In an increasingly networked and technologically mediated world, people need to continuously update their knowledge and skill base, so as to be able to self-direct their intentional learning projects. In addition to teaching domain-specific knowledge and skills, the role of higher education should be reorganizing current teaching and studying practices in a way that allows students to take control over their projects and environments. Contemporary models of instructional design consider a learning environment as a predefined element in instruction created and controlled by an educational authority. On the other hand an emerging personal learning environment (PLE) discourse emphasizes learner control over an environment. However, current interpretations of PLEs leave other instructional functions unattended. The article proposes an elaborated understanding of PLE, one which integrates important instructional functions of learner control. The theoretical framework presented in this article is inspired by conceptual ideas developed within the iCamp ( www.icamp.eu) project. The article illustrates the line of argumentation with students experiences gathered from a pilot course taught at Tallinn University, Estonia.

This study explores schools’ digital maturity self-evaluation reports’ data from Estonia. Based on quantitative data (N = 499) the schools that attempt digital transformation were clustered into three successive digital improvement types. The paper describes 3 main patterns of school improvement in different phases of innovative change: classroom innovation practices’ driven schools, participatory led structural change driven schools; and inclusive and evidence based change management type of schools. The defining variables for digital transformation towards new levels of digital maturity were teachers’ role, digital competences, learning organization culture, participatory management, inclusive leadership, structural changes and network, and IT-manager involvement to structural changes.