




































AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2013 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2012 Proceedings, Maria Victoria Pineda 

 

Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) as an approach to understanding  

the rhizomatic learning connections of 21
st
 century students 

 

Maria Victoria Pineda 

De La Salle University, Philippines 
mavic.pineda@delasalle.ph 

  

  

Abstract  
Personal learning networks (PLNs) define how learners seek knowledge, pull the knowledge 

and allow this knowledge be used in a suitable context. PLNs further exhibit that formal and 

informal interactions and usage of various technologies attribute to the many instances of 

learning. The learner given a great degree of freedom can mold and control her learning.   

 

The PLN is modeled on the concept of a rhizome, an underground plant stem capable of 

producing the shoot and new root systems of a plant. This capability of producing new 

shoots, roots and stems is now simulated in the idea of a rhizomatic learning model taking 

place in personal learning spaces. Cormier posited that persons finding new knowledge 

realize the many changes and progress through “participatory, negotiated experiences in 

rhizomatic engagement.” (Cormier, 2008) 

 

This study aimed to uncover the many web and social sources of information and 

knowledge of the students through the use of personal learning networks (PLNs). The study 

covers fifty sophomore university students who have defined their current PLNs through 

PLN diagrams. The study disintegrated these PLNs to categorize the shoots, roots and stems 

of the students’ learning, classify them to school-related or personal interests and identify 

how these complement each other. This study also analyzed the students’ learning priorities 

through the variety of ways that students drew their diagrams. 

 

It is the desire of this study to contribute to new ways of doing research, analyzing student-

defined learning networks and charts, and to open the doors to fresh forms of learning 

studies. The study came to the conclusion that rhizomatic knowledge-creation in this era of 

web and information, is the new direction for lifelong learning and requires more in-depth 

scrutiny and openness.  

 

Keywords: personal learning environment, personal learning networks, rhizomatic 

education, learning connections, rhizome 

 

Introduction  

“There is no beginning or end for the rhizome, it is process as cultural code, multiple and fractal in nature”. (Bussey, 

Bjurstrom and Sannum, 2010) Learning creates a web of multiplicity about how learning is acquired, pulled or 

absorbed. 

 

In this era, information and communication technologies make it possible for many learners to have convenient 

access to rich content, major works and information that have not been conveniently available before. In this 

context, there is a need to reexamine how knowledge is viewed, created or recreated. (Cormier, 2008) More than the 

formal settings of the classroom or the university alone, there are limitless ways of generating knowledge because of 

emerging technologies. (Attwell, 2007) The students themselves become producers of knowledge as technologies 

become ambient. And learning becomes multi-episodic, taking place in concurrence, in multiplicities, different 

facets, transforming and expanding. 

 

It is because of these instances of metamorphosis in the way individuals acquire information and knowledge that 

the concept of personal learning environments has surfaced. Attwell noted that personal learning environments 

mailto:mavic.pineda@delasalle.ph


(PLEs) are intended to provide support tools to learning and recognizes the meaningful role of the individual in her 

personal learning environment. (ibid.) 

 

Learning now occurs in countless contexts as technologies have become pervasive as well. Technologies have 

encouraged, empowered and have made it second nature for learners to pull and acquire any information to be 

translated into knowledge for her personal consumption. As learning is continual and interminable, so the 

opportunities to learn become multitudinous and open-ended. 

 

Personal Learning Networks (PLN) as a new way of understanding the learning process 

Fiedler and Väljataga (2011) define a personal learning environment (PLE) as “all the resources (artefacts, natural 

objects, people) that an individual is aware of and has access to at a given point in time and that s/he can turn into 

instruments to mediate her actions” for “a particular learning activity”. For any learner, a PLE represents the 

individual’s learning process, and is indicative of that learner’s personal learning preferences, networking skills and 

information-gathering abilities. It is important to note that a personal learning environment is not something owned 

by the learner but, rather, is something constructed out of a set of learning preferences and a network of connections 

(Väljataga, 2010).  Attwell (2008) further explained that PLEs may provide individualized support tools to learning 

and that, by making them a visible and explicit part of learning, one recognizes the central role of the individual in 

the development of the network.  

There is an abundance of representations that can be created to illustrate a personal learning environment. This could 

be achieved through a map, a web, a chart or even a table. Also available are mapping tools or software that can be 

used but whatever context or subject is there in the map, it is primarily defined by the learner herself. 

 

In this study, the personal learning environment is pictured as a rhizome, represented by a network of nodes, with 

shoots and stems labeled as a personal learning network (PLN) diagram. Two examples were used as base diagrams. 

The first one is a PLN work of an information science professional (Sitchensis, 2010) and the other one is the PLN 

of the class adviser (Pineda, 2010). 

 

A personal learning network is modeled on a rhizome, an underground plant stem capable of producing the shoot 

and new root systems of a plant. The shoots may grow rapidly, create multiple stems, shoots and stems may 

intertwine, stay longer or get entangled, and many entry points are available for nutrients to be transfused back to the 

rhizome. (Rhizome, 2011) The rhizomatic representation of the personal learning environment further presuppose 

that all the contributions are “constructed and negotiated in real-time” by the learner herself. (Cormier, 2008) The 

PLN diagram is meaningful in itself because it is constructed, defined and designed by the learner herself.  Hence, 

the PLN provides a plethora of intimate ways for what the learner pulls, captures, uses or recognizes as key sources 

of her learning experiences. It could also exhibit a student’s continued, or rich, interests on specific subject matters, 

be they academic or personal or professional in nature. 

 

Why use PLN diagrams? 

While there are many strong and proactive discussions on personal learning environments, new light will be shed on 

research if data could be constructed or extracted from the students themselves.   

 

In most traditional studies, surveys are used to determine students’ profile, access to ICT and perceptions of 

learning. It is the teacher or researcher who defines the choices of answers for the students. Pineda’s (2009) study 

for example, garnered substantial data for analysis and showed the high degree of technology exposure the students 

had at that time and how they utilized technology with their time. The students responded to a set of questions in a 

survey. The set of questions was defined based on the perceived activities of the researcher. The results exhibited 

that students from DLSU, co-situated in urban settings construct a new form of learning behavior, an offshoot of the 

natural cohesion of learning and technology among individuals. This scenario commonly takes place in urban 

settings where there is wide and easy access to technology resources. (ibid.) While this study may be grounded on 

data it essentially talked about the perception of the students based on the parameters set by the researcher. 

 



A detailed and extensive study by Lieberman (2008) explained that reflective cognition has contributions that cannot 

be duplicated by the non-reflective side of the human brain. This meant that data that have gone through a longer 

reflection time would become more meaningful, such as how the students constructed their PLNs. Hence, data in a 

survey while it may be factual in nature, might consist of non-reflexive answers, very much dependent on the recent 

activity recollection of the responder rather than on longer-term reflection. 

 

So the approach in the present study was to extract the learning interests from the students themselves. The students 

were oriented and taught about personal learning environments. Some examples were shown to the students such as 

a diagram of social connections, a personal learning network diagram and some relevant readings on the topic. The 

students were given time to create their PLN diagrams. This meant more reflection time for the students to spell out 

and lay out their shoots and stems of learning interests. They were also in control of grouping or categorizing their 

knowledge cultivations. Diagram 1 exhibits an example created by a student from DLSU. 

 

 
Diagram 1. Example of a PLN as a rhizome with shoots and stems 

 

The PLN diagram mapped not only the web of useful and creative information but also the terminologies that the 

students used, the types of combined people and online sources of knowledge that they had, and how their shoots 

and stems of learning complemented each other. 

 

 

Methodology of the Study 

The various informal and social learning theories were discussed in class. Lectures and interactions were delivered 

in the classroom to further provide the students with a wider perspective of what personal learning networks were. 

The class adviser provided her own personal learning network as an example and two other references in the class 

blog. The emphasis was to have a reflective awareness of their sources of learning.  

 

The students who were tasked to draw the PLN diagrams were sophomore students taking a degree in Information 

Systems. These students were greatly immersed in various web applications and tools, exposed to social networks 

and with a regular access to wireless internet connectivity in the campus. 

 

The students were then tasked with drawing and creating their own PLN, pointing to the complementing links of the 

various sources of information, knowledge and learning. The students were given a non-restrictive way of grouping 

or combining their interests. They were not constrained by strict structures or learning elements to be placed like 

academic or personal interests. The PLN was designed be posted in a publicly accessible web page with its link 

submitted in the class blog. This task was not difficult to the students as these students were content creators 

themselves. Downes (2005) pointed out that one major change in the ways education had been moving was that 

while there used to be a model of single providers of learning content, there are now many producers of learning 

content. The students today are not just consumers but active producers of learning content.  

 



There were around one hundred diagrams or charts submitted in the blog. But only fifty diagrams were used in the 

study. Most of the excluded blogs were posted in a private Facebook or Tumblr page or photo page that had 

prevented the open access to the diagrams. 

 

The diagrams were analyzed in three ways.  

 

First, the diagrams were studied by disintegrating the shoots and stems of the diagrams to have a wider picture of 

how a typical sophomore university student allocated her energies and time to different learning interests. The labels 

of interests and connections made by the students were listed and recorded as tags. The tags were also categorized 

under three labels-- academic, social and others. Academic refers to any learning interests that have direct 

involvement on formal interaction as defined by the student in her diagram. Social refers to informal interactions, 

maybe online or face-to-face as again defined by the student including the tools and social networks she uses. 

Finally, general interests would refer to the self-view of learning interests like sports or cooking including the online 

support she gets.  

 

The second technique was to quantitatively examine the labels and categorization frequency set by the students. A 

tag cloud was the primary tool used here through the visual word frequency application TagCrowd (Steinbock, 

2008). 

 

Third is the observation of how the PLN diagrams were drawn and expressed in rather creative and myriad ways. 

The core of the diagram is imagined as a rhizome capable of producing different shoots. The shoots are the learning 

sets of the student as she had classified or grouped them. The shoots produced different stems and each stem 

corresponded to a specific learning contributor. There were many learning contributors based on the diagrams 

created by the students. 
 

 

Results of the Analysis 

1. Disintegrating the shoots and stems of the rhizomes 

The shoots representing the major knowledge cultivations or categories of the students were counted and tagged. 

The stems that serve as learning contributor were also counted. The learning contributor is an entity representing the 

source of information or knowledge. Examples are web tools or sites, social groups or connections, educational 

materials and others. 

 

The analysis showed that a DLSU sophomore student would have an average of five (5) shoots and eighteen (18) 

stems of constructed learning interests and learning contributors. These results further deepen the understanding of 

PLEs. The students went through a reflective process of building their PLNs and express them in a form and 

terminology of their choice. The PLN has also become an exuberance of the learning style of the students as some 

have great dependencies on tools, some would have rich social circles and some creating a balance between their 

active offline and online engagements. 

 

Figure 1 presents in graph form the popular shoots and stems of the students. It generally shows that most of their 

activities are tied up at home, in school or online. It is evident that most of the students have close relationships with 

their families. Aside from Facebook- Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube and Yahoo are the favored alternate communication 

venues. The students likewise have a great sense of group and collaboration preferences whether these are web tools 

and/or social networks. 

 



 
Figure 1. Graph of the Instances of the Popular Shoots and Stems in the PLNs 

 

 
2. Tag cloud results 

a. Under the academic category, the tag cloud result was quite interesting. 

The example given to the students did not cite or suggest individuals in schools that may have strong impact on the 

present learning. But in the academic category tag cloud, it showed that students value individuals such as professors 

(40%); friends (38%); family, siblings and parents (34%); classmates, colleagues and schoolmates (32%). DLSU 

which refers to the university, including the school, was also significant to 30% of the students. 

b. The tag cloud shows that Facebook, Twitter, blogs, Youtube, Yahoogroups, Yahoo Messengers, forums are 

the mostly sought and used social arenas for interactions. This includes group work and collaboration. 

c. There is a high level of variety of general interests. 

d. Facebook, yahoogroups, Twitter and Tumblr were some of the popular social network tools used by the 

students. In Miller’s (2009) thesis, it was concluded that high use of social networks for public 

communication and interactions led to increased learning participation and “development of collaborative 

and research skills”.  

e. Youtube and blogs have been arbitrary learning systems, moving from academic to social to general 

interests. On some occasions, these have appeared as shoots in the PLNs. Generally, the students identify 

these two as very handy and useful support tools for learning. 

f. The students made use of Tumblr, Blogger, Mindmeister, Photobucket, Wordpress and Facebook to host 

their PLNs. Access to Facebook was an issue whenever it had privacy settings. This issue was an oversight 

on the part of the students. 



Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the tag cloud results for academic, social, and general interests. Figure 5 shows the overall 

tag cloud results. The tag cloud was used to show the frequency of the shoots and stems of the students’ rhizome. 

 
Figure 2. Tag cloud of Academic interests 

 

 

 
Figure 3. Tag cloud of Social interests 

 

 
Figure 4. Tag cloud of General interests 



AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2013 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2012 Proceedings, Maria Victoria Pineda 

 

 

 

 
Figure 5. Tag cloud of the combined interests 

 

 

3. Variations in the PLN Diagrams 

As part of the orientation on PLNs, an example was provided. The example showed a chart and the yellow 

core is considered as the rhizome. The rhizome had several shoots, pertaining to the learning interest sets. 

And each shoot had different stems extracting the knowledge, information and processes to make learning 

happen. The roots are seen connecting from one stem or shoot to another shoot. The root shows how a 

learning set has been capable of complementing another learning set enabling more stems to come.  

 

The students were permitted to draw their own PLNs with minor restrictions such as the PLN should be 

accessible in the web. The PLN must be reflective of their ecosystem of learning. It is also part of the 

result of this study to see the dynamism of PLNs such that the PLN is a reflection of the way students 

organize their learning. Below are some examples: 

 

 
 

Diagram 2. An example of a typical PLN 

 



AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2013 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2012 Proceedings, Maria Victoria Pineda 

 

 

 
Diagram 3. An example of a PLN prioritizing Japanese modern culture 

 

 

 
Diagram 4. An example of a dynamic PLN 

 

The first example (Diagram 2) demonstrates the typical PLN among the students that consists of academic 

interests, her social group and other interests. The second example (Diagram 3) illustrates priorities being 

given to modern Japanese culture. The third example (Diagram 4) shows the dynamic interests of the 

students with nine (9) shoots and many stems.  

 

Some have used dominant colors like pink or green as if the PLN had a persona. Some have huge webs of 

interests. Some have numerous stems of social connections. Some have obviously more personal or hobby 

interests than academic interests. Students with a high level of interest in knowledge acquisition would 

exhibit many fractals of shoots and stems. Diversity is very evident.   

 

Surowiecki (2005) asserts that diversity is valuable and must be encouraged because differences in 

perspectives actually contribute to creative solutions. This kind of diversity must be enhanced among 

students who are constantly immersed in technology and the web while they learn. 

 

Some limitations of the study-- the details of the stems, which serve as learning contributors, particularly 

the web tools and other not so popular sites were not verified. The rhizome stems wherein the students 

also contribute their work and other useful information were not captured by the study. 

 

 



AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2013 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2012 Proceedings, Maria Victoria Pineda 

 

 

Conclusions 

The study resulted in many revelations. The PLN may be considered as the blueprint of a student’s 

preferred learning connections and learning support tools. It is an effective way of knowing if a student 

does not have balanced academic and social interests; if a student does heavily prioritizes her social 

connections; if a student is building on her academic interests through the tools she is using; or if a student 

is able to use her personal interests to complement her academic/professional interests. Interventions may 

be need if the result of the student’s PLN appear to be alarming. On the other hand, school administrators 

may be concerned as to what kind of online tools or support mechanisms student seek, what social 

networks they subscribe to and what e-resources they find as most useful and practical. 

 

This investigation has been successful in contributing new ways of doing research, analyzing student-

defined learning networks and charts, and opening the doors to fresh forms of learning studies. The study 

was creatively unique in many ways, qualitatively and quantitatively—it combined the use of statistics, 

tag clouds, PLN illustrations to comprehend how a learner shapes and controls her learning in a 

rhizomatic engagement.  

 

The better the learner is able to define and construct her personal learning environment, the more she is 

capable of increasing the shoots and stems of her learning. The present challenge to curriculum design in 

the university is to realize how to accommodate for the rhizomatic model of learning happening beyond 

the classroom walls, in the students’ social spaces and through informal interactions. School systems will 

have to change their rules and develop ways of facilitating guidance so that students could exercise 

prudence, know-how, and wisdom in the knowledge that they pull, develop better informational skills, and 

engage astutely in online or offline activities. 

 

It is also recommended that teachers create their own PLNs and allow their interests to complement their 

teaching. Teachers with a deeper awareness of their own learning environment are more likely to be able 

to support students effectively as they navigate through the endless possibilities of learning. 

 
 

 

Acknowledgment 

The author would like to express gratitude to the Social Media class of the College of Computer Studies 

of De La Salle University in the first trimester of SY 2011-2012, for sharing their PLN diagrams in this 

study. 

 

 

 

References 

 

Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments: The future of e-Learning. eLearning Papers , 4-8. 

 

Bussey, M., Bjurstrom, A., & and Sannum, M. (2010). Explorations in intercultural work integrated 

learning:Educational process for a topsy-turvy world. Futures , 39-47. 

 

Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as Curriculum. Innovateonline [Online]. 

Available:  http://innovateonline. 

 

Downes, S. (2005, October). E-Learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine , 2005 (10), pp. 1-5. 

 

Fiedler, S. and Väljataga, T. (2011). Personal learning environments: Concept or technology. 

International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 2(4) 1-11, p. 8 

 

Lieberman, M. (2008). What zombies can’t do: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to the 

irreducibility of reflective consciousness. Chap. 13 pp. 293-316 [Online]. Available: 

http://commonsenseatheism. com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Lieberman-What-zombies-cant-do.pdf 



AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) 2013 – Special Issue – AsiaCALL2012 Proceedings, Maria Victoria Pineda 

 

 

Miller, R. (2009). Developing 21
st
 century skills through the use of student personal learning networks. 

Doctoral thesis/dissertation, 191 pages. Grin Publishing. 

 

Pineda, M. V. (2011, May 18). Understanding Contexts of Collaboration [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved 

July 29, 2011, from slideshare/mobilemartha: http://www.slideshare.net/mobilemartha/ 

understanding-contexts-of-inter-cultural-collaboration-ver2c 

 

Pineda, M. V. (2009). Urban Class Computing in Higher Education: Promising or Perilous. Readings in 

Technology and Education Proceedings of ICICTE 2009 (pp. 336-346). University of the Fraser 

Valley Press. 

 

Rhizome. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from "http://www.britannica.com/ 

EBchecked/topic/501483/rhizome" . 

 

Sitchensis. (2010, September 15) [Online]. Communit-eLearning: Please PLEs me. Available: Communit-

eLearning: http://sitchensis.wordpress. com/2010/09/15/please-ples-me/ 

 

Steinbock, D. (2008). What is TagCrowd? TagCrowd. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from TagCrowd: 

http://www.tagcrowd.com/blog/about/ 

 

Surowiecki, J. (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Anchor Books. 

 

Väljataga, T. (2010, July 27). An insight to the PLE 2010 conference in Barcelona. Terje's musings on 

educational research. http://terjevaljataga.eu/2010/07/27/insight-to-the-ple-2010-conference-in-

barcelona/ [viewed 21 September 2011]. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

http://terjevaljataga.eu/2010/07/27/insight-to-the-ple-2010-conference-in-barcelona/
http://terjevaljataga.eu/2010/07/27/insight-to-the-ple-2010-conference-in-barcelona/

