Page - 250 - in Intelligent Environments 2019 - Workshop Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Intelligent Environments

to people and content. For simplicity, we will refer to all such networks or environments that enable social and self-directed learning via Web 2.0 tools as PLEs. 3.4 Characteristics of a PLE Experts agree that an LMS is practical for institutions, but it does not support self- directed or lifelong learning for students [15]. PLEs do, because they are individualized to student preferences, allow students to create content, to foster social interaction with peers and instructors, and allow synthesis of information from many sources [15]. Furthermore, they are collaborative, easy to use, open, flexible, and beneficial to everyone [16][6]. In their published paper describing an ideal customized x-learning environment, Moreira and colleagues stressed the professional and academic connections between newer students, trusted experts, and resources to nurture ideas [6]. 3.5 Case Example of a Successful PLE Implementation Bartolomé and Cebrian-de-la-Serna [15] piloted a PLE with Spanish students enrolled in a social education course. First, participants were taught about self-directed learning and Web 2.0 tools to establish baseline competency. They built the first of two PLEs using Symbaloo as a virtual organizational space for their Web 2.0 tools and content. Next, they repeated it in another space, Protopage. After the course ended, the authors distributed surveys and reviewed the PLE contents. Analyzing 37 artifacts, they found that no tool was used by everyone, although blogs, social bookmarking, social networks, RSS, and microblogs (e.g., Twitter) were the most popular. Overall, students preferred Symbaloo to Protopage for its attractiveness and ease of use and reported using their PLEs in other courses and non-academic situations. Participants preferred simple user interfaces with fast learning curves that allowed for flexible frameworks. Finally, this study [15] found that pre-training in self-directed learning and digital literacy was necessary, concurring with Moreira and colleagues [6] and Haworth [16]. 4. Modeling the Use and Endorsement of Web 2.0 Tools in Higher Education Statistical models predicting the use and endorsement of Web 2.0 in the classroom now exist. All statistical models described below derive from at least one base theoretical model of acceptance and use of new technology, and some derive from multiple models. The main base models, the common and unique features of the Web 2.0 models, and the rationale for including choice in future models are discussed below. 4.1 Major Theoretical Models and their Expansions for Web 2.0 Authors of the Web 2.0 statistical models discussed here used some or all variables in at least one of several base models, expanding them by testing new variables according to their observations from previous research. Following are the major base models. E.Damianoetal. /Bridging theDivide: TheCurrentStatusofWeb2.0 inHigherEducation250