Soft Systems Methodology For Personalized Learning Environment

XML Template (2014) [24.12.
2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/LDMJ/Vol00000/140003/APPFile/SG-
LDMJ140003.3d (LDM) [PREPRINTER stage]
Article
E-Learning and Digital Media

Soft systems methodology for 0(0) 1–23
! The Author(s) 2014
personalized learning Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2042753014558375
environment ldm.sagepub.com
Uday Nair
University of Sheffield Management School, UK
Abstract
There are two sides to a coin when it comes to implementing technology at universities; on one
side, there is the university using technologies via the virtual learning environment that seems to
be outdated with the digital needs of the students, and on the other side, while implementing
technology at the university learning environment the focus is primarily on the technology more
than the learning process students undergo. This paper looks at using soft systems methodology
as a ‘potential approach’ towards (a) bringing the two sides of the coin together by working with
different stakeholders at the university and (b) identifying the needs and requirements for a
personalized learning environment that would satisfy the learning needs and styles of learners,
thereby shifting the paradigm from institution/tutor-centric to a learner-centric approach. This
paper also highlights some criticisms towards the existing e-learning system in place at univer-
sities, and the role a systems approach could play in the design of online learning environments.
Keywords
Personalized learning environment, systems approach, action research, soft systems methodology,
learning, technology integration, learning process
Background and introduction
In last five decades, research has been undertaken in the field of e-learning and e-learning
systems design that has led to a complete transformation of all forms of education that we
encounter now in the 21st century (Brown, 2000; Garrison and Anderson, 2003). The last
three decades of e-learning could be summarized as follows: during the 1970s the focus was
on corporate education and in-house training wherein the course content was designed in a
top-down manner, managed by incorporating performance databases. In the 1980s the
e-learning focus was on a personal level of education wherein learning systems provided
users with self-tutoring capabilities. The 1990s, in particular the early part of that decade,
focused on web-based e-learning for reasons such as easy authoring, easy development and
Corresponding author:
Uday Nair, University of Sheffield Management School, Conduit Road, Sheffield, S101FL, UK.
Email: uday.nair@sheffield.ac.uk
Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
2 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
delivery of learning contents, easy publication and sharing of contents and ease of creating
learning communities (Nair, 2013; Tanaka, 2005). However, today there has been an
increase in the use of different internet technologies for delivery of education to a wider
community of learners around the world (Welsh et al., 2003) and this milestone can very
much be attributed to Web 2.0 and the devices associated with it.
In this digital age, with the help of Web 2.0, learners with different learning styles are
exposed to different social-software tools and services that enable them to not only create
their own contents through their own learning experience but also to consume the contents
derived from the experience of their peers, tutors and experts. However, the learning systems
put in place at universities (the epitome of education and learning) are centralized in nature
and carry with them a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. Acampora et al. (2011) argues that these
‘Learning Management Systems’ (LMSs) could be seen to be nothing more than launch pads
for third-party content that the organization would purchase/outsource (from BlackBoard,
etc.). The current generation of e-learning products is designed to help organizations(like
universities) collect, organize, manage, maintain, reuse and target instructional contents that
are a mere ‘digitized version’ of the contents used in a traditional classroom (Carr, 2012;
Dehoney and Reeves, 1998; Ismail, 2002; Nair, 2013; Rivera and Rice, 2002; Schott et al.,
2003; Wong, 2007). Hence, such products could be seen as mere content repositories and
data sources by their creators and users respectively (e.g. teacher and students) (Nair, 2013;
O’Neil et al., 2004).
However, when it comes to learning and the learning process, it tends to be optimum
when it is assisted and personalized (Alonso et al., 2005; Apple, 2008; Escobar-Rodriguez
and Monge-Lozano, 2012; Krumm, 2009). To give an example, in the olden days, the
wealthy engaged tutors for their children, who thereby received efficient personalized edu-
cation. Computers could be argued as potential survivors of the education system because
they could be used to personalize learning and the learning experience (Alonso et al., 2005).
Such systems could be stretched to design our learning according to our needs and wants, to
record the progress we make and to tell us if part of our thought process is wrong so that it
can be corrected in due time (Baker, 1993). Bennett et al. (2012) and Junco (2012) point out
Web 2.0’s emphasis on active participation, user generation of content and collaboration
that seems to fit well with the kinds of creative and critical activities associated with higher
education (HE), with the ways students learn through exposure to multiple perspectives, and
with the communication and teamwork skills graduates wants to develop.
Learning could be defined as a ‘process’ a student undergoes within a given learning
environment. The infusion of technology in such an environment needs to be grounded
on strong design principles, developed systemically and theoretically, keeping the learner
and the process the learner goes through at the centre (Davies, 2012; Escobar-Rodriguez and
Monge-Lozano, 2012; Garrett and Jokirvirta, 2004; Herrington et al., 2005; Hiltz, 1990;
Ismail, 2002; Junco, 2012; Junco et al., 2012; Moskaliuk et al., 2012; Shieh, 2012). Hence it
could be argued that the ‘systemic learning design’ could be used as a way for integrating
technology into the existing learning process for creating a personalized learning environ-
ment (PLE). Systemic design of the learning environment could help eliminate some of the
criticism of Web 2.0-based distributed learning systems, used within educational settings
alongside traditional centralized LMS (Dickson, 2004; Garrett and Jokirvirta, 2004;
Herrington et al., 2005; Jenkins et al., 2005).
The proposed ‘systemic approach’ is underpinned by systems thinking and adopts a soft
systems methodology (SSM; Checkland and Scholes, 2003); this approach could help one to

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Nair 3
understand and clarify how some Web 2.0 powered technologies could be infused into the
learning processes currently undertaken at the universities, which would in turn support
formal/informal learning among learners(Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 2003;
Churchman, 1984; Gagne et al., 1988; Senge, 1990) and thereby enabling practitioners to
address issues such as at what level, how and where appropriate technologies could be
introduced within a learner-centric setting via the use of process modelling (UNESCO,
1981).
Personalized learning environment
The process of learning by nature is as ‘social’ as ‘cognitive’, as ‘concrete’ as ‘abstract’, all of

which intertwined with ‘judgement’ and ‘exploration’ (Attwell, 2008; Kolb, 1984). Every
learner throughout their lifetime undertakes this process ‘differently’ based on their own
‘learning preferences’. Universities for centuries have been the birthplace for imparting
knowledge and learning, but with the onset of Web 2.0 and ubiquitous technologies, such
as tablets, social platforms (like Facebook), etc., there is a change in the dynamics for
gathering information and gaining knowledge, thereby making universities not the only
source of information (Gunasekaran et al., 2002). Realizing this, universities are aggressively
implementing learning technologies institution wide but these technologies, for example
virtual learning environments (VLEs), fails to address the cognitive needs of different lear-
ners, giving the learners less autonomy over their own learning (Kearsley, 2000), because the
learning technologies used at universities are institution-wide ‘centralized learning systems’.
Such systems are ‘costly’ and ‘time consuming’ to implement, and these implementations
tend to be ‘superficial’ in nature, creating a less engaging learning environment for their
users. These learning systems act as data repositories and limit active learning (Nair, 2013).
For students, these learning systems provide on-screen text to read or to download before/
after their classroom sessions. For the university staff, they have to use such systems as a
consequence of directives from senior managements and for working towards the institu-
tions’ mission statements, but at the same time staff perceive the use of such Web tools with
suspicion and hostility, which results in the technology-enabled pedagogic practices used in
the design of online learning environment being flawed; herein, the focus is predominately on
the use of technology for providing contents to the students (O’Neil et al., 2004) rather than
looking at ways to actively engage learners with the learning material and/or technology to
enable a personalized, enjoyable learning experience (Ravenscroft, 2001).
Twenty-first century students live in a media-rich, globally connected and technologically
well-versed environment, making them creators and consumers of contents(text/audio/
video) powered by Web 2.0 and other ubiquitous technologies. Each of these technologies
act as a ‘vehicle’ for learners to interact with various types/level of technologies in the form
of gaining access to informative materials, for collaborating with other learners and for
sharing their experiences, all in all creating new learning opportunities for them to explore
and for aiding/developing their own competencies (Acampora et al., 2011; Herrington,
2006). Students today would want to study in an environment which supports technologies
that they use for day-to-day activities as a part of their university curriculum because these
technologies have become an ‘integral part’ of their lives (more so as part of their identity),
rather than attending traditional lectures wherein they are switched off from their digital
environment, giving them the sense of sitting in an airplane cockpit (Jones et al., 2004). This
digital disconnect (or divide) between students and university classroom expectations could

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
be one of the reasons for less engagement in the classroom, lack of motivation, high level
absenteeism and more. In order to reduce this and improve the learning/teaching experience
of students/tutors respectively, it becomes quintessential to bridge the digital divide, even
though arguably it cannot guarantee better performance, but some research (such as Apple,
2008; Escobar- Rodriguez and Monge-Lozano, 2012; Krumm, 2009) cites that an effective
integration of personalized technologies into the current teaching practices at educational
establishments could lead to high level of motivation and student achievements.
With the current technological advancements of Web 2.0 taking place, students are
demanding a paradigm shift from a centralized ‘one size fits all’ approach to a much de-
centralized ‘learner-centred’ systems approach (Fiedler and Valjataga, 2010; Wilson, 2008).
In order to bridge the digital divide, different attributes of Web 2.0 provide all the necessary
tools for creating an environment that is personalized, using the latest software/hardware to
support the learning process at universities to enable students to create their own ‘PLE’
catered to each individual’s learning needs and wants (Ally, 2004).
A PLE could largely be described as a collection of tools (including devices/applications),
social communities, online resources and services, all of which constitute an individual’s
educational platform (as shown in Figure 1), which the learner (in Figure 1 the author
looks at himself as a learner) could use to direct their own learning and develop their own
competencies, together with extending their educational goals (Fiedler and Valjataga, 2010;
Lombardi, 2007). A PLE could be perceived as a single user’s e-learning system
Figure 1. An example of a personalized learning environment (PLE).

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Nair 5
(van Harmelen, 2006), which tends to adopt a learner-centric approach in contrast with the
teacher-centric LMS put in place at universities.
Based on Figure 1, the use of such/similar Web 2.0 tools within a pedagogically driven
learning environment could enable and empower learners to generate/share/organize con-
tents and communicate them with their peers/experts synchronously/asynchronously within
the community of learners represented in the PLE network (Chatterjee et al., 2011; Wheeler,
2010). Such PLEs are expected to have a profound effect on the learning systems currently
used for teaching and learning, on different pedagogic approaches adopted at universities, on
the design principles of learning systems and on the instructional design models (Dick et al.,
2005; Morrison et al., 2004; Yavuz, 2007) put in place to support learning/knowledge devel-
opment. One of the reasons for the emergence and widespread interest of the PLE could be
attributed to the changing tide of how people are using technology to learn, to meet social
demands and to gain competencies to prosper within the society of which we are all a part
(Attwell, 2007; Chatterjee et al., 2011; Garrison and Anderson, 2003).
One of the mission statements of the PLE is to recognize learning as a continuing process
and the role played by individuals to organize their own learning, and to provide tools to
support that process. This is accepting the fact that everybody uses different learning styles,
different intelligences, put in different contexts, different subjects, different knowledge
domains and responds to different individual learning aims and goals (Ally, 2004; Attwell,
2007; Nair and Singh, 2013; Wong, 2007).
The key to understanding the PLE does not lay in the understanding of a particular type
of technology (e.g. for the use of social media in the classroom) so much as in understanding
the thinking behind the underlying concept (Fiedler and Valjataga, 2010). Broadly speaking,
the PLE is a highly integrated element of a user’s framework, using different tools for their
personal use of the internet, and is not a separate space on the internet (Davis, 2004; Fiedler
and Valjataga, 2010).
The existing concept of PLE could be characterized using the dimensions highlighted in
Table 1, derived from van Harmelen (2006) and Siragusa et al. (2007).
Table 1. Dimensions of personalized learning environment space.
Pedagogy, personalization and a. Philosophical background and pedagogic approach

control dimensions b. Collaborative and non-collaborative work among users in the
learning process
c. Open and/or closed learning systems
d. Personalization of the learning environment on personal basis
e. Locus of control and ownership
Connectivity and compatibility a. Single/multiple institution connectivity
dimensions b. Peer to peer/server based
c. Package compatibility
d. Application compatibility
e. Plug ability
f. Online usage only/online and office usage
Platform dimensions a. Dedicated rich client based/thin client(or browser) based
b. Lightweight platform/heavyweight platforms

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Overall, PLEs are a new approach to learning and are not solely technical solutions. They
are pedagogically driven, technically facilitated conceptual solutions but the question still
remains whether they can be institutionalized. If yes, then how? The answer to this could be
explored through the lens of SSM powered by the systems approach backed by action research.
General theory behind the systems approach to the personalized

learning environment
A system could be defined as a ‘complex-organized whole’. It is an assemblage of things or

parts forming a complex unitary whole (Hopkins, 1985; Tsoi, 2004). The systems approach
enables one to view any phenomenon as a system, as a whole (or holistically), to develop a
thorough understanding about the human activity and the level of inter-relationships
between people and a situation (which in our case is online learning), rather than looking
at each of them in isolation (Checkland, 1981; Churchman, 1984; Fiedler and Valjataga,
2010). The PLE could be perceived as a system (or inter-connected multiple systems) work-
ing together in unison to motivate and support learners in taking control over their own
content and the learning process (van Harmelen, 2006).
A systemic view of the PLE could help scrutinize the traditional patterns of control, role
relationships, system dynamics, responsibilities in HE and ways of supporting learners/
learning providers with tools to model learning activities within a learning environment
(Checkland, 1981; Churchman, 1984; Senge, 1990).These learning activities could consist
of all resources that an individual has access to at any point in time that they could turn to in
order to satisfy their own learning needs and adhere to their learning preferences (Fiedler
and Valjataga, 2010), thereby enabling learners to stimulate an exploration (implicit/explicit)
of the digital realm in relation to particular learning activities and conscious shaping of their
own PLE (Fiedler and Valjataga, 2010).
Arguably, a PLE is not a simple amalgamation of potential ubiquitous technologies,
especially if there is no personal model for intentionally implementing learning activities
run through learning systems that run outdated instructional design models (Fiedler and
Valjataga, 2010). The systems approach to PLE has the potential to provide an enquiry-
based thinking into the concept of PLE, which when underpinned by SSM could pave the
way to achieving the right mix of PLEs that could be designed and developed in an action
research-based university environment, taking into consideration the different ubiquitous
tools students use today for learning and for their day-to-day activities. This could be put
together within the existing learning systems at universities to create an effective, efficient and
affective PLE. Before exploring SSM in detail, understanding the concept of action research
in brief is essential:
X
Soft Systems Methodology ¼ ðSystems thinking, Action researchÞ ð1Þ
Basic principles of action research
The systems approach is about holistic ‘thinking’ and action research is about ‘action’.
Education and teaching are applied disciplines wherein research needs to be relevant to
practice (Tsoi, 2004). It is essential for ideas, principles and methods developed in a research
environment to be tested in practice in a closed/open environment. However, in a traditional

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Nair 7
university environment, it is difficult to get a new approach accepted and to be put into
practice. As a result, many proposed methods are theoretically sound but unproven in
practice. Under these circumstances, in order to bridge the gap between theory and practice,
an action research-based approach could be adopted, wherein the researcher works closely
with different stakeholders, by becoming deeply involved with the processes that take place
in an organization (Peters and Robinson, 1984; Sanford, 1970). The four basic elements of
action research (Checkland, 1981) are
R
Elements of action research ¼ (plan, act, observe, reflect)
Based on the elements of action research, researchers are able to apply tools and methods
from the social and behavioural sciences to practical problems with the dual intentions of
improving the practice and contributing to theory and knowledge in the area (PLE) being
studied (Argyris and Schon, 1989; Galliers, 1991).
To conduct an action research, the researcher would start with conceptualizing and
particularizing the problem. Several interventions are made and constant evaluations of
the situation (perceived as a system) are made throughout the interaction with the situation.
During/around the time of interventions, actual data and pertinent observations are col-
lected in various forms. If a problem is identified, modifications of old/new strategies are
carried out until a sufficient understanding of the problem is achieved. Through an iterative
process, the researcher working with the practitioner in the host environment will act
together on a particular cycle of activities that includes problem diagnosis, action interven-
tions and reflective learning (Argyris and Schon, 1989; Checkalnd,1981; Sanford, 1970). The
experience gained through this practice would help the researcher to develop and refine the
theories, algorithms and methodologies (Argyris and Schon, 1989; Checkalnd,1981; Eden
and Huxham, 1996); this in turn would help the practitioner to gain a better insight into the
problem situation to act upon. One major advantage of the researcher and practitioner
working together is that it helps the researcher overcome the problem of persuading prac-
titioners to adopt new methodologies, methods and techniques. In order to devise a tech-
nique for adopting the concept of the PLE (using action research) in any learning
environment, it becomes vital for all stakeholders to work together in cohesion to create a
collaborative and engaging atmosphere for the design and development of a PLE.
Applying Soft Systems Methodology to the personalized

learning environment
In our day-to-day lives, any problem could be classified as ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ (Checkland and
Scholes, 2003). Hard problems are ‘structured’, ‘systematic’ and to some extent are ‘techno-
logically oriented’. On the other hand, Soft problems are ‘unstructured’ and ‘socially’ and
‘politically oriented’ (Tsoi, 2004). In order to tackle soft problems, Checkland (1981) and
Checkland and Scholes (2003) gave us the SSM, a systemic approach to tackle problems/
issues, issues which cannot be clearly defined and are messy in nature.
SSM is perceived as a learning cum inquiry process aiming to improve (or trying to solve
any complex problematical) human situation. The distinctive feature of SSM represented by
Equation (1) precipitated into seven stages to tackle soft problems engaging the researcher
with key stakeholders, as a part of a development process to bring about change within the
organization (such as universities implementing a PLE). As a methodology, SSM aims to
bring about improvements in the area of social concern by activating the people involved in a

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Stage.1 Problem Stage 7. Action to

situation considered to be improve the problem
problematic , situation
unstructured, messy
Stage 6. Making
interventions
Stage 2. Problem
situation expressed as Stage 5. Comparison of
Rich Picture. the conceptual models
with real world situation.
The Real World
Systems thinking of the real

world
Stage 3. Root Definitions Stage 4. Developing the

of relevant systems conceptual models
Figure 2. Adapted from Checkland and Scholes (2003).
learning cycle that would ideally be never ending (Checkland, 1981; Checkland and
Scholes, 2003). SSM tends to be appropriate in complex situations that could be defined
in terms of input and output. SSM is also viewed as an evolving methodology that has been
steadily developed into a systemic process, articulated around the comparison between the
real world problem situation and conceptual model of that situation, looking at relevant
systems of purposeful activity. SSM has the potential to support individuals and groups to
gain awareness and control over a range of intentional learning activities and their environ-
ment, eventually leading to their overall development as personal learners living in problem
space.
SSM is a methodology and a method. The methodology is underpinned by action research
and systems thinking. The method of implementing SSM is highlighted by seven stages as
shown in Figure 2.
The different stages of implementing SSM (Figure 2) are explained in brief in the follow-
ing sections, starting with Stage 1: identifying the problem situation.
Stage 1: problem situation

The first stage starts very much from the real world. This stage tries to explore and define the
problem situation in some way or another. Here one would try to decide ‘what is that we are
trying to explore?’. We do not define the problem here; instead, we try and make an attempt
to assess the general area that could potentially be of interest to us, for example, ‘institu-
tionalized PLE’. This stage could be treated as an arbitrary starting point and would shift as
we open up the boundary of the problem situation to gather more information about the
situation and also try to see the context holistically. This stage conducts a goal-free evalu-
ation of the whole situation, wherein we are not particularly constrained by any formal
definitions or organizational boundaries. We collect as much data as possible about the
situation qualitatively, quantitatively or via both.

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Nair 9
Figure 3. A sample rich picture of the university environment.
Stage 2: problem situation expressed as a rich picture
The problem situation ‘institutionalized PLE’ identified by Stage 1 is expressed as a ‘rich

picture’ to gather a better understanding of the problem situation. Hence, the rich picture
could be represented roughly as the learning environment at university, pointing out the key
stakeholders and some key activities in that environment, and this situation has to be
expressed in all its richness encompassing structures, processes, organizational climate,
people, issues raised by people, key conflicts and more. According to Checkland and
Scholes (2003), the best way to represent this is pictorially, and this is represented as a
sample here in Figure 3.
Stage 3: root definitions of relevant systems

Moving away from the real world, into the world of systems (as shown in Figure 4), it is from
this stage everything about SSM grows and hence it is called as the ‘root definition’. Using
the rich picture (Stage 2) one could derive multiple perspectives about the same problem, and
in SSM this is known as ‘holons’. Holons are ‘plausible but relevant’ perspectives that could
describe the real world activities using the rich picture. Each of these holons has the potential
to provide a basis to evaluate any problem situation.
Based on the situation ‘institutionalized PLE’ being explored in this paper from Stage 1,
some holons (plausible and relevant perspectives) that could be identified are as follows:
. policy implications towards creating a PLE at universities;

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Figure 4. A pictorial representation of a system wherein transformation is taking place from input to
output.
. understanding a teacher’s belief towards a PLE-enabled classroom environment;

. students would accept a PLE at the beginning with enthusiasm but as time progresses
their motivations would behave like a bell curve;
. the PLE would enable students to create their own community of learning;
. teacher/tutors can act as facilitators in real time;
. workload of teacher/tutors would vary according to the use of the PLE at universities;
. there is a need to provide scaffold for students to help them achieve the learning
outcomes;
. the PLE could support online assessments at the universities;
. technological changes are volatile in nature, so it would be quite a task for technologists
to keep the PLE updated;
. open access to the PLE could threaten the foundation of universities as we know it now,
given economic changes.
With the help of the rich picture (Figure 3), many more perspectives could emerge. All these
perspectives are valid and purposeful. Although many of the holons cited above may be un-
discussable within the aim of ‘implementing institutionalized PLE’ or in some cases could be
beyond the realm of understanding of the researcher, nevertheless they are all valid perspec-
tives held by those who may be/are affected by the situation and will affect the relevance/
success of the interventions made in the later stages. To give an example, if some teachers
and the members of the senior management team are not comfortable using ubiquitous
technologies (e.g. Facebook) for learning at universities because they belong/believe in the
old school method, they would not support the implementation of the PLE at institu-
tions and in such instances they might push to make the whole project (if undertaken) a
failure.
The basis of SSM is not to address all the perspectives coming to light, thereby reducing
the chances of making the whole process complex. SSM tells us to look at each arising
perspective and address it separately, understanding its implications on the system holistic-
ally, and based on the derived understanding one could seek to re-integrate the new per-
spectives into the existing system to gather a more thorough understanding and thereby
leading to make suggestions for future actions.
From the different perspectives identified in this stage, using the principles of action
research and working collaboratively with stakeholders of the problem situation, we could
choose some of the perspectives that could be deemed important, and put them through a
more structured and rigorous model development process starting with mnemonic
‘CATWOE’.

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Nair 11
Table 2. Elements of CATWOE, adapted from Williams (2005: 6).
Customer/client (C) Who would benefit from the transformation?

Actors (A) Who facilitates the transformation to these customers?
Transformation (T) From start to finish
Weltanschauung (W) What gives the transformation some meaning?
Owner (O) To who is the system answerable and/or could cause the systems to not exist?
Environment (E) That influence but does not control the system
Table 3. CATWOE for ‘PLE for supporting online assessment at universities’.
(C)lient Students
(A)ctors Teachers, IT team, Department Examination Committee
(T)ransformation Teachers creating an online assessment to be undertaken
by students towards a module
(W)eltanschauung Students undertaking exams/assessments to get credits organized by the university
(O)wner Department Examination Committee
(E)nvironment In a computer lab/at home
According to Williams (2005), the model development process starts with the ‘T’ for
‘transformations’ in the CATWOE. The transformation for the chosen perspective deter-
mines what is actually getting transformed from the input to the output.
Once we have identified the transformation taking place, we could proceed to the other
key elements of CATWOE, which are represented in (in Table 2).
Considering one of the holons from the examples cited above, ‘PLE could support online
assessments at universities’ and using Table 2, CATWOE could be constructed as shown in
Table 3.
However for the same chosen holon, there could be different CATWOEs. The ‘Owner’
identified might not be the right owner; for example, the owner for the above chosen holon
could be the ‘Dean of the school or the VC of the University’, similarly the other component
of the CATWOE could change and we could have a totally different CATWOE, with a
different root definition leading to a different conceptual model all together. This is one of
the reasons why SSM is seen as an ‘iterative approach’, wherein one could try different things
out and see the changes happening and the implications of those changes on the system as a
whole. Hence, according to Checkland and Scholes (2003), it is advised to the keep the
elements of the CATWOE roughly in scale. For any holon, if the elements of the
CATWOE change so would the transformations taking place in the whole system.
Therefore, creating a relevant system could be considered as one of the ‘arts’ of SSM. In
SSM, the researcher has to constantly challenge their own assumption about (or self-reflec-
tion of) the situation in hand.
Stage 4: developing conceptual models

Once the root definition has been finalized, we can move into the next stage of developing the
relevant conceptual models using the system’s concept. Holistically, every classroom at the
university comprises different systems and, more importantly, inter-linking systems.

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
For example, in a typical e-learning-based virtual classroom there are a string of systems that
are associated with each other, such as those shown in Figure 5.
The conceptual models can be identified and derived (Figure 6) with the help of the rich
picture (Stage 2 and Figure 3).
In order to develop the conceptual models for the respective root definitions (Stage 3),
Checkland and Scholes (2003) cite some of the steps that can be followed, as shown in
Table 4.
Based on the holon ‘PLE could support online assessments at the universities’ and Table 4
combined, we could undertake the same steps as follows.
Step 1. Based on the transformations (‘T’) in the CATWOE, derive activities to carry out
the transformations.
For the holon selected, the transformation would be ‘creating an online assessment
system’ to be implemented in a university.
Some of the activities that could be included are creating assessment questions, collecting
and collating seminar synopsis documents, developing an online questionnaire, online
Figure 5. Interlinked systems.
Figure 6. Various inter-linking systems identified from the rich picture.

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Nair 13
simulations to carry out experiments, evaluating any additional resources required for stu-
dents to complete the assessments, deciding on an appropriate platform to host the exam
paper, identifying any potential problems that would arise, identifying who would be the
right contact person to deal with the problem, deciding on the feedback mechanism, creating
guidelines for students to undertake the exam, checking for any discrepancies in the exam-
ination process and creating a method to use plagiarism detection software.
Step 2. Select activities that are dependent or independent of each other.
Based on the earlier step we could take up some of the identified activities (Figure 7) for
simplistic understanding. The chosen activities (or all the activities in Step 1) would to some
extent be dependent or independent of each other at some point or another.
Table 4. Steps to drawing the conceptual models.
1. Based on the Transformation(T) in the CATWOE, derive activities to carry out.

2. Select activities that are dependent or independent of each other.
3. Once the activities are derived, indicate the dependencies along with the means of assessing
performance and the aspects of environment identified in the CATWOE.
4. Check whether the model demonstrates systems properties such as
# Input & output: What is the output for the accepted input?
# Transformation: What kind of transformation is taking place?
# Boundary: What separates the system from the environment?
# Integrated elements: Pointing out elements such as control, power, decision making, information
knowledge, resources, attitudes
# Purpose: What is the purpose of the system? The study of purpose is called ‘Teleology’.
# Measure of performance: How can the performance be measured? The study of performance is called
‘Metrology’.
# Client beneficiaries: Who would be beneficiaries/victims of the system?
# Decision makers: Who could affect the operations of the process taking place in the system?
# Constraints: What variables in the system cannot be altered?
# Systematics: Is the system mechanical in nature?
# Emergence: Are there any un-expected outcomes in the system, if there is a change?
# Hierarchy: How does one system relate to another system?
Creang Developing Evaluate any

assessment online addional
quesons quesonnaire resources
Deciding on Creang Checking for

plaorm to guidelines for any
host the exam students discrepancies
Deciding on Using Idenfying team

Exam plagiarism for dealing with
Feedback soware technical glitches
mechanism
Figure 7. Activities identified.

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Figure 8. Activity dependencies.
Figure 9. A conceptual model is defined.
Step 3. Once the activities are derived, we could indicate dependencies (Figure 8) along
with the means of assessing performance and the aspects of environment identified in the
CATWOE.
Step 4. Checking whether the model demonstrates system properties such as the ones high-
lighted in the Table 4 and using Figure 9.
Following Step 4, we have by applying the systems constructs (from Table 4) defined the
conceptual process model for an ‘online assessment system’. In the above system the activity
of ‘Evaluate any resources needed’ could be further explored in the form of a sub-system to

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Nair 15
Figure 10. A sub-system.
identify the right Web 2.0 tools that could be used to carried out the assessment. This is
represented in Figure 10.
At this stage, a decision could be made about how and where to integrate appropriate
technologies in to the system by looking at the process taking place within it, in order to
create a PLE for conducting online assessment (Figure 11).
This whole process is very much conceptual in nature. During this stage, it is not the
aim to make a model that would try to cover every aspect of the ‘real world’; rather, these
process models could be perceived as relevant for conducting an ‘enquiry’ into the whole
system with the purpose of defining and re-defining one’s own understanding of one of the
organizational systems (such as the online assessment system at universities) that is being
considered. Process modelling calls upon constant interaction with the problem situation
(which is ‘PLE could support online assessment at universities’). This process at this stage
is a ‘highly creative exercise’ wherein one has to make use of one’s abstract skills to
develop conceptual models (Checkland, 1981; Williams, 2005). Using these skills, one
tries to suspend reality to look at it from multiple perspectives to develop conceptual
models such as the one represented in Figure 11. Following the development of the con-
ceptual models, one could closely inspect the models to increase the rigour of the overall
inquiry.
In this stage, an ‘iterative approach’ is to be adopted for running the same process using
the different CATWOE processes, different holons and different scales (i.e. identifying any
sub-systems; Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 2003; Churchman, 1984; Williams,
2005). On doing so one would start gaining insights into the complexity of the problem
situations in hand, by helping to find the multiples in any component of the CATWOE and
what implications are holistically on the derived models. Running through several different
CATWOEs and conceptual process models would help us to explore what ‘re-occurring
themes’ are emerging or another way to look at what contradictions are arising from the
conceptual models about the situation. Hence, using the principles of SSM multiple models

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Figure 11. Integration of appropriate technology into the process undertaken by the system.
from multiple holons could be designed, giving us multiple insights to the same problem
situation, especially when working together with different stakeholders associated with the
problem situation.
One more advantage of doing process modelling is that it enables the researcher to under-
stand ‘control’ (Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 2003), the ripple effect of changes
that could arise in the system during the process of integration of appropriate technology
into the perceived conceptual model derived for a ‘PLE that could support online assess-
ments at universities’. With the assistance of the control function ‘monitoring’ of the whole
system is also made available to the researcher. This could be represented as shown in
Figure 12.
This stage overall would help us to promptly look at the learning process of the learners
iteratively and, through the various insights gathered in the repetitive process, we could look
at integrating appropriate technology into the learning environment that could pave the way
for creating a PLE. By doing so we will be shifting the paradigm from a ‘technology-enabled
learning’ to a ‘learning process-enabled technology integration’ wherein the focus will be
primarily on the learning process and not on the technology.
From the next stage onwards the conceptual models developed in Stage 4 are compared
with the real world from which insights could be drawn and ideas for improvements could be
developed and determined. One could consider this as the real power house of the method-
ology (Williams, 2005).

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Nair 17
Figure 12. Control and monitoring system.
Stages 5: compare the conceptual model to the real world
Some of the suggested ways to do this as per Checkland (1981) and Checkland and Scholes
(2003) are (a) unstructured discussions; (b) structured questioning of the model using a
matrix approach; (c) scenarios or dynamic modelling; (d) modelling the real world using
the same structures as the conceptual models. Another way to do this as per Williams (2005)
and one of the most commonly used techniques is to look at each components of the model
asking the following questions.
. Does it exist in the real world?

. How does it behave?
. How is its performance identified and measured?
. Is this process any good?
So for the holon ‘PLE could support online assessment at universities’ we could look at
the conceptual model developed in the Stage 4 along with the CATWOE, the root definition
worked at in Stage 3, and consider what actually happens in the real world. What is present?
What is missing? What behaves similarly? What technologies are used or could be used?
What is the behaviour/perception of the stakeholders towards the system? How is the system

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Figure 13. Making interventions by comparison of both the worlds.
Figure 14. Summary of Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 2003;
Fuchs, 2004; Senge, 1990; Williams, 2005).

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Nair 19
behaving for changing variables of the CATWOE? What does the evaluation of the system
reveal upon comparison with the real world?
One of the common mistakes made at this stage is that people confuse reality with the
model developed above. The purpose of this stage is to develop ‘insights’, in our case
developing insights about the potential of ‘PLE supporting online assessment at universities’.
Stage 6: making interventions
From this stage on, the methodology tends to stop being systematic and starts swinging
back-and-forth through all the seven stages of SSM in order to gain more thorough insight
into the problem situation under consideration (Figures 10 and 11). On the basis of emergent
insights possible interventions could be explored. Conducting interventions could be done in
the following ways (Checkland and Scholes, 2003):
. Running through the model again using different CATWOE processes, different perspec-
tives and different scales (i.e. model sub-systems).
. Undertaking different systems analyses.
. Analysis of the ‘Owner’. Who fundamentally has the authority to take action?
. How do the various roles, norms and values present in the real world relate to the con-
ceptual model?
. How is power expressed in the situation being studied?
These interventions could be considered as a learning process. It helps in getting an

understanding of the following (Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 2003):
. the concepts and the constructs of the problem situation;

. how concepts and constructs could be applied in any given situation;
. the strengths and weaknesses of a rationale for using particular constructs and methods;
. some aspect of the situation from the application of concepts and constructs;
. the methods for applying the concepts and constructs;
. the results of applying the constructs and concepts in the way specified, in the particular
situation, etc.;
. the imperatives for action.
Stage 7: action to improve the situation

Based on the analysis and insights developed from Stages 4–6, it is time to act, to create a
change for finding a solution to the problem situation. It is at this stage where the method-
ology comes to a full cycle and may be the start of a new cycle.
Conclusion
The overall purpose of using SSM for the design and development of the PLE is to spark
debate and discussion among the major stakeholders for working towards a way to bridge
the digital divide between the university as an institution and its learners. This would enable
academic institutions to develop learning environments to address the needs and styles of the

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
learners in a learner-centric personalized manner. It should be noted here that SSM must not
be viewed as a solution towards creating a PLE but could be perceived as a way for under-
taking an ‘enquiry’ into creating one or something close to one.
The key feature of SSM is that there is no set end to the process of applying it to the
learning environment. Hence, this would arguably help researchers shift the focus from
attractive technological features used randomly to the learning-process-enabled technology
integration applicable for learning environments at universities. This shift would be con-
stantly scrutinized, acutely investigated and thoroughly debated upon among the stake-
holders; this is fundamental for successful implementation of SSM grounded in action
research and guided by systems thinking. By maintaining this process one is developing a
way of continued commitment to discussion and learning within organizations working with
relevant stakeholders. These mutual discussions would enable various researchers to think
more about the learning process as a whole, while thinking about integrating technology into
such an environment in any organization.
The bottom line is that SSM in general is not to be considered as a necessary set of stages
for designing and developing a PLE but more along the lines of a pattern of thinking that
would direct attention towards the understanding of complex human activities, interacting
with complex internal and external factors, in a complex and messy environment.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-
profit sectors.
References
Acampora G, Gaeta M and Loia V (2011) Hierarchical optimization of personalized experiences for
e-Learning systems through evolutionary models. Neural Computing and Application 20(5):
641–657.
Ally M (2004) Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In: Anderson T and Elloumi F
(eds) Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca, Canada: Creative Commons, Athabasca
University.
Alonso F, Lopez G, Manrique D, et al. (2005) An Instructional model for web-based e- learning
education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Education Technology
36(2): 217–235.
Apple (2008) Apple classrooms for tomorrow-today: Learning in the 21st century. Available at: http://
education.apple.com/acot2/global/files/ACOT2_Background.pdf (accessed 13 April 2012).
Argyris C and Schon DA (1989) Participatory action research and action science compared- A com-
mentary. American Behavioral Scientist 32(5): 612–623.
Attwell G (2007) The personal learning environments - The future of e-learning? E-Learning Papers
1(2): 1–8.
Attwell G (2008) Web 2.0, personal learning environments and the future of schooling. Available at:
http://www.pontydysgu.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/web2andfutureofschooling.pdf (accessed
12 March 2013).
Baker M (1993) Adapting instructional design methods to intelligent multimedia authoring systems.
In: Tennyson RD (ed.) Automating Instructional Design, Development and Delivery. Berlin: Springer,
pp.197–223.
Bennett S, Bishop A, Dalgarno B, et al. (2012) Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education:
A collective case study. Computer and Education 59(2): 524–534.

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Nair 21
Brown JS (2000) Growing up digital: The Web and a new learning ecology. Change, March/April 2000,
10–20.
Carr N (2012) The crisis in higher education, MIT technology review. Available at: http://
www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/429376/the-crisis-in-higher-education/ (accessed 12
January 2013).
Chatterjee A, Law E, Owen G, et al. (2011) A framework for the adoption and diffusion of personal
learning environments in commercial organizations: an exploratory study in the learning and devel-
opment sector in the UK. In: PLE conference 2011, 11–13 July, Southampton.
Checkland P (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York: Wiley.
Checkland PB and Scholes J (2003) Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chinchester: Wiley.
Churchman CW (1984) The Systems Approach. New York: Dell Publishing Company.
Davies J (2012) Facework on Facebook as a new literacy practice. Computers and Education 59(1):
19–29.
Davis A (2004) The development of online courses. In: Anderson T and Elloumi F (eds) Theory and
practice of online learning. Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University.
Dehoney J and Reeves T (1998) Instructional and social dimensions of class web pages. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education 10(2): 19–41.
Dick W, Carey L and Carey JO (2005) The Systematic Design of Instruction, 6th ed. Boston, MA:
Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
Dickson T (2004) Things to come. In: when worlds collide, JISC infoNet conference, York (York, JISC
infoNet and HEFCE).
Eden C and Huxham C (1996) Action research for management research. British Journal of
Management 7(1): 75–86.
Escobar-Rodriguez T and Monge-Lozano P (2012) The acceptance of Moodle technology by business
administration students. Computers and Education 58(4): 1085–1093.
Fiedler S and Valjataga T (2010) Personal learning environments: Concept or technology? In: proceed-
ings of the PLE 2010 conference.
Fuchs C (2004) Knowledge management in self-organizing social systems. Journal of Knowledge
Management Practice. Available at: http://www.tlainc.com/articl61.htm (accessed 12 October 2010).
Gagne R, Briggs L and Wager W (1988) Principles of Instructional Design. 3rd ed. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Galliers RD (1991) Choosing appropriate information systems research approaches: A revised tax-
onomy. In: proceedings of the IFIP TC8WG 82 working conference on the information systems
research arena of the 90s challenges perceptions and alternative approaches (1991), Volume 1,
September 1984, North-Holland, pp.155–173.
Garrett R and Jokirvirta L (2004) Online learning in commonwealth universities: Selected data from the
2004 Observatory Survey. Part-1 report no. 20. London: The Observatory on Borderless Higher
Education.
Garrison DR and Anderson T (2003) E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and
Practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
Gunasekaran A, McNeil RD and Shaul D (2002) E-learning: Research and applications. Industrial and
Commercial Training 34(2): 44–53.
Herrington J (2006) Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic LEs and
tasks. In: world conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education,
Chesapeake.
Herrington J, Reeves TC and Oliver R (2005) Online learning as information delivery: Digital myopia.
Journal of Interactive Learning Research 16(4): 353–367.
Hiltz SR (1990) Evaluating the virtual classroom. In: Harasim LM (ed.) Online education: Perspectives
on a New Environment. New York: Praeger, pp.133–184.
Hopkins D (1985) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. Philadelphia, PA: Open University
Press.

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Ismail J (2002) The design of an e-learning systems: Beyond the hype. Internet and Higher Education
4(3–4): 329–336.
Jenkins M, Browne T and Walker R (2005) A longitudinal perspective between March 2001,
March 2003 and March 2005 for higher education in the United Kingdom. Available at:
http://www.ucisa.ac.uk//media/groups/tlig/vle_surveys/vle_survey_2005%20pdf.ashx (accessed 1
January 2012).
Jones V and Jo JH (2004) Ubiquitous LE: An adaptive teaching system using ubiquitous technology.
In: Atkinson R, McBeath C, Jonas-Dwyer D and Phillips R (eds) Beyond the comfort zone:
Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference. 5–8 December, Perth, pp.468–474.
Junco R and Cotten SR (2012) No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic
performance. Computers & Education 59(2): 505–514.
Junco R (2012) The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook
activities, and student engagement. Computers and Education 58(1): 162–171.
Kearsley G (2000) Online Education: Learning and Teaching in Cyberspace. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing.
Kolb DA (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Krumm J (2009) Ubiquitous Computing Fundamentals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor Francis
Group.
Lombardi M (2007) Authentic Learning for the 21st Century: An Overview, Educause Learning
Initiative. Available at: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf (accessed 4 March
2012).
Morrison GR, Ross SM and Kemp JE (2004) Designing Effective Instruction, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Moskaliuk J, Kimmerle J and Cress U (2012) Collaborative knowledge building with wikis: The impact
of redundancy and polarity. Computers and Education 58(4): 1049–1057.
Nair U (2013) A brief introduction to current e-learning systems. Third Degree: The Working Papers of
Doctoral Seminar Series 1(1): 15–17.
Nair U and Singh P (2013) Food for thought: Can social media be a potential ‘learning tool’ for
universities? Educational Quest: International Journal of Education and Applied Social Science 4(2):
115–119.
O’Neil K, Singh G and O’Donoghue J (2004) Implementing eLearning programmes for higher edu-
cation: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology Education 3(1): 313–323.
Peters M and Robinson V (1984) The origins and status of action research. Journal of Applied
Behavioural Science 20(2): 113–124.
Ravenscroft A (2001) Designing E-Learning Interactions in the 21st century: Revisiting and rethinking
the role of theory. European Journal of Education 36(2): 133–156.
Rivera JC and Rice ML (2002) A comparison of student outcomes & satisfaction between traditional
& web based course offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 5(3). Available at:
http://www.westga.edu/distance/ojdla/fall53/rivera53.html (accessed 15 March 2012).
Sanford N (1970) Whatever happened to action research? Journal of Social Issues 26(4): 3–23.
Schott M, Chernish W, Dooley KE, et al. (2003) Innovations in distance learning program develop-
ment and delivery. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 6(2). Available at: http://
www.westga.edu/distance/ojdla/summer62/schott62.html (accessed 10 December 2012).
Senge PM (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. New York:
Doubleday.
Shieh RS (2012) The impact of Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) implementation on
student learning and teachers’ teaching in a high school context. Computers and Education 59(2):
206–214.
Siragusa L, Dixon KC and Dixon R (2007) Designing quality e-learning environments in higher edu-
cation. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. In: proceedings of ascilite Singapore

XML Template (2014) [24.12.2014–2:17pm] [1–23]
Nair 23
2007. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/siragusa.pdf (accessed

12 November 2011).
Tanaka Y (2005) Memetic approach to the dissemination of e-learning objects. In: proceedings of the
4th international symposium on information and communication technologies (WISICT ‘05).
Tsoi HL (2004) Logical soft systems methodology for education programme development. Issues in
Informing Science and Information Technology 1027–1035. Available at: http://proceedings.infor-
mingscience.org/InSITE2004/129tsoi.pdf (accessed 23 July 2013).
UNESCO (1981) A systems approach to teaching and learning procedures: A guide for educators. The
UNESCO Press. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0004/000460/046025EB.pdf
(accessed 23 June 2012).
van Harmelen M (2006) Personal learning environments. In: Kinshuk R, Koper P, Kommers P, et al.
(eds) In: proceedings of the 6th IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies
(ICALT’06), pp.815–816.
Welsh ET, Wanberg CR, Brown KG, et al. (2003) E-learning: Emerging uses, empirical results and
future directions. International Journal of Training and Development 7(4): 245–258.
Wheeler S (2010) Physiology of a PLE. Available at: http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/
physiology-of-ple.html (accessed 21 January 2013).
Williams B (2005) Soft Systems Methodology. The Kellogg Foundation. Available at: http://users.
actrix.com/bobwill/ssm.pdf (accessed 8 January 2012).
Wilson S (2008) Patterns of personal learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments 16(1):
17–34.
Wong D (2007) A critical literature review on e-learning limitations. Journal for the Advancements of
Science and Arts 2: 5–62.
Yavuz A (2007) Implications of two well-known models for instructional designers in distance educa-
tion: Dick-Carey versus Morrison-Ross-Kemp. ERIC database. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.
gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/28/0c/62.pdf (accessed 24
October 2011).

Soft Systems Methodology For Personalized Learning Environment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soft Systems Methodology For Personalized Learning Environment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XML Template (2014) [24.12.

E-Learning and Digital Media

personalized learning Reprints and permissions:

Background and introduction

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

2 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

Personalized learning environment

The process of learning by nature is as ‘social’ as ‘cognitive’, as ‘concrete’ as ‘abstract’, all of

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

4 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)

Figure 1. An example of a personalized learning environment (PLE).

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

Table 1. Dimensions of personalized learning environment space.

Pedagogy, personalization and a. Philosophical background and pedagogic approach

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

6 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)

General theory behind the systems approach to the personalized

A system could be deﬁned as a ‘complex-organized whole’. It is an assemblage of things or

Basic principles of action research

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

Applying Soft Systems Methodology to the personalized

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

8 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)

Stage.1 Problem Stage 7. Action to

Systems thinking of the real

Stage 3. Root Definitions Stage 4. Developing the

Figure 2. Adapted from Checkland and Scholes (2003).

Stage 1: problem situation

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

Figure 3. A sample rich picture of the university environment.

Stage 2: problem situation expressed as a rich picture

The problem situation ‘institutionalized PLE’ identiﬁed by Stage 1 is expressed as a ‘rich

Stage 3: root definitions of relevant systems

. policy implications towards creating a PLE at universities;

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

10 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)

. understanding a teacher’s belief towards a PLE-enabled classroom environment;

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

Table 2. Elements of CATWOE, adapted from Williams (2005: 6).

Customer/client (C) Who would benefit from the transformation?

Table 3. CATWOE for ‘PLE for supporting online assessment at universities’.

Stage 4: developing conceptual models

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

12 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)

Figure 5. Interlinked systems.

Figure 6. Various inter-linking systems identified from the rich picture.

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

Step 2. Select activities that are dependent or independent of each other.

Table 4. Steps to drawing the conceptual models.

1. Based on the Transformation(T) in the CATWOE, derive activities to carry out.

Creang Developing Evaluate any

Deciding on Creang Checking for

Deciding on Using Idenfying team

Figure 7. Activities identified.

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

14 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)

Figure 8. Activity dependencies.

Figure 9. A conceptual model is defined.

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

Figure 10. A sub-system.

Downloaded from ldm.sagepub.com at Gazi University on January 10, 2015

16 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)