What LMS should offer

What should an LMS offer?

By deciding to invest in a Learning Management System (LMS) educational institutions are expecting to see an impact on teaching and learning; they require that it generates a reasonable return for the money spent; that it is easy to use; and that it will provide data that leads to improved learning outcomes (Leaman, 2015, p. 1). Stipulations need to allocate uniform consideration to five necessary aspects: “interoperability, personalisation, analytics, collaboration and accessibility” (Straumsheim, 2015).

Often the reality of the system implemented falls short of the expectations and inherent limitations are often hidden. (Leaman, 2015, p. 2). This occurs because LMS are often set up to treat learning as a series of isolated incidents rather than a continuous process which builds on skills incrementally as the course progresses, and the nature of the learning delivery may be generic rather than personalised  (Leaman, 2015, p. 3).  Instructors may not use many functions of the system, and students do not engage as anticipated which compounds the issues as tangible learning is difficult to ascertain (Leaman, 2015, p. 4).

Viewing LMS in terms of learning enhancement needs to be undertaken with the understanding that an ecosystem of effective learning cannot be provided solely by the LMS, and educational institutions need to use such systems within their limitations (Leaman, 2015, p. 6). New iterations of LMS must focus on creating an environment where the parts fit together similarly to a child’s building blocks (Straumsheim, 2015). Whatever the components: assessment modules, or analytics, or others, support must be aimed at competency-based education (Straumsheim, 2015). If there are weaknesses, educators need to augment them by incorporating other tools and build onto what their LMS can achieve rather than replacing it with a different system (Leaman, 2015, p. 6). It is relatively common for faculty personnel to approach their LMS with caution, in a manner similar to someone involved in a “love-hate relationship” (Straumsheim, 2015).

Schools and universities should be prepared to use systems that enable users to move freely between public and private (or open and closed) spaces, and acquiring evidence of collaborations from anywhere online should be made possible (Straumsheim, 2015). New versions of LMS should be centred on the requirements and preferences of the students, whose learning they are intended to support (Straumsheim, 2015).


Leaman, C. (2015, August 20). What If Your Learning Management System Isn’t Enough? Retrieved from eLearning Industry: http://elearningindustry.com/learning-management-system-isnt-enough

Straumsheim, C. (2015, May 11). Brick by Brick. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/11/educause-releases-blueprint-next-generation-learning-management-systems




Why Use LMS?

18 Instructional Tasks for Which Instructors Might use an LMS Tool

Schoonenboom published a list of tasks for which instructors might use a Learning Management System (LMS) (Schoonenboom, 2014, p. 248).  This will provide that starting point for a case study on the use of the SIMON LMS tool http://www.simonschools.net/about-simon.html in one school in regional Victoria.

  1. Meeting – defined as a session run through video conferencing software which may be part of the same proprietary suite or through a different medium e.g. Skype for Business or Adobe Connect (such as our Colloquiums.
  2. Guest speaker – see above.
  3. Probing – using a digital tool such as TodaysMeet  or SMS-poll  or Poll Everywhere
  4. Student questions
  5. Office – fixed “open” hours for chat or discussion through mechanisms such as Skype
  6. Reference lists, or reading lists or information sources
  7. Self-testing using assessment software
  8. Exam – administer testing through digital software either in a controlled lab space or classroom or online
  9. Instructor feedback – e.g. through comments and or reporting
  10. Portfolio – examine and comment on students acquired learning through their presentation of evidence in a digital portfolio system or tool e.g. through SharePoint or Class OneNote
  11. Student discussion – e.g. discussion forum
  12. Collaborative writing – e.g. through Class OneNote, wiki, blog, Google Docs
  13. Peer feedback – e.g. through Turnitin
  14. Blog – e.g. Blogger, WordPress
  15. PowerPoint – or other means of producing teacher based material e.g. Teacher notebook with Class OneNote
  16. YouTube – link to videos on YouTube that might support in class learning programs
  17. Web Lecture – record lessons and make available online (using Office Mix record audio to go with slide presentation)
  18. Instruction – as above or other digital artefacts created specifically for the subject by the teacher


In constructing a survey, it will be important to raise potential uses as well and investigate uses that are more obvious. There is a pressing need to elicit responses which will evaluate usefulness, ease of use and the LMS intention underpinning pedagogical development and methodology (Schoonenboom, 2014, p. 249)


Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Computers & Education, pp. 247 – 256.


Invisible but Vital


This is Our Challenge:

It is the human capacity of libraries that is critical: staff who are knowledge intermediaries, teacher-librarians, and information and data scientists. Such people work at the junction between development, information science and governance (Gregson, Brownlee, Playforth, & Bimbe, 2015, p. 6).

In today’s paradigm, libraries are responsible for the provision of the invisible infrastructure which enables access to information and inform research (Gregson, Brownlee, Playforth, & Bimbe, 2015, p. 22).

This is the challenge we face for Information Services at  my workplace and it’s probably common to others. We have been working through a period of transition for some time, and with the addition of 1:1 devices from 6 – 12 in 2016 this will accelerate.

fig 2.1

(Gregson, Brownlee, Playforth, & Bimbe, 2015, p.22)

This situation requires a change of focus, from the resources and their appropriate care and display, to the people so that what we provide suits individual needs, is accessible anytime and anywhere, and enables publishing as well as reading. We have been slowly working on this aspect as well.

table 2.2



Gregson, J., Brownlee, J. M., Playforth, R., & Bimbe, N. (2015). Evidence Report No. 125: Policy Anticipation, Response and Evaluation: The Future of Knowledge Sharing in a Digital Age: Exploring Impacts and Policy Implications for Development. London: Institute of Development Studies.



Assignment 2

Digital scholarship in education, in the context of interdisciplinary knowledge and research.

Across millennia, scholarship’s enduring, traditional form has focused on individuals acquiring knowledge from books and lecturers, within single disciplines inside the walls of monolithic institutions which monopolise learning to create and maintain power (Buckley, 2012, pp. 333-334) .  Defining scholarship as acquiring scholastic knowledge within learning institutions (The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary, 1996, p. 969) is, however, currently being challenged. Modern academia is undergoing, but inconsistent, transformation due to opportunities provided by web-based communication and behaviour enabled by twenty-first-century digital affordances (Ayers, 2013, pp. 24-28).  Digital scholarship is a term defined as encompassing both scholarly communication and using digital media and research (Libraryowl, 2013), which is increasingly being used to describe this shift, yet it is also a concept with a contested definition requiring deeper investigation (Scanlon, 2011, pp. 177-179).

Understanding digital scholarship, which partially results from economies of information scarcity transforming into profligacies of abundant learning resources, requires examination of the meaning of academia and the measures by which it has traditionally been evaluated (Weller, A pedagogy of abundance, 2011, pp. 85-86). Consideration of its implications, in terms of the future of both higher and school education, should assess whether such changes, are, in fact, desirable, or indeed truly as different as some attest (Baggaley, 2015).

The critical difference between conventional and digital scholarship is connectivism (Veletsianos & Kimmins, 2012, p. 770).  Traditionally, academic knowledge generated by staff employed by a single university has formed the largest percentage of an institution’s market value (Buckley, 2012, pp. 333-334). This ideology has been based on individual research, intra-faculty or, sometimes interfaculty across similar institutions, within a culture of monographic orientation; this model has allowed individual practitioners to add to the conversation around their specialty, while protecting them from departing the norm (Ayers, 2013, p. 28). Connectivists, in contrast, view learning as negotiated, inter-connected, increasingly interdisciplinary, and social; they situate it in complex environments, embracing open values and peer-to-peer networking (Veletsianos & Kimmins, 2012, p. 770).  This dichotomy poses a challenge to faculty members who perceive such an approach as diminishing the hard won traditions of both scholarship and teaching, and also risky. (Ayers, 2013, p. 30).

Despite existing for several decades, it is relatively uncommon that academics and school teachers engage in connectivism; the majority still need to be convinced of the inherent value such practices offer, let alone their inevitability (Scanlon, 2011, p. 177).  There is a philosophical divide between those who have recognised, and are embracing, the potential of technological affordances, and those who are yet to investigate them to any degree (Scanlon, 2011, p. 178).  Those who believe that digital scholarship merely implies copyright free or open access to materials, email interaction, online libraries, employing technology and some online tools, present a diametric contrast to participants in communities of practice: those who have invested in developing or participating in Massively Online Open Courses (MOOCs); learners who collaborate on investigations; and scholars who publish their research in digital format, either individually or together, and invite comment (Ayers, 2013, pp. 27-28).  The former pursue the goal of publishing printed monographs in academic, peer-reviewed journals or theses; the latter consider achieving a doctorate through blogging (Ho, 2015).

Each aspect of digital scholarship at its broadest definition requires examination. Scanlon refers to the seismic shift in patterns of user behaviour, whereby relevant technological and online tools are utilised to lead to new types of collaboration based on openness and interdisciplinarianism (Scanlon, 2011, pp. 178-182).  She identifies the skills of collection, curation, collaboration, creation, and publication as those enabled by digital scholarship, and links the need for such skills to both higher and secondary education (Scanlon, 2011, p. 180). These fit well with the twenty-first century skills now considered so vital for school students that they are embedded in the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, n.d.), and promoted by the International Society for Technology in Education Standards for teaching and learning with technology (International Society for Technology in Education, n.d.).

Scanlon refers to an ecological approach to learning  (Scanlon, 2011, p. 179). Ayers promotes similar concepts: ongoing, ever-growing digital environments which generatively enhance the essential aspects of monographic erudition while simultaneously enabling things that could not have been done in print; networking is a prime example of this (Ayers, 2013, p. 34).

Networked participatory scholarship, an exemplar of generative digital ecology, (Veletsianos & Kimmins, 2012)  operates within communities of practice (Archer, 2006), using technologies of cooperation (Saveri, Rheingold, & Vian, 2005). It emerges from an understanding that digital scholarship is something that goes beyond using information and communication technologies to research, teach and collaborate; it also embraces open values, ideology, the potential of peer to peer networking and so-called “wiki ways of working” (Pearce, Weller, Scanlon, & Ashleigh, 2010).  Such scholarship engages with this emergent scholarly practice of using technologies that specifically favour participation in various forms of social media, not only to share concepts, but also to reflect upon them, invite criticism of them, seek suggestions for improving them, validate their worth, and take scholarship further through publication in media that allows for feedback (Veletsianos & Kimmins, 2012, p. 778). Communities of practice, in this sense, have developed in order to manage and grow knowledge as an asset, enabling knowledge exchange in order to improve understanding (Archer, 2006, p. 67). Archer identifies four classifications of such communities: internal, networked within organisations, formal and self-organising (Archer, 2006, p. 67).

These organisational communities of practice networks differ from personal learning networks in that the former entail a level of company or organisational direction while the latter are established by individuals.  There have been a number of examples of open and social learning opportunities for individuals to more formally develop personal learning networks, and many of these have been offered by universities as MOOCs, such as The University of Melbourne’s Coursera on the French Revolution, a subject entailing a blend of traditional and contemporary styles (McPee, 2015). This is very different to the MOOC offered by Regina University: Education, Curriculum and Instruction, taught by Alec Couros, in that the former is content driven while the latter is focused on process (Couros, 2010).  This further illustrates the problem of defining exactly what digital scholarship entails.

The formality of organisationally directed networks is very different from the informality of personal learning networks, and perhaps would be better labelled as professional learning networks. The former often occur randomly within social media circles: Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus; they grow and shrink as people join or lose interest and they persist because of the efforts of the passionate; they rely on open access to the platforms on which they depend and often lead to participation in MOOCs (Couros, 2010, pp. 111-112).  Couros’ course demonstrated the potential for leveraging education through such courses by its cohort: twenty students registered, but more than two hundred others freely interacted with the material under discussion (Couros, 2010, pp. 109 -110). Digital scholarship, as this example illustrates, enables the collection of information for investment in furthering collective knowledge, involves sharing of appropriate tools for collecting and analysing the information found, and may result in the generation of new creating and authoring tools (Weller, The nature of scholarship, 2011, pp. 42- 43).

Some key issues arise from these new ways of learning: the comparability of digital scholarship with the work of “scholarly primitives”, the comparison of open access and publishing with closed and monographic dissemination; the differing pedagogies or andragogies required to deliver them, and the tensions within academia that these cause (Weller, A pedagogy of abundance, 2011, pp. 41 – 47). The tasks traditionally undertaken by the “primitives”: discovering, annotating, comparing, referring, sampling and representing share some similarities to those of digital scholarship; the biggest difference, however, lies in the greater sense of equality for scholars in the truly digital world (Weller, The nature of scholarship, 2011, p. 42). The integration of the knowledge gained (often referred to as emerging from liberated data), its application to wider circumstances, and the teaching that it enables, are seen as threatening the established understanding  of knowledge capital as something residing in published, peer-reviewed articles with restricted circulation within the tertiary sector (Weller, The nature of scholarship, 2011, pp. 43 – 44).

The emancipation of data facilitates unexpected applications (often created in a similar fashion to crowdsourcing) and allows others to integrate the learning in new ways sometimes using new or repurposed tools (Weller, The nature of scholarship, 2011, p. 44) . Opening access to information and publishing the knowledge that is subsequently generated online is a quick and easy process, far removed from the time lag and cost of traditional dissemination of material, especially when subjected to the peer review process (Weller, The nature of scholarship, 2011, p. 45). Speeding up this process offers advantages to universities who can adjust their information generation methodologies, and facilitates an edge in the higher education market (Buckley, 2012, p. 334). Quicker broadcasting of new ideas and ways of collaborating to achieve them, in turn affects application, and all of these processes impact on teaching (Weller, The nature of scholarship, 2011, pp. 45-47).

Possible andragogies and pedagogies in universities and schools intending to adopt digital scholarly practices have been identified as resource-based learning; project based learning; constructivism; communities of practice; and connectivism (Weller, A pedagogy of abundance, 2011, pp. 88 -89); some institutions have also adopted flipped learning approaches, considered to be innovative (Baggaley, 2015). Educators adopting any one of these teaching styles, or a blended combination of two or more, have demonstrated digital resilience (Weller, Digital resilence, 2011, p. 168). Those who are reluctant or resistant are often suffering from techno-angst, risk-averse mindsets, or scepticism (Weller, Digital resilence, 2011, p. 168).  Reasons for anxiety around innovative concepts and practices may be found in disengagement caused by ubiquitous learning management systems and virtual learning environments, through their implicit restrictions; and the tenure system, whereby some staff have ongoing employment that they wish to keep, while others are contracted and know that effluxion of time will end their role (Weller, Digital resilence, 2011, pp. 170 – 171). Pressure to achieve publication in the classic form of peer-reviewed journals or theses may be another factor (Weller, Digital resilence, 2011, pp. 170 – 171).

Issues such as these may be resolved by disassociating government funding from teaching practices, institutions, faculties and individuals must be assured of security if they innovate in terms of their knowledge sharing, development and generation (Buckley, 2012, p. 335). The first step in this process is the building of trust, critical for knowledge creation, and the crux of long-term social relationships which enable powerful collaboration to this end (Buckley, 2012, p. 335). Educators in schools and universities need to develop and employ digital age competencies, which requires mastery of information navigation, connectivity in its broadest sense, and critical evaluation of sources within a trusting ecology  (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009, p. 249). While tertiary educators such as Couros (Couros, 2010) and teachers such as Gail Casey (Casey, 2013) embrace the concept of communities of practice, and immerse themselves and their students in social and participatory networking, and others engage globally through flat connections (Lindsay, 2015) utilising the full extent of digital scholarship, they are still in the minority. The students lucky enough to encounter such educators at school or university, will benefit from an education that will aid them to develop their digital identity, a recent cultural process made possible by the participatory web (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009, p. 251). The greatest benefit identified by Couros’ student Jennifer, is that such learning is truly life-long (Couros, 2010, p. 127).

Digital scholarship is evolving as the technologies of cooperation increase in number and format, and adoption by universities and schools across the world slowly increases (Saveri, Rheingold, & Vian, 2005, p. 1). More research is required to assess and harness the presumed potential of digital technology, and, ensure that the processes being touted as new really are novel, and not just new terminology for older practices, as identified by Baggaley in his somewhat flippant assessment of flipped learning (Baggaley, 2015, pp. 4 – 5). His identification of self-promotion through registering websites, and copyrighting their own terminology is a clear warning for the need for academic rigour (Baggaley, 2015, pp. 3-6).

More academics need to avoid passitivity (Weller, Digital resilence, 2011, p. 170) and become organised participants, possibly by adopting a commando-style role in correcting errors in Wikipedia (Baggaley, 2015, p. 8).  The history of the term digital scholarship in Wikipedia may be an example of such tactics (Libraryowl, 2013). By addressing critical issues of value in relation to risk, and actively engaging in the conversation relating to digital scholarship, academic writers and researchers have the potential to change the politics of educational technology provision and practice (Selwyn, 2010). Once universities endorse the best elements of social participatory networking and its ability to contribute meaningfully to knowledge generation, educators in schools will also embrace a learning ecology perspective, benefitting from the fusion of formal and informal learning, spanning contextual boundaries for self-sustained learning (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009, p. 248) .


21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn. (2010). Bloomington: Solution Tree.

Archer, N. (2006). A Classification of Communities of Practice. In Encyclopedia of Communities of Practice in Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 21-29). Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

Ayers, E. L. (2013). Does digital scholarship have a future? Educause Review, 24-34.

Baggaley, J. (2015, May 29). Flips and flops. Distance Education, 1-10.

Buckley, S. (2012). Higher education and knowledge sharing: from ivory tower to twenty-first century. Innovations in Higher Education and Teaching International, 49(3), 333-344.

Casey, G. (2013, September). Interdisciplinary literacy through social media In the Mathematics classroom: an action research study. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 57(1), 60-67.

Couros, A. (2010). Developing personal networks for open and social learning. In Emerging Technologies in Distance Education (109–128). Athabasca University: AU Press.  (pp. 109-128). Athabasca University: AU Press.

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching and scholarship in a digital age. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.

Ho, C. (2015, August 26). Blogging Your Way To A PhD. Retrieved from The Thesis Whisperer August 27, 2015: http://thesiswhisperer.com/2015/08/26/blogging-your-way-to-a-phd/

International Society for Technology in Education. (n.d.). ISTE Standards. Retrieved from ISTE August 29, 2015: http://www.iste.org/standards

Libraryowl. (2013, July 30). Digital Scholarship. Retrieved from Wikipedia  August 30, 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_scholarship

Lindsay, J. [host] (2015, August 6). Colloquium 3: Flat Classrooms.

McPee, P. (2015). Class Central: The French revolution. Retrieved August 29, 2015, from Coursera: https://www.class-central.com/mooc/1705/coursera-the-french-revolution

Pearce, N., Weller, M., Scanlon, E., & Ashleigh, M. (2010). Digital scholarship considered: how new technologies could transform academic work. in education, 16(1 Spring), 33-14.

Saveri, A., Rheingold, H., & Vian, K. (2005). Technologies of Cooperation. Palo Alto: Institute for the Future. Retrieved August 15, 2015, from www.iftf.org

Scanlon, E. (2011). Digital futures: changes in scholarship, open education resources and the inevitability of interdisciplinarity. Arts And Humanities in Higher Education, 177-184.

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning(26 (1)), 65 – 73. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x.

The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary. (1996). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmins, R. (2012). Networked participatory scholarship: emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education; An International Journal 58 (2012) 76, 58, 766 -774.

Weller, M. (2011). A Pedagogy of Abundance. In M. Weller, The Digital Scholar: How Technology is Transforming Scholarly Practice (pp. 85-95). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Weller, M. (2011). Digital Resilence. In The Digital Scholar: How Technology is Transforming Scholarly Practice (pp. 168-184). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Weller, M. (2011). The Nature of Scholarship. In M. Weller, The Digital Scholar, How Technology is Transforming Scholarly Practice (pp. 41-51). London: Bloomsbury Collections.


LMS & Learning

Joining the Traveller’s Journey

(Thanks, Simon Welsh!)

In recently considering digital scholarship, and also reflecting on Colloquium 1 (Welsh, 2015), the potential of Learning Management Systems in comparison to their usage has presented itself as an issue worthy of academic investigation. Until hearing Simon speak passionately about the things many LMSs already measure, and those that could potentially be calculated and then applied to improving learning outcomes for students, I had not considered the possibilities, and these became clear (Welsh, 2015).

For many educators, the LMS is something that has been introduced into their working lives without explanation as to why it is needed, or what it can do for learning.  For secondary teaching colleagues, it has presented a platform for storing work for students, somewhere to host school-wide timetables, and more recently enable roll marking and report writing. Comparing the university LMS to that used at my recent schools has demonstrated some gaps, but the access to analytics, as referred to by Simon (Welsh, 2015), is not obvious to a learner in the former or a teacher in the latter.

Given that students have no say in the specific LMS required by their institution, to what extent do educators have choice in either system or what that system enables them to present (Islam, 2014, p. 253)? Do educators have freedom to create meaningful learning for their students or do the templates offered by the LMS constrain them; or is it incumbent on educators to build on what their LMS enables and augment the weaknesses (Leaman, 2015)?

Rekhari takes these concepts further by declaring that there is a chasm between learning design, technology and the LMS due to a combination of ineffective use by educators and flaws in the design of the systems (Rekhari, 2015, p. 12). She further questions whether the reasons that benefits that LMS intend to deliver to educational design are not entering praxis are the fault of the developers making the software hard to use, or the educators not proactively applying constructivist philosophies to their learning design (Rekhari, 2015, p. 13). She goes on to question whether LMSs are the barriers to educational change (Rekhari, 2015, p. 13).

This publication has led to much questioning of my own practices as an educator using an LMS – and has led to the realisation that beyond managing storage and retrieval of coursework, the other possibilities have not been considered. In order to further my understanding of what our school LMS can do I have requested time with one of the developers. To develop my understanding of practical analyses that already exist I have turned to Twitter, where I have engaged in meaningful dialogue with several professors in the Computer Science and Information Technology Department at RMIT, and who have sent me a document in which they compare Blackboard to Facebook in terms of supporting a specific online course in programming (Maleko, Nandi, Hamilton, D’Souza, & Harland, 2013). Additional reading has also been ongoing.

I “attended” the first Colloquium with a degree of disinterest predetermined on the basis of its description, and, due to Simon’s future predictions, it has intrigued me and started me on a learning journey I would never have predicted. This has proved not only interesting but potentially very useful, and will form the basis of my Case Study for Assignment 3.  From passive user to captivated challenger, I am now wondering if a different approach on my behalf could enable my development of a learning ecology for enhancing digital scholarship (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009, p. 248).


Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching and scholarship in a digital age. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.

Islam, A. N. (2014). Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a learning management system in post-adoption stage: a critical incident technique approach. Computers in Human Behavior, pp. 249-261.

Leaman, C. (2015, August 20). What If Your Learning Management System Isn’t Enough? Retrieved from eLearning Industry: http://elearningindustry.com/learning-management-system-isnt-enough

Maleko, M., Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., D’Souza, D., & Harland, J. (2013). Facebook versus Blackboard for supporting the learning of programming in a fully online course: the changing face of computer education. Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering, pp. 83-89.

Rekhari, S. (2015, August). The Chasm – learning design, technology, and the LMS. Training and Development, pp. 12-13. Retrieved from Australian Institute of Training and Development: www.aitd.com.au

Simkin, Margaret (2015, August 3): #2 http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/08/03/2/

Welsh, S. [Host] (2015, July 28). Learning Analytics: A Traveller’s Guide; Colloquium 2. Albury, Victoria, Australia.