When I posted this article I was trying to open up a discussion about the ways in which widely available educational content might best be developed in a world where technology is rapidly changing and where learners, teachers and producers often have very different perceptions of the ways in which those technologies might help. I know that the BBC use participatory methods, but there are still big questions about how best to do this, particularly at the early stages of the design process – there is still a lot of work to be done here. With respect to the issue of Learner Generated Content – come along to the launch of the Learner Generated Context initiative at the LKL on 12 September for further discussion of this topic.

I was around when the disastrous Doomesday project was produced and millions wasted.

Try learning French from ‘A Vous La France’ – it’s impossible.

For a detailed critique of some content from a language teaching expert see:

http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/BBC_Jam.htm

2) Recognise and build upon the fact that ‘Learners are doing it for themselves’, using Web 2.0 tools to create, share and publish their own stuff.
[/quote]

I hate to shatter any illusions you may have about how BBC Jam content was produced, but both of those sage pieces of advice have been followed from the word go.

I produced two of the live pieces of content, and on both spent at least 6 of my working hours each week in a school working with kids and teachers. Parents were involved in home testing during school breaks. Consultants were also involved from conception to birth.

On my Maths commission, we called one particular school (that we visited every Tuesday morning for 12 months) our co-design school. They, effectively, signed-off every stage of the development. If they didn’t get it, it was ditched. As producers, we fully and whole-heartedly delighted in engaging in a user-centred design process.

As for the second point, the biggest mantras on Jam production were Distinctiveness and Complementarity. They weren’t just two of the EC conditions, they were our life force when coming up with ideas. We were 100% aware of the “doing it for themselves” concepts (User Generated Learning we called it) and, though we were held up by infrastructure issues frustratingly regularly, it was always our intention to roll out these services.

I hope that, whatever the new service we’re allowed to launch is, we’ll still be able to do this, and to re-use the stunning learning content that our co-designers completely adored.

We’re working on jam projects which haven’t yet been published which already do everything you mention. Or at least we were until Thursday.

For those of you who know me through my (small amount of) work with Futurelab, I have also posted to TechCrunch at http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/14/bbc-may-be-stifling-startups-suspends-bbc-jam-following-complaints/

When the BBC sponsored a microcomputer from Acorn it kick started the educational software industry – but no doubt then, as now, it offended Research Machines (now RM) who were the other major player in the market. RM are still here and Acorn are……..?

However pioneering and innovative work by the BBC (and also Beeb computer users) gave us a rich diversity of educational software – which we don’t seem to have today. You would think it would be easier these days rather than harder for a keen enthusiast to achieve something wonderful ( Devtray and Podd were goldies produced by teachers!).

Everyone is right, and everyone is wrong. There is no single right way. We live in a mixed economy

The BBC is also very much aware that learners are ‘doing it for themselves’, though I would argue that relatively few, especially in England and Wales, are actually using Web 2.0 tools for learning. Aunty is currently looking at ways to harness this energy for learning.

Your second recommendation also is a great one – and I think the Long Tail approach to designing tools appropriate for specific contexts, rather than one off solutions delivered across the system will demand, and provide opportunity for that.

To add to the list, I would suggest that Jam needs to be more radical. To push the boundaries of the possibilities of digital technologies for learning – the sorts of tools and applications that don’t necessarily sit with current practice, but that can provide opportunities for innovators to try new approaches and for early adopters to see early evidence of new methods and tools. In this way, it would need to take the risks that many commercial companies cannot afford (or justify) to take, which also separates the competition between the two – whilst providing a showcase of possibilities for practitioners as well as industry members.

This would also demand that your first two recommendations were followed.