Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
The Learning Management System: Adapt or Disappear
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

The Learning Management System: Adapt or Disappear


Published on

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 …

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 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. The Learning Management System: Adapt or Disappear Dr. Iain DohertyDirector eLearning Pedagogical Support UnitCentre 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 adisposition to share and participate. It has also led themto impatience – a preference for quick answers – and to a casual approach to evaluating information andattributing 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 whove gone before - i.e. content management capabilities accessible and managed by the learner. Tools like Furl, 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 spacesand 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 ofcontinually 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 newresources (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 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 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• Campbell, G. (2009b). Engagement Streams As Course Portals. Retrieved September 19, 2012, from 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• Campbell, G. (2009). A Personal Cyber Infrastructure. Educause Review, 44(5), 58–59. Retrieved from 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 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• 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 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 s/mergel/brenda.htm• Mott, J. (2010). Envisioning the Post-LMS Era : The Open Learning Network. Educause Quarterly, 33(1), 1–8. Retrieved from lms-era-open-learning-network 41
  • 42. References• The Nielsen Company. (2011). Hong Kong Digital Behaviour Insights Report. Hong Kong. Retrieved from 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• Oliver, M. (2006). New Pedagogies for E-Learning. Alt-J Research in Learning Technology, 14(2), 133– 134. Retrieved from p/rlt/issue/view/914
  • 44. References• Siemens, George. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from• Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing Knowledge. Retrieved from Res.pdf
  • 45. References• Siemens, S. (2004). Learning Management Systems : The Wrong Place to Start Learning. elearningspace. Retrieved September 17, 2012, from• Trowler, V. (2010). Student Engagement Literature Review (pp. 1–74). York, United Kingdom. Retrieved from entengagement/StudentEngagementLiteratureRevie w.pdf
  • 46. Contact• Email:• Web:• Linkedin:• SlideShare: 46