This is my keynote presentation for the inaugural Moodle Moot in Hong Kong. I argue that we need to re-think the role of the teacher and to put in place a teaching model that centres on the connect learning developing a personal network. I then argue that Moodle can support this approach to teaching.

1. Leveraging Moodle for Engaging
Learning
Dr. Iain Doherty
Associate Professor
Director eLearning Pedagogical Support Unit
Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and
Learning
21st September 2012

2. Not Martin Dougiamas
• Three ways you know that I am not Martin
The Hair Moodle
The Looks

3. Overview
• The pitch for today.
• Thinking about a learning theory.
• Questioning the relevance of the LMS.
• Showing why Moodle is the right tool for the job.
• Concluding comments.

4. An Story About a 15 Year Old Girl

5. Moodle Is Not Rubbish
• Clearly enough Moodle is not rubbish.
• Nor is it the case that the teachers are rubbish.
• Responsibility lies with . . . ?
• The simple fact is that Moodle must be used
appropriately in teaching and learning.
• The BIG question is what does “appropriately” mean?

6. A Problem: Text Transmission
• “While it is ideal if not essential that [the] LMS
encourage effective pedagogical practices beyond
the mere transmission of text, this may indeed be the
dominant current use of online learning resources
(Coates et al, 2005, Mot, 2010).

7. Student Management
• Mot writes that,
“ . . . usage patterns suggest
that the LMS is primarily a
tool set for administrative
efficiency rather than a
platform for substantive
teaching and learning
activities” (Mot, 2010).
7

8. Today’s Pitch
• We can think about:
– Pushing learning theory well beyond the established
learning theories;
– Changing the role of the teacher to meet the needs of
today‟s learners; and
– Maximizing learner engagement through designing
engaging learning environments.
• And Moodle is still the right tool for the job.

9. The Fifteen Year Old Girl Again
• As a learner (Oblinger, 2005) the fifteen year old is:
– Always connected to something or someone;
– Accessing multiple sources of information;
– Learning socially with her friends;
– Adept with multiple technologies;
– Highly creative and inventive;
– Fascinated by certain things; and
– Intermittently engaged with learning.

10. Similarities and Differences
• Oliver (2006) argues that teaching using technologies
is both the same as and different as traditional
teaching:
– At a strategic level it is the same (curriculum planning,
course planning, lesson planning)
– At an intermediate level it is somewhat different
(checking forums, receiving online assignments)
– At a fine grained level it is completely different (typing
replaces conversations, logs replace sensitive
observation)

11. Similarities and Differences
“The challenge, then, is not to establish new
pedagogies for e-learning in the simple sense of
coming up with new things to do with learners. Instead,
this more complicated picture requires a more
conservative approach: finding out what teachers do
and why, and then working out how technology can
best be used to support that” (Oliver, 2006).

12. Similarities and Differences
“This is not to deny the importance of developing
innovative teaching techniques . . . However, it is to call
into question its relevance to the vast majority of
teachers . . .” (Oliver, 2006).

13. The Future
• Consider this visual representation of the future of
educational technologies. Is Oliver correct?

14. Learning Theories
• Education has operated for decades 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).
• We need a change because the world has changed!

15. A New Learning Theory
“. . . 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
Node
Node Personal
Learning
Network
Node
Node

17. 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?

18. 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).
18

19. 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).

20. 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)
20

21. Connectivism
• FaceBook
• Bebo
• Blogs
• LinkedIn
• Yammer
• YouTube
• iTunes U
• Skype
• Messenger
21

22. Remember the Fifteen Year Old Girl
• We can look at our students
and say that they are
“learning” when they
connect to multiple sources
of information in order to
complete learning activities.
• But . . .
22

23. There Is An Issue
• Learning theories are “conceptual frameworks that
describe how information is absorbed, processed,
and retained during learning” so Connectivism is not
a learning theory.
• This point is 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.
23

24. Connected Learners
• We need to think in terms
of creating learning
situations in which we have
connected, self-directed
learners following personal
pathways to knowledge.
• Contra Oliver „we‟ need
some significant changes.
• Can Moodle make this
happen?
24

25. LMS: The Wrong Place to Start Learning?
• Siemens says no to the LMS:
“ . . . we are repeating the „instructor/school controls‟
hierarchy online. Linear, one-way, managed knowledge
flow doesn't work well in a information overload society.
Networks do work . . .” (Siemens, 2004).
• This is why the fifteen year old girl thought Moodle
was rubbish = content delivery.
• We can avoid this with relative ease and deliver rich,
engaging and rewarding learning experiences.
25

26. LMS: Not Really The Wrong Place to Start
• If there is an issue then it is this;
the LMS needs to be employed
in the service of student
learning.
• This means thinking
pedagogically in the first
instance and then determining
whether the LMS has the
features and affordances to
meet pedagogical needs.
26

27. LMS: Not Really The Wrong Place to Start
• From a pedagogical perspective we can think in
terms of trying to “empower the strong and effective
imaginations that students need for creative
citizenship in the new medium of the web” (Gardner,
2009)
27

28. The Role of the Teacher Changes
• 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 Constructivism and its variants
• Meddler in the Middle described as a “usefully
ignorant co-worker” (McWilliam 2008)
– Aligns with the central tenants of Connectivism
28

29. The Role of the Teacher in Moodle
• Clearly enough Moodle can support the teacher in
taking on any of these three roles.
• Teacher as guide on side or meddler in the middle:
– Chat
– Forum
– Lesson
– Wiki
– Workshop
– Page
29

30. Personal Learning Network
“What if course portals, typically little more than
gateways to course activities and materials, became
instead course catalysts: open, dynamic
representations of “engagement streams” that
demonstrate and encourage deep learning?”
(Campbell, 2009).
30

31. Personal Learning Activities
• Project based learning
• Experiential learning
• Case based learning
• Problem based learning
• Guided discovery learning
• Student led teaching
• Student presentations
• Interactive teaching sessions
31

32. Personal Learning Activities in Moodle
• Again clearly enough Moodle can be used to deliver
all these types of learning activities:
– External tool
– Forum
– Lesson
– Wiki
– Blog
– Book
– File
32

33. Student Artifacts in Moodle
• A personal pathway to knowledge implies students
navigating their way through a field whilst at the same
time creating artifacts of learning:
– Blog
– Wiki
– Book
– Assignment
33

34. Student Artifacts in Moodle
• Remember the point about creating “open, dynamic
representations of “engagement streams” that
demonstrate and encourage deep learning?”
(Campbell, 2009).
– Book as a portfolio of student work
34

35. 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.)
35

36. 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.
36

37. Features and Affordances of Moodle
– 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.
37

38. What About Engagement?
• The literature on student
engagement is immense
(Trowler, 2010).
• However, on one definition,
“Student engagement refers to
the intellectual, emotional and
practical interactions students
have with educationally
purposeful activities and
conditions” (Coates, 2005).

39. Students are Engaged
• Cognitive
– Interested, involved, stimulated, active, exceeding,
inquiring.
• Emotional
– Excited, exuberant, enjoying, confident, motivated,
happy.
• Behavioural
– Present, participating, organizing, supporting, leading,
exceeding.
39

40. The Fifteen Year Old Girl Has an Epiphany
40

41. Closing Comments
• We do need to re-think the learning theories that we
are using;
• We do need to re-think the role of the teacher in the
teaching situation;
• Despite the LMS nay sayers, Moodle is the right tool
for the job.
41

42. References
• Campbell, G. (2009b). Engagement Streams As
Course Portals. Retrieved September 19, 2012, from
http://www.gardnercampbell.net/blog1/?p=746
42

43. 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
43

44. 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
44

45. 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.
• McWilliam, E. (2008). Unlearning How To Teach.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
45(3), 263–269. doi:10.1080/14703290802176147

46. 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
46

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. Contact
• Email: idoherty@hku.hk
• Web: http://www.iaindoherty.com
• Linkedin: http://hk.linkedin.com/in/iaindoherty
• SlideShare: http://www.slideshare.net/iaindoherty
50