This milestone report explores some innovative possibilities for e-in-science practice to enhance teacher capability and increase student engagement and achievement. In particular, this report gives insights into how e-learning might be harnessed to help create a future-oriented science education programme. “Innovative” practices are considered to be those that integrate (or could integrate) digital technologies in science education in ways that are not yet commonplace. “Future-oriented education” refers to the type of education that students in the “knowledge age” are going to need. While it is not yet clear exactly what this type of education might look like, it is clear that it will be different from the current system. One framework used to differentiate between these kinds of education is the evolution of education from Education 1.0 to Education 2.0 and 3.0 (Keats & Schmidt, 2007). Education 1.0, like Web 1.0, is considered to be largely a one-way process. Students “get” knowledge from their teachers or other information sources. Education 2.0, as defined by Keats and Schmidt, happens when Web 2.0 technologies are used to enhance traditional approaches to education. New interactive media, such as blogs, social bookmarking, etc. are used, but the process of education itself does not differ significantly from Education 1.0. Education 3.0, by contrast, is characterised by rich, cross-institutional, cross-cultural educational opportunities. The learners themselves play a key role as creators of knowledge artefacts, and distinctions between artefacts, people and processes become blurred, as do distinctions of space and time. Across these three “generations”, the teacher’s role changes from one of knowledge source (Education 1.0) to guide and knowledge source (Education 2.0) to orchestrator of collaborative knowledge creation (Education 3.0). The nature of the learner’s participation in the learning also changes from being largely passive to becoming increasingly active: the learner co-creates resources and opportunities and has a strong sense of ownership of his or her own education. In addition, the participation by communities outside the traditional education system increases. Building from this framework, we offer our own “framework for future-oriented science education” (see Figure 1). In this framework, we present two continua: one reflects the nature of student participation (from minimal to transformative) and the other reflects the nature of community participation (also from minimal to transformative). Both continua stretch from minimal to transformative participation. Minimal participation reflects little or no input by the student/community into the direction of the learning—what is learned, how it is learned and how what is learned will be assessed. Transformative participation, in contrast, represents education where the student or community drives the direction of the learning, including making decisions about content, learning approaches and assessment.