<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The VLE is dead.  Long live the VLE.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sclater.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=42" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sclater.com/blog/?p=42</link>
	<description>Reflections on virtual learning</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:22:18 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: dem</title>
		<link>http://sclater.com/blog/?p=42&#038;cpage=1#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>dem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sclater.com/blog/?p=42#comment-21</guid>
		<description>Hi Niall, coincedently I have just given a seminar to the Learning Societies Lab in Southampton with the same concluding strapline as your post! There is a blog article version available:

http://hoos-foos.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-web-literacy.html

My model for this is that we concentrate on building loosley coupled tools that are owned by the insitution, but which can be appropriated by students and teachers as needed (for example, we are developing PeerPigeon and AdSel which provide peer assessment, and formative online assessment, but in discrete applications that can be tapped whenever necessary). 

So in a sense I take issue with the &quot;third-party&quot; bit of Martin Weller&#039;s statement. If a learner builds their environment as they wish, then there is no reason why the insitution can&#039;t contribute effectively to that environment, as long as the control of the environment remains with the student.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Niall, coincedently I have just given a seminar to the Learning Societies Lab in Southampton with the same concluding strapline as your post! There is a blog article version available:</p>
<p><a href="http://hoos-foos.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-web-literacy.html" rel="nofollow">http://hoos-foos.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-web-literacy.html</a></p>
<p>My model for this is that we concentrate on building loosley coupled tools that are owned by the insitution, but which can be appropriated by students and teachers as needed (for example, we are developing PeerPigeon and AdSel which provide peer assessment, and formative online assessment, but in discrete applications that can be tapped whenever necessary). </p>
<p>So in a sense I take issue with the &#8220;third-party&#8221; bit of Martin Weller&#8217;s statement. If a learner builds their environment as they wish, then there is no reason why the insitution can&#8217;t contribute effectively to that environment, as long as the control of the environment remains with the student.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: e4innovation.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; A student&#8217;s view on things&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://sclater.com/blog/?p=42&#038;cpage=1#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>e4innovation.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; A student&#8217;s view on things&#8230;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:51:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sclater.com/blog/?p=42#comment-11</guid>
		<description>[...] my del.icio.us       A student&#8217;s view on things&#8230; Nov09 9 November 2007, GrÃ¡inne @ 10:50 am   Of course the debate about VLEs/LMS vs. PLEs and beyond has been raging for years, but with the increasingly impact of Web 2.0 technologies and the shift towards more open philosophies (Open Source, Open Content, etc.) and associated high impact applications of these (facebook apps, now OpenSocial) it seems to have gained momentum as is evident by a spike in the discussion I noticed this week. Now we all now this isnâ€™t a simple question of right or wrong â€“ the arguments are complicated. But to pick up the gist of some of the recent arguments for and against (or perhaps it might be more appropriate to say round and about!!) have a look at a couple of the postings yesterday - Martin Wellerâ€™s â€˜The VLE/LMS is deadâ€™ referring to Scott Leslies â€˜Loosely couple teachingâ€™  â€œversusâ€ Niall Sclaterâ€™s â€˜The VLE is dead, long live the VLEâ€™. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] my del.icio.us       A student&#8217;s view on things&#8230; Nov09 9 November 2007, GrÃ¡inne @ 10:50 am   Of course the debate about VLEs/LMS vs. PLEs and beyond has been raging for years, but with the increasingly impact of Web 2.0 technologies and the shift towards more open philosophies (Open Source, Open Content, etc.) and associated high impact applications of these (facebook apps, now OpenSocial) it seems to have gained momentum as is evident by a spike in the discussion I noticed this week. Now we all now this isnâ€™t a simple question of right or wrong â€“ the arguments are complicated. But to pick up the gist of some of the recent arguments for and against (or perhaps it might be more appropriate to say round and about!!) have a look at a couple of the postings yesterday &#8211; Martin Wellerâ€™s â€˜The VLE/LMS is deadâ€™ referring to Scott Leslies â€˜Loosely couple teachingâ€™  â€œversusâ€ Niall Sclaterâ€™s â€˜The VLE is dead, long live the VLEâ€™. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
