The Plymouth Student Educator, 2009, 1, (1), 58-66

Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs): here to stay, or

on the brink of demise?
Daniel John Kennedy
Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) are popular with many educational
institutions, ranging from primary schools to universities. This paper is meant
as an introduction to VLEs and the pedagogical issues surrounding them. It
explores what they are, as well as the benefits and potential problems arising
from their use. Recent literature and personal blogs are used to understand how
the VLE as a concept is understood. The role of the VLE appears to be
changing. Most students proficiency in using the internet productively has
increased dramatically; Web 2.0 tools have provided further ways in which to
engage and communicate with students. Indeed, these tools are being bolted on
to VLEs in an attempt to exploit this, with limited success. Some are promoting
Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) instead a personal construct taking
advantage of a range of tools to benefit ones own learning. Educators and
institutions that are either using, or considering implementing a VLE in their
teaching will find this paper especially useful.

Keywords: virtual, learning, education, technology

The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) considers a Virtual Learning Environment
(VLE) to be made up of components in which learners and tutors participate in on-line
interactions of various kinds, including on-line learning (JISC, 2000b). They are often
referred to as online learning environments, learning management systems or collaborative
learning software, with many more names besides (Britain & Liber, 2000). The literature
available on VLEs is vast; this paper is meant simply as an introduction to the environments
and possibilities for the future. VLEs are often confused with Managed Learning
Environments (MLE). An MLE actually encompasses a VLE and all other information
systems within an institution that contribute directly or indirectly to the management of
learning (JISC, 2000b).
The first systems that fitted the criteria of VLEs as we know them now started to emerge
between 1995 and 1997 (Stiles, 2007). Often embedded online, but sometimes distributed as
a software package (MacColl, 2001, Becta, 2004), a VLE is a boxed system that mediates
between teacher(s) and student(s) (Wilson, 2005). Most will have a consistent, but
customisable interface and a clear navigational structure (OLeary & Ramsden, 200-, Stiles,
2007). Access to the environment is often ubiquitous and supports nomadic learning; students
can access it anytime and anywhere they have an internet connection (Jacobsen & Kremer,
2000).
Becta (2003) advises that the implementation of a VLE is a continual process. However, one
would argue that rather than continue to work with a system that does or does not work, we
must be analytical; why do we feel we need a system, namely a VLE, to replace traditional
ways of working?

58
The Plymouth Student Educator, 2009, 1, (1), 58-66

Lewis (2001) considers this question to have missed the point; the new tools we have offer
new ways to learn, they cannot advantageously be compared with previous technologies.
Wilson (2005) suggests that the VLE is itself designed on a model of traditional learning, in
that the online environment is broken down into virtual divisions based on physical structures
such as courses, modules and semesters.
It is important to be clear that it is not solely the technology that has changed. There is now
an ostensible incompatibility between educational institutions and their students, according to
Veen & Vrakking (2006) and their Homo Zappiens. These are the generations of Homo
sapiens born post-1990, who since birth have been immersed in technological devices to such
an extent that they have developed technological ability beyond that of those born pre-1990;
they have their own set of digital tools (Chen et al, 2007). The change has been so
significant, that a digital singularity has occurred (Prensky, 2001). Due to this, Homo
Zappiens do not consider their school to be relevant to their everyday life; it is disconnected
from their perceived reality and requirements. Indeed, Veen & Vrakking (2006) describe
Homo zappiens as being digital, and schools as being analogue.
Interestingly, Prensky (2001) made a similar, much more encompassing distinction five years
earlier, in that there is a digital divide. He identifies three distinct groups of people, digital
natives (those who have grown up immersed in technology; Homo zappiens (Veen &
Vrakking, 2006)) digital immigrants (those who have developed aspects of new technology)
and analogues (those who will not, or cannot, adopt any aspect of new technology).
Whilst this may be true to a certain extent, more recent research by Rowlands and Nicholas et
al. (2008) indicates that the technological skills of society are becoming more balanced; the
differences between the technological skill sets of people in general are becoming less acute.
So, we have acknowledged that people are shifting the ways in which they think to fit with
the technology being used. However, in order to implement a VLE an institution must
understand how their students can benefit from such technology. For instance, whilst a study
by Chou and Liu (2005) found that students using a VLE achieved high levels of attainment
and satisfaction, a study by Piccoli et al (2001) found that use of a VLE did not increase
attainment levels and reduced satisfaction levels. Transactional distance (Moore, 1973) must
be reduced by attempting to give the same quality of learning experience to those interacting
over a distance as to those in the same room; methods may be different and this may not be
such a big factor if the VLE is being used to support physical face to face learning.
The implementation of a VLE serves to consolidate online learning systems already being
used; email, assessment and content delivery for example (Becta, 2003). All VLEs are made
up of a set of common tools or characteristics; some may have more than others and omission
or inclusion of these tools may not necessarily determine whether a system could be
considered a VLE (OLeary & Ramsden 200-, Becta, 2004). Some of these features may
include:

Communication
Assessment
Online content (organised into courses with controlled access) and shared areas
Management and tracking of students
Student tools and autonomy

59
The Plymouth Student Educator, 2009, 1, (1), 58-66

Communication
Using a VLE has been found to increase the level of communication and collaboration
between users (Selinger, 1997); they have more of a chance of articulating their thoughts and
understanding (Chou & Liu, 2005). This is a positive process as one can be developed further
by interacting with another; communication effectively aids in scaffolding learning, thus
advancing the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978).
Communication can be asynchronous, whereby students do not take part at the same time,
such as email or discussion boards; messages remain for all to see in their entirety.
Conversely, it can be synchronous, such as instant messaging; users send and reply to
messages in real time (OLeary & Ramsden, 200-, Chou & Liu, 2005, Gillespie, 2007).
Whilst found to increase communication generally, if the VLE is used in isolation, some
students may become frustrated as a result of reduced face to face interaction, with both peers
and teacher (Schutte, 1998). This said, Chou and Liu (2005) experienced a high socio-
emotional climate among learners in their study because they were able to support group
discussions and promote self-assessment.

Assessment
Use of a VLE has been known to refine students learning styles, allowing them to use higher
level thinking skills and to develop time management skills (Gibbs, 1999). VLEs can be used
for summative assessment, but due to potential exploitation and cheating, they are most
frequently used for formative assessment (Becta, 2003). In particular, self assessment, which
may take the form of a multiple choice assessment, or quiz, which provides automatic
marking and gives instant feedback to the student (Chohan & Nichols, 2001). The instant
feedback aspect of this can prove effective in building students confidence (Ellis, 2001).

Online Content and shared areas

The delivery of a course often consists of notes, supporting links, images and video clips.
These will be placed by the teacher into a shared area, accessible by all users registered to
that space. Not all of the VLE is modular in this sense; the whole environment itself acts as a
social space (Dillenbourg, 2000). Depending on the way permissions have been set, students
may be able to upload files to the same space. VLEs allow the upload of an entire years
worth, or more, of content for student access; students may be able to view this information
in its entirety. Chohan and Nichols (2001) regard curriculum transparency as a positive aspect
of VLEs; students are able to look ahead to forthcoming content and perhaps work ahead of
the class at their own pace. Becta (2003) suggests that a major consideration in deciding
whether to implement a VLE or not is whether it is supplied pre-populated with curriculum
content, or simply a shell in which to place materials. However, studies by Sisk (2001)
suggest that it is not access to information that users hold in high regard, it is the opportunity
to engage with content being looked at, at the time; having access to future content may have
a negative impact on student performance in the present.

Management & Tracking of Students

Security credentials are used, so that only registered students can access the environment.
This is particularly necessary when assessing a student. A teacher is able to generate
statistics, based on which resources the user has accessed and when; a map can be built of an
individuals learning pattern. Students can be connected into groups, mirroring the physical
groupings that each student may or may not be accustomed to.

60
The Plymouth Student Educator, 2009, 1, (1), 58-66

Student Tools and Autonomy

Students may be allocated individual web pages and have an option of uploading files.
Diaries and calendars may also form part of the students toolkit. Chohan and Nichols (2001)
believe that a VLE allows students to work independently from a teacher. However, this view
can only be partly justified; VLEs are hierarchically structured and allow content and
instructions to be accessed by a student. Furthermore, they are taxonomically designed;
content must be organised based on criteria set by the teacher. A student needs consistent and
regular input from the teacher in order to be able to work. However, due to the semi-
autonomy afforded by a VLE, students with special educational needs are able to maintain
participation; children with health problems or emotional and behavioural difficulties are able
to work in school or at home at their own pace (Becta, 2003). In addition, some children on
the autistic spectrum and those with Aspergers syndrome may benefit from the mediated
interactions that a VLE affords; communication is mostly symbolic, thus less reliance on
interpretation of social and visual cues is required. If used in this way, problems may arise as
VLEs may not take into account individual differences in students, such as their level of
technophobia, or their time management skills (Chou & Liu, 2005).
It is not possible to explore the affordances and constraints of a VLE with any great certainty.
As well as being subject to perception, the way the VLE affords or constrains learning must
be examined within the specific context it is used, why it is being used and the individual
characteristics (needs, motives, abilities) of each user (ELAC Project, 2006).
A number of considerations must be made prior to the implementation of a VLE, each of
which will be accompanied by one or more implications. An institution may decide to
purchase an off-the-shelf, generic VLE and customise it. However, to do so may require
commitment to a contract, issues with confidentiality of the data that is stored, issues
surrounding the law in place at the time such as the Data Protection Act and Freedom of
Information Act. Institutions may decide to develop an open source (and therefore free)
VLE; such as Moodle. Or, they may make use of public web-services, such as email and
video-conferencing (also free).
Becta (2003) suggest that far from being free, there are likely to be hidden setup costs for
each, which may or may not prove to be a problem, depending on the sector of education the
institution is serving and the amount of funding available. Costs may include hardware such
as web servers to host the VLE, salary for technical staff to implement the VLE, and training
for staff to be able to use the VLE. However, it may be that using a VLE supports courses
that may not otherwise have been able to run, allows individuals outside an institution to
study via distance learning, or replaces expensive additional tutoring (Becta 2003). These
uses may produce enough income to offset the cost of implementation.
Training staff does not only imply that they are being given the technological skills to use the
VLE and create excellent content, but also that they are trained in the thinking behind
appropriate pedagogical uses of the environment (Britain & Liber, 2000); electronic access to
content alone does not necessarily lead to student learning (Simpson, 2001). However,
unavailability of course materials due to technical problems is likely to increase student
dissatisfaction and impact on any future use of the environment (Chohan & Nichols, 2001). It
is also important that staff are given time to develop their understanding of the educational
values and use of e-learning and VLEs (Lee, 2001), as both student and teacher time is
extremely valuable (Watts & Lloyd, 2000).

61
The Plymouth Student Educator, 2009, 1, (1), 58-66

Whilst VLEs are sometimes used to support distance learning, such as that provided by the
Open University, they are more commonly being used to combine physical learning (face to
face) and virtual learning (online) (Sisk, 2001); a technique called blended learning (Gillespie
et al, 2007). Interestingly, Gillespie et al (2007) also note that using this technique allows
students to construct a blend that is suitable for them; they can increase or decrease their use
of the virtual environment depending on their comfort and perceived needs. To support this
way of thinking, the government has shifted thinking at a policy level from delivery of
content to self-acquisition of knowledge and reflecting on the process of doing so (Futurelab,
2006); a students learning becomes bespoke and can be structured to a greater extent by
themselves.
During the design, development, implementation and use of a VLE, we must consider how
and to what extent students are going to interact with the system; how can we best equip
students to make the best use of the tools available? Various models that illustrate the ideal
way to develop and use a VLE have been suggested, including Salmons (2003) 5 Stage
Model which seems to be the most widely accepted and used.
The 5 Stage Model (Salmon, 2003) suggests a route to developing an optimal e-learning
environment; hierarchical in nature it suggests that one could not move to the next level of
development without first completing the prior level. It is a linear model. Students are taken
on a sequential journey, from induction and socialisation to using higher level skills (Gibbs,
1999); finally they are required to develop and refine these skills. The model demonstrates a
constructivist (Piaget, 1958, Tolman, 1949) approach to learning; students are required to
construct their own knowledge and meaning from their online experience.
However, the model does not take account of different learning styles (Lisewski & Joyce,
2003), it does not make use of the variety of e-learning approaches or tools available and
does not consider blended learning as an approach to teaching and learning (Moule, 2007).
One may consider the latter point to stem from the original model designed in response to
distance learning, rather than the classroom uses we are now seeing.
In contrast, the E-Learning Ladder (Moule, 2007) is a conceptual model that shows how
approaches to learning may be positioned on the instructivist-constructivist spectrum; to what
extent does each approach rely on either students being passive receivers of knowledge and
meaning from a teacher (transmission mode), or constructing their own from their
experiences. Moule (2007) argues that not all e-learning must be constructivist in nature and
that instructivist approaches, together with blended learning may better support students in a
classroom environment. Moule (2007) also points out that although the ladder is displayed in
a hierarchical manner, the concepts are merely interlinked and students are not encouraged to
move up each rung sequentially. However, the ladder does seem to promote a linear
movement from one end to the other.
The rate of technological development is so great that one must consider the future of
learning environments, especially with the onset of Web 3.0 and Web x.0. To what extent are
VLEs becoming outdated; are VLEs becoming a barrier to innovation rather than acting as
an agent of change (Stiles, 2007, p31)? Chen et al (2007) consider VLEs to be more of an
institutional administration system than an environment in which a student can learn. Indeed
the European Schoolnet (2003) survey showed that in the schools surveyed, teachers made
more use of VLEs, for their administrative capabilities, than did their students. A study by
Ellis (2001) two years earlier also found that staff viewed the ability to track students use of
course materials a significant positive feature.

62
The Plymouth Student Educator, 2009, 1, (1), 58-66

Wilson et al (2006) consider VLEs to be a dominant design; they are widespread, but may
not represent the best solution to the perceived challenge. They go on to suggest that other
more innovative technologies, such as Web 2.0 (OReilly, 2005) tools, have been at best
marginalised and at worst banned in educational institutions. Web 2.0 tools, such as wikis,
blogs, authoring tools, podcasts and social bookmarking to name a few, have started to
become bolted-on to VLEs (Stiles, 2007). The model in appendix 1, designed by the author,
demonstrates that Web 2.0 tools can be incorporated into a VLE. However, the VLE restricts
the tools; the tools cannot expand, or otherwise change, beyond the original specifications of
the VLE or the bolt on. In addition, Web 2.0 tools cannot permeate every aspect of the VLE,
due to its structure and nature.
Stiles (2007) considers whether this is the answer in the long term; Web 2.0 is by its very
nature formal and informal collaborative learning initiated by an individual. He argues that
these technologies are entirely outside institutional control, but to ban or restrict them would
force the student to move their activities outside the institution. Thus, the situation is
paradoxical. Of course other factors may constrain the use of such tools. These may be
technical (they are blocked by a firewall outside the institutions control), social (staff
understanding and terms of use, as well as virtual bullying) and pedagogical (plagiarism,
assessment).
Blackall (2005) questions why we need an institutionalised system to replicate what is
actually happening on the internet, suggesting that teachers have an underlying fear of new
technology; teachers are worried about losing their authority over learning. Wilson (2005)
agrees, proposing that perhaps the decision to implement a VLE may stem from a fear of the
chaos of technology on the internet; teachers are playing it safe and hiding their insecurities
in the safety of a limited system that does not change on a daily basis. Blackall (2005)
suggests that perhaps it is merely credentials that teachers offer; barriers used to help support
a dam that in effect has already collapsed, information is spilling everywhere and cannot be
stopped. Perhaps, as educators, it is our responsibility to guide students to the water
(knowledge and skills) no matter whether it is behind, beside, in front, under or on top of the
dam; information is no longer contained purely within institutions.
Wilson (2006) describes the alternative, Personal Learning Environments (PLE) (first coined
in 2004 at the JISC/CETIS conference), which are discovered and constructed on a bespoke
basis by each individual student; control of the learning space is handed back to the student
(van Harmelen, 2006). Wilson (2006) suggests that PLEs are concerned with customising an
infrastructure to be supportive, rather than supplying a one-size-fits-all type system, such as
a VLE; connections are made by the student, their chosen content is aggregated and is owned
by them, rather than by the institution.
Sharples et al (2006) argue that a PLE is a model concerned with individuals learning with a
range of changing technologies, rather than a genre of software. In fact, they highlight that
the difference between VLEs and PLEs is mostly conceptual; a PLE is a conceptual
framework upon which the individual is required to use technologies available to them to
aggregate their own content and communities, whereas a VLE is a closed software system.
Perhaps, we do not need any system; web 2.0 technologies allow us to build our own PLE.
Blackall (2005) agrees, suggesting that this way of thinking can be articulated by EPIC
(Evolving Personalised Information Construct); if we already have this construct, why do we
need any further systems to replicate it?

63
The Plymouth Student Educator, 2009, 1, (1), 58-66

Stiles (2007) suggests that whilst VLEs may remain for some time to come, their role will
change. Instead of being monolithic systems full of bolted on technologies at the core of an
institutions e-learning activities, they will serve simply to articulate intended learning
outcomes. One thing is for certain, change is required if the VLE is to survive (Wilson,
2005).

References
Becta., 2003. Virtual and managed learning environments. [Online] Available at
http://www.becta.org.uk [Accessed 18th December 2008].
Becta., 2004a. What the research says about Virtual Learning Environments in teaching and
learning. [Online] Available at http://www.becta.org.uk [Accessed 18th December 2008].
Becta., 2004b. A review of the research literature on the use of managed learning
environments and virtual learning environments in education, and a consideration of the
implications for schools in the United Kingdom. [Online] Available at
http://www.becta.org.uk [Accessed 18th December 2008].
Blackall, L., 2005. Die LMS! You too PLE! [Online] Available at
http://teachandlearnonline.blogspot.com/2005/11/die-lms-die-you-too-ple.html [Accessed
11th January 2009].
Britain, S. & Liber, O., 2000. A framework for pedagogical evaluation of virtual learning
environments. JTAP, 41.
Chen, W. P., Millard, D. and Wills, G. (2008) Mobile VLE vs. Mobile PLE: How Informal is
Mobile Learning? In: mLearn 2008 Conference, Wed 8th to Fri 10th October , the University
of Wolverhampton. (In Press)
Chou, S-W. & Liu, C-H., 2005. Learning effectiveness in a Web-based virtual learning
environment: a learner control perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21,
pp.65-76.
Chowcat, I., 2005. Models of e-learning: the importance of context, paper presented at ALT-C
2005 13th International Conference, Manchester University. UK.
European Schoolnet., 2003. Virtual learning environments for European Schools: a survey
and commentary. [Online] Available at
http://ictliteracy.info/resource_files_pdf/vle_restricted_2003.pdf [Accessed 5th December
2008].
Fanning, J., 2007. Extended Learning [Online] Available at
http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/web-articles/web-
article729 [Accessed 7th December 2008].
Futurelab., 2006. Social software and learning. [Online] Available at:
http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/opening-education-
reports/Opening-Education-Report199. [Accessed 9th December 2008]
Gibbs, G. R., 1999. Learning how to learn using a virtual learning environment for
philosophy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, pp221-231.

64
The Plymouth Student Educator, 2009, 1, (1), 58-66

Jacobsen, D. M. & Kremer, R., 2000. Online testing and grading using WebCT in computer
science. Paper presented at WebNet 2000:World conference on the WW and the Internet, San
Antonio, Texas, 30 October 4 November.
Lisewski, B. & Joyce, P., 2003. Examining the five-stage e-moderating model: designed and
emergent practice in the learning technology profession. ALT-J, 11(1), pp.55-66.
McGill, T. J. & Hobbs, V. J., 2008. How students and instructors using a virtual learning
environment perceive the fit between technology and task. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 24, pp.191-202.
Moore, M., 1973. Transactional Distance. [Online] Available at:
http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/transactdist/index.htm [Accessed 23rd December 2008].
Moule, P., 2007. Challenging the five-stage model for e-learning: a new approach. ALT-J,
15(1), pp.37-50.
OLeary, R. & Ramsden, A. 200-. Virtual Learning Environments. The Handbook for
Economics Lecturers. s.n : s.l.
OReilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software. [Online] Available at:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
[Accessed 12th November, 2008].
Piaget J., and Inhelder B. (1958) The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to
Adolescence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Prensky, M., 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. In On the Horizon, October 2001,
9(5), NCB University Press.
Rowlands, I. & Nicholas, D. et al., 2008. The information behaviour of the researcher of the
future.publication details. University College London. [Online] Available at:
http://www.bl.uk/news/pdf/googlegen.pdf

Salmon, G., 2003. E-moderating. 2nd ed. London: Routledge Falmer.

Stiles, M., 2007. Death of the VLE?: a challenge to a new orthodoxy. Serials, 20(1), pp.31-
33.
Tolman E. C. (1949) Purposive Behaviour in Animals and Men. New York: Appleton
Century Crofts.
University of Plymouth., 200-. Notes on Constructivist Approaches to Education. [Online]
Available at http://www2.plymouth.ac.uk/distancelearning/course/construct.html [Accessed
25th November 2008].
Veen, W. & Vrakking, B., 2006. Homo Zappiens: Growing up in a digital age. London:
Continuum International Publishing Group.
van Harmelon, M., 2006. Personal Learning Environments. ICALT06, IEEE.
Wilson, S., 2006. Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of
educational systems. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 3(2), pp.27-38.

65
The Plymouth Student Educator, 2009, 1, (1), 58-66

Wilson, S., 2005. Architecture of virtual spaces & the future of VLEs. [Online] Available at:
http://zope.cetis.ac.uk/members/scott [Accessed 22nd December 2008].
Wilson, S., 2006. Pushing the boundaries of the VLE personal learning & web 2.0.
[Online] Available at: http://zope.cetis.ac.uk/members/scott [Accessed 22nd December
2008].

Appendix 1

Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)

Web 2.0 Tools

Kennedy (2009)

66