With this series of posts I am completing one of the final tasks in our EU-funded Learning Layers (LL) project – analysing the work in the two sectoral pilots – construction and healthcare – from a comparative perspective. At the end of the work we need to consider, what we have learned from parallel pilots and what conclusions we can draw on the basis of comparative analyses. In this respect I am have presented extracts from a joint draft document on which I am working with my colleagues Tamsin Treasure-Jones and Graham Attwell. With these posts I try to ‘blog into maturity’ the preliminary thoughts we have put into discussion. In the previous posts I presented some starting points and insights into the processes as well as reflections on the parallel pilots. In the final post I outline conclusions across the pilots. (Here, as in all posts, the input on healthcare pilot is provided by Tamsin Treasure-Jones.)

Whilst it has been relatively easy for us to present the stories of the two pilots (even in a comparative setting), it is difficult to draw conclusions across the pilots – and to keep the complex picture of the contexts in one’s mind. Therefore, we are very cautious about presenting cross-cutting conclusions. Below, after several iterations I present our joint conclusions:

Concluding reflections – across the sectoral pilots

Altogether, it is difficult to formulate conclusions that could link together either success factors of the two different sectoral pilots. The circumstances were very different and the processes as well. However, some of the challenging experiences can be formulated as ‘paradoxes of co-design work’:

1. Co-design processes that start with a focus on very specific needs of particular user groups are not always able to pursue their work consequently to an end. Iterations and eventual revisions are natural elements of such processes. Radical shifts of emphasis during the process may lead to more flexible or better solutions but equally they can also cause a loss of momentum.
2. Processes that have created a ‘milieu’ of participative events and exchanges between the developers and users may be influential as facilitators of multimedia learning and upgrading of user-skills. Yet, positive experiences in the preparatory work do not necessarily guarantee successful deployment of tools in actual practice. Here it is necessary to look at the context in which the introduction of the tools takes place. There are limits to what a project can achieve when working in a complex and changing environment.

Concerning the changing of practices, takeup of the tools and transferring ownership of innovation, the experiences of both sectoral pilots emphasise the importance of critical transitions, such as:

• Radical changes in the initial design idea should be supported in responsive co-design work. Yet such changes need to be made with care, since they can introduce problems (loss of motivation, dropping good ideas too early, losing the link to the original well-understood context) as well as leading to improvements.
• Moving from the work with the initial group (involved in the co-design) to work with a similar group that had not been engaged in the co-design work. In such situations the new users may be less motivated to work with tools that are under preparation; they have not developed the same personal investment and feelings of ownership as the co-design group
• Transferring the innovation from the initial pilot context to new ones with different user groups. If the tools can be easily customised for new contexts, engagement of users may be easier with new groups of users who first encounter the tools when mature.

In this respect, sustainable deployment of tools like the ones of the Learning Layers project require the readiness of both individuals, organisations and networks to complete the transition to use them. The introduction of the tools that were piloted has not been merely a replacement of older tools with newer ones. The pilots with collaborative tools have required changes in routines, knowledge processes and patterns of sharing information. If only some of the users are ready to complete the transition to new tools, then there is a risk that the tools are not used at all. If the tools can be used individually, for limited user groups and for collaborative processes (as the Learning Toolbox), then the transition can proceed from smaller pilot groups to wider use more easily.

—

I guess we managed to complete our  work in a good way. I think we got the mainlessons pulled together.

More blogs to come …

In this series of posts I am working with one of the final tasks in our EU-funded Learning Layers (LL) project – analysing the work in the two sectoral pilots – construction and healthcare – from a comparative perspective. At the end of the work it is necessary to consider, what we have learned from parallel pilots and what conclusions we can draw on the basis of comparative analyses. In this respect I am presenting extracts from a joint draft document on which I am working with my colleagues Tamsin Treasure-Jones and Graham Attwell. With these posts I try to ‘blog into maturity’ the preliminary thoughts we have put into discussion. In the previous posts I presented some starting points and insights into the processes. In this post I present our reflections on the parallel pilots – to be continued in the final post with conclusions across the pilots. (Here, as in all posts, the input on healthcare pilot is provided by Tamsin Treasure-Jones.)

Reflections on different factors influencing project work in the pilot sectors

In the light of the above presented process characteristics and findings it is appropriate to reflect the lessons from the two pilot sectors with their respectively different processes of project work. Below we summarise the lessons of the two sectoral pilots concerning

• factors that facilitated successful project work and take-up of innovation,
• factors that caused hindrances and required efforts to overcome them,
• factors that enabled transfer from initial pilot contexts and supported wider engagement of users.

Lessons from the construction pilot

1. In the primary pilot context – training centre Bau-ABC – it was possible create a multi-channelled research & development dialogue, in which different activities supported each other. Work process analyses, analyses of critical bottlenecks in training, pedagogic reflections on the use of tools – all this contributed to the shaping of the Learning Toolbox. Furthermore, in the trades that have been involved in the pilots, the apprentices have taken the Learning Toolbox as an adequate support for their own learning processes.

2. During the pilot activities the following hindrances and restrictive factors were experienced and partly overcome: a) The initial design idea (comprehensive digitisation of training materials) was too specific to the primary pilot organisation and too complex in technical terms. This was overcome with the concept of Learning Toolbox and with its open and flexible framework. b) At a later phase the gaps of multimedia competences in the pilot organisation were seen as a risk for successful tool deployment across the organisation. This was partly resolved by introducing the Theme Room training scheme as a ‘whole organisation’ engagement.

3. The transfer of innovation from the initial pilot context (training centre) to further pilot contexts – to construction companies and to other organisations in construction sector has been enhanced by the following factors: a) A specific impact case was presented by a construction site manager who demonstrated the usability of Learning Toolbox as means to share information in real time (and for reporting from the construction site). cb In promotion events both the training-related examples and the case of construction site management have enabled the company representatives to express their own interests on using Learning Toolbox.

Lessons from the healthcare pilot

1. Factors that appear to have supported adoption of the tools and transformation of practice include working with organisations whose key remit/focus is training/education. This occurred with our work with both PCTC and AMEE. Both organisations had the interest and knowledge to see how they could use the tools within their practice and to use their own resources to support this. Another approach that has led to change in healthcare has been the involvement of a commercial/development company (PinBell) who already have a related product (Intradoc247) in the market.
2. Factors that appear to have hindered adoption of the tools and transformation of practice include the workload pressures within the healthcare SMEs. Learning Layers was working within the UK healthcare sector at a time of constant change and national reorganisation. Staff feeling under pressure have little time to devote to R&D projects which do not have a clear service delivery output. The co-design activity did lead to some healthcare professionals feeling ownership of the tools.  However, this engagement and adoption did not appear to transfer fully when the tools were taken beyond the co-design teams and into their networks for the pilots.
3. Factors that have facilitated transfer beyond the initial contexts in healthcare include the use of the tools by healthcare professionals in real work settings and their own presentation and championing of the tools to others. Based on their understanding of the tools (developed through their engagement in the co-design work), healthcare professionals were able to present the tools to their healthcare networks and engage those networks in the pilots. However, this approach only succeeded in getting the wider networks involved in the pilots, it did not yet lead to the wider networks adopting the tools or making long-term changes in practice.  

—

I think this is enough of our reflections on the two parallel pilots. We already start to see different constellations of facilitating and challenging factors coming up. In the next post I conclude this series with our reflections across the pilots.

More blogs to come …

In this series of posts I am working with one of the final tasks in our EU-funded Learning Layers (LL) project – analysing the work in the two sectoral pilots – construction and healthcare – from a comparative perspective. At the end of the work it is necessary to consider, what we have learned from parallel pilots and what conclusions we can draw on the basis of comparative analyses. In this respect I have been working with my colleagues Tamsin Treasure-Jones and Graham Attwell with a joint draft document. In this series I present extracts from our document as ‘loud thinking’ to ‘blog them into maturity’. In my first post I presented our approach and the starting points of the sectoral pilots. In this post I present some insights into project work in the two pilots. In the final posts I will present our reflections and some emerging conclusions. (Here, as in all posts, the input on healthcare pilot is provided by Tamsin Treasure-Jones.)

Insights into project work in the two parallel pilots

“In both sectors the general approach was to adopt co-design and capacity for implementing and rolling out the technology in the application partner organisations. In addition to work in the primary pilot contexts, the pilot teams engaged additional, ‘secondary’, contexts.”

“In construction the process started as digitisation of existing training and learning resources and through  a process of research and development dialogue. In this context the co-design shifted from digitisation of learning content to shaping a flexible digital toolset – the Learning Toolbox (LTB). The Bau-ABC trainers adopted the Learning Toolbox as part of their normal practice and starting to develop digital learning resources themselves. This activity enhanced their efforts to change the role of the trainers from a more didactic role to a facilitative one.

In the outreach activities to present the LTB to other users in construction sector the ‘champion case’ has been the example in which a architect Thomas Isselhard (from the network for ecological construction work) demonstrates how to use the toolset in managing a construction site and the cooperation between different craftsmen. In the light of this example the construction companies have developed their own ideas, how to use the LTB for their purposes.

In healthcare the initial empirical and co-design work had identified three potential opportunities for technology to support informal learning at the healthcare workplace. Co-design teams w followed a Design Based Research approach to the subsequent development and field-testing of the tools – Bits & Pieces, Confer and Living Documents. By the end of the third year the tools had been used by small groups within each General Practices within a short field-study to support their collaborative work. There was some evidence that the groups involved in the pilots started to work in a more collaborative way. Yet, there is little sign that the pilot tools themselves will continue to be used beyond the project.

However, Learning Layers had involved a key commercial partner (PinBell) in the co-design work to help with longer-term sustainability. PinBell’s Intradoc247 software is a leading intranet solution designed specifically for General Practices. Therefore the changes in practice observed within the pilot activities may be continued through the use of collaborative working functionality now embedded within Intradoc247 and supported by PinBell.

The wider stakeholder engagement work in healthcare has involved work with a regional training company (Primary Care Training Company – PCTC) and an international medical education organisation (Association of Medical Education in Europe – AMEE). In year 4 with the maturing of Learning Toolbox, PCTC identified the possibility for it to support their annual conference for Healthcare Assistants and they are now also exploring whether it can support their training courses.  Learning Toolbox was successfully used as part of the technology-enhanced informal learning package at AMEE’s 2016 conference.”

—

I think this is enough on the implementation of the two pilots and of the outcomes at the end of the day. In my next post I will present reflections on the processes (relative strengths and weaknesses) in the parallel pilots.

More blogs to come …

Twice I have already tried to say goodbye to project work in our EU-funded Learning Layers (LL) project – in vain. Having completed the reporting on the construction pilot with the the forthcoming web documents (impact cards, learning scenarios and methodology documents) I thought that I could step to a follow-up phase. However, at that point I had not realised that there is one more pending task that we need to address in the context of our reporting. We need to have a closer look at the efforts, achievements and experiences in the two sectoral pilots – construction and healthcare – with a comparative view. We need to see, what specific lessons we have learned in each of them and what conclusions we can draw on the basis of both sectoral pilots. So, now I am working with my colleagues Tamsin Treasure-Jones and Graham Attwell to summarise the picture of the two pilots in one document and to outline common conclusions.

In this series of posts I present some extracts from our draft document – firstly the starting points, then some insights into project work and some reflections on the parallel pilots and finally some emerging conclusions across the pilots. I hope that my colleagues accept my way of ‘thinking aloud’ in blogs and ‘blogging through’ the draft texts to maturity – this is the way of work I have learned during the LL project. So, here we go with the first extract:

“Challenges for research & development activities and for valuing the achievements

The Learning Layers project has worked in two pilot sectors – construction sector and healthcare sector. The aim has been to develop and introduce appropriate tools and technology solutions that support the application partners in workplace-based learning, knowledge sharing and networking – given the sectoral boundary conditions. However, during the project work the pilot teams have encountered also several hindrances as well as organisational and cultural barriers.

In the reporting of the project this has been taken into account by providing a picture on the progress in both pilot sectors. This may easily lead to particularisation of the view – the achievements of the project are to be judged on the basis of success in particular pilot organisations with the respective tools and measures introduced there. This would leave to margins the fact that the project worked towards integrative tool development and that the sectoral pilot teams tried to learn from each others’ experiences. Therefore, this document provides comparative insights into project work in the two pilot sectors and reflects on lessons learned when comparing the experiences and achievements.

Starting points for the sectoral pilots

Starting points for Construction pilot

In the beginning phase  of the project following kinds challenges, problems and interests were identified in the initial interviews and stakeholder talks in the construction sector:

• Recent innovation campaigns of construction industry and trades (see e.g. the joint document of construction sector stakeholders “Leitbild Bau”2009) highlighted improvement of human productivity as a major innovation factor. At the same time construction sector was suffering from lack of skilled workers and apprentices.
• Construction companies that had pioneered with digital tools, mobile offices and first-generation apps at construction sites had made negative experiences with non-mature technologies, less user-friendly software solutions and compatibility problems between different tools and apps. Construction sector trainers had mostly encountered such ‘domain-specific’ apps that were designed for laymen users but were not adequate for professional use (or as support for learning).
• Apprentices were not familiar with domain-specific apps and had mainly become familiar with digital tools, web resources via private use of Internet.
• Most construction companies were very restrictive regarding the use of mobile devices at construction sites – partly due to data privacy issues, partly due to hazard risks and partly because use of such devices was perceived as distraction.

Given this background, the training centre Bau-ABC was interested in starting pilot activities that would give mobile technologies a new role in construction work, training and learning.

Starting points for Healthcare pilot (Prepared by Tamsin Treasure-Jones)

In the healthcare sector the Learning Layers project was working with General Practices within the UK National Health Service. These General Practices are independent, SME organisations (usually owned by a partnership of doctors) employing doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals to deliver first-line healthcare services to their registered patients. In the early stages of the project the following issues were identified from the empirical work (interviews, focus groups, observations) and stakeholder meetings with these healthcare professionals:

• There was an increased emphasis on collaboration both within General Practices (working in interprofessional teams) and between General Practices (working in the newly set-up Clinical Commissioning Groups and Federations).
• This collaboration was currently being facilitated mainly through email and face-to-face meetings but healthcare professionals felt that this was not effective, was contributing to their information overload and was inhibiting the work.
• The General Practice work was mainly office-based, using PCs, and the General Practices did not have wifi installed nor any plans to add this.
• The key driver for the General Practices was healthcare service delivery and improvement, particularly through collaboration.

—

I think this is enough of the challenge that we are facing when comparing our project experiences and process histories in the two pilots. In my next post I will give insights into the processes – and into the findings that we are considering.

More blogs to come …

During the four last years I have been blogging intensively on our ongoing EU-funded Learning Layers (LL) project. Now the time has come to close that chapter. I have three reasons to make that statement:

1. The project itself is at its final stage and our field activities are being closed.
2. My contract with the project has already come to an end. At the moment I have not been yet been engaged in the follow-up activities that are still in the process of getting shaped.
3. Due to health issues I am no longer available for field activities in the same way as before.

So, with all the good time passed with the LL project and with all due optimism vis-à-vis the open questions, I am well advised to to take a look back at my blogs and see, what all comes up there.

1.  Blogs of the years 2012 and 2013 – Working ourselves in into the project

Now, looking back, the blogs of the first year reflect a period when we all (research partners, technical partners and application partners) were working ourselves in into the project and finding our ways to work together. I have reported intensively of the initial field visits, of the Application Partner Days and of the work around the Helsinki Design Conference 2013. Also, I have reported of several rounds of co-design workshops and of the first Multimedia Training workshops. At that point we still tried to work with a massive digitisation agenda with the Bau-ABC “White Folder” and sought to narrow it down for rapid prototyping. As our main achievements I highlighted the good collaborative spirit in the co-design workshops and the readiness for shared learning in the Multimedia training workshops. Later on I started to use the concept ‘research & development (R&D) dialogue’ to emphasise this as something very valuable that we had established together.

The logbook of my blogs of these years is available on ResearchGate, see:

PK-Logbook of Working & Learning blogs on Learning Layers 2013

2. Blogs of the year 2014 – Taking the course to develop the Learning Toolbox

The second year was started with a planning exercise – to sketch ‘development projects’ as mode of operation that gives us more flexibility across the work packages and initial design teams. For the construction pilot this was an important signal because it helped us to highlight the development of the Learning Toolbox (LTB) as our new working perspective. In addition to this important shift of emphasis I have reported intensively of the preparation and implementation of the Theory Camp (March 2014) and our follow-up with our contributions to the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER 2014, September 2014). However, the main thrust in that year was clearly in our user engagement with our colleagues in Bau-ABC. We had a major promotion campaign on the idea of LTB during the annual Brunnenbauertage conference. We had an intensive “Demo Camp” promotion session with Bau-ABC trainers and apprentices alongside our consortium meeting in Bau-ABC. We had other outreach activities (the NordBau trade fair and a workshop with companies). Finally, the highlight of the year was the package of videos that we edited with Bau-ABC trainers to support the development of the LTB.

The logbook of my blogs of this year is available on ResearchGate, see:

PK-Logbook of ” Working & Learning ” blogs on Learning Layers 2014

3. Blogs of the year 2015 – The rocky road to Theme Room training and piloting with LTB

The first half of the year 2015 was characterised by hard work with software development and with preparing funding bids for follow-up projects. Neither of these topics was heavily present on the blogs. Therefore, there was quite a lot of reporting on interim events, on the Espoo Design conference and on several hot issues from Finland (the AchSo pilot in Finnish construction sector, the Sustainability Commitments, knowledge sharing on Activity Theory, joint event with Finnish promoters of apprentice training). In April we experienced the opening of the Learning Exhibition “nachhaltig.bauen.erleben” of our application partners in Verden. In May we visited the annual Training Day of Bau-ABC trainers, still with a simulation version of LTB. The turning point was the consortium meeting in Tallinn where we had our first discussion on the Theme Room training concept and a release of LTB with which we could proceed to preliminary testing. So, after the summer break we were already engaging Bau-ABC trainers in testing and in the autumn months we implemented the Theme Room training campaign – both topics well covered with blogs.

The logbook of my blogs of this year is available on ResearchGate, see:

PK-Logbook of “Working & Learning” blogs on Learning Layers 2015

4. Blogs of the year 2016 – With seven-league boots in the final run

The clear highlight of the final project year has been the introduction of the Learning Toolbox (LTB) into apprentice training in Bau-ABC – and later in the year to construction site management in Verden. The progress in Bau-ABC has been covered with blogs on preparatory meetings in February, on the Kick-off event in March and on later working visits in April and May. The exemplary openings in the pioneering trades (well-builders; carpenters and bricklayers) and the transfer to neighbouring trades have been observed carefully. Also tests in other fields of application (Training in Health and Safety; Support for trans-national mobility) were introduced. And in-between we had fairly successful testing visit with AchSo and SOAR introduced by colleagues from Aalto. And after the summer break we were happy to find out during the evaluative field visits (together with Markus Manhart from UIBK and Jaanika Hirv from TLU) that the Bau-ABC trainers and apprentices had taken LTB as their own tools to use it with their accents as support for training and learning. This then paved the way for the high season of preparing the final deliverables (that I have discussed in my latest blogs).

The logbook of my blogs of this year is available on ResearchGate, see:

PK-Logbook of “Working & Learning” blogs on Learning Layers 2016

– – –

I think this is enough of my journey with the LL project as it has been portrayed on my blogs. Of course, the blogs are episodic snapshots and do not necessarily grasp the bigger picture (although I have tried to cover this level of analysis as well). Some of the blogs have been combined and reworked into articles on the LL project website and latterly into the “Learning Toolbox Chronicle”. As the running number of the blog entries is right now 176 (if I have not counted wrong), it is perhaps easier to get an overview from those chronicles than by walking through the heavier logbooks. But both types of collections are there. With this statement I close this chapter and take the next step  to move on.

More blogs to come …

Quite some time my blogs have focused on producing contributions to the final deliverable of our (still) ongoing EU-funded Learning Layers (LL) project. Now these contributions are taking shape and are being edited as part of a group picture of the results of the whole project. This gives me rise to work with the question: How can we make sure that we take full benefit of the legacy of our project? One part of the answer is to edit a good final deliverable (that will happen). Another part is to make sure that the working documents and reflection documents produced at different stages of the project are not getting lost but are being ‘harvested’ as well. With both aspects in my mind I have recently worked to build up the Learning Layers presence on ResearchGate. I have created two project spaces – one for “Learning Layers Construction Pilot” and the other for “Learning Layers Theory Camp follow-up”.

RG project space for “Learning Layers Construction Pilot” – what for?

The decision to set up a project space for Learning Layers – and in particular for the Construction Pilot – grew out of the need to create commentary spaces that point to the Learning Layers materials that I am uploading to ResearchGate anyway. Firstly I used that space as means to provide some samples of information – news updates on series of blogs and lists of articles – as ‘starters’ to get familiarised with our project. Now that our final contributions are taking shape, this project space provides an opportunity for ‘sneak preview’. Moreover, since some of the draft documents will be edited shorter, I have uploaded the original draft versions (ODV) in full length.

As of today we find the following final documents of the Construction Pilot as ODVs on ResearchGate:

• Use of Learning Toolbox (LTB) by Bau-ABC Trainers and Apprentices (Impact Card C-11, Construction pilot, Germany)
• Multimedia Training for and with Bau-ABC trainers (Impact Card C-12, Construction pilot, Germany)
• Learning Toolbox (LTB) as Support for Action-Oriented Learning in the Apprentice Training of Bau-ABC – Instances of Change (Learning Scenario S-09, Construction Pilot, Germany)
• Learning Toolbox as Support for Organisational Learning and Cooperation at a Construction Site in Verden – Instances of change (Learning Scenario S-02, Construction Pilot, Germany) Motivation and Theoretical Contribution
• Accompanying Research and Participative Design in the Pilot activities in the Training Centre Bau-ABC (Methodology Document M-10, Construction Pilot, Germany)
• Training interventions as capacity-building for digital transformation in the Training Centre Bau-ABC (Methodology Document M-11, Construction pilot, Germany)

As the project is coming to an end, this space will also provide insights into follow-up activities.

RG project space for “Learning Layers Theory Camp follow-up” – what for?

The second project space was created quite recently to ‘harvest’ the contributions to the Learning Layers Theory Camp (March 2014) that were prepared by the ITB team. Whilst there was some kind of follow-up at the consortium level with some meta-themes, the contributions provided by us were not discussed widely. Yet, we had put some effort to cover some theoretical, methodological and research-strategic issues. Now, in the final analyses and in the the transition to follow-up activities, it is useful to revisit some of these themes and our theoretical contributions from the earlier phase of the project. Currently we have following main documents allocated to this project space:

• WP1/ Work Process Knowledge: Introduction to the reviewing of the legacy of the EU-funded Work Process Knowledge network (FP4 – TSER)
• WP2/ Work Process Knowledge: Revisiting the Theme ‘Work Process Knowledge’ and its implications for vocational education and training – The position the WPK network
• Commentary 1 on theoretical foundations of the Work Process Knowledge network (based on the synthesis article of M. Fischer and N. Boreham 2004) – 2014
• Commentary 2 on empirical studies of Work Process Knowledge network – based on the interim synthesis article of M. Fischer and N. Boreham
• WP Accompanying Research: Reviewing the role of Accompanying Research, Interactive Research and Action research as support for participative design processes
• Commentary note 1: Activity Theory – Foundations, conceptual evolution, implications for a developmental research strategy – 2015
• Commentary note 2: Activity Theory – Intervention research cases, Change Laboratory processes and research findings – 2015

As the project is coming to an end we will also rework with these materials as well when we are preparing (secondary) analyses of the empirical findings and reflection papers on our fieldwork.

– – –

I think this is enough of the Learning Layers presence on ResearchGate – as far as the project spaces “Construction Pilot” and the “Theory Camp follow-up” are concerned. Both will have a life beyond the funding period of the current Learning Layers project.

More blogs to come …

One of the final efforts of our EU-funded Learning Layers (LL) project has been the rearrangement of the dissemination articles that we had published on the LL website, section “Construction”. At the end of the project we felt that we should make it accessible as a more structured documentation of the process we went through with our construction sector partners. However, we knew that we cannot make intensive editing operations – the materials were already there and we could at best make them more attractive by providing easier access to them. Secondly, we needed to think beyond our project experience and to open perspectives for follow-up activities. This gave rise to present the history of Construction pilot as the story on the making of its main result – the Learning Toolbox. And so the articles of past years were give a new life as the “Learning Toolbox Chronicle” and as “Learning Toolbox Chronik (Deutsche Version)”.

Insights into the Learning Toolbox Chronicle (English version)

Under the new heading the articles appear as three volumes (annual chronicles):

Learning Toolbox (LTB) Chronicle Vol. 1, 2014  covers the early phases from the Application Partner Days (APD) and from the early co-design activities (2013) to the outreach activities with the LTB concept in 2014 (Brunnenbauertage, Demo Camp, Nordbau and a smaller demonstration workshop with two active craft trade companies).

Learning Toolbox (LTB) Chronicle Vol. 2, 2015  covers several interim events starting with the opening of the ‘Learning exhibition’ of our partners in ecological construction work in Verden and with the annual Training Day of the Bau-ABC staff. Later in the year we had workshops and conferences in Espoo, Bremen and Budapest and alongside the Bremen conference the publication of the LTB Beta version. This was celebrated with a field visit in Bau-ABC and with special sessions in the Bremen conference. (And let us not forget the visit of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency to Bremen to inform themselves of the Learning Layers project and of the emerging Learning Toolbox!)

Learning Toolbox (LTB) Chronicle Vol. 3, 2016  covers major training interventions (the Theme Room training campaign) and a series of pilot activities and field events in Bau-ABC Rostrup (the major pilot site for the LTB). We also get insights into using the LTB for coordinating construction work processes at a special construction site in Verden.

Insights into Learning Toolbox Chronik (Deutsche Version)

In principle the German versions of the Chronicles cover the same developments. However, the number of articles is smaller (since we have only included articles of the years 2014 and 2015) that are closer to the application partners. But regarding the year 2016 we have covered all events and activities.

Bonus tracks and Online Guide

One of the highlights of the year 2014 was the joint effort of Bau-ABC colleagues to produce a series of videos on possible use of the LTB in their training and in construction work. These videos are also accessible via both language versions of the LTB Chronicles, see

Learning Toolbox videos from Bau-ABC (2014) – Overview 

One of the highlights of the year 2016 has been the publication of the Learning Toolbox Online Guide. It can also be accessed via the the Learning Toolbox chronicles.

– – –

I think this is enough of the new Chronicles. I hope that they serve their purpose and provide inspiring insights into the making of the Learning Toolbox. For us who were involved in this process they provide an opportunity to celebrate our joint achievements – researchers, practitioners and developers, all working together. And we already know that Learning Toolbox has a future beyond the current project.

More blogs to come …

With my three previous blogs I have started a series of posts to wrap up the experiences of our EU-funded Learning Layers (LL) project. As I have indicated, we are preparing contributions for the concluding deliverable of our project. In my previous post I discussed, how we are showing impact of our project with Impact Cards. Then I discussed, how this can lead to a particularisation of the picture. As a contrast, I tried to bring together the messages of different cards to show, how our interventions in the Construction pilot have had impact in terms of promoting digital transformation. However, my examples remained at the level of presenting local and context-specific success stories and progress reports. This gives rise to the question, what is the value of these achievements in terms of promoting the presented innovations. And this then leads to the question, on what grounds we can interpret this potential.

Below I will discuss these issues in the light of the two Learning Scenarios that we have prepared on the basis of the Construction pilot. In both examples we introduce firstly an exemplary case on the use of Learning Toolbox (LTB). On the basis of such a case we then draw scenarios for further work with LTB and for dissemination of the innovation. And with both examples we can demonstrate the role of research and of our theoretical work in interpreting the impact.

LTB on construction site – the scenario on the work with multiplier networks

In the first “Learning Scenario” on cross-organisational learning with used as a starting point Thomas Isselhard’s presentation on the use of LTB as support for coordination of the work at a construction site and for real-time communication on plans, orders and reports. In the two videos recorded on his presentation Thomas gives a picture, how the use of LTB can help to avoid communication gaps between different parties involved (video 1) and how to get new users accustomed to work with LTB (video 2). The background text in the ‘Learning Scenario’ draws attention to the way in which the the functionality of LTB help to overcome the gaps. In a similar way the text draws attention to the benefits of LTB as an integrative toolset – customised for the users and by the users with their own sets of context-specific stacks and content tiles. Furthermore, the videos and the text give insights into the ways in which new users are introduced to using LTB while getting their instructions for the construction work.

This exemplary case shows the potential of making interactive use of LTB as a common integrative toolset for sharing knowledge and information between different parties at a construction site. In the ‘Scenario’ part of the document we step out from the site and shift the emphasis to different organisations and networks involved in construction sector. Thomas Isselhard is a member in several networks on ecological construction work and these networks have a wide range of specialised cooperation partners. In this respect the ‘Scenario’ outlines a spectrum of activities via which these networks can promote the use of LTB in sharing knowledge and promoting cooperation in ecological construction work and in different campaigns for awareness-raising.

LTB as support for apprentice training – the scenario on supporting learning in special learning areas

In another “Learning Scenario” document we draw attention to the way in which full-time trainers (Lehrwerkmeister) in the intermediate training centre Bau-ABC Rostrup have used LTB to support their training. In the background sections the document gives insights into the transition from working with paper-based materials to creating web-based resources that are available via trade-specific stacks and content tiles.

In further sections we present results from field visits in which researchers have had interview sessions with the trainers and focus groups with apprentices. Here we found an interesting difference between otherwise similar approaches:

• Trainers who follow a problem-oriented training strategy tend to equip  learners with comprehensive resources. The apprentices need to search as self-organised learners  to find the problem-relevant information. In a nutshell, the LTB can be characterised as a ‘well’.
• Trainers who follow an interest-oriented training strategy tend to provide in the beginning fewer resources and only gradually open access to new resources. The learners are nurtured step-by-step with new impulses and challenges once they have started to find their own solutions and ways of working. In this case, the LTB can be characterised as a ‘watering can’.

In the ‘Scenario’ part we stepped out of the trade-specific contexts of apprentice training and shifted the emphasis to specific challenges in the training of Bau-ABC. One issue that the Bau-ABC trainers had raised already at an early stage of the project was, how to make training in Health and Safety (Arbeitssicherheit und Gesundheitsschutz) more inspiring. Another issue was, how to provide easy and filtered access to DIN norms that are relevant for skilled workers. For both cases it is possible to provide interim solutions by providing an overview on the sets of resources via Moodle (or similar platform). Then linking LTB to the respective Moodle application (or similar application) the users could find the resources easier (‘LTB as a well’). However, in the training with these resources it would be possible to introduce some kind of ‘gamification’ to guide the learners from tasks that require general knowledge to more demanding cases that require special expertise (‘LTB as a watering can’).

Reflections

We have also used these documents to highlight the role of our theoretical work in interpreting the impact demonstrated in these exemplary cases (as a basis for the scenarios):

• We have interpreted the first case – the use of LTB at the construction site in Verden – as a micro-case that demonstrates organisational and cross-organisational learning in a local context. Here we underline that ‘organisational learning’ is not merely a result of good management skills or good consultancy. Instead, the key point is in finding the way to promote interactivity and responsiveness between site manager, craftsmen and stakeholders involved. This point has also been highlighted in the concept ‘work process knowledge’ that we have discussed in the project on several occasions.
• We have interpreted the second case – the Bau-ABC trainers’ transition to use LTB – as an example of gradual digital transformation and as enhancement of their pedagogy. Here, it is worthwhile to emphasise that the trainers have challenged apprentices to become self-organised learners and to take ownership on their learning. With the use of LTB they have seen more possibilities – and the learners have felt themselves more empowered. In this way the use of LTB has strengthened the training and learning culture based on action-oriented learning in Bau-ABC.
• We worked out these interpretations in the latter case by combining the empirical findings of a visiting evaluation researcher, the process-related knowledge of a ‘local’ accompanying researcher and the insights into instructional designs provided by an educational technology researcher. In this way way came to interpret the changes in Bau-ABC as indications of a digital transformation based on step-by-step transitions – not as an abrupt digital revolution with great leaps to unknown. Moreover, we could conclude these changes as contributions to the Bau-ABC approach that celebrates action-oriented learning – not as a radical paradigm shift in pedagogy.

– – –

I think this is enough of our work with the ‘Learning Scenarios’ and altogether on the theme ‘digital transformation’. In the coming days our deliverables will take shape and will be made available in due time. There is some more work to be done, but most of the Learning Layers experience is getting wrapped up. Then we have to prepare ourselves for the follow-up.

More blogs to come …

With my two latest blogs I have  started a series of posts to wrap up the experiences of our EU-funded Learning Layers (LL) project. Currently we are preparing contributions for the concluding deliverable of our project. One part of this exercise is writing “Impact Cards” to demonstrate, what kind of achievements we have reached in the sectoral pilots in Construction sector and in Healthcare sector as well as in the supporting activities (development of  tools, software and infrastructure). In general, I have welcomed the idea of preparing such impact cards. They present in different contexts a) the situation before our project activities, b) the interventions that we have carried out and c) the situation/developments  after our interventions.

However, such cards have also their limitations. Whilst they are good tools for demonstrating particular achievements in specific contexts, it is difficult to keep the big picture visible with such tools. Thus, we may have details but loose sigh on the overall developments to which these achievements contribute. Also, we may fail to see, what kind of challenges we have had to meet during the work to show any impact whatsoever. This, to me is important when we discuss the theme ‘digital transformation’ and consider, how our project has contributed to changes in working and learning processes. From this perspective I will discuss below the picture that we have given on the Construction pilot by reading across the impact cards we have prepared. For practical reasons I focus now on the cards that deal with the training centre Bau-ABC Rostrup.

The situation before the Learning Layers project

Here it is worthwhile to emphasise that the general atmosphere in Germany concerning the role of mobile devices as support for learning – and in particular for workplace learning – was mainly sceptical and restrictive. The use of mobile devices during work was forbidden in most companies and in the training centres. The use of smartphones was considered as distraction and in the worst cases as a risk factor (concerning hazards at work or concerning data privacy in work contexts). Furthermore, the companies that had been involved in early pilots with digital tools had made negative experiences with ‘infant diseases’ of specific tools and compatibility problems with stand-alone tools and apps. The trainers in Bau-ABC had been monitoring tools and apps that were advertised for their trades, but not many of them had proven appropriate for professional use or as support for apprentice training. Moreover, the apprentices had not learned to know tools or apps relevant for their learning and most of them had used smartphones only for private hobbies.

However, having said all that we started our cooperation with Bau-ABC trainers and management in good spirit and the apprentices were keen to join in the activities when there was a chance. All parties were interested in looking, how to bring mobile devices, digital media and web resources into learning and into work processes. All parties informed us of communication gaps and practical difficulties in which they saw the possibility to bring in digital tools to facilitate work and learning. However, the important point was that the new technologies should offload them, not add to their workload. And regarding apprentice training, the new technologies should empower them as self-organised learners, not provide easy shortcuts that reduce the learning effect.

The training interventions as capacity-building

When starting our co-design process with Bau-ABC trainers, we soon realised that we (all of us) needed to raise our awareness on existing tools and apps as well as of processes of using, co-creating and co-developing. From this perspective it was great help that our Pontydysgu colleagues – in particular Jenny Hughes – had a lot of experience with the TACCLE courses in getting teachers familiarise themselves with such technologies for their own use. Moreover, those courses had brought the teachers together to make their own plans for using web resources in their teaching. This provided the background for the first training intervention – the early Multimedia training workshops in Bau-ABC. This training encouraged some of the participants to create their own WordPress blogs and to use them as repositories for making their training materials publicly available (see Zimmererblog, Maurerblog, Tiefbaublog and Brunnenbauerblog).

Based on this experience the Bau-ABC trainers proposed at a later phase the Theme Room training model to raise awareness and to promote digital competences across the organisation. This provided the basis for the second training intervention – the Theme Room training campaign in November 2015. This time the whole organisation participated, whilst partners from LL project worked together with the advanced trainers as tutors and mentors. Here again, the emphasis was on creating an overview on the themes (social media, digital learning materials) and to work together to get an idea, how to use the web-based and tools in apprentice training.

The co-design and pilot testing of Learning Toolbox (LTB)

In the early phase of the LL project the Bau-ABC colleagues proposed as a major design idea the digitisation of the White Folder of Bau-ABC (the collector of training materials, worksheets and reporting documents in their apprentice training). Already at this phase we got a lot of feedback, how the use of the forthcoming tool should enhance the learning of apprentices (instead of providing easy shortcuts to answers before reflecting the task). During the  process the design idea got transformed from digitising the materials to developing an integrative toolset to facilitate the work with web-based resources and real-time communication. In this way the co-design process took the course to developing the Learning Toolbox (LTB). And due to their intensive participating in this work and in Multimedia Training the Bau-ABC trainers were supporting this idea. The strongest evidence for this were the videos that Bau-ABC trainers produced in August 2014 on potential use of LTB in different training and working contexts. In a similar way the ca. 80 apprentices that participated in the Demo Camp workshops in June 2014 were very inspired by the idea of getting such a toolset to work with.

In the final phase of the project when the LTB was ready to be introduced for piloting in the apprentice training (with several few trades and selected training projects) we were pleased to witness a relatively smooth take-off. In spite of some technical problems we got positive feedback from trainers and apprentices. The trainers who were leading these pilots had found their own ways to use the LTB (building their own stacks, screens and tiles) to provide access to learning resources. Some of them provided a wide range of information resources (for problem-oriented searches), some preferred to open the acess to wider resources as a step-by-step procedure (based on learning progress and interests). The apprentices also found their own ways to make use of the LTB and gave their own views as feedback. In a similar way, the separate introduction of AchSo  (video annotation tool) in some of the trades was taken as an enrichment (although there was some confusion, whether it can be integrated into LTB or remains as a stand-alone tool).  Altogether, the experiences with piloting were by and large positive.

– – –

I think this is enough of the situation before the Learning Layers activities and of the interventions that we have carried out during the project work. The impact cards do contain an assessment, how the situation has developed after the interventions and on what points we can show impact. However, from the perspective of the theme ‘digital transformation’ these points would be very detailed. Furthermore, we are still looking forward to having concluding discussions with Bau-ABC trainers and with the management. Therefore, I will not go into the details here. However, I need to emphasise that in our final reporting we have a further task to interpret the impact and achievements in conceptual and future-oriented terms – with Learning Scenarios. I will discuss this task in my next post.

More blogs to come …

With my latest blog I started a series of posts to wrap up the experiences of our EU-funded Learning Layers (LL) project. As I mentioned,we are in the phase of  concluding our project. For us this is not just a matter of presenting our results with individual reports or demonstrating the achievements with individual tools. An essential part of this phase is to reflect on our experiences on the whole – what have we learned and achieved together. I started my reflections with the theme ‘digital transformation’ and how we have experienced it as lived practice and as research challenge. In this second post I try to describe, how this has characterised our work as researcher partners in research & development dialogue with our application partners in the Construction pilot of the LL project.

The process dynamics: Research & Development dialogue with multiple activities and many iterations

Shortly before the start of the project I recorded  with our colleague Graham Attwell a video interview in which he presented some key ideas for the forthcoming project. Graham made a realistic point that

‘in the beginning the users don’t know, what the technical developers can offer them and the developers don’t know why and how the users would use their products’.

Graham saw the great chance of the LL project in turning such ‘don’t know – don’t know’ constellation into a ‘getting to know – getting to know’ type of dialogue. This was his anticipation in Spring 2012.

The real life in the construction pilot turned to be far more colourful. In Graham’s reflection the technical partners and research partners were treated as one group. And finding a common design idea and ways to put it into practice didn’t appear as complicated as it turned out to be.

Altogether, the process dynamic that led to the development of Learning Toolbox (LTB) was characterised by  a long  search for an appropriate design idea that makes sense for the trainers and apprentices in construction sector training centre Bau-ABC. This process did not lead to a quick listing of requirements for external software developers to do their job. Instead, the lack of developer resources was compensated by co-design workshops and further iterations involving research partners, intermediate technicians and application partners – who were preparing the grounds for software developers to enter a process of research & development (R&D) dialogue. Thus, the key characteristics and expected functions of  LTB were  in a ‘getting to know – getting to know’ type of dialogue – but the developers and their know-how had to be integrated into this process.

The multiple roles of accompanying research during the process

Concerning the role of our ITB team (Institut Technik & Bildung) in this process, the best term is ‘accompanying research‘. This concept arises from German innovation programs in working life and in vocational education and training (VET). Originally two German concepts have been used, which may have somewhat different connotations – Wissenschaftliche Begleitung (scientific accompaniment) and Begleitforschung (accompanying research). The former might be seen as a more open approach, whilst the latter may emphasise a more focused research design. In the innovation programs in working life such research was used to monitor, whether the innovations improved the quality of working life. In VET-related pilot projects (Modellversuche) the role of research was to monitor and evaluate the implementation of pedagogic innovations. In both cases the accompanying researchers tended to have co-participative and co-shaping roles. However, the responsibility on the success of pilots was on the application partner organisations.

Concerning the LL project and the co-design process of Learning Toolbox (LTB), the role of the accompanying research team of ITB was even more co-participative and co-shaping than that of the predecessors. Moreover, the research challenges was also more open – the researchers had to grasp the challenges in the course of the interactive and dialogue-oriented process. When the process moved on to the active deployment of the LTB, the researchers were needed as facilitators of the dialogue and as co-tutors in the training activities. In the final phase the accompanying researchers were needed as counterparts of evaluation researchers – to interpret together the findings. All this can at best be characterised with the term ‘agile accompanying research‘.

The role of training interventions as capacity-building in the field

In the light of the above it is essential to emphasise that the co-design activities and the research interventions were not enough to give the process its strength. A crucial part was played by the training interventions at different phases of the process. In the earlier phase of co-design process the ITB and Pontydysgu teams arranged a series of Multimedia training workshops for voluntary trainers of Bau-ABC Rostrup. At a later phase the ITB and Pontydysgu teams together with advanced Bau-ABC colleagues organised the Theme Room training campaign (see my blogs of November and December 2015). These training interventions were not merely general orientation or user-training for certain tools. On the whole these training interventions were capacity-building for Bau-ABC as a whole organisation and for the trades involved.

Here it is essential to emphasise that the training interventions were essential dialogical elements in the process. All parties were engaged as learners – trying to find out, in what ways digital media and web tools can be introduced into construction work and into workplace-based training. And all this supported the development and deployment of the LTB as an integrative toolset to work with.

– – –

I think this is enough of our experiences with research & development dialogue in the LL project and in the Construction pilot – in particular with the application partner Bau-ABC. In the next posts I will look more closely to the challenges to show impact and to draw scenarios on the basis of such experience.

More blogs to come …