This is a presentation that I gave to the Hong Kong Vocational Training Council Learning and Teaching Steering Committee. I was asked to present on the Learning Management System, Education 3.0 and future directions in eLearning. I tied it all together by presenting Education 3.0 as the driver to change the past (LMS) into the future (open, mobile learning supported by learning analytics).

1. Education 3.0: From Here to There
Dr. Iain Doherty
Director, eLearning Pedagogical Support Unit
Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and
Learning
The University of Hong Kong
March 2013

2. eLearning Pedagogical Support Unit
http://www.epsu.cetl.hku.hk
2

3. Introduction
• eLearning at The
University of Hong Kong
• The LMS and eLearning
Pedagogies.
• Education 3.0.
• What’s Around the
Corner with eLearning?
3

4. The LMS and eLearning Pedagogies
4

5. HKU eLearning Strategy
• HKU has an eLearning strategy endorsed by Senate.
• It’s a long document  but in essence  it says this:
“The aim of an eLearning strategy is to enhance
students' learning experiences through the creative,
appropriate and effective use of technologies”.
http://epsu.cetl.hku.hk/epsu/
5

6. HKU eLearning Strategy
• The strategy talks about 3 different levels of
eLearning activity
1. Teaching and learning is assisted by technology for
efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
2. Teaching and learning is enriched by technology to
enhance teaching and learning.
3. Teaching and learning are taken to new heights
through the use of technologies.
6

7. HKU eLearning Strategy
• The strategy does not restrict faculties to using
Moodle as the LMS.
• Nor does the strategy place any restrictions on the
sorts of technologies that can be used in teaching
and learning.
• Fair to say that at an institutional level it is the LMS
that is predominantly used to support teaching and
learning.
• This will continue to be the case for quite some time.
7

8. Information Transmission
• LMS has in the main been used for information
transmission (Beer, Jones, & Clark, 2009;
Malikowski, S.R., 2011; Browne, Jenkins, & Walker,
2006).
• There are lots of reasons why this has been the
predominant use of the LMS and these reasons need
to be addressed.
• However, we can say quite clearly that it is not the
LMS that is at fault.
• The LMS can support rich interactions . . .
8

9. LMS Issues
• So where do the issues lie with the [mis] use of the
LMS?
• This is a big question but at a strategic and
operational level we are concerned with change and
change management = complex!
• What factors militate against change and what factors
support change?
• In this presentation I am going to look at just one
aspect of change – changing teaching practices.
9

10. Changing the Way that Teachers Think
“Even when they use e-learning products and devices,
most faculty still teach as they were taught—that is,
they stand in the front of a classroom providing lectures
intended to supply the basic knowledge the students
need. Hence, we see the success of course
management systems and PowerPoint— software
packages that focus on the distribution of materials
rather than on teaching itself . . . E-learning will become
pervasive only when faculty change how they teach—
not before”. (Zemsky & Massy, 2004)
10

11. Effecting Change in Teaching
• The strategy has to focus on teaching and learning
first and technologies second.
– Operations have to be grounded in the same
understanding of being learning led and technology
enabled.
– This means that the Unit responsible for operations
must understand teaching and learning and that
technologies must take second place to good teaching
and learning practices.
11

12. Teaching First, Technologies Second
Teaching Intended Assessment
and Learning Learning Tasks
Activities Outcomes
12

13. Teaching First, Technologies Second
Teaching Intended Assessment
and Learning Learning Tasks
Activities Outcomes
Technologies
13

14. Teaching First, Technologies Second
• Working with teachers necessarily entails looking at:
– A philosophy of teaching i.e. how do we think people
learn?
– A pedagogical approach e.g. problem based learning,
collaborative learning etc.
– A strategy for making use of the technologies e.g.
judicious use of the discussion forum.
– Tactics to make it work e.g. support, guidance,
encouragement.
• Good instructional designers are invaluable.
14

15. Teaching
• If we can get teachers thinking about their teaching
then effective use of technologies can follow.
• Change is happening:
– Sage on the Stage (King, 1993)
– Guide on the Side (King, 1993)
– Meddler in the Middle (McWilliam, 2008)
• Think of the flipped classroom for an instantiation of
these changes.
15

16. Technological Support / Training
Technical training without pedagogy may not be the way
to go . . .
http://moodle-support.hku.hk/cms/
16

17. Pedagogical Support / Training
Workshops with a pedagogical focus will likely be more
effective in getting teaches to change their teaching.
http://www.epsu.cetl.hku.hk
17

18. Pedagogical Support / Training
• From an operational point of view professional
development can be offered:
1. Across the University as a whole
2. Across an entire Faculty
3. At a departmental level
4. At a program level
5. To individuals in their offices
• Each level is important for different reasons and each
has advantages and disadvantages.
18

19. Education 3.0
19

20. Education 3.0
• In the previous section we talked about the need for
teachers to change how they teach if technologies
are going to be used appropriately for teaching and
learning.
• This means a driver around teaching change . . .
• Education 3.0 might be considered as the concept to
drive changes in teaching i.e. the required sense of
urgency identified by Kotter (1995) as essential to
achieving successful change.
20

21. Education 3.0
• Education 3.0 (Keats & Schmidt, 2007) is a term that
has multiple meanings:
– Broadly speaking the term refers to the nature of a
transformed education system suitable for 21st century
learners.
– Transformation takes into account both discipline
knowledge and skills and more general attributes that
learners will need.
– The transformation also takes the ubiquitous nature of
technologies into account.
21

22. Education 3.0
• Not sure that there is anything new in the concept of
Education 3.0 as the key ideas have been expressed
in other contexts (The National Leadership Council
for Liberal Education and America’s Promise, 2007).
• Perhaps Web 3.0 is a useful way to capture some
key ideas to embody a perspective on what 21st
century education might look like.
• HKU / other institutions are certainly changing with 4
year curriculum, OBL, Experiential Learning and
eLearning strategy.
22

23. Education 3.0
• Whilst there have been major educational changes
i.e. changes in what is taught and how it is taught
there is a question whether these changes will be
sufficient in the longer term to deliver a relevant
education.
• Are institutes of higher education moving at a pace
that will allow them to keep up with the nature of
“knowledge” in the 21st Century (Siemens, 2005).
• We can explore this through looking at what’s around
the corner with eLearning.
23

24. Future Directions in eLearning
24

25. Openness, Mobility, Analytics
• We might point to three trends in education that are
currently significant:
– Open content refers to the availability of courses and
other educational resources available to anyone who
wants to make use of them (Seely Brown & Adler,
2008).
– Mobile learning so that learning can happen anytime,
anywhere.
– Analytics to monitor and support students during the
learning process.
25

26. Openness, Mobility, Analytics
• We are talking about more than technologies here.
• In the bigger scheme of things knowledge is being
produced, distributed and consumed in different
ways.
• Together, openness, mobility and analytics could re-
define what it means to get an education.
• Institutes of higher education – some at least – may
find themselves competing with alternative providers
valued by employers.
26

27. MOOCs
27

28. MOOCs
• It is unclear what impact Massively Open Online
Courses (MOOCs) will have on the educational
landscape.
• Whatever the reality turns out to be, Clay Shirky may
be right that there has been a fundamental paradigm
shift in our understanding of how education can be
delivered.
• Think Napster and then transpose to the educational
system.
28

29. iTunes U Application

30. iTunes U
30

31. iTunes U
31

32. iTunes U Application
“The free iTunes U app gives students access to all the
materials for a course in a single place. Right in the
app, students can: play video or audio lectures, read
books and view presentations, see a list of all the
assignments for the course and check them off as
they’re completed. When teachers send a message or
create a new assignment, students receive a push
notification with the new information”.
•http://www.apple.com/education/itunes-u/
32

33. YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/harvardupress?ob=0&feature=results_main
33

34. YouTube Edu
http://www.youtube.com/education
34

35. YouTube Edu
• Create a YouTube Channel.
• Become a YouTube Channel partner.
• Self-identify in the partner application process as an
educational institution.
• Content is then automatically considered for inclusion
in YouTube Edu.
• Is this more than lecturing online?
• What are the drivers here – open source content /
marketing?
35

36. Agile Devices and Applications
36

37. Agile Devices and Applications
• “I am using the term ‘agile’ here to signal a new
technology space in between handheld and portable.
Devices which fit this space are particularly useful for
teaching and learning purposes, as they offer the
flexibility needed for modern learning practices. It has
taken the iPad to really cement this space although
there will be countless others arriving in the market
fairly soon. Whether or not they will offer the right
blend of features successfully of course remains to
be seen” (Wilson, 2012).
37

38. Agile Devices and Applications
• There is a lot of hype and a lot of subjectivity in
claims made about the value of the iPad in
education.
• Only a limited number of the 200, 000 + applications
are specifically educational.
• Whether there is actual educational benefit still has
to be shown through scholarly research.

39. Agile Devices and Applications
“Our study suggests that there is a paucity of applications
that truly extend capability, much of what these application
allow can be done with other devices, and this leads us to
conclude that the current trajectory will not revolutionize
teaching and learning. The lack of collaboration capabilities
underlie this point, as do the overwhelming number of
application that are simply drill and practice or focused on
delivering content for consumption, not creation or re-use”
(Murray and Olcese, 2011).

40. Pocket Body by Pocket Anatomy
40

41. Pocket Body by Pocket Anatomy
41

42. Pocket Body by Pocket Anatomy
• University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine
2010 medical students given an iPad.
• New iMedEd Initiative at UCIrvine to develop a fully
digital curriculum.
• Trying to blend technology into an innovative and
interactive learning environment to facilitate a move
away from traditional lecturing model.
42

43. Pocket Body by Pocket Anatomy
• Loading relevant software to facilitate the learning of
anatomy.
• Enabling students to share documents with
themselves, other students and faculty from inside
the lab.
• Internet enabled so that students can access external
resources and update installed apps.
43

44. Learning Analytics
44

45. Learning Analytics
• E2Coach is built on the Michigan Tailoring System
(MTS), an open-source software system built to
enable tailored communication.
45

46. Learning Analytics
• E2Coach draws data from many different sources.
Primarily, they survey the students at the beginning
of the course to find out important academic
information, goals for this course, and psycho-social
factors.
• Additionally, real-time data is fed into E2Coach as the
semester progresses. This includes exam scores,
Mastering Physics scores, iclicker scores, and
enrollment data.
• http://sitemaker.umich.edu/ecoach/home
• 46

47. Learning Analytics
• When they combine this knowledge with detailed
information about students, including their current
status in courses, MTS enables them to deliver
individually personalized content to every student – to
say to each what they would say if they could sit
down with them for a personal chat.
• http://sitemaker.umich.edu/ecoach/home
47

48. Learning Analytics
• Content of the messages is based the collective
expertise of students, instructors, and behavior
change experts.
• They have extensively reviewed literature from the
Physics Education community, on Behavioral
Change theory, and the Tailoring community.
• http://sitemaker.umich.edu/ecoach/home
48

49. • Beer, C., Jones, D., & Clark, K. (2009). The
Indicators Project Identifying Effective Learning :
Adoption , Activity , Grades and External Factors.
Same places, Different Spaces. Proceedings ascilite
Auckland 2009 (pp. 60–70). Auckland, New Zealand:
ascilite. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/
49

50. References
• Browne, T., Jenkins, M., & Walker, R. (2006). A
Longitudinal Perspective Regarding the Use of VLEs
by Higher Education Institutions in the United
Kingdom. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(2),
177–192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820600852795
• Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning
Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
50

51. 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
• Keats, D., & Schmidt, J. P. (2007). The Genesis and
Emergence of Education 3.0 in Higher Education and
Its Potential for Africa. First Monday, 12(3), 2007.
Retrieved from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/
fm/article/view/1625/1540
51

52. References
• Kotter, J. P. (1995). Why Transformation Efforts Fail.
Harvard Business Review, March/April(61), 59–67.
Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2007/01/leading-
change/ar/1
• Malikowski, S. R. (2011). A Three Year Analysis of
CMS Use in Resident University Courses. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 39(1), 65–85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/ET.39.1.f
52

53. References
• McWilliam, E. (2008). Unlearning How To Teach.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
45(3), 263–269.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703290802176147
• Murray, O. T., & Olcese, N. R. (2011). Teaching and
Learning with iPads, Ready or Not? TechTrends,
55(6), 42–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-011-
0540-6
53

54. References
• The National Leadership Council for Liberal
Education and America’s Promise. (2007). College
Learning For the New Global Century. A Report from
the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education
and America’s Promise. Washington DC: Association
of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved
from
http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_f
inal.pdf
54

55. References
• Seely Brown, J., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on Fire:
Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0.
Educause Review, 43(1), 17–32. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/minds-fire-open-
education-long-tail-and-learning-20
55

56. References
• Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted
Innovation - What Happened to e-learning and Why?
A Final Report for The Weatherstation Project of The
Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania in
cooperation with the Thomson Corporation. (pp. 1–
76). Pennsylvania: The University of Pennsylvania.
Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/thwarted-
innovation-what-happened-e-learning-and-why
56