My Big question was “Is there one preferred platform for learning online” I had based this on my experience working with educators and academics, installing new systems using Moodle, SharePoint and Blackboard.
OCTEL has broadened my horizons to such a point that I now realise so long as pedagogy, interactivity and collaboration are provided, and that the participants feel driven to use the learning platform as tool that helps them learn. It doesn’t matter what platform is used.

To respond to the question “What can I take away from this area and apply in my teaching-related work?” after reading “An incurable disease” and Donald Clark Plan B, “7 compelling arguments for peer learning”. And reflecting on my time blogging, answering and taking part in OCTEL, I feel that peer based learning has lots of benefits along with a few negatives.
Similar to Donald, I have found that scalability, higher rates of attainment, and delivering theory which is underpinned by expertise, expertise, which is universally available and may not normally be accessible to a learner, unless taking part in a MOOC style course online or similar are beneficial to learners.
For me, I will take away knowledge and experience gained as a learner that peer related activities do work, but that you must have an active participant group that engages in the process to help drive and deliver collaborative learning.
As a learning technologist, I am forever “selling the benefit” of TEL after all it helps keep me in a job.
Through this OCTEL course I have gained further experience and more confidence in my choice and reasons for choosing learning tools and activities.
There are serious cost savings to be made through the implementation of learning technologies, and the experience gained here will allow me to cite cases whereby these have been proven.

Depending on the organisational approach to “external” funding for projects, I would consider using outside contractors or systems, if allowed. External solutions providers can in my previous experience be quicker to complete a project due to their skill set matching exactly what is required. Can be financially more cost effective, providing exacting specifications are outlined and adhered to, and can be tailored to fit easier. All of this is not to say that you can just set the ball in motion on a project and relax, external providers can be more difficult to communicate with, and can let you down leading to stress and more grey hairs!
So what about “in-house” benefits, I have found they offer more control, due to location and possibly less costly depending on financial structures that are in place. They can be slower though, especially when working with a small team, and if you have no control or influence over the “team”. The exact skill set or system you are looking to work with may not exist, which can cause your project to be adapted or at worse be something that is bolted onto an existing failed or failing system or process!

After reviewing Tom Cochrane’s conference paper, I have evaluated the projects Key Successes &
Key failures, these are outlined below:
Key Successes:
A supportive learning community was created and facilitated.
Lecturer and student participants were provided with an appropriate choice of technology.
A sustained and supportive community of interactions were created.
Key failures:
International time differences were initially not considered important, we did find differences in time-zones problematic for live support sessions.
International and local broadband failure was not initially considered, after the “week 0″ support week, we thought technical glitches were ironed out; unfortunately these did re-occur due to Wi-Fi and 3G connectivity.
Staffing issues were not initially planned for, but staff levels did alter as the project progressed, leading to delay.
Financial provision was weak, leading to limited resources at project start.