Salmon vs. Moule: a preliminary (personal) critique

At the end of week three, having experienced both synchronous (WebCT discussion board) and synchronous (Skype Chat) communication tools it feels appropriate to wrap up my perceptions by contrasting two competing models for e-learning which have been mentioned in the debate.There is first the socalled 'five-stage framework and e-tivities', put forward by Gillian Salmon form Leicester University who proposes a sequential stepwise model in order to assist e-tutors in developing an environment suitable for e-learning (G. Salmon, 2003)
In this model the bottom step is occupied by the induction process, followed by (informal) online socialisation, followed by (online) information exchange. Knowledge construction is the second highest step, being obviously a higher order level of learning. The highest step is referred to 'development' where learners are meant to become responsible for their own learning, having mastered the process of learning. At the heart of this model sits the constuctivist learning .Salmon suggests that e-learning activities (e-tivities in her jargon) should be structured around these steps to ensure that learners become and remain engaged.
Pam Moule from the University of the West of England points to some deficiencies in this model apparently taking little account of 'blended learning', which is widely used in campus-based teaching in the UK. In her model she proposes an e-learning ladder which is based on some of her own research in which she puts forward six 'rungs' which at the bottom start of with an instructivist teaching mode leading to a constructivist approach at the top (P. Moule, 2007).At its heart are technology-focused tools employed to reach higher level learning, acting as 'rungs' of the ladder and leading from intructor-led to social community-led learning.In my view the two models serve different purposes: G. Salmon's deals with a predominantly if not exclusively online (distance) learning course, whereas P. Moule describes the situation in a traditional University course where f2f-teaching is complemented by online resources, including communication tools. Therefore the two models are not really comparable and are in fact addressing different issues, they are at best complementing each other.
I personally like the instructivist to constructivist transition of P. Moule's article although I disagree with some of the tools she describes in achieving this, for example the role of video-conferencing and virtual chatroom activities which appear misplaced. It appears to me that she may not be too familiar with the role and purpose of some of these technologies.
Overall in my view the entire debate which of the two models is right is a storm in the proverbial tea cup. It's a bit like asking the questions: what is better, petrol or diesel? The answer is of course it depends what engine your car has.
There are now so many ways of learning (and no one has looked into work-based e-learning for example) and consequently there will be room for several more models in advocating best practice in e-learning.
G. Salmon (2003) “The five-stage framework and e-tivities”, Chap. 2 pp. 10-36 Publisher: RoutledgeFalmer, London)P. Moule (2007) ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, Vol.15, No. 1. 37-50
P. Moule (2007) ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, Vol.15, No. 1. 37-50