by clicking here. It is a 9.9 Mb file and will take some time to download

Wales' vision was to provide a locus for 'user-generated' content about anything. Leask's visionwas to provide a platform for the teacher education community on which it could place its ownuser-generated content. The differences were that she wanted it all organised around an agreedschema so that it would be searchable by meta-data tagging but also that it would have beenquality-assured and peer-reviewed before being released to the community (see Leask andWhite, 2004 p.1). I reflect on this as a kind of academic reaction to the explosion of Web 2.0technologies.ContextThe antecedents of this project are important to state at the outset of reflections on IM4. As canbe seen in appendix 5, Mike Blamires was already connected into the Initial Teacher EducationProfessional Resource Networks or IPRNs as they were called. He worked on thebehaviour4learning website alongside others. CCCU was also represented through the team ofauthors that contributed to Multiverse. It is a fact of history that Mike could not make thebriefing at the TDA for the TTRB bidders and I was asked to go in his place. I can honestly andwith some amusement recall the use he made of technology to join myself in with Paul Charmanwho was to become the project leader and for whom I now work occasionally as an independent.Tactically we needed to look like an existing partnership. Mike sent me a digital image of Paulhe had taken on his reverse action webcam mounted into the lid of his Sony Vaio computer - thiswas state-of-the-art technology in 2004. He then sent Paul an image of me captured on the samedevice during one of our Faculty ICT Committee meetings.I could reinforce my belief that I was there by going back through e-mail accounts, or trawlingthrough the archived site(http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101021152907/http://www.ttrb.ac.uk/) to find212Simon Hughes Ph.D. Thesis (October 2012)