The document discusses challenges with eLearning implementation in universities and proposes connectivism as a framework to address these challenges. It summarizes that eLearning has largely been unsuccessful due to a lack of change in teaching practices. The HKU eLearning strategy aims to enhance learning but will not succeed without reconceiving teaching approaches. Connectivism provides a model of learning as an ongoing process of exploration and connection that could help change teaching in line with how knowledge is acquired today. While the LMS has limitations, it could potentially support connectivism if used creatively to connect learners to external resources and allow knowledge production and sharing.

1. Hong Kong Knowledge Management
Society
Dr. Iain Doherty
Associate Professor
eLearning Pedagogical Support Unit,
Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching & Learning,
The University of Hong Kong
16th November 2012

2. Overview
• eLearning has for the most part been unsuccessful in
Universities.
• HKU has a recently implemented eLearning strategy
which needs to be successful.
• Without a fundamental change in teaching practices
the strategy will not be successful
• Connectivism might provide the foundations for the
necessary change.
• Knowledge Management and Connectivism
2

3. Lack of Success with eLearning
• The history of eLearning within Universities is one of
failure.
– The predominant use of the LMS is to store files and to
post news announcements to students.
• We know this from three large research studies
(Beer, Jones, & Clark, 2009; Malikowski, 2011;
Browne, Jenkins, & Walker, 2006)
• I would submit that the key reason for the failure is
the fact that teachers have not changed the way that
they teach (Zemsky & Massy, 2004).
3

4. eLearning Strategy
• “The aim of [the] eLearning strategy is to enhance
student learning through effective use of
technologies. It emphasizes the centrality of learning
and the use of technologies as a tool to enrich the
quality of learning and open up new opportunities for
learning”.
• In the HKU strategic document “eLearning focuses
on the use of all types of technologies to enhance
teaching and learning in conjunction with face-to-face
learning”.
4

5. eLearning Strategy Level 1
• “Teaching and learning is assisted by technology for
efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Students are
provided with on-line access to:
– Information regarding their programmes of study,
including administrative procedures relating to course
enrolment, assessments, degree audit, student
evaluation of teaching and learning (SETL); and
– resources for learning, including all course outlines and
digital materials, course learning outcomes and
assessments”.
5

6. eLearning Strategy Level 2
• “Teaching and learning is enriched by technology
through enhancing opportunities for active learning
within and beyond the classroom, provision of links to
digital library resources, provision of just-in-time
formative and summative feedback and assessment
for learning, fostering teaching-research nexus,
establishing a closer link with schools, community
partners and employers”.
6

7. eLearning Strategy Level 3
• “Innovative pedagogy, curriculum design and
assessment are brought to new heights by
technology, including, but not restricted to,
internationalization of the curriculum, collaborative
teaching and learning within HKU courses and with
overseas universities, integration of campus-based
and experiential learning, involvement of employers
and community partners in the learning processes”.
7

8. Where are We Now?
• Looking at the LMS usage statistics we see the
predominant use of file upload (around 80% of users)
with a minority of users making use of the discussion
forum (about 25%) and a very small minority making
use of other Moodle functions such as the database
activity, lesson activity and book activity.
• There is nothing surprising in this sort of usage as it
mirrors usage found in the longitudinal studies.
• We would like things to be different 
8

9. Changing Teaching
• Remember that the HKU strategy emphasizes the
centrality of learning.
• I interpret this to mean that we should be looking at
teaching practices and then looking at how
technologies can assist teaching.
• The trouble is that looking at teaching practices
actually means having teachers fundamentally rethink about how they teach.
• Teachers have to reconceive their approaches.
9

10. Changing Teaching
• The traditional lecture format still predominates i.e.
knowledge transmission.
• These are supplemented by tutorials / seminars i.e.
discussion.
• If teaching continues to take this form then HK will
find itself in the same position as many other
universities.
• That is, the LMS will be used to transmit knowledge
(the majority) and to have discussions (minority).
10

11. Connectivism

12. The Three Theories Predominate
• Behaviorism leading to drill and practice.
• Cognitivism leading to reflection on information
storage and retrieval.
• Constructivism leading to the social negotiation of
knowledge in order to build perspectives.
• These theories are tried and tested but there is a
question whether they are sufficient for the current
age.
12

13. 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).
•Are we teaching in a way that aligns with the nature of
knowledge acquisition in contemporary society?

14. 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).
14

15. Connectivism
“. . . Internet technologies can be used to make course
content more cognitively accessible to individual
learners by allowing them to interact with diverse,
dynamic, associative and ready-to-hand knowledge
networks” (Coates et al, 2005).
•What do we mean by a knowledge network?

16. 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).

17. 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)
17

18. Connectivism
• The starting point of connectivism is the individual.
Personal knowledge is comprised of a network, which
feeds into organizations and institutions, which in turn
feed back into the network, and then continue to
provide learning to individual. This cycle of
knowledge development (personal to network to
organization) allows learners to remain current in
their field through the connections they have formed
(Siemens, 2005).
18

19. Does the LMS Suffice?
• We can say for the sake of argument that there is
something in Connectivism.
• The question then becomes whether the LMS is the
sort of tool that can instantiate a connectivism
pedagogy.
• Siemens would probably argue that it cannot
(Siemens, 2004) but it seems that the LMS can
support a Connectivist pedagogy if it is used
creatively.
19

20. Connectivism
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FaceBook
Bebo
Blogs
LinkedIn
Yammer
YouTube
iTunes U
Skype
Messenger
20

21. Does the LMS Suffice?
• There are two issues with Connectivism and the
LMS:
– The first issue has to do with the extent that learners
are “connected” as consumers to other nodes within an
LMS.
– The second issue has to do with the extent to which
learners can create personalized representations of
their knowledge as producers of knowledge.
• This is where creativity with the LMS comes in to
play.
21

22. Does the LMS Suffice?
• The LMS is obviously a secure environment and to
that extent connectivity is limited but it is there e.g.
the capacity to connect registered students to one
another.
• Beyond this fact, it is a relatively easy task to create
learning activities that connect learners with other
external nodes through using supplementary
services.
22

23. Does the LMS Suffice?
• There is also limited capacity for students to create
personalized representations of their knowledge e.g.
enabling the portfolio function so that students can
export their activities to e.g. GoogleDocs.
• However, again, it is also a relatively easy task to
create learning activities that require learners to
produce information that is distributed to accessed by
external nodes other nodes e.g. a portfolio in
WordPress.
23

24. Does the LMS Suffice?
• This has been a very low level look at the LMS and
Connectivism.
• A lot more thinking is required but the question of the
place of Connectivism in higher education does seem
to be an important one.
• We know the reasons why LMS implementations do
not lead to the sorts of usage that we would like to
see.
• We need to address this through supporting teachers
in their teaching.
24

25. Knowledge Management
• Knowledge management (KM) comprises a range of
strategies and practices used in an organization to
identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable
adoption of insights and experiences. Such insights
and experiences comprise knowledge, either
embodied in individuals or embedded in
organizations as processes or practices.
– (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_management)
25

26. Knowledge Management
• Pushing a Connectivist agenda might achieve at
least two things:
– First, this learning theory would create possibilities for
making better use of technologies in teaching and
learning by having students “identify, create, represent,
distribute, and enable adoption of insights and
experiences”.
– Second, we would be growing students better
prepared to take their place in the world / fit into a
knowledge society.
26

27. Conclusions
• Universities are large and complex organizations with
multiple drivers.
• Bringing about change is difficult particularly in
teaching and learning.
• Much more thought would have to be given to
Constructivism.
• Improved quality of teaching and learning would need
to be show.
27

28. References
• 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/pr
ocs/beer.pdf
28

29. 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. doi:10.1080/10494820600852795
• Malikowski, S. R. (2011). A Three Year Analysis of
CMS Use in Resident University Courses. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 39(1), 65–85.
doi:10.2190/ET.39.1.f
29

30. 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
30

31. 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/thwartedinnovation-what-happened-e-learning-and-why
31

32. Contact
•
•
•
•
Email: idoherty@hku.hk
Web: http://www.iaindoherty.com
Linkedin: http://hk.linkedin.com/in/iaindoherty
SlideShare: http://www.slideshare.net/iaindoherty
32