a third variable, the tools that students use to organize and manage
information were analyzed. In Figure 2, it shows that the main tool
used to organize the information are folders with a preference of
64.2% (
𝑋
"
#
=4.05, SD=1.39) in the option totally agree. It can also be
observed that the following variables referred to are rarely used by
the student body. Only 8.6% (
𝑋
"
#
=2.29, SD=1.30) refers to “agree”
on the use of timelines to organize the information, 9.1% (
𝑋
"
#
=2.18,
SD=1.40) for content management and 7º% (
𝑋
"
#
=2.11, SD=1.34)
for tools with social network. Also, in social media bookmarks only
5.6% is observed (
𝑋
"
#
=1.73, SD=1.18), blogs 3.2%(
𝑋
"
#
=1.66,
SD=1.07) and wikis 1.6% (
𝑋
"
#
=1.48, SD=.90) agree on its use. The
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
12
latter reflects the little use that students give to tools with a social
content that is an important source of PLEs. Since these tools allow
interaction and communication with others, therefore in a way to
relate and collaborate with the learning of others (Álvarez,
2014). Finally, it can be said that no significant differences were
found between men and women.
Figure 2. Tools to organize and manage information
Another variable that was analyzed has to do with the tools the
students use to learn something new. The sample was analyzed by
training areas. The Chi-Squared test was applied to analyze the
differences that may exist. In table 4, there are significant differences
in the use of the tools they use to learn something new. Except in the
variable of "colleagues and friends in person " and the variable
"Specific mobile applications of the subject" with p≥.05.
In the differences, it is observed that to learn something new, the area
of education and humanities are those that use the resources of means
of communication in network the most. In contrast, students in social
sciences and administration use social networks more, asking a
colleague by means of a message or email and an expert on the
subject in person. For their part, the students of engineering and
technology are the ones who use blogs, Wikipedia, forums, and
4,05
2,29
2,18
2,11
1,73
1,66
1,48
0
1
2
3
4
5
Organize my information in folders
Organize my information in…
Content management
Tools with social network
Social bookmark
Blogs
Wikis
Scale
Average
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
13
tutorials more. On the contrary, those who use digital resources are
those in health and natural sciences
Table 4 Chi square for resources that they use to learn something
new by training areas
Variable
𝑿
"
/SD
X
2
gl
p
Health
N.S
S&A
H&E
I&T
Colleagues
and friends in
person
2.33
1.5
2.6
1.32
2.37
1.2
2.58
1.33
2.44
1.25
2.99
4
.558
*ns
Media
Network
2.35
1.65
1.71
1.33
2.10
1.12
2.52
1.35
2.25
1.21
11.57
4
0.021
Blogs or
WEB pages
2.83
1.88
3.55
1.15
3.74
1.31
3.47
1.29
4
1.13
14.95
4
0.005
Wikipedia or
encyclopedias
in network
2.52
1.78
2.81
1.19
3.31
1.44
3.14
1.36
3.32
1.34
10.86
4
0.028
Social
networks
1.98
1.43
1.57
1.25
2.78
1.47
2.51
1.32
1.83
1.44
33.60
4
0
Forums
2.52
1.51
1.88
1.06
2.64
1.46
2.75
1.4
2.92
1.57
14.92
4
0.005
Tutorials in
video,
network, or
slides
3.5
1.61
3.6
1.06
3.73
1.3
3.65
1.36
4.3
.891
13.6
4
0.009
Mobile
applications
specific to the
theme
1.61
2.23
2.02
1.58
2.7
1.58
2.43
1.62
2.48
1.62
6.5
4
0.161
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
14
Colleagues,
Friends, or
experts
contacted by
mail or
private
messages on
other
platforms
2.63
1.78
2.67
1.37
3.36
1.56
3.15
1.76
2.78
1.66
11.96
4
0.018
Experts in the
field face-to-
face
2.94
1.87
3.21
1.4
3.81
1.34
3.72
1.36
2.87
1.46
24.0
4
0
*ns Not significant p≥ 0.005
About the tools they use to manage and organize information, there
are significant differences between the areas of knowledge in
"organizing the information in folders" (X2=19.06, p=0.001) which
is preferred by the student body that belongs to the area of
administration and social sciences that out of the total who preferred
"always”, 39.1% belongs to this area. On the contrary, only 7.6%
from natural sciences chose this option.
Regarding the "tools with social network" (X2=17.67, p=0.001) 50%
of the option "always" belonged to the area of social sciences. On
the contrary, only 3.8% belong to engineering and natural sciences.
Resources and tools for self-regulation of learning.
The tools they use to self-regulate their learning are those that allow
them to plan and organize their learning, as well as those tools that
they use to produce digital content and communicate with others. To
analyze this category, three categories with their respective variables
were analyzed.
The first category to analyze the tools that allow students to plan and
organize their learning. As shown in Figure 3, they use very little
digital tools. The paper agenda is the most used with 16.2 % in the
"always" option. However, the digital task manager, network
calendar, resource organizer, time management tools that students
"almost never use" or "do not use".
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
15
Figure 3. Tools to plan and organize your learning
The second category analyzes the sample according to the tools that
students use when they find an interesting document/video/audio. In
table 5, there are significant differences between men and women. It
is noted that there is a preference on the part of women to download
the document and make notes, as well as to take notes on paper. In
contrast, men prefer to take notes directly in a specific program for
it when they watch a video or listen to an audio.
3,2
4,5
8,8
12
16,3
5,1
7,2
11,8
15,2
16,8
7
10,2
14,2
12
15,2
8,8
9,4
15,8 15,8
16,8
75,9
68,7
49,5
44,9
35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Management tools Resource
organizer
Network calendar Digital task
manager
Paper agenda
Percentage
Tools
Always Often Sometimes Little times Never
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
16
Table 5. Action tools for documents differences by gender
DOWNLOAD THE DOCUMENT TO THE COMPUTER AND TAKE NOTES IN
A SPECIFIC TOOL
n
𝑿
"
SD
Mdn
U by Mann-
Whitney
Z
p
MEN
192
3.48
1.48
3
14646
-2.028
.043
WOMEN
174
3.84
1.3
4
PRINT THE DOCUMENT AND TAKE NOTES ON PAPER, PASS THE NOTES
to a TEXT DOCUMENT
n
𝑿
"
SD
Mdn
U by Mann-
Whitney
Z
p
MEN
192
3.28
1.20
4
14114
-3.55
0
WOMEN
174
3.85
1.38
4
I SEE/LISTEN THE VIDEO/AUDIO IN THE NETWORK AND TAKE NOTES IN
SPECIFIC PROGRAM FOR IT
n
𝑿
"
SD
Mdn
U by Mann-
Whitney
Z
p
MEN
192
2.01
2.20
2
13693
-2.56
0.010
WOMEN
174
1.51
1.51
1
On the other hand, there were significant differences by area of
knowledge in the use of tools when the students find an interesting
document/video/audio as described in Table 6. Social sciences and
administration read notes and use a specific tool for this the most,
bibliographic management tools and printing the document to take
notes on paper. Au contraire, the area of natural sciences is those that
take notes on paper the most when they watch/listen to a video.
Conversely, it is observed that the area of natural sciences is the one
that uses bibliographic management tools the least when they find
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
17
an interesting document. Finally, the area of engineering and
technology takes notes online the least when it comes to finding a
document, printing the document, and taking notes on paper, and
does not use notes on paper as much when they find a video/audio.
It may seem there is no difference in the questions corresponding to
download a document and take notes while reading on screen, watch
or listen to a video to take notes in a document and watch or listen to
a video and take notes in a specific program and its average is in the
range of rarely or never. Therefore, it can be inferred that they are
used very little by the students, despite the potential they may have
for their training.
Table 6. Action tools for document/audio/video
𝑿
"
/SD
X
2
gl
p
Healt
h
N.S.
C.Sy
A.
Hy
E
IyT
2.67
1.50
2
1.51
2.75
1.47
2.59
1.53
2.06
1.36
16.73
4
0.002
2.23
1.35
1.81
1.38
2.27
1.33
2.20
1.43
1.59
1.06
16.04
4
0.003
3.75
1.35
3.60
1.25
3.77
1.32
3.75
1.31
3.50
1.35
3.13
4
.536
*ns
2.67
1.50
2
1.26
2.49
1.41
2.41
1.30
1.81
1.08
16.05
4
0.003
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
18
3.33
1.49
3.64
1.32
4.04
1.26
3.85
1.30
2.70
1.36
45.22
4
0
3.40
1.39
4.31
.841
3.43
1.37
3.70
1.44
3.08
1.41
22.75
4
0
2.88
1.31
2.57
1.36
2.90
1.31
2.87
1.36
2.73
1.28
2.46
4
.651
*ns
1.98
1.29
1.90
1.37
2.17
1.36
2.15
1.48
2.06
1.27
2
4
0.734
*ns
*ns Not significant p≥0.005
The third category analyzes the sample according to the contents that
the students produce to share. No significant differences between
men and women were found. Therefore, it can be generalized that
regardless of gender students preferred to produce iconic content,
text, video, multimedia, hypermedia, and audio as can be observed
with the Figure 4.
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
19
Figure 4. Content Production
There are also significant differences in the areas of knowledge, all
with a value p≤0.005. As can be seen in table 7, the humanities and
education area are the one that is most inclined to produce content in
text, video, hypermedia, and audio. In the same way, the area of
social sciences and administration is inclined to produce iconic
contents. On the other hand, it is observed that the natural sciences
area produces the least content in all its modalities.
Table 7. Differences by training area in content production
23
19
13,1
8,8
7
6,1
19,8
12,3
14,7
10,2
6,4
8,6
15
15,2
12,6 12,6
8,8
7,5
9,3
11,5
9,6 9,6
10,7
13,6
32,9
42
50
58,8
67,1
64,2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Iconic Text Video Multimedia hypermedia Audio
Porcentaje
Tools
Always Often Sometimes Little times Never
Variable
𝑿
"
/SD
X
2
gl
p
Health
N.S
S&A.
H&E
I&T
iconic
2.68
1.64
2.33
1.72
3.19
1.55
3.04
1.54
2.81
1.52
10.48
4
0.011
Text
2.19
1.52
2.05
1.73
2.69
1.58
2.79
1.51
2.59
1.43
13.07
4
0.033
Video
2.36
1.69
2.42
2.75
2.02
18.12
4
.001
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
20
*ns Not significant p ≥ 0.005
Finally, the fourth category describes the tools that students use to
collaborate and communicate. As can be seen in Figure 5, they prefer
using informal settings such as messaging and social networking. In
contrast, formal environments such as virtual learning environments
greatly reduce their preference. Resources and tools for reflection
and development of metacognitive skills Finally, the tools
and resources that students use for training were analyzed in this
section. from three categories: a) resources and tools that increase
their interest to learn, b) tools that help you better understand
information, c) tools that allow you to reflect and solve problems.
In the tools that favor the interest to learn something in the formation
of the students, it can be observed that there is still a preference for
traditional, formal means, and that it implies a less participatory
stance. As shown the Figure 6, students are mainly motivated by
attending class sessions with 52.9% "Always". It follows
the multimedia sites with 33%. The traditional media with 19%, the
use of blog with 19%, social networks with 19.8% and media
network with 18.2%. It is also seen that there is
a considerable decline in the variables Twitter with 9.4%, forums
with 7.8% and news to the mail with 5.9%.
If significant differences are analyzed by gender, it means that there
are differences in the use of Twitter and attendance with p≤0.005.
With a preference for its use by women (
𝑋
"
#
=3, SD=1.19) than men
(
𝑋
"
#
=2.11, SD=1.50).
It was analyzed by area of training that there are significant
differences in this category. Especially, in the attendance variables,
1.60
1.29
1.55
1.55
1.30
Multimedia
2.38
1.60
1.43
1.01
2.08
1.36
2.25
1.51
1.80
2.21
14.49
4
0.006
Hypermedia
1.96
1.45
1.36
1.00
1.87
1.30
2.05
1.35
1.36
.88
19.49
4
0.001
Audio
1.85
1.38
1.29
.77
1.93
1.29
2.21
1.45
1.34
.801
24.58
4
0
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
21
twitter, social networks, and WhatsApp with a preference for the
area of social sciences and administration. On the contrary, the area
of engineering and technology and health sciences show the lowest
values in these variables
For the second category, tools that allow you to understand the
information, students have a considerable preference for the
multimedia format with 56.4 %, text with 51.6 %, and video with 46
% in the option always. However, it is also observed that the
hypermedia format only chooses the option always 11 %, which is a
format that allows the possibility of navigating and interacting with
other users’ essential elements to communicate on the network and
to be able to reflect on the information for the development of the
metacognitive skills. Figure 7 shows this information in more detail.
No significant differences were found between the areas of
education and gender of the students.
Figure 5. Tools and Resources Format to understand the data
In the third category, tools used primarily to reflect reflection of what
they are learning, the students use little or hardly ever, as can be seen
in figure 5, in which it is observed that the frequency of use of Blog
in the option " always " is 6.7% and email is 4.5%. There is a slight
preference for the use of Word of 20.3% and paper sheets 29.9%.
However, in the 4 variables the option chosen by the students focuses
on "almost never". Neither in this case were significant differences
56,4
51,6
46
31,6
21,9
11
26,5
28,9
28,9
39,3
22,5
16,8
7,5
15,7
17,1
17,3
23
23,3
6,1
1,9
4,3
6,7
20,3
15,5
3,5
1,9
3,7
5,1
12,3
33,4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Multimedia
Text
Video
Iconic
Audio
Hypermedia
Percentage
Tools
Always Often Sometimes Little times Never
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
22
found by gender or by areas of training. To end the analysis in this
section students were asked who they go to in case of content doubt.
In Figure 6, it is observed that the students prefer to go to colleagues
or friends face- to- face with 51.1% in the "always" option, followed
by looking for it through a message in a platform with 35.6% in the
option always. However, we also note that, from the perception of
students Twitter, internet forums, mobile applications, and social
networks are valued with only 4%, 9.9%, 11.2% and 13%
respectively in the option "always" are very little valued by them to
resolve a content doubt (figure 6).
Figure 6. Resources and tools to resolve content doubt
Discussion
From all these exposed data, it is relevant to consider the use
of Internet that students make to analyze their learning strategies in
the PLEs. In this study, it is confirmed that they prefer to use the
Internet to communicate and seek information and purposes related
to leisure. However, they are not shown as a student body specially
linked to knowledge construction processes in the formal field linked
to the use of the network or the PLEs.
51,1
35,6
29,3
23,3
19,8
16
13
11,2
9,9
4
29,4
29,7
28,1
29,9
28,3
23,5
16
16
16,3
7,2
11,8
16
20,1
24,6
24,1
24,3
19,8
15
19,5
14,2
4
7,5
8,8
9,9
11,8
13,9
16,3
16,3
18,4
12,3
3,7
11,2
13,7
12,3
16
22,3
34,9
41,5
35,9
62,2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Colleagues and friends in person
Colleagues contacted by email or…
Blogs or Web pages
Wikipedia or network encyclopedia
Twitter
Percentage
Tools
Always Often Sometimes Little times Never
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
23
In this regard, Torres-Diaz, and al. (2015) reaffirms students who
have an activity on the Internet for training with different tools based
on the interaction between peers and teachers have a better academic
performance than those who only use it to find information. And, in
addition, the authors refer that the use of the internet for leisure
moderately generates a positive impact on the academic
development of students, since they have more skills to interact on
the Internet. However, it seems that this would not be the scenario in
which we find the sample analyzed, in the sense that they would be
part of a group that apparently, and priori, wasted all this potential.
Therefore, this diagnosis leads us to consider that getting students
perceive and use the Internet for training becomes an area of
opportunity in college to promote a more complete development of
their PLEs. Under the internet characteristics students should
consider it as a tool for training, to develop strategies that will help
them achieve their own learning objectives (Castañeda & Adell,
2014).
From the perception of the students, there is a clear preference for
the use of more traditional tools and resources to organize and plan
their learning, which often does not involve interaction. However,
from the perspective of PLEs, these connections and interactions
become relevant to manage and plan a form of learning that
transcend the institutional limits and organize experiences for the
construction of knowledge (Casquero, Ovelar, Romo, & Benito,
2014). More specifically, to building a PLE requires a proactive
student participation that leads to the use and the management tools
with a high degree of interaction and connections, for they can take
control of their educational processes and plan their own learning
(Rahimi et al., 2015).
On the other hand, in our data it is also observed that by training
areas there are significant differences in the use of tools and
resources for self-management and planning of learning. And,
beyond the general assessment of technical consumer profiles, part
of the limitations of this study is precisely not to have more profound
to describe these differences. Is therefore required qualitative to
learn more about methodologies is as differences. As for the tools
they use for self-regulation, it was observed that students prefer tools
with very limited social component, which puts them a passive
place. We see that they almost do not produce content
and, if they produce it, the format of the content is iconic or purely
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
24
textual. On the contrary, a PLE, from a pedagogical
concept, requires students to develop skills to become
prosumer of content. And this involves creating content,
evaluating it from interactions, and making decisions about their
own learning (Guodong & Xinghua, 2016; Manso-Vazquez &
Llamas-Nistal, 2015; Rahimi et al., 2015) .
In turn, the social component of the PLEs allows collaboration with
the other to interact and relate to promote knowledge exchanges and
self-regulate from the organization and planning of learning
(Guodong & Xinghua, 2016; Martínez et al., 2016)). As it is seen,
all this abounds in the necessity to foment the interaction between
the pairs, in opposition to what we find in our sample.
Finally, in the tools for the reflection and development of
metacognitive skills, the same tendency has been taking place. From
the students' perception, they use little digital tools to reflect on
their own learning. In turn, they do not find a use of tools with a
social component to understand information or solve problems.
As a conclusion, the perception that the students have about the use
of digital tools for their formation is evident and worrisome.
According to the UNESCO report on policies in the Latin-American
education system (UNESCO, 2014), the Mexican average to OECD
is that 10 % use tools for learning, which places the
country in the second-to-last place of all the OECD members.
However, society today presents new demands that require
rethinking the educational systems and modify the methodologies,
emphasizing learning as a center of pedagogical practice (Martínez
et al., 2016) and relying on ICT tools. And, for that reason,
educational institutions must be proactive to face this
challenge. The PLEs constitute a pedagogical approach that can
propitiate new methodologies that suppose generating competences
for the demands of the current world. For this, it becomes a necessity
that institutions integrate opportunities that provide the PLEs and
encourage the use of ICT with a strong social component (Martínez
et al., 2016) to generate scenarios for the training of students and
offer opportunities to build knowledge (Villaverde & Delgado,
2015).
References
Adams, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C., &
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
25
Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC.Horizon Report: 2017
Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media
Consortium. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2017-
nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf
Álvarez, D. (2014). Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje (PLE):
aprendizaje conectado en red. España: Ministerio de
Educación, Cultura y Deporte.
Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of
eLearning ? ELearning Papers, 2(January), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2011.643130
Casquero, O., Ovelar, R., Romo, J., & Benito, M. (2014). Personal
learning environments, higher education and learning
analytics: A study of the effects of service multiplexity on
undergraduate students’ personal networks | Entornos de
aprendizaje personales, educación superior y analítica del
aprendizaje: un e. Cultura y Educacion, 26(4).
https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2014.985945
Castañeda, L., & Adell, J. (2013). La anatomía de los PLEs.
Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje: Claves Para El
Ecosistema Educativo En Red, 11–27. Retrieved from
https://digitum.um.es/jspui/handle/10201/30408
Castañeda, L., & Adell, J. (2014). Beyond the tools: Analysing
personal and group learning environments in a university
course | Más allá de la tecnología: análisis de los entornos de
aprendizaje personales y grupales de estudiantes en una
asignatura universitaria. Cultura y Educacion, 26(4).
https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2014.985946
Castañeda, L., & Camacho, M. (2012). Desvelando nuestra identidad
digital. El Profesional de la Informacion, 21(4), 354–360.
https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2012.jul.04
Chaves, E., Trujillo, J. M., & López, J. A. (2015). Self-regulated
learning in personal learning environments on the grade of
elementary education, university of granada, Spain |
Autorregulación del aprendizaje en entornos personales de
aprendizaje en el grado de educación primaria de la
universidad de gra. Formacion Universitaria, 8(4).
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
26
https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50062015000400008
Coll, C., & Engel, A. (2014). Introduction: Personal Learning
Environments in the context of formal education /
Introducción: los Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje en
contextos de educación formal. Cultura y Educación, 26(4),
617–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2014.985947
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2011). Personal Learning
Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A
natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning.
The Internet and Higher Education.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002
Gallardo-Echenique, E., Bullen, M., & Marqués-Molías, L. (2016).
Student Communication and Study Habits of First-Year
University Students in the Digital Era. Canadian Journal of
Learning and Technology, 42(1), n1.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.21432/T2D047
Guodong, W., & Xinghua, S. (2016). Building a personal learning
environment with IFTTT service. Journal of Software
Engineering, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3923/jse.2016.431.436
Haworth, R. (2016). Personal Learning Environments: A Solution
for Self-Directed Learners. TechTrends, 60(4).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0074-z
Hernandez, R., Fernandez, C., & Baptista, M. del P. (2010).
Metodología de la investigación. In Metodología de la
investigación (5th ed., p. 656). México: McGrawHill.
https://doi.org/- ISBN 978-92-75-32913-9
Manso-Vazquez, M., & Llamas-Nistal, M. (2015). Proposal of a
Learning Organization Tool With Support for Metacognition.
IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias Del
Aprendizaje, 10(2), 35–42.
https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2015.2417932
Martínez, G., Nolla, N., Vidal, M., & de la Torre, L. M. (2016).
Personal learning environments in the formal and informal
training process | Los entornos personales de aprendizaje en
los procesos de formación formales e informales. Revista
Cubana de Educacion Medica Superior, 30(3). Retrieved from
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
27
http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-
21412016000300013
Patterson, C., Stephens, M., Chiang, V., Price, A. M., Work, F., &
Snelgrove-Clarke, E. (2017). The significance of personal
learning environments (PLEs) in nursing education: Extending
current conceptualizations. Nurse Education Today, 48, 99–
105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.09.010
Prendes-Espinosa, M., Castañeda-Quintero, L., Solano-Fernández,
I., Roig-Villa, R., Aguiar-Perera, M. V., & Serrano-Sánchez,
J. L. (2016). Validación de un cuestionario sobre hábitos de
trabajo y aprendizaje para futuros profesionales: Explorar los
Entornos personales de Aprendizaje. Revista Electrónica de
Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 22(2), 1–46.
https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.22.2.7228
Prendes, P., Castañeda, L., Gutiérrez, I., & Sánchez, M. M. (2017).
Personal Learning Environments in Future Professionals: Nor
Natives or Residents, Just Survivors. International Journal of
Information and Education Technology, 7(3), 172–178.
https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.3.861
Rahimi, E., Van Den Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2015). Facilitating
student-driven constructing of learning environments using
Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers and
Education, 81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.012
Salinas, J. (2013). Enseñanza Flexible y Aprendizaje Abierto,
fundamentos clave de los PLE. In Universitat Jaume I (pp. 53–
70).
Torres-Díaz, J.-C., Duart, J. M., Gómez-Alvarado, H.-F., Marín-
Gutiérrez, I., & Segarra-Faggioni, V. (2016). Internet Use and
Academic Success in University Students. Comunicar, 24(48),
61–70. https://doi.org/10.3916/C48-2016-06
Torres-Diaz, J. C., & Valdiviezo, P. (2015). Integración de redes
sociales y entornos virtuales de aprendizaje Integrating Social
Networks and Virtual Learning Environments. Revista de
Educación a Distancia, (35). Retrieved from
http://www.um.es/ead/red/35
Sinergias educativas
October - December Vol. 6 – 4 - 2021
http://sinergiaseducativas.mx/index.php/revista/
28
UNESCO. (2014). Políticas TIC en los sistemas educativos de
America Latina.
Valle, A., Barca, A., González, R., & Nuñez, J. (1999). Las
estrategias de Aprendizaje. Revisión teórica y conceptual.
Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 31(3), 425–461.
Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/805/80531302.pdf
Villaverde, V. A., & Delgado, V. (2015). Aprendizaje percibido y
actitud hacia las TIC desde la perspectiva de los PLE
Perceived Attitude Towards Learning and ICT From the
Perspective of PLE, 5, 91–110. Retrieved from
http://www.redalyc.org/html/310/31045570006/