1) The document discusses student ownership and control of the online learning platform GLOW, with teachers letting go of control and allowing students to change and take ownership of the platform. 2) It describes an experiment where students worked in small groups, set up GLOW groups, planned and taught four lessons to each other using a mix of tasks and formats with peer assessment. This resulted in organized chaos but also the emergence of method. 3) While gains were seen in attainment, the process was very labor intensive, raising questions about whether the investment in attainment is cost-effective compared to alternative instructional methods given issues like funding, hardware constraints, and the platform becoming outdated and unintuitive over time.

1. Two years down the road –
student ownership of GLOW…
giving it back to the learners

2. Teachers have to let go – we don’t have to be in control !

3. Why do we always try to overcomplicate things ?

4. Let the students change it around and take ownership.
“Stop talking miss – you’re stopping us from learning”

5. (adapted from Prof. Stephen Heppell 2006 conference presentation
http://rubble.heppell.net/creativeJISC/default.html)

7. GLOW Learn has been ill thought out and is too impersonal.
“Teaching by machines” went out with behaviourism

8. • Students worked in small groups
• Set up GLOW groups
• Planned and taught four ‘lessons’
• Mix of tasks/formats
• Peer assessed/ evaluated

9. At times, organised chaos but very soon,
method from the madness

10. Did the lights stay on ?
• 14 % attainment gain
• 32% module on module
• Time on task ratio 10:1 ( 5:3 w/o)
• Out of hours learning enhanced
• Very labour intensive – is this investment
in attainment cost-effective when set
against AiFL ?
• Funding and hardware are increasingly
becoming issues

11. The future…
• GLOW unsustainable in it’s present format
• Huge issues with QA preventing sharing of
resources
• GLOW Learn and the time factor
• Out of date and unintuitive – “The VLE is
dead – Long live the Wiki”
• Project management and classroom
credibility of national team approach