Personal Learning Environments and the Personalisation of Learning - Presentation at the IRIE (GTED) PLI-TELE research group at Universitat de les Illes Balears (UIB), on 15.05.2019 in Palma de Mallorca, Spain

1. Personal Learning Environments
and the Personalisation of Learning
Prof. Dr. Ilona Buchem
Professor for Communication & Media
Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin
IRIE (GTED) PLI-TELE research group at UIB
15.05.2019, Palma de Mallorca, Spain

2. Psychological ownership and control
in Personal Learning Environments
Buchem, Ilona, Attwell, Graham, Torres, Ricardo (2011). Understanding Personal Learning
Environments:Literature review and synthesis through the Activity Theory lens. Proceedings of the
The PLE Conference 2011, 10th – 12th July 2011, Southampton, UK.

3. Buchem, Attwell & Torres (2011). Understanding Personal Learning Environments: Literature review and synthesis through the Activity
Theory lens. pp. 1-33. Proceedings of the The PLE Conference 2011, 10th – 12th July 2011, Southampton, UK.
Ownership, control & literacy
as core categories from Grounded Theory research

4. Psychological ownership
•Ownership relates to a
psychological sense of possession.
It is a cognitive-effective state, as
expressed in “It is mine!”
•Psychological ownership means
that a person develops possessive
feelings for a target (e. g. own
learning environment).
•Targets encompass a range of
objects of psychological
attachment, such as own ideas,
own company, or own city.

5. 20 %
20 %
20 %
20 %
20 %
5 components
of psychological
ownership
Theory of Psychological Ownership
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., Dirks, K. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 26, p. 298–310.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a
century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7, p. 84–107.
Van Dyne, L., Pierce, J.L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field studies predicting
employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), p. 439-459.
Sense of
belongingness
Sense of
responsibility
Sense of
identity
Sense of
accountability
Sense of
self-efficacy

6. Sense of responsibility
• When we feel we own
something, we feel responsible
for protecting it and defending
its rights.
• When we protect our
possessions, we tend to make
improvements, control or limit
access by others.
• When we feel responsible for a
target, we invest ourselves into
it through energy, time and
concern.

7. Sense of accountability
• Accountability is linked to personal
perceptions of responsibility. When we
feel we own something, we are
accountable for what we do about it.
• Moral and mental accountability
implies feelings of duty, reliability and
trust (Knouse, 1979).
• We feel accountable for what happens
to and with the targets, especially
when we perceive the targets as
extension of the self.

8. Sense of belongingness
• Belongingness is a fundamental human
need to belong, e. g. need for a home.
• When we feel we own something, we feel
we “belong to” places, be part of a group/
community.
• Belonging is “the experience of personal
involvement in a system or environment so
that persons feel themselves to be an
integral part of that system or
environment” (Hagerty, et. al., 1992: 173).
• Studies have also shown that sense of
belonging is related to higher academic
achievement and motivation (Jones, 2003).

9. Sense of identity
• We establish, maintain and reproduce
self-identity through interactions with
tangible and intangible targets, e.g.
“this is my profession”.
• There are certain possession rituals, e.
g. displaying and personalising own
possessions.
• These rituals transform the culturally
prescribed meaning of targets to the
expression of self-identity.

10. Sense of self-efficacy
• Sense of self-efficacy relates to the belief in
own competencies enabling successful
performance in a task. Those who have a
strong sense of self-efficacy exert greater
effort to master the challenges (Bandura,
1997).
• Self-efficacy is also a component of agency.
Perceived self-efficacy affects self-regulation:
belief in own abilities is related to the ability to
set goals, self-monitor and reflect (SRL).
• Self-efficacy in context of psychological
ownership means that when we feel we own
something, our self-efficacy is stronger, e. g.
we believe we can control/modify the target.

11. Research question:
Does a learning environment become a
Personal Learning Environment
when we feel we own and control it?

12. Key publications
Study 1: Buchem, Ilona (2012). Psychological Ownership and Personal Learning
Environments. Do possession and control really matter? Proceedings of the PLE Conference
2012, 12 July 2012, Aveiro, Portugal, ISSN: 2182-8229.
Study 2: Buchem, Ilona; Tur, Gemma; Hölterhof, Tobias (2014). Learner control in Personal
Learning Environments: A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Literacy and Technology, Special
Edition: Personal Learning Environments: Current Research and Emerging Practice. Volume
15, Number 2: June 2014, p. 14-53. ISSN: 1535-0975.
Study 3: Buchem, Ilona; Tur, Gemma; Hölterhof, Tobias. (2014). The Role of Ownership and
Control in Personal Learning Environments: A Cross-Cultural Study. Proceedings of the 4th
International PLE Conference 2013 Berlin/Melbourne.
Study 4: Biberman-Shalev, Liat; Tur, Gemma; Buchem, Ilona (upcoming). Culture, Identity
and Learning: A Mediation Model in the Context of Blogging in Teacher Education, Journal
of New Approaches in Educational Research.

13. Conceptual model
The Antecedents-Consequences-Model (ACM) of all studies
ownershipcontrol learning
Antecedents Consequences
The conceptual model underlying all empirical studies conducted from 2012 to 2019 is an
Antecedents-Consequences Model (ACM), in which psychological ownership is influenced by a
number of factors (antecedents) and leads to certain outcomes (consequences). The AC model
has been successfully applied in a number of empirical studies, especially in context of
organisational ownership (Mayhew et al. 2007; Englisch et al., 2010).

14. Study 1 (2012)
• 3 datasets: Berlin and Augsburg (DE)
• Sample: n = 50 HE students using e-portfolios
• First set of items:
• Psychological ownership: 5 items
• Control: 7 items
• E-Portfolio use: 8 items
Buchem, Ilona

15. Gemma Tur, University of Balearic Island, Spain
Tobias Hölterhof, Catholic University of NRW, Germany
Ilona Buchem, Beuth University Berlin, Germany
Liat Biberman-Shalev, Levinsky College of Education, Israel
Psychological ownership & control in PLEs
– collaborating researchers –

16. Study 2 (2013)
• Focus on control and its effects on ownership and outcomes
• 3 datasets: Berlin (DE), Ibiza (ES), NRW (DE)
• Sample: n = 76 HE students using e-portfolios and Web 2.0 tools
• Second set of items:
• Psychological ownership: 5 items
• Control: 7 items
• Outcomes: 11 items
Control Ownership Outcomes
Buchem, Ilona | Tur, Gemma | Hölterhof, Tobias

17. Study 3 (2017)
• Focus on self of identity as part of psychological ownership and the
effects on Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)
• 2 datasets: Berlin, Ibiza, Israel
• Third set of items (extended by SRL):
• Psychological ownership: 15 items
• Control: 6 items
• Learning incl. SRL: 16 items
Control Identity
Ownership
SRL
Biberman-Shalev, Liat | Tur, Gemma | Buchem, Ilona

18. Study 4 (2019)
• Focus on SRL as part of learning outcomes
• 2 datasets: Berlin & Ibiza
• Fourth set of items with focus on SRL:
• Psychological ownership: 15 items
• Control: 6 items
• Learning incl. SRL: 16 items
Control Ownership SRL

19. Results of study 1 (2012)
• Research questions:
1. Can the measure of psychological ownership be effectively applied to learning environments?
2. Can control be considered as an antecedent of psychological ownership of a LE?
3. Can different ePortfolio uses be considered a consequence of psychological ownership?
• Variables:
• (a) E-Portfolio design influencing the level of perceived control (antecedents) – 5 items,
• (b) Psychological ownership as a multi dimensional construct – 7 items
• (c) E-Portfolios use indicating different qualities of learning (consequences) – 8 items
• Used scales
• Control scale: Inconsistent results, so factor analysis was conducted with this result:
• Component 1: Control of tangible targets (e. g. technical tools) with 1 item
• Component 2: Control of intangible targets (e. g. data, design) with α = .86
• Psychological ownership scale: α = .94
• Use of E-Portfolio: α = .92

20. Results of study 1 (2012)
Key findings based on correlation and regression analysis:
1. Hypothesis “Perceived Control will be positively related to Psychological
Ownership”, could be confirmed only for perceived control of intangible
ePortfolio elements such as content, planning, design, access rights.
2. There was no significant relation between the control of the tangible targets,
such as technical tools, and the sense of ownership of ePortfolio.
3. Hypotheses “Psychological Ownership will be positively related to ePortfolio
Use”, could be confirmed in the first study. In particular, sense of
responsibility, sense of self-identity and sense of accountability showed to be
the strongest predictors of how much time students invested in creating own
e-portfolios, creative design and self-directed e-portfolio use.
4. E-portfolio use and quality of learning: The results indicate that the measure
of ePortfolio Use proves to be a good predictor of the increase of interest in
subject matter, perceived appropriateness of ePortfolio to present own
competencies and demonstrate of what one has learned.

21. Control of tangible / intangible elements

22. Control of tangible/intangible
elements and ownership
Control of
intangible targets
Ownership of
learning environment
Significant
r = .642
Control of
tangible targets
Ownership of
learning environment
Not significant!
Correlation

23. Results of study 2 (2013)
• Research question:
1. How are control and ownership of learning environments perceived by
learners from different national and academic cultures and how do these
perceptions impact learning?
• Results related to psychological ownership:
• The most positive values across all three samples were reached for the
dimension “sense of responsibility” with m = 1.97 and students in Berlin
feeling more responsible for their LE than students in other two groups
(explanation remains open - design differences? cultural differences?).
• The most positive values related to “sense of accountability” were achieved
by Ibiza students, who were assessed to 50% based on their ePortfolio
performance.

24. Results of study 2 (2013)
• Results related to perceived control:
• The most positive values across all three samples and across the seven
dimensions of perceived control were reached by the Berlin sample with the
average value of m = 2.25.
• This results raises the question why Berlin students felt more in control of their
learning environments than students in other samples? It seems that
differences in instructional designs may be a more plausible explanation than
cultural differences.
• Differences in the 3 samples:
• students in Berlin felt strongly in control of planning
• students in Ibiza felt strongly in control of design
• students in Duisburg felt strongly in control of content

25. Results of study 2 (2013)
• Results related to cultural / instructional design differences:
• T tests were computed to compare values of the three key variable sets, i. e.
learner control, psychological ownership and learning effects, in 3 samples
(representing different cultures in terms of fields of study and nationality).
• T tests revealed significant differences in learning effects:
• Students in Berlin and Ibiza (compared to students in Duisburg) invested
more time in the development of their learning environments, were more
engaged and more creative, followed their interests more strongly and felt
more strongly that they were learning for themselves.
• These are results which may indicate that the instructional design in
Duisburg, which was more compulsory and allowed for less freedom of
choice, contributed to less positive learning effects.

26. Results of study 2 (2013)
Results related to Ibiza sample:
• Psychological ownership The most positive values across all five
items measuring the five dimensions of psychological ownership
were reached by the Ibiza sample with m = 2.03.
• Learning effects: Intrinsic motivation, social learning, future
applications, continued use, learning transfer and transformation of
learning as dimensions of learning effects reached positive values
only in the Ibiza sample!
• This indicates that the ePortfolio practice in the Ibiza sample had the
deepest impact on learning as it transformed the way students learn.

27. Future research
Control Ownership Learning
Next iterations:
Control of tangible and intangible elements?
Differences in instructional design and control?
Differences in instructional design and ownership?

28. • How can we enhance the feeling of
control and ownership of a learning
environment in educational settings?
• How can proposed conceptual model
and research instruments be used in
further research?
• What are the relationships between
agency, SRL, personalisation and
ownership?
Discussion