Theory Camp(s) in the LL project – What for?

The need for specific measures to reflect on the theoretical foundations was raised by the reviewers comments in the Y1 review meeting in Barcelona. In particular these comments pointed to the theoretical assumptions regarding the Social Semantic Server and its use in the project. In general, the project was challenged to specify its own position vis-à-vis different (and sometimes contradictory) references that have been quoted. Also, other issues were raised – e.g. the project was asked need to clarify its commitment to ‘action research’ and to specify its position vis-à-vis newer developments in that field – notably the emergence of ‘transdisciplinary action research’ in cross-over areas between community psychology and landscape architecture (with an emphasis on societal dialogue and validation between planning and community participation).

One idea of the LL consortium was to respond to this critique with so called theory camp activities. At first this idea was discussed in one of the workshops of the consortium meeting in Innsbruck that started preparing a “theory camp” type of workshop for the Aachen meeting. After the Innsbruck meeting this idea has triggered further (complementary) initiatives that suggest a wider use of ‘theory camps’ with different accents, partly contributing to the Aachen meeting and partly continuing after it. This document tries to clarify, how these initiatives can complement each other and how we all can benefit of both.

The central initiative of the Innsbruck meeting: A Wiki for Theory camp in Aachen

The working group in the Innsbruck started to map different contemporary theories (or theoretical concepts) on learning – mainly with focus on generic theories and with an interest to map the theoretical landscape. One focus of this effort was to make transparent which theoretical assumptions are represented in the consortium and especially to clarify theoretical assumptions of the Social Semantic Server and their compatibility with the conceptual foundations of other project activities. This has been followed up mainly in the preparation of the Aachen agenda with a specific Wiki page that outlines issues and a procedure. (See the Wiki http://htk.tlu.ee/layers/MW/index.php/Aachen_Theory_Camp .)

The local initiative of the ITB team: A gDrive folder for a wider range of themes

A second focus (already in Innsbruck) was the need to discuss a broader pedagogical concepts and common research approaches to the project. As first follow-up measure to this, Joanna Burchert wrote a short input paper. It aimed to point out basic assumptions on learning (basic for the theories collected and discussed in Innsbruck by the LL consortium) and to show up their consequences for evaluation, cooperation and tool development. Further texts with pedagogical focus, e.g. exploring the terms formal and informal learning, followed. They are integrated in the gDrive “Theory Camp preparation” folder https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0B02cXf0hbQH0ZFg1eVlUM28zZ0U.

In the forthcoming posts I will give some insights into themes prepared by the ITB team and discuss, how we can bring these into discussion in Aachen.

More posts to come …

Below I will post a shortened version of the report on the LL Consortium meeting in Innsbruck that I wrote immediately after the meeting.

This meeting was planned as a preparatory event that prepares the grounds for the Integration Meeting in Aachen (March 2014). The assumption of the coordinator was that the main activities in the two sectors will take shape as Development Projects – including some overarching or overlapping Integration Measures or Co-design and Evaluation measures. Thus, the role of technical work packages could be discussed as support to be offered for these activities.

1. Work with the sustainability scenarios & responding to the reviewers’ concerns

The sessions were opened with the overview presentation of Tobias Ley that emphasised the work with sustainability sessions and taking on board the remarks on the reviewers:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7vXuqBBjr9PendGTWh0YmJtRUU

The general idea of working with the sustainability scenarios was made transparent by the presentation of Gilbert Peffer and Tor-Arne Bellika, exemplified with the forthcoming cooperation with Norwegian and Estonian managed clusters (see the case ppt and the Wrap-up ppt in the folder). Tamsin Treasure-Jones and John Bibby presented a further developed version of the sustainability scenario in the healthcare sector:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B48qJr53GUxMU2NnNzZXT1ZkM0E

Ludger Deitmer and Pekka Kämäräinen based their presentation on the draft scenario outlined in the Barcelona review meeting and updated the picture with an insight into the key activities (Piloting, Multimedia training, Platform development) and how they are being scaled up with the support of spin-out projects. In our presentation we drew attention to the urgent uncertainty factors that need to be resolved.

2. Work in sectoral groups with focus on their Development Projects (DPs)

After these inputs there was a quick overview on the Development Projects.  Before the Innsbruck meeting the partners in the Captus team had provided a timeline for mapping the schedules of different DPs and support activities that contribute to the work under the joint agenda. This was used as a basis for the whole discussion in the construction sector group.

We outlined the uncertainties in working further with the Sharing Turbine agenda (in particular the lack of continuing technical support for programming). Since the piloting with Learning Toolbox is linked to the supporting multimedia training and to the development of platform for learning and knowledge we found it difficult to draw a timeline before having the question of support solved. Taken the above mentioned uncertainty into account we came up with a tentative timeline.

3. Work in mixed groups with focus on (technical) supporting activities

The other group work sessions were paved py shorter and longer presentations on the following topics:

a) Common data modelling of Design themes/Development projects by using Conceptual maps (Cmap)

presented by Vladimir Tomberg, see https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-zb4vasFuiuRGVPbXVIMkhoZWc.

b) The offerings of WP6 to support Design teams/ Development projects with infrastructure and tools presented by Ralf Klamma; see https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byec3A-kUd0wX1NUTG8tQ1VybnM and

c) Revisiting the earlier presentations on the Social semantic server with additional flavour from Owen Gray’s document “Social Semantic Server for Dummies”, see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D4S6yAx3IFPIE4paQnoynJyc-_JLPOMoImC2M4w9HOM

4. The initiative to work with an LL Theory Camp starts to take shape

Whilst many of these sessions were used for internal knowledge sharing between partners who had not been strongly involved in each others’ work packages, one of the working groups took step forward in preparing the grounds for a common “theory camp” activity. This was triggered by the critical remarks of some of the reviewers (in Barcelona review meeting) with recommendation to review the theoretical assumptions underpinning certain work packages and to clarify the position of the LL project vis-à-vis the theories and conceptions that are used. The said working group started to develop posters to group theories and concepts for such examination, see https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B7vXuqBBjr9PZVQ2d0d3SlRYZlk.

5. Issues arising from further group work sessions

Without going into detailed reporting on further sessions it is possible to summarise their importance for the work of ITB and Pont teams with the following checklist that was taken up in the follow-up meeting on 13.2.:

– Further development of sustainability scenarios in the construction sector;

– Immediate measures to ensure technical support for SharingTurbine and Learning Toolbox;

– Synchronisation of the empirical studies for WP1 (key actor interviews) with other ongoing activities;

– Launching the ITB-Pont preparatory measures for the above mentioned“theory camp” and related work with conceptual maps;

– “Technical camp” for developers that are interested in enhancing the use of  WordPress and to develop plugins that integrate WP to SSS.

– Joining the initiative group on Augmented Reality in the construction work that had a kickstart in one of the working groups and started a vivid e-mail discussion.

– Updating the Open Design Library with presentations of construction sector DPs and updating the respective LL Wiki pages.

Altogether, we took a lot of homework from the Innsbruck meeting.

More posts to come …

(Editorial remark 21.11.2016:) This post documents a transformation of perspective in the Learning Layers co-design work in Bau-ABC: the transition from the initial design idea ‘Sharing Turbine’ (digitisation of the Bau-ABC White Folder) into the new framework concept ‘Learning Toolbox (LTB)’. This text was not originally published as a blog post but only as an internal workshop report on a working meeting of Bau-ABC trainers and research partners from ITB (Pekka Kämäräinen) and Pontydysgu (Owen Gray). Since this is the earliest document in which the shift of the initial design idea to the new one has been described, it has been retrospectively included into the Working & Learning blogs, category ‘LTB-blogs. From this point on we have the original text of the workshop report:

“Situation assessment/ Sharing Turbine: In this context Pekka and Owen indicated that the original idea for comprehensive digitisation of the projects of the White Folder had to be given up. Firstly, it pointed out to be very time-consuming for the programming work and there was a lack of support for coding that could not be resolved in due time. Secondly, it pointed out that in many tasks typing with mobile devices would also take more time than writing on paper. Therefore, the emphasis was shifted from a full-scale digitisation of the work with White Folder to the development of a supporting mobile toolbox that facilitates the completion of the training projects and learning at workplace.

Demonstration of the new wireframes for the mobile app for Learning Toolbox

Owen presented the new wireframes that had been designed with Prototyper software and outlined the following areas: “Information”, “Create”, “Tools and Materials”, … “Don’t panic”, “Settings”.

We had a discussion on the functionality of each areas and how it supports knowledge processes in the training projects and in real work situations. In all these contexts it was made clear that the app is to be used locally by each user and that they have to decide themselves, what to share and what to export elsewhere.

In the discussion several points were raised to ensure that the pictures, audios and videos could be “signed” as original contributions of the persons presenting them (or as appropriate quotes with credit to the original source). Also, the use of QR tags was proposed to link contributions of apprentices to the course/project they are completing. In addition, it became clear that the written project report (with downloaded digitised contents) can be scanned and stored as set of digitised contents). With some areas there was a closer discussion, how to meet the needs of a training project (support for learning) and how to meet the needs of work situation (facilitation of problem-solving and decision-making). Altogether, the wireframes were greeted and the participants were looking forward to the next iteration. (In the meantime Owen will visit TU Graz to discuss closer cooperation in the design process.)”

– – –

This is the part of the Workshop report that deals with the transition from the old design idea to the new framework. Not much has been written down on the discussion in Bau-ABC. The wireframes (not available as they were presented at that point) were already convincing enough to demonstrate that the new framework builds upon the earlier discussions in our joint co-design sessions. We had now found the focus for software development. I think this is enough of the start of the work with ‘Learning Toolbox’.

More blogs will follow …

Some of you will have noticed that this site was unavailable for a couple of days last week. When we investigated we found that the database on the server had become overloaded. And, although their may be other reasons, the major problem was that we were hosting some 15 sites, many of them ‘legacy’ European project sites. Furthermore because of issues with incompatible plug ins and the time involved, we had not managed to keep all the instances of WordPress, which hosts the sites, updated.

The European Commission requires us to maintain sites related to funded projects live for at least three years following the end of project funding. Given that most projects are of two to three years duration, this means the minimum time a site is up is five to six years. Yet the requirement masks a bigger problem. How do we preserve and build on the knowledge and ideas developed through project work – be it research or development.

Obviously we try to make sure that anything particularly important is included in the Pontydysgu site. And of course, many projects build on previous work. Most of our sites are archived by the Internet Archive. Reports and products are often published on social networking and Web 2.0 sites and can still be found there. Yet I cannot help thinking that many of the outcomes of useful and potentially important work undertaken by project funding are being lost over time. Perhaps the EU could itself do a better job of archiving and recording the work undertaken through its projects. In some areas, for instance around Open Educational Resources, there has been progress with the development of open repositories and in federating such knowledge stores.

However, many of the products of project work are probably ephemeral, or more important in the processes and interactions, than in the artefacts produced. And there needs to be some process by what knowledge, not only that on the internet, is allowed to gracefully degrade. The problem is that we do not really have any rubrics or processes for deciding what should be maintained and what should be allowed to degrade. Or indeed, if artefacts are important enough to maintain, how and in what spaces to do that.

We probably need yet another project to investigate these questions! Or, if anyone has a good answer, I would be very interested to hear from you.

In my first post to this series of blogs I raised he question: What are we achieving with the fieldwork activities of Year 1 in the Learning Layers (LL) project?  In the two subsequent posts I gave an account on the developments in the co-design activities and in the training activities.

In this post I want to make three concluding remarks to complete the picture that may otherwise look a bit inward-looking and self-sufficient:

1) It is necessary to pay more attention to external support activities that can enrich the co-design and training activities – in particular the so-called Layers PBL projects;

2) It is necessary to have a closer look at the studies on regional innovation policies and the role of organised clusters (that are being carried out by the WP7 team).

3) It is necessary to pay attention to the potentials of and challenges for accompanying research.

1. Concerning the external support activities it is essential to note the valuable contribution that is provided by student groups working in the “Layers PBL” projects that work with particular tasks/apps proposed by LL partners. At the moment we have such projects working in several universities (HSKA, RWTH, Metropolia UAS). In the co-design activities and training activities of the year 2 we can count on the possibility to integrate their results into project work and to initiate new ones.

2. Concerning the studies on regional innovation policies and organised clusters, we have hosted several working visits of the WP7 team and attended to several sessions of stakeholder talks. We have also got several reports on other working visits of the WP7 team. This all has brought us closer to the understanding of regional and sectoral potentials and how to use ‘scaling up’ opportunies that are supported by other funding programmes. This is particularly important when we see the chance to involve other innovation regions with similar initiatives.

3. Concerning the role of accompanying research it is worthwhile to pay attention to the twofold relation of such research and the design/development activities. Firstly, the researchers have to be sufficiently closely involved in the design and development processes to sense the changes (progress or obstacles) in the process dynamics. Secondly, the researchers have to keep a relative distance to be able to document and analyse the developments (without being overly guided by their first impressions). In this respect the LL activities pose additional challenges to carry out the twofold duties of accompanying research in a balanced way.

I think this is enough on these issues at this moment. After the review of the Year 1 activities we need to get back to these issues when launching the Year 2 activities.

The discussion will be continued …

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.

In my first post to this series of blogs I raised he question: What are we achieving with the fieldwork activities of Year 1 in the Learning Layers (LL) project?  In my previous posts I gave an account on the developments in the co-design activities of the LL design team Sharing Turbine (mainly taking place in Bau ABC).

In this post I will complement the picture with a similar account on training activities in the construction sector during the year 1 of LL project. Here again, I will focus mainly on training activities that have started to take shape in Bau ABC (but not exclusively on the host organisation). Concerning the development of training activities  I would formulate the following thesis:

In the training activities of the year 1 we have shifted the emphasis from ad hoc training measures towards a more comprehensive (but transparent) approach. This gives the participants a broad overview of web tools and enables quick trials. This helps them to select their own priorities and make their own plans for further learning and utilisation in their own area.

Looking back at April and May 2013, when we started the early pilots training activities, I have to admit that we were rather cautious . We had good reasons for this, since the co-design activities were only in the beginning phase and we indeed tried to avoid over-ambitious openings. Yet, we understood that we need to develop some kind of project-specific training initiatives to improve our user-skills in web and multimedia (jointly).

So, the ITB team prepared a Webinar for NNB/Agentur to support firstly the staff and later on the network members in ecological construction work. Also, some demonstration sessions with basic applications (e.g. Bosch app, Evernote) were organised with interested craft trade companies. Moreover, some agreements were reached with training providers for craft trade companies to support their training events. However, these initiatives did not raise a wide interest. We were still at the advent of linking training activities to co-design initiatives and to active utilisation of new tools.

The next step in developing training initiatives was taken in an ad hoc meeting in June 2013 (organised alongside the consortium meeting in Graz). One of the ideas put into discussion by this meeting was to organise Do-it-yourself workshops in Bau ABC to create users’ own apps. During the summer months this idea was reworked towards a Multimedia Training approach. The First Multimedia Workshop (moderated by Jenny Hughes from Pontydysgu) provided an orientation to different ways to create apps or to use services and tools in a customised and user-adapted way. This workshop had already a strong hands-on emphasis but it mainly served the purpose to outline the learning pathways forward.

The Second Multimedia Workshop in November (also moderated by Jenny Hughes) was already planned as the second in a series to be continued. This workshop consisted of several short sessions during which the participants trained with similar tasks but using somewhat different software in different groups. The programme started with easier exercises (setting up individual twitter accounts, making word clouds with wordle etc.). Then the participants prepared glogsters ands padlets to present text and multimedia content on the same page. Then cartoons, animations and videos were used to present task implementation in construction work (measurement). In the next phase several other applications were demonstrated with the help of the website of TACCLE2 project (that promotes multimedia competences of teachers and gives advice to develop their own web contents). In the final phase the participants trained with WordPress and developed their own blogs to bring together results of the previous sessions.

In the concluding session the participants (including the director of Bau ABC) committed themselves to continue with a series of such workshops. Pontydysgu volunteered to install a dedicated WordPress site for the training and provide links to relevant contents on the TACCLE2 website. In addition Pontydysgu volunteered to shape the training programme as small modules with tutorials and tasks that support self-organised learning. The participants agreed to continue independently with the proposed tools and to prepare for the next workshop their individual plans for further learning and for domain-specific use of tools.

In a flashmeeting for planning the Y2 activities this development of the training approach was given a new dimension when the participants of the meeting saw the continuation as a joint opportunity to develop wider participation. Also, the development of the WordPress site and modules was seen as a strategy for outreach to craft trade companies and for shaping customised training packages.

…

I think this is as far as I can follow the development of the training concept for construction sector. As I see it, this process has moved from smaller opening steps towards a collaborative and participative shaping of a training programme that can be scaled up in the coming years. Also, my impression is that the first steps have been paved by such ‘user engagement’ that leads to empowerment of learners and capacity building in the organisations involved.

However, this is not the whole story of the process dynamics (of “growing together”, of “hatching out” and of reaching out beyond the initial pilot contexts. Although I may have limited possibilities to report on other supporting activities, it is appropriate to bring them also into the picture by a concluding blog post.

To be continued …

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.

In my previous post I looked back at my blogging on the Learning Layers (LL) project during its first year of activities. I explained how the most recent weeks have been characterised by reporting and preparation for the Year 1 review. I also made the claim that our fieldwork has progressed from a transition phase (August/September) and made clear steps forward. Now it is time to have a closer look at what has happened and why I give it such an importance.

However, before we go into details, it is worthwhile to clarify on what basis I am making these comments and what status I assume them to have.

Firstly, I do not try to give an overall picture of the LL project as a whole – and not even on the work in the construction sector. During the recent months I have been mainly involved in the cooperation with Bau ABC (with focus on LL Design team Sharing Turbine and its prototype Rapid Turbine). Thus, I have not been able to follow parallel developments as thoroughly.

Secondly, my role has varied in different activities – sometimes I have been in charge of the interpretation but most often I have been the one to make notes and reports. Thus, I have had to keep an eye on the whole process and the details as well.

Thirdly, I am not trying to write these comments only from the perspective of ITB but looking at the fieldwork as our joint effort – the research & development partners, technical support partners and application partners working together.

I formulated deliberately my question as follows: “What are we achieving with our fieldwork of Year 1?” I didn’t ask: “What have we achieved …? What is the great difference ? Does it really matter, how the question is posed. To me and to us it does. The latter question draws attention to the results but leaves aside the process, how they have been achieved. The question that I have raised draws attention to the process and results as preconditions for each other. In this respect, what we see as results now, may not be the whole truth of the achievements, if the process has more potential and is only becoming mature.

Finally, I do not wish to give a list of separate achievements or indicators of improvement. Instead, I try to give a picture of (initially) separate initiatives and activities that are growing together as mutually supporting processes. Moreover, I want to give a picture of growing user engagement. Here we can give examples of the empowerment of trainers as contributors to participative processes – as dialogue partners in design sessions and as peer learners and peer tutors in training activities. And finally, what we have been seeing in the recent phases, is the growing interest to involve others once the activities are getting consolidated.

In the next blog articles of this series I will focus on the following activities and demonstrate, how they exemplify the process dynamics that I have outlined above:

 a) The developments in the work of the LL design team Sharing Turbine and in the work with the Y1 prototype Rapid Turbine (see the next blog post – Part 2);

b) The developments in the training activities – progress from singular initiatives towards a coherent and scalable training concept (see the following post – Part 3.

I stop my introductory remarks here and try to get to the two above promised blog articles without further delay.

To be continued …

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the European Commission under the FP7 project LAYERS (no. 318209), http://www.learning-layers.eu.

I have just read an interesting blog post on mobile learning (via the useful ADL mobile learning email list). Donald H Clark says:

Training Magazine’s annual survey of US L&D professionals shows that just 1.5% of training was delivered via mobile devices. That’s right, after about 7 years of hype and discussion we’ve reached 1.5%. That’s not leaping. That’s trench warfare.

And yet of course we use smart devices for learning all the time.

Every time we Google something, check a map for our location, quiz friends and colleagues for the answer to a question we are operating exactly in the sweet spot of L&D: we are learning something, or using a performance aid.

Of course we don’t call it that.

We call it ‘finding something out’, or ‘doing our job’. The learning is almost invisible because it is embedded in our daily lives; it didn’t require us to go somewhere special, to do anything special. It happened at the best possible time – when we had a need for it, and were attuned to be receptive to new information.

I agree. And in the Learning Layers project we are focusing on the everyday learning that take place with mobile devices. Our focus is on Small and Medium Enterprises. Donald Taylor goes on to say:

Rather than concentrating on writing courses, we should be establishing good practice in our organisations for finding information and experts and for sharing information. Where necessary we should be setting up the systems and then letting people get on with using them. We need to use this opportunity to move from being the gatekeepers of knowledge to the facilitators of conversations and learning.

Once more I agree – to an extent. I think the real potential of mobile learning is to link learning that takes place in different contexts. That mean linking formal learning to informal learning. And to link learning that take place in vocational schools, in training centres and in work. But even greater is the possibility to link what we used to call learning (or training) to developing and using knowledge for work. In the past we have called this work process knowledge. In development term this means we need applications which can ;recognise the different contexts (and purposes) for which the mobile device is being used. Whilst there has been considerable academic research on mobile work based learning, there is only limited accounts of practice.

One barrier is the attitude of employers. A recent survey we undertook on over 500 construction apprentices in Germany found that whilst over 50 per cent said they used their mobiles for finding information related to their work or training, only 20 per cent said their employers allowed them to do so. They said that they used the devices in their breaks and lunch time. And in construction I would argue that mobiles are a working tool anyway. So part of  “establishing good practice in our organisations for finding information and experts and for sharing information”, is a task of awareness raising and capacity building with companies for them to realise the potential of mobile technologies for their organisation.

Sorry for the gaps in posts – was travelling and then we had technical issues with the server. But the site is back and so am I.

Since returning from my travels last week, most of my time has been focused on the Year 1 Deliverable for the EU Research Framework Learning Layers project. Each year the project has a review meeting with three external reviewers, who have a frightening amount of power to stop the project or require work to be redone. However, in my experience the process is useful as most reviewers provide constructive feedback and useful ideas.

Whilst that aspect of the reviews is fine, it is the reporting format which puzzles me. The project is organised into some nine separate work packages. Each work package is required to produce report – the deliverables – on its work. And the culture is that these reports are long. We are trying to keep our reports down to about 50 or 60 pages, not including appendices. But one project i acted as a reviewer for produced a 160 page report from one work package. I wasn’t amused!

If the format of the reports is traditional so too is the organisation of the review meetings. Generally each work package presents their report through a half an hour formal presentation, with standardised, bullet pointed Powerpoint templates. Its not very stimulating, and knowledge exchange is somewhat limited.

I find all this a bit ironic, since our project focused on the uses of technology for informal learning and knowledge development. We certainly are not practising what we preach. But it is not just a question for the European Research Framework projects. Despite all the opportunities that Web 2.0 and social software offer for innovation and creativity in the way we present and share knowledge, project reports, in most instances, remain unchanged. In the past I have experimented with formats of evaluation reports, – using video and cartoon books. These had a much greater impact. However the powers that be still like to weigh the project outcomes.

What I would like to see is review and reporting processes to become part of the research, development and dissemination of a project. But I fear until we see a change in the culture and practice of academia this will not happen.

Last week I wrote about projections of future demand for Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM – or in Germany – MINT) occupations. I suggested that predictions of skills shortages were overstated.

The same applies to computer programmers. According to the European Commission, “many vacancies for ICT practitioners cannot be filled, despite the high level of unemployment in Europe. While demand for employees with ICT skills is growing by around 3% a year, the number of graduates from computing sciences fell by 10% between 2006 and 2010.

If this trend continues, there could be up to 900 000 unfilled ICT practitioners’ vacancies in the EU by 2015.”

This is not the first time the European Commission has predicted skills shortages for ICT practitioners. Prior to the Millennium bug, there were once more predictions of a massive shortage of programmers. And I suspect, with a little internet searching, it would be possible to find annual predictions of skills shortages and unfilled vacancies, especially from industry lobby bodies.

One reason for this, I suggested in my previous article, is that the ICT industry has an interest in keeping wages down by ensuring an over supply of qualified workers. In this respect, a report last week on the size and value of the apps industry in Europe is interesting. The  report published by industry trade body ACT, claimed that there are currently 529,000 people in full-time employment directly linked to the app economy across Europe, including 330,000 app developers with another 265,000 jobs n created indirectly in sectors like healthcare, education and media, where apps are increasingly prominent.

At first glance then, this is a rosy area for young people with a good future. But digging deeper into the data suggests something different. According to the Guardian newspaper, “In the UK specifically, the report claims that 40% of organisations involved in developing apps are one-man operations, while 58% employ up to five people. It also points out that 35% of UK app developers are earning less than $1,000 a month from their work.”

1000 dollars a month is hardly a living wage, let alone a sufficient level of remuneration to justify the expense of a degree course. However this does not discourage the industry group who amongst other measures are lobbying the European Commission to strengthen the single market and develop “a flexible and supportive business environment for startups and entrepreneurs.” In other words, more deregulation.

There are a number of problems in looking at skills shortages in this area. My suspicion would be that although the numbers graduating from computer science have fallen, graduates in computer and ICT related courses has risen. And demand for ICT practitioners covers a wide range of occupations. Rather than increasing the number of computer science graduates, more useful would be to ensure that ll graduates are skilled in designing and using new technologies. Of course developing such skills and competences should start at a much younger range. It is encouraging the ICT has been included in the primary school curriculum in England from next year.

The EU policy on future employment is based on the idea of job matching – of trying to match skills, qualifications and vacancies. Of course this does not work. What they should be doing is looking at prospective competences and skills – at giving young people the educations and skills to shape the future of workplace3s and employment. That could include the ability to use technology creatively in a socio-technical sense. But of course that would not suit the various industry lobby groups who are more concerned with protecting there profits than shaping the future of our society.