Talk:Virtual learning environment
- 1 Copyvio
- 2 Please use the correct names of the various tools
- 3 Combine with "Learning Management System"?
- 4 Merge with "Learning platform"?
- 5 Collaborative Learning
- 6 Merge Online communication between school and home into this article
- 7 Shortening and generalising the introduction
- 8 Addition to Standards Section
Since an admin has removed CSD tags concerning copyright material in the article, I'm leaving the URLs in question here:
Please use the correct names of the various tools
I've noticed someone "corrected" the name It's learning to itslearning. Well, the correct name is actually It's learning. The link itslearning is a redirect to It's learning. Just because you think a link seems to look nicer by using the incorrect name, is no excuse for using the incorrect name. -- Solbu (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Combine with "Learning Management System"?
The article points out that 'The term "Virtual Learning Environment" is more commonly used in the UK, Europe and Asia, while the synonymous term "Learning Management System" is the more common usage in North America.' "Learning Management System" has its own separate entry. If the two terms are synonymous, then the two entries ought surely to be combined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamwhittaker (talk • contribs) 13:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Merge with "Learning platform"?
In addtion to the Learning Management System article mentioned above by Adamwhittaker 14 June 21012, the Learning platform article includes the statement, "Throughout this article the terms Learning Platform and VLE are used in an inter-changeable way." It seems that all of these articles would benefit from consolidation. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have been chipping away at this general area for a few weeks. My present vision is that the Virtual Learning Environment article will serve as the interim top-level container article, and will eventually be renamed "Multimedia learning." The article that presently has that title will be renamed "Multimedia learning theory" or "Multimedia learning theory (education)." I will use above outline with some modification to help with the hierarchy. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that this Wikipedia article is missing some information about collaborative learning. Collaborative learning is learning through the exchange and sharing of information and opinions among a peer group. Online collaborative learning can be described within a context where the computer, information, and network technology facilitates interaction among learners for the acquisition or sharing of knowledge. Synchronous tools supporting voice communication such as Skype can be considered a critical factor in enhancing group collaboration because voice adds a personal touch to the communication process (Lukman). The distance between students is psychologically shortened and, therefore, they feel safer. However, synchronous tools can also have some negative affects due to the gap in response times so sometimes students can become irritated when they do not receive feedback immediately.
Source: Lukman, Rebeka, and Majda Krajnc. "Exploring Non-Traditional Learning Methods In Virtual And Real-World Environments." Journal Of Educational Technology & Society 15.1 (2012): 237-247. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Nov. 2012. MaricusHarrison (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Merge Online communication between school and home into this article
I'm suggesting that Online communication between school and home be merged into this article because it seems to be talking about the exact same thing from different areas of concern. That article is poorly named anyway. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not in favor of the suggested merge. The articles are, could, or should be about two different things. The one has to do with using online communication to enhance communication in a traditional brick and mortar school setting. The other with creating new educational environments that are not ncessarily associated with a traditional school. That isn't to say that both articles couldn't be improved by some shuffling of content between them. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Shortening and generalising the introduction
I thought I'd rework the current intro with something I hope is more general and concise. I'll aim to include some of the more specific aspects mentioned in the current intro in subsequent sections. TrabiMechanic 14:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Also looking for stats on VLE use in compulsory education, and globally. Anybody know of sources? TrabiMechanic 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Addition to Standards Section
Hello, I would like to suggest an addition to the Standards section of the page that notes the research gap and acknowledges that the INKE group is addressing these concerns with various digital prototypes meant to improve VLEs, which is to come after the section that ends with "home based education." Here is the proposed section:
However, little research has been conducted regarding the structure and interconnectivity of digital resources for students and scholars alike. In response to that concern, the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) group has created a series of tools and prototypes, including NewRadial, that map the virtual learning space to get a sense of how users utilize and implement digital resources within virtual learning environments.
- Can you provide any third party sourcing for this? Sourcing that inke.ca has done something only to inke.ca and/or members of inke.ca presents weighting problems. Also, the inline external links are not really appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- What would include third party sourcing? Would another secondary source be required? The article I reference was published in a scholarly, peer-edited journal (Studies in Book Culture) and is thus a product of INKE research but not an INKE-centric publication. If I were specifically referencing, say, the INKE Website, I would understand this issue. However, I am perplexed at how a scholarly journal is not a third party source? Please clarify. Thenewpulp (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Studies in Book Culture is an independent, peer-reviewed journal. The policies that it includes for publication, which can be found on its website, are listed as follows: "Upon receipt, and after being verified to ensure that no plagiarism has occurred, each article is reviewed by three experts: two blind referees, generally members of the scientific committee as well as a member of the editorial committee. These experts complete a detailed report and render one of the following four verdicts: 1) accepted without changes; 2) accepted with minor changes; 3) accepted with major changes; 4) refused. In the case of major discrepancies among the verdicts, the journal may request an additional external evaluation. In rendering its decision, the journal regularly sends the referees’ anonymous reports to the authors so that they can revise their text. The journal’s final decision is irrevocable." The article that I have linked to is thus peer-reviewed through an independent process, including two blind referees, and is therefore not an INKE project. It is a secondary source. Please feel free to contact the journal's editor, Marie-Pier Luneau, if you have any questions on whether or not the source is both reliable and independent. Thenewpulp (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)