‘If all you have in your toolbox is a hammer, the problem tends to look like a nail.’
Are Liveski and Joyce (2003) saying, with a sideways swipe at Salmon’s (2002) Five-stage model of e-moderation, that these approaches, pre-assembled, or pre-set course production guidelines or online tools, are somehow pre-empting and therefore skewing courses that may be designed with them, that the parameters are limiting, not freeing and allowing for innovation?
What Liveski and Joyce fail to envisage in 2003 is that we are not talking hammers and nails, with the Salmon Five stage model the hammer to crack all online learning nuts. We are talking instead of a multitude of seeds of e-learning possibility scattered across rich or poor ground ... some flourish, some do not. The authors fail to recognise the wealth of interactive learning development and computer based learning that was being produced long before Salmon came along and offered some practioners and simple approach to adopt.
Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: the key to active online learning.
Liveski, B and Joyce, P (2003) Examining the five-stage e-moderating model: Designed and emergent practice in the learning technology profession