A Framework for the Adoption and Diffusion of Personal Learning Environments in Commercial Organisations: An exploratory study Arunangsu Chatterjee, University of Leicester, UK ��� A.Chatterjee@mcs.le.ac.uk Effie L-C. Law, University of Leicester, UK ��� elaw@mcs.le.ac.uk Alexander Mikroyannidis, Open University, UK ��� A.Mikroyannidis@open.ac.uk Glyn Owen, British Institute of Learning and Development, UK ��� gowen@thebild.org Karen Velasco, British Institute of Learning and Development, UK ��� karen.velasco@peoplesolve.com Abstract This study presents an exploratory approach to identify the main factors of Personal Learning Environment (PLE) adoption and diffusion within commercial organisations. Utilising an inductive investigative approach via the use of Grounded Theory methodology, relevant adoption factors were identified and their resulting influence during various stages of the innovation diffusion process were proposed. Data was collected using semi-structured interviews followed by systematic analysis using a three-staged coding process. The results revealed 10 factors affecting the adoption of PLEs influencing the innovation diffusion process at various stages. Informed by the Technology Acceptance Model and Innovation Diffusion Theory, the proposed model could have important implications for key decision makers within commercial organisations, while adopting, rejecting and assimilating new technological innovations (e.g. PLE) for learning delivery. 1. Introduction With the advent of Web 2.0 technologies, learners are exposed to, if not overwhelmed by, a plethora of social software tools and services. These emergent technologies enable learners to generate contents as well as consume other-created ones. This, together with the recognition of the need for lifelong learning, has contributed to a shift from a centralised institutional teaching approach to a more learner-centred decentralised learning approach (Wilson, 2008). To address the issue of increasingly diverse backgrounds of learners and contexts where learning activities occur, new generation learning environments should thus be more responsive and open than prevailing ones. Specifically, it is deemed useful to create an individual world for learning with personalization intelligence on the learner���s side, thereby enabling learners to easily construct and maintain their own Personal Learning Environment (PLE). Roughly speaking, a PLE consists of a mix of preferred learning tools, learning services and learning resources. Furthermore, the existing literature (e.g. Roger, 1995 Davis, 1989 DeLone & McLean, 2003 Venkatesh et al., 2003 ) indicates that different types of institution involve different sets of facilitating as well as hindering factors that result in the acceptance (or rejection) of a technological innovation. It is intriguing to identify such factors and subsequently develop appropriate strategies to deal with them. Interestingly, the number of research studies investigating this particular issue in academic organisations is dwarfed by that in their commercial counterparts, which have become increasingly important players in the arena of new educational technologies. To bridge this observed gap, we have conducted a study where semi- structured interviews with some lifelong learners from commercial organisations. Of

particular interest is how they view the emerging notion of PLE (Section 2). Qualitative data so collected have systematically been analysed with the grounded theory approach (Section 3). Based on the findings, we have constructed a conceptual model on the PLE adoption by commercial organisations (Section 4), which entails further refinement and validation. Nevertheless, we have achieved an initial but significant step towards an integrated view on the adoption of new learning technologies in non-academic settings. 2. Theoretical background 2.1 Personal Learning Environments The increased use of Web 2.0 has enabled an individual learner to build a unique and personal learning space (environment) and this experience is labelled under the umbrella term, Personal Learning Environment (PLE). There is no consensus or single description of a PLE (Fiedler & V��ljataga, 2010). We commonly understand it to have a primary objective, that being to enable learners to manage their own learning within a flexible and versatile environment. The PLE therefore follows a learner-centric approach, allowing the use of lightweight services and tools that belong to and are controlled by individual learners. Rather than integrating different services into a centralised system, the PLE provides the learner with a variety of services and hands over control to her to select and use these services the way she deems fit (Chatti et al., 2007). Learners are be able to combine formal and informal learning, collaborate with others and receive and create content that they may choose to share. For the purpose of this study, based on the various interpretations across the technology enhanced learning (TEL) community, we define PLE as ���a pedagogy-driven environment that facilitates learners to integrate distributed contents, services, tools and contacts based on personal goals and preferences, thereby enabling them to control their own learning and connect different contexts with the support of communities���. 2.2 Acceptance of technology and innovation diffusion There exists a considerable amount of literature explaining user acceptance of new technology (e.g. Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Among them, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has widespread credibility due to its success in bringing together previously disjointed behavioural research disciplines concerning the adoption of technological innovations (Wetzels, 2003). Davis (1986) conceived TAM by extending the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) formulated by Fishbein & Ajzen (1975). At its core TAM posits that the intention to use a technology depends fundamentally on its Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease Of Use (PEOU). Subsequently TAM was extended by a number of authors (e.g. Segars & Grover, 1993 Chau,1996) to include additional constructs and forms. Incorporating all these suggestions Venkatesh and Davis (2000) proposed TAM2, which has recently been extended to TAM3 by Venkatesh & Bala (2008). Venkatesh et al. (2003) proposed the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model by combining eight dominant models in the technology acceptance field. Even though a huge number of studies (e.g. Chiu & Wang, 2008 Wang, Wu, & Wang, 2009) have been used to confirm the robustness of the TAM models, several studies have highlighted key limitations of those models (e.g. Carlsson et al., 2006 Li & Kishore, 2006 Bagozzi, 2007 ) and a need for revising or extending them.