Glow could be that VLE - and content could arrive as we move along if we engage teachers in moving this forward - this collaborative approach is what we need across Scotland.

Cheers.

I have a few thoughts on this post. The first regards resources. I do empathise with David Eaglesham on this. This is a massive piece of reform, and instead of getting extra resources to support its implementation - we’re actually making savings! However, I do agree that the last thing we want is money being spent on buying/copying examplar materials. I believe that the best resources we as teachers could be given to support the implementation is extra time. Clearly we have our McCrone time etc for development work, but does it not follow that major change requires extra time? I would suggest that teachers should be trusted with some in-service days to work towards developing curricula for their schools. This could take the form of a stimulus session/discussion followed by one or two days of teachers managing their own time to work on this. The results could then be added to a wiki?

In terms of VLE, in many ways this exists already - Scholar! The problem with VLE’s as you say is that they do spoon feed and also, they can become the equivalent of examplar materials. I get the impression that Scholar itself is not used as widely as it could be. I’ve written before about my own difficulties, and these were very common amongst teachers at the Scholar conference I attended last year (and these were the teachers keen enough to go to the conference!!). Heriot Watt themselves admitted that it wasn’t used as much as they’d expected.

You suggest that pupils could use VLE’s in a University inspired way. The teacher takes on the role of a University tutor. I agree with you when you say that teachers need to explore different roles within their classes, however I read an interesting paper recently. In my efforts to read opposing views, I read a paper which very strongly argued against constructive/pupil led/investigative type teaching approaches using cognitive psychology research to support their argument. One section of this did resonate with me a little. This was the notion that University style learning can not necessarily be transferred to schools effectively. They argue that pupil learning needs to be led by the teacher in order to prepare them for managing their own learning at University, and we should not expect them to be able to do this before then.

Finally, in the spirit of module 1 and professionalism, are we re-professionalising teaching if we allow change to be led by the appetites of young people?

Just a few thoughts, which I must admit are largely for my own benefit - got to get my thoughts in order!!