This is a presentation that I gave at the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning. I argued that we need to re-think pedagogy and technology use and suggested that we need to conceive of the LMS as one system within a student's personal learning environment.

1. The Learning Management System:
Adapt or Disappear
Dr. Iain Doherty
Director eLearning Pedagogical Support Unit
Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and
Learning
22nd November 2012

2. Overview
• Professor Graham Bilbowe’s eLearning Seminar.
• What Are Our Learners Like?
• Pedagogies and Technologies.
• Connectivism As An Alternative Learning Theory.
• Will Universities Change The Way They Do Things?
• Closing Remarks.

3. eLearning Seminar
• Professor Bilbow presented a picture of today’s
learners as device enabled.
• He also presented a picture of todays’ learners as
digital residents / digital visitors.
• Teaching quality in higher education was questioned.
• Finally, Professor Bilbow asked whether Universities
are well placed to respond to device enabled digital
residents and visitors (White, Connaway, Lanclos, Le
Cornu, & Hood, 2012).
3

4. eLearning Seminar
• Drawing on Professor Bilbowe’s presentation I am
going to ask two questions:
– Will the pedagogies that we are employing suffice to
meet the learning needs of today’s generation?
– Is the LMS an appropriate tool to meet the needs of
device enabled connected learners?
4

5. What Are Our Learners Like?
“Web 2.0, the Social Web, has had a profound effect on
behaviours, particularly those of young people whose
medium and metier it is. They inhabit it with ease and it
has led them to a strong sense of communities of
interest linked in their own web spaces, and to a
disposition to share and participate. It has also led them
to impatience – a preference for quick answers – and to
a casual approach to evaluating information and
attributing it and also to copyright and legal constraints”
(CLEX, 2009).
5

6. What Are Our Learners Like?
“The world they encounter in higher education has been
constructed on a wholly different set of norms.
Characterised broadly, it is hierarchical, substantially
introvert, guarded, careful, precise and measured. The
two worlds are currently co-existing, with present-day
students effectively occupying a position on the cusp of
change. They aren’t demanding different approaches;
rather they are making such adaptations as are
necessary for the time it takes to gain their
qualifications” (CLEX, 2009).
6

7. What Are Our Learners Like?
• This research was conducted in the UK so there is an
obvious question whether HK students are similar.
• The Survey on Mobile Library Services in Hong Kong
and Singapore Academic Libraries (Ang et al., 2012)
would suggest that HK students are device enabled,
mobile, connected and looking for online learning
opportunities.
7

8. What Are Our Learners Like?
• Total of 505 completed responses from students
were received:
– responses from CUHK, CityU, NTU and HKU were
17.3%, 35.4%, 11.5% and 35.8% respectively.
– The proportion of female and male respondents was
50.5% and 49.5% respectively.
– 49.1% respondents were undergraduate students,
while 18% respondents were post‐graduate students.
8

9. What Are Our Learners Like?
9

10. What Are Our Learners Like?
10

11. What Are Our Learners Like?
11

12. What Are Our Learners Like?
12

13. What Are Our Learners Like?
13

14. What Are Our Learners Like?
14

15. What Are Our Learners Like?
• So let’s say that we have device enabled, mobile
learners who are already connected and connecting
in multiple ways.
• Let’s also say that the same learners have expressed
a desire for greater opportunities for mobile access to
library resources / mobile learning opportunities.
• The question then becomes one of how universities
will respond in terms of teaching approaches &
technologies.
15

16. LMS: The Wrong Place to Start Learning?
• Siemens (Siemens, 2004)says no to the LMS as the
answer to eLearning:
1. They are structured and dictate the nature of the
interactions (student-teacher, student-student,
student-content);
2. The platforms have a poor interface and are
confusing to teachers and students;
3. Feature poor until recently and even now the systems
are locked down;
4. Cannot offer diversity of tools needed to teach.
16

17. 1. Interactions
• Education operates in terms of three learning
theories:
– Behaviorism (drill and practice)
– Cognitivism (mental structures)
– Constructivism (making meaning)
• Technologies have been integrated into teaching on
the basis of these three learning theories (Mergel
1998).

18. 1. Interactions
• Sage on the Stage or teacher as source of
knowledge (King, 1993)
– Aligns with Behaviorism and Cognitivism
• Guide on the Side or teacher as facilitator (King,
1993)
– Aligns with Cognitivism & Constructivism and its
variants
• Meddler in the Middle described as a “usefully
ignorant co-worker” (McWilliam 2008)
– Aligns with the central tenants of Connectivism
18

19. 2. Poor Interface Design / Usability
• This point is minimally arguable.
• Some users find the interface confusing and
encounter usability issues.
• Many users do not find the interface confusing or
encounter usability issues.
• Overall the point is not telling or decisive as an
argument against the centrality of the LMS.
19

20. 3. Features and Affordances of Moodle
• Siemens says (2004) that an LMS needs to offer:
– A place for learner expression (blog/portfolio);
– A place for content interaction;
– A place to connect with other learners;
– A place to connect the thoughts of other learners in a
personal, meaningful way - i.e. using RSS and then
brought back into the "learner expression tool“;
– A place to dialogue with the instructor (email, VoIP,
etc.)
20

21. 3. Features and Affordances of Moodle
– A place to dialogue with gurus (apprentice) - the heart
of online communities is the mess of varying skills and
expertise. Gurus are people currently in industry or
established practitioners of the organizing theme of the
community.
– A place for learning artifacts of those who've gone
before - i.e. content management capabilities
accessible and managed by the learner. Tools like
Furl, del.icio.us are examples of personal knowledge
management (PKM) tools.
21

22. 4. Diversity of tools needed to teach
– Be modularized so additional functionality and tools
can be added based on what learners want or need.
This means a bricolage of course tools - based on
open standards - allow for incorporation of new
approaches as needed.
22

23. LMS: The Right Place To Start Learning?
• This answer pretty much depends on one’s
understanding of what it means to learn.
• Siemens argues that Behaviorism, Cognitivism and
Constructivism no longer suffice as learning theories.
• He rests his argument on the fact that knowledge has
increased exponentially and we now source, retrieve,
process, produce and transmit knowledge in entirely
new ways.
23

24. Connectivism
“Understanding knowledge in a particular era is
important in ensuring that we have aligned our spaces
and structures with the nature of knowledge” (Siemens,
2006).
• For Siemens teaching spaces and structures are not
aligned with the nature of knowledge?

25. Connectivism
“The rapid development of information . . . requires a
model that sees learning less as a product (filling a
learner with knowledge) and more of a process of
continually staying current and connected (learning as a
process of exploration, dialogue, and interaction)”
(Siemens, 2006).
25

26. Connectivism
“Connecting with people and content is a constant,
ongoing, daily activity . . . Learning is a continual,
network-forming process . . . As we encounter new
resources (knowledge, people, and technology nodes),
we may choose to actively connect and create our
personal learning network” (Siemens, 2006).

27. Connectivism
• We want to see,
“ . . . A shift away from the model in which students
consume information through independent channels
such as the library, a text book or an LMS, moving
instead to a model where students draw connections
from a growing matrix of resources that they select and
organize” (Mot, 2010)
27

28. Nielsen Report (2011)
28

29. Nielsen Report (2011)
29

30. Nielsen Report (2011)
30

31. The Middle Ground
• This is not an either or situation i.e. the LMS or
something else.
• A personal learning environment provides a balance
to LMS centric eLearning.
• PLE can be represented visually (Diagram used
under Creative Commons Attribute Share Alike
http://edtechpost.wikispaces.com/PLE+Diagrams#ch
atti)
31

32. 32

33. PLE Representations
• A Personal Learning Environment can be
represented in a number of different ways:
– Tool oriented e.g. LMS, Web, Social Media
– User action oriented e.g. gather information, store
information, analyze information, create knowledge
– People oriented e.g. untrusted sources, trusted
sources, close associates, business colleagues
• No matter which way it is represented connectivity is
key
http://edtechpost.wikispaces.com/PLE+Diagrams#
33

34. Learning Theories Still Important
• Learning theories are “conceptual frameworks that
describe how information is absorbed, processed,
and retained during learning” so Connectivism
[arguably] is not a learning theory.
• Practically important because we still need to know
how to go about teaching / designing learning
activities that will lead to students achieving the
intended learning outcomes.
• Equally there is something to what Siemens says.
34

35. Achieving an LMS / PLE Rapprochement
• We asked two questions at the start of
this presentation.
– Do we need a new pedagogical
approach?
• We need to re-think what we are doing.
– Will the LMS suffice for technology
enabled learning?
• Not fully if we want to prepare learners
to take their place in the world.
35

36. References
• Ang, S., Chia, Y. B., Chan, I., Leung, K., Li, K., & Ku,
K. M. (2012). The Survey on Mobile Library Services
in Hong Kong and Singapore Academic Libraries (pp.
1–53). Hong Kong, China. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/152520
• Campbell, G. (2009b). Engagement Streams As
Course Portals. Retrieved September 19, 2012, from
http://www.gardnercampbell.net/blog1/?p=746
36

37. References
• Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner
Experience (CLEX). (2009). Higher Education in a
Web 2.0 World. (570), 1-52. Retrieved from
http://clex.org.uk/CLEX_Report_v1-final.pdf
• Campbell, G. (2009). A Personal Cyber
Infrastructure. Educause Review, 44(5), 58–59.
Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/personal-
cyberinfrastructure
37

38. References
• Educause Learning Initiative (ELI). (2009). Seven
Things You Should Know About Personal Learning
Environments. Educause Learning Initiative.
Retrieved September 19, 2012, from
http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/7-things-
you-should-know-about-personal-learning-
environments
38

39. References
• King, A. (1993). From Sage on the Stage to Guide on
the Side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27558571
• Kuh, G.D. (2001). Assessing What Really Matters to
Student Learning: Inside the National Survey of
Student Engagement. Change 33(3), 10-17, 66.

40. References
• White, D., Connaway, L. S., Lanclos, D., Le Cornu,
A., & Hood, R. (2012). Digital Visitors and Residents
Progress Report (pp. 1–40). Retrieved from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/projects/visito
rsandresidentsinterim report.pdf
• McWilliam, E. (2008). Unlearning How To Teach.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
45(3), 263–269. doi:10.1080/14703290802176147
40

41. References
• Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning
Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802paper
s/mergel/brenda.htm
• Mott, J. (2010). Envisioning the Post-LMS Era : The
Open Learning Network. Educause Quarterly, 33(1),
1–8. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/envisioning-post-
lms-era-open-learning-network
41

42. References
• The Nielsen Company. (2011). Hong Kong Digital
Behaviour Insights Report. Hong Kong. Retrieved
from
http://hk.nielsen.com/documents/HKDigitalBehaviorIn
sightsReport-FINAL.pdf
42

43. References
• Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating
the Net Generation. (D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger,
Eds.)Educating the Net Generation (p. 264). Boulder,
CO: Educause. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/5989
• Oliver, M. (2006). New Pedagogies for E-Learning.
Alt-J Research in Learning Technology, 14(2), 133–
134. Retrieved from
http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.ph
p/rlt/issue/view/914

44. References
• Siemens, George. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning
Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
• Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing Knowledge. Retrieved
from
http://www.elearnspace.org/KnowingKnowledge_Low
Res.pdf

45. References
• Siemens, S. (2004). Learning Management
Systems : The Wrong Place to Start Learning.
elearningspace. Retrieved September 17, 2012, from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/lms.htm
• Trowler, V. (2010). Student Engagement Literature
Review (pp. 1–74). York, United Kingdom. Retrieved
from
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/stud
entengagement/StudentEngagementLiteratureRevie
w.pdf

46. Contact
• Email: idoherty@hku.hk
• Web: http://www.iaindoherty.com
• Linkedin: http://hk.linkedin.com/in/iaindoherty
• SlideShare: http://www.slideshare.net/iaindoherty
46