Next week the Learning Layers (LL) project will have its consortium meeting in the Bremen region. However, the venue will not be the University of Bremen nor any hotel or conference centre nearby. Instead, we have chosen to arrange the consortium meeting on the premises of our application partner Bau-ABC in Rostrup. In this way we will place our discussions and working sessions to the same neighbourhood, where apprentices are trained for construction sector and full-time trainers (working together with companies) are supporting their work process-oriented learning.

Looking back, most of the previous LL consortium meetings have been arranged on university campuses or neighbouring hotels (Barcelona, Helsinki, Graz, Innsbruck, Aachen) and once in a remote conference location (Paphos). All these meetings and the choices of venues had their reasons which I do not want to bring into discussion afterwards. For me the point of interest is, what kind of new experiences and learning gains can we make now that we arrange or meeting at Bau-ABC?

Indeed, we have been already once before with a big group of LL partners during the Application Partner Days in January 2013. At that time the project was carrying out its initial empirical studies and very little could be brought into discussion regarding the co-design processes. Instead, our main task was to get adequate picture of the main activities carried out in the host organisations and share the first impressions with our hosts. In this way the Application Partner Days helped us all further.

Now that we return to Bau-ABC after one and half year we have worked further with the project and there have been many further encounters between Bau-ABC and LL partners. However, we know that our picture of the progress of the LL project is different – depending on the tasks, sectors and cooperation experiences we have had. Also, we know that even if we in the Bremen region have put much effort to share our knowledge and experiences (via reports, notes and blogs) this doesn’t immediately turn into lived knowledge development across the project.

Therefore, we are looking forward to this LL project consortium meeting as an opportunity to real encounters with our application partners. We also hope that we can deepen the picture of shared learning experiences we have made with Bau-ABC staff in our fieldwork. And furthermore, we hope that the way we have planned the work of this meeting helps us to get new insights into  co-design, stakeholder engagement and into scaling up of innovations.

More posts to come …

In my previous post I described in detail, how the Learning Layers (LL) project contributed to the 65 Brunnenbauertage (German construction sector event) that was hosted by Bau-ABC in Rostrup. With my second post I try to give insights into the conversations we had with our counterparts and to report ofnour learning gains.

Firstly, it is worthwhile to emphasise that we were out there at a time when our designs and applications are in the prototype phase. We tried to give insights to the usefulness of digital media, Web 2.0 tools and mobile technologies. Yet, we had to avoid raising too high expectations. We chose to focus on the observations that we had made in our fieldwork and to on the potential of the Learning Toolbox to resolve critical issues or practical problems. We gathered several exemplary situations in borehole drilling, communication between the warehouse (Lager) and the construction site, in maintenance and repair as well as in health and safety measures. In addition, we emphasised the potentials of AchSo! as a tool to draw attention to critical situations and points to be considered.

Secondly, in our talks on the LL stall we got very often positive feedback from our counterparts. The usefulness of AchSo! and the expected functionality of the Learning Toolbox attracted interest. Also, the exemplary work situations that we presented (as ones in which the tools would help) were considered appropriate.  Moreover, our counterparts added similar situations to the picture. We talked with entrepreneurs, apprentices, trainers of Bau ABC, university lecturers and exhibitors with different backgrounds. . One entrepreneur was very convinced that the digital media, Web 2.0 tools and designs like the Learning Toolbox will be a great help for training and learning. He put an emphasis on the new generations of apprentices and their familiarisation with new media. The next entrepreneur was far more hesitant in this respect.

Thirdly, in our stakeholder interviews that we carried out during the event we were able to map some potential counterparts for closer collaboration with the LL tools. In these conversations we could see the interest in linking the digital support for learning and knowledge sharing to the renewal of products and their maintenance documents. Here we could also see a common interest area between the enterprises and training providers. We and our counterparts agreed that we need to continue these talks once we have identified common starting points.

Fourthly, we got very clear expressions of interest from universities of applied sciences (Fachhochschulen) that are developing so-called Dual studies. These study programmes are based on apprentice contracts and they link initial vocational qualification (skilled worker)  to domain-specific higher education (engineering, geosciences, etc.). In these discussions we could identify several common points of interest starting from the emphasis on workplace learning, on the role of web-based support and on the role of training for trainers (in training centres and enterprises).

With this post I do not try to give a comprehensive interpretation on the results of our activities. In this short time (and with my limited awareness of what all happened) it would not have been possible. Yet, I hope that I have been able to outline some of the learning gains that we made during our mission to the Brunnenbauertage. We will surely take them into consideration when we develop our further activities in the LL project.

More posts to come …

This week (from Wednesday morning to Friday afternoon) the Learning Layers project was actively present at the German construction sector event “Brunnenbauertage” hosted by Bau-ABC on their premises in Rostrup. With two blog postings I try to give a picture of the events and our contributions (Part 1) and of the conversations we had there with different participants from the construction sector.

As a professional event of well-builders and borehole builders (Brunnenbauer) the conference part of the Brunnenbauertage event has a longer history (this one was already the 65th). As an enrichment, Bau-ABC has started to organise a professional exhibition every third year. Whilst the start was modest (only five exhibition stalls in the beginning), also the this part has gained importance and now there were over 100 exhibitors with stands and demonstration areas. Altogether, the event was attended by over 650 participants. On the spot, the following activities were running parallel to each other:

• The conference sessions (and workshops on specific topics on construction techniques) were running in separate conference rooms;
• The exhibition stalls were accommodated in an a huge exhibition tent that also provided the space for  foyer presentations;
• In several workshop halls and in the surrounding outdoor areas there were dedicated demonstration areas with scheduled demonstrations of drilling techniques and machinery.

We had planned in advance some presentations and then worked out a plan for several activities to be carried out in the exhibition area. Altogether, we were present in the following ways:

1. In the conference area Melanie Campbell organised a workshop that was addressed to the training of Horizontal Drilling specialists and brought insights into the role of the Baubildung.net platform. (The workshop  was attended also by Werner Müller, Graham Attwell and Dirk Stieglitz.
   
2. In the exhibition area the Learning Layers stall served as an info-point and contact point for all activities. We had posters on AchSo!, Baubildung.net, Learning Toolbox and the Reflect App. In addition we had a comprehensive slideshow and devices to demonstrate AchSo! and the Learning Toolbox. (The stall was managed by Martina Lübbing with support from Pekka Kämäräinen, Werner Müller, Owen Gray and Istvan Koren.)
3. During the first two days some of us were actively visiting other exhibition stalls and engaging the exhibitors to conversation on the role of digital media, Web 2.0 and mobile technologies in learning and knowledge sharing. (These activities were carried out by Ludger Deitmer, Werner Müller and Gilbert Peffer.)
4. During the last two days some of us were following the demonstrations and taking videos with the help of helmet camera, tablet and smartphones. (These activities were carried out by Martina Lübbing, Owen Gray and Istvan Koren. Also, some apprentices of Bau-ABC supported us in these activities.)
5. On the second day we had a foyer-presentation on the Learning Layers in front of the exhibition area (that reached the entire audience in the exhibition tent). This presentation outlined the key points of the project (on the potential of digital media, Web 2.0 and mobile technologies to support workplace learning) and gave specific insights into Learning Toolbox and into the AchSo! application. (The presentation was given by Ludger Deitmer, Gilbert Peffer and Istvan Koren. With her interim input Kerstin Engraf explained, how Bau-ABC has been involved in the project and what benefits they see coming up for the construction sector and for training activities.)
6. On the third day we had some concluding talks with major exhibitors (that are strongly present in training) and with universities of applied science (who are developing e-learning and practice-based learning in the programmes for “dual studies”).  (These talks were carried out by Werner Müller, Martina Lübbing, Pekka Kämäräinen and Istvan Koren).

Altogether, the three days were characterised by manifold activities, lots of contacts and several ideas that were exchanged between us and our counterparts in these conversations. We need to get back to our learning gains very soon.

More posts to come …

After the previous posts April turned out to be a rather quiet month on this blog. Partly this was due to the Easter holidays. To a greater extent this was due to all kinds of backstage work in the Learning Layers project and with some spin-off initiatives. Finally, the preparations for a major stakeholder event – the 65th Brunnenbauertage in Bau-ABC Rostrup kept us busy. Now this event is over and it is time to get back to normal business – and to writing on the Learning Layers project on this blog.

More posts to come …

My previous posts to this series have focused on the the Aachen Integration Meeting of the Learning Layers (LL) project. Part one gave an overview on the results of the Integration Meeting. Part two provided insights into the plenary session of the Aachen Theory Camp (a special event in the meeting). This post gives a report on the results of group work – Working Group 1 on Workplace learning. 

(I am much obliged to Gilbert Peffer who took photos of the flipcharts and Debbie Holley who took minutes on the spot – yet the accents and conclusions are mine.)

I would summarise our work with the following points:

a) The task: We discussed the presentations of the plenary and the way in which the different perspectives (or schools of thought) can be taken into account in the LL project. In this context we acknowledged the diverse positions, frameworks, and theories – some contrasting each other whilst others being complementary to each other. We also noted that some are more underpinned with empirical work whilst others were at higher level of abstraction. From these starting points we worked towards a joint understanding, how to make good use of the different background theories.

b) Approach to theory v.s. theories : We debated the issue ‘unified vs. pluralist view(s)’ as possible way(s) forward. We drew attention to the fact that some of the theories/concepts were not addressing conflicts of interest (or power relations) in working life. As a contrast, others saw them as key issues. Therefore, some theories provide a basis for ‘management tools’ whilst others give insights into conflicts that prevent innovations or lead to unexpected consequences. Taking such tensions into account we pointed to possibilities for drawing together the work from case studies or surveys, from qualitative or quantitative perspectives.

c) Implications for methodology v.s. methodologies: In this context we discussed the parallel use of data from the empirical studies of WP1 and from participative co-design processes and stakeholder talks. We also discussed, in which way the LL project can clarify its commitment or affiliation to ‘action research’ (as indicated in the deliverable of the WP7).  We noted that there are conceptual and epistemological tensions between ‘design research’ and (classical) ‘action research’ that are being debated in the literature. We also noted that there are German conceptualised traditions of ‘accompanying research’ (Begleitforschung) that refer to innovation programmes on Work & Technology or to model/pilot projects in vocational education and training(VET) that are less known elsewhere.

d) The issues of Intervention and Impact: In this context we had a discussion, in what ways the LL project is expected to show impact as Research, Technology & Development (RTD) project. We all agreed that there was a consensus on working with participative design processes and the interventions were essential for the knowledge development approach. However, there were differences between university traditions and/or evaluation procedures, to what extent researches should prioritise impact on theoretical level (academic publishing) or impact on practice (getting evidence on project-generated changes in working life).

e) The issue of desired outcomes in the field: In this context we discussed the prospect of changing attitudes to knowledge sharing. Here the key issues were “tolerance of uncertainty”, “willing to share” and “ability to share knowledge”. The strategies to promote such changes were linked to phrases ‘mindlines not guidelines’ (in the healthcare sector) and to the capability for social shaping of work, technology and environment (Gestaltungsorientierung) in the construction sector. In this way we tried to link the efforts to promote new competences/ capabilities in using Web 2.0 technologies (in the context of work or workplace learning) to the empowerment of users.

f) The conclusion: The group supported the initiative to continue with Theory Camp session(s) in the Bremen consortium meeting. We proposed the following title: “The Impact of the Learning Layers project on Theory and Practice”. We discussed some ideas that can be taken as topics or cross-cutting themes:

• Connections between learning processes at the level of teams/ groups, organisations, networks, clusters and (‘learning’) regions;
• Readiness for sharing knowledge; sharing in networks and/or in multiple networks;
• Promoting new capabilities – the role of networks, organisations, teams and peers;
• The role of intervention research approaches (action research, accompanying research, design research etc.) in working with and conceptualising such issues.

This is as far as we got in Aachen. The discussion on the follow-up is going on.

More posts to come on the next steps …

In my previous post I discussed the achievements of the Aachen Integration Meeting of the Learning Layers (LL) project. Now I shift the emphasis to the Aachen Theory Camp that was organised as a special event within the meeting.

Background of the Theory Camp: The need  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. Also, other issues were raised – e.g. the project was asked need to clarify its commitment to ‘action research’. In the next consortium meeting in Innsbruck we started preparing a “theory camp”  workshop for the Aachen meeting. The dedicated workshop in Innsbruck had a more specific look at the SSS but later on further topics were raised for a broader Theory Camp that looks at the project as a whole.

The Theory Camp Plenary: As a result of the preparation phase we had a list of Wiki articles (see the  embedded links below) and corresponding ppts in Google Drive folder (see the link at the end of the list). For the plenary session these were grouped into following sets of contributions:

Learning and Practice

• Scaffolding (Vygotsky)

• Pragmatisms notions and concepts intertwined with Vygotskian approaches

• Communities of Practice

• Workplace learning

• Work process knowledge

Collective & Networked Learning Theories

• Knowledge Maturing

• Distributed Cognition, Eco-systems https://drive.google.com/a/tlu.ee/#folders/0B3sordvGMXsGSWpzc0l4QV9ISkk

• Network Theory

Organisational Learning

• Knowledge Sharing & Absorptive Capacity

• SECI Model & ATLAS Theory

• Learning in clusters

Generation of Meaning

• Sensemaking & Intersubjective Meaning Making

• Complexity Theory

Knowledge Representation

• Forms of Knowledge Representation

• Transcriptivity Theory

(See the presentations in https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B79ULHQp1d2BSzdLeGF5UVlNOEk.)

Reflective commentary: As the list above shows, we had quite a number of short presentations with few quick questions. Most of the discussions took place in the parallel working groups afterwards. In the plenary session the ITB team was responsible for the themes “Workplace learning” and “Work process knowledge”. Both presentations attracted attention and gave rise to further questions regarding the status of these concepts and of the practical implications.  I will get back to these issues in my report on the working group in which I participated.

More posts to come …

Some busy weeks have passed since the Learning Layers (LL) project had its Integration Meeting in Aachen at the end of March. Before the Easter break it may be useful to look back what we achieved and what issues we raised for follow-up.

This post will sum up what I considered as progress in promoting integration across the Learning Layers project. There will also be some critical issues to be taken into account in the follow-up. In the next posts I will discuss the Theory Camp event and how to build upon it in the next phase.

Here some remarks on our progress with promoting integration in the project:

a) Promoting technical integration: Altogether the technical integration sessions raised awareness of the offerings of the partners responsible for the infrastructure. For other partners, the decisions on Layers Adapter (single login to LL apps/tools and joint data-mining on the use of them) are also of interest.

b) Technical support for Development Projects: The meeting increased mutual awareness between the Layers Developers’ Task Force (LDTF) and Development Projects and made transparent what kind of support can be given when up-to-date information is available. In particular the Learning Toolbox was redefined as an integration project that makes use of different LL tools that can be integrated at different stages of the project (some sooner, some later). This opened new possibilities for earlier demonstrations.

c) Work with sustainability scenarios: So far the sustainability scenarios have been developed somewhat separately from each other. Thus, the reporting on them was not unified. Now, after the Aachen experience, it is possible to plan a session that gives attention to the whole range of scenarios and works through the SWOT-analyses.

d) Cooperation across sectoral Development Projects: The Aachen workshop brought the DPs together to look at possibilities for mutually complementing pilots and demos (involving also external actors). This is vital for the development of Captus, AchSo!, Learning Toolbox, Reflect and the exhibition tools. This can be supported by the BauBildung.net and by coordinated development of customised training models for Bau ABC, NNB/Agentur and craft trade companies.

e) Cooperation with empirical studies: The Aachen workshop was a clear step forward in the discussions, how to get parallel interviews and stakeholder talks better coordinated. In particular there was an effort to develop new ways to utilise of prior knowledge, earlier interviews and documents encounters in the interpretation of interview data (on networks and their role in promoting learning). However, these discussions left open issues on, how to analyse changing practices in networks or the potential of networks to promote innovations in working and learning.

f) Work with the Theory Camp approach: The Aachen Theory Camp became a larger and more popular event than expected. Moreover, participants raised needs for further Theory Camp activities from the perspective of interventions, identifying (real) instances of change in sectoral practices and valuing the (conceptual) impact on theory and practice as merits of the research partners. This needs to be taken into account in the planning of the next project consortium meeting in Bremen.

g) Co-design and evaluation issues: The above mentioned discussion (on interventions, identified changes and impact on theory and practice) is essentially linked to the goal-setting for participative design work and to the related evaluation concept. So far the discussion on the evaluation approach has been somewhat disconnected from the design teams and/ or development projects. The Theory Camp discussion gave impulses to discuss the approach taking into account the empowerment of users (Mindlines, Gestaltungsorientierung).

More posts to come …

In my previous posts to this series  I have informed how that preparations of the Learning Layers (LL)  Theory Camp started (Part One, Part Two) and on our  reviewing of the heritage of the Work Process Knowledge network (Part Three). In this post I will focus on our efforts to give theoretical insights into Workplace Learning: Contexts, Processes and Outcomes. For this purpose we have created the following gDrive folder: https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B3HPtAul4vyHSzB0RzJIUnJwVTA.

Starting point

We found it important to prepare the theme ‘workplace learning’ for the theory camp although we did not have a single source but instead a wide range of theories and concepts to bring together. As already expressed by the Work Process Knowledge network (see my previous post), many research approaches tend to overemphasise the role of ‘informal learning’ and to belittle the potential of organised vocational education and training (VET). Also, we were concerned that much of the conceptual work on workplace learning in the context of VET provisions (in particular in the German dual system) is only available in German (or in very few translations in VET-specific antologies).

Interim products

In our sub-folder for Working Documents (see https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B02cXf0hbQH0R3Izb1JJWmVVYmc) we have produced the following overviews, input papers and synthesis articles (which all have the status of first drafts):

1) The overview “Conceptualising Work Experience, Vocational professionalism and Workplace Learning – Overview on selected European research approaches” presents a picture of European approaches that put into discussion work experience, comprehensiveness and connectivity in workplace learning. A set of selected articles outlines different positions at conceptual level – based on ‘connectivity’ and/or ‘Berufliuchkeit’ – and their implications to analysis of work process and curriculum development. (This overview refers to research dialogue between the Work Process Knowledge network and parallel research approaches.)

2) The input paper “Learning in the work process – From Work psychology to Kompetenzwerkstatt“  takes a closer look at the discussion on regulation on holistic actions and working tasks  from the perspective of work psychology and links this to the VET-specific approaches to shape holistic working and learning tasks (with reference to the ongoing project “Kompetenzwerkst@tt”.

 3) The input paper “Cooperation between Leaning Venues: Structure and impact” takes up several conceptual issues that arise from the institutional duality (or plurality) of learning venues in the German vocational education and training (VET). For the LL these are of particular importance since the gaps in cooperation and knowledge sharing are a particular stimulus for the co-design work under the agenda of Sharing Turbine.

4) The synthesis article: ” Workplace learning – Vocational knowledge – Working & Learning tasks “ covers most of themes mentioned above and puts them into a conceptual framework of VET research. It provides into the overarching concepts (‘workplace learning’ and ‘VET’) and into the pedagogic concepts ‘comprehensive action contexts’ and ‘holistic working tasks’. It continues with the themes ‘professional development’ and ‘social shaping’ (of work & technology) in the context of VET. Then, it draws consequences for the development of working & learning tasks and discusses the role of vocational knowledge processes. The article is concluded by a  reflection on the value of the culture of apprenticeship.

Working issues

As I have mentioned earlier, we have brought together contents from different sources as ingredients for a debate. The importance of these inputs for the LL project  lie in the fact that t we do not look merely at a simple, solitary process of  knowledge accumulation (as ‘banking’ ). Instead, the role of ‘work process knowledge’, contextual adjustment and ‘social shaping’ comes up all the time.
The LL project consortium has to perceive its developmental contribution in terms of research and development dialogue – instead of simple ‘technology push’. Thus, the usefulness of the apps and the SSS have to be discussed in the light of their contribution to vocational learning. The central questions are:

• What aspects of work based learning and work process knowledge do the given apps and the social semantic server support and sustain?
• Where are the restrictions, barriers and obstacles and how can we overcome them?

I think this is enough on this theme. We will keep working on them.

More posts to come …

In my previous posts I have informed how that preparations of the Learning Layers (LL)  Theory Camp started as a Central Initiative (Part One) and as our local measures (Part Two). In this post I will have a closer look at one of the themes we have been working with – reviewing the heritage of the Work Process Knowledge network. As our gDrive folder (see https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B02cXf0hbQH0UDl1bmlJdjdhc2c) contains a lot of documents I will make only some introductory remarks to the theme and to the different working documents. At the end I will summarise some conclusions for the LL  project.

 1. Starting point

The more recent theories and conceptual constructs indicated in the LL deliverables  refer to certain aspects of learning or knowledge processes. However, there is also a need to review more comprehensive approaches to learning in workplace contexts that date back to earlier years. In this respect the ITB team in the LL project has taken the task to review the interdisciplinary research on Work Process Knowledge (WPK) and Organisational Learning. In this way the ITB team seeks to build a link to European research that was funded under the FP4 (Targeted Socio- Economic Research) and FP5 (Improving Human Potential).

The WPK network represented a Europe-wide effort to develop a comprehensive and interdisciplinary research agenda. In this context particular disciplines and national research traditions were contributing to shared knowledge development on work processes. The WPK network and the follow-up project analysed the introduction of  ICT at an early stage of innovations. At that time the solutions to be developed and studied were mainly domain-specific and organisational innovations. Also, at that time the possibilities for user-involvement and participative design processes were seen in narrower contexts.

2. Interim products

So far we have produced the following commentaries  or overviews  on the approach and the work of the WPK network (see the sub-folder for Working Documents https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B02cXf0hbQH0VjB6ckRyTGd2ZTA):

a) Commentary I on theoretical foundations of Work Process Knowledge – interim synthesis MF-NB: This document gives a picture on the emergence of the concept ‘work process knowledge’ in different studies, on changes in working life. It also makes transparent the critique that the network presented on allegedly one-sided approaches to socio-technical innovations. Finally it gives a picture on the positioning of the network regarding the role of vocational education and training (VET) as contributor to innovations in working life. (The reference text of this document is the synthesis article of M. Fischer and N. Boreham, 2004.)

 b) Commentary II on empirical studies of Work Process Knowledge – interim synthesis MF-NB: This document gives a picture on empirical and co-shaping studies carried out by the network. The range of studies is from ‘basic research’ on informal learning and learning potentials on workplace to programmatic and development-oriented studies based on the concept ‘vocational professionalism’ (Beruflichkeit). (The reference text of this document is the synthesis article of M. Fischer and N. Boreham, 2004.)

c) Overview: Conceptualising Work Process Knowledge – Implications for VET: This document draws upon the two above mentioned commentaries. It brings into conclusion different threads that were followed in the two commentaries and makes more explicit the conclusions for the LL project.

3. Lessons learned

The importance of the contribution of the Work Process Knowledge Network for the LL project: can be characterised as follows

a) Specifying the relations between informal learning and formal education/training

A key feature in the critique of the Work Process Knowledge network vis-à-vis the alternative positions was that the latter ones either

a) reduced vocational and work-related learning into proceduralised and popularised version of codified expert knowledge or

b) overemphasised the situated and intra-organisational character of such knowledge and learning (without taking into account ‘external’ and long-term influences).

b) Linking the role of ‘social’ and ‘technical’ in socio-technical innovations

Another key feature in the critique of the Work Process Knowledge was that the alternative positions either

a) reduced technical innovations in working life into mere implementation (technology-push) of the allegedly innovative technologies or

b) narrowed down the role participative co-shaping (by skilled workers) as activities of the (immediate) communities of practice in intra-organisational contexts.

c) Specifying the role of research in participative design & implementation processes

The theoretical and methodological discussions in the Work Process Knowledge network paved the way for research designs and modes of conceptualisation that both

a) required co-participative and co-shaping involvement of researchers in processes that promoted technical and/or organisational changes (with the support of skilled workers) and

b) enabled the documentation and conceptualisation of critical incidents, eventual tensions, turning points and eventual reorientations without losing the overview on the process.

d) Making use of a holistic view on work process knowledge and workplace learning

The critique of the Work Process Knowledge network vis-à-vis the alternative approaches has not been merely a matter of academic perfectionism but a challenge to get a holistic view that

a) gives an adequate interpretation of the acquisition of work process knowledge (and of the role of workplace learning as integral part of sustainable innovations in working life;

b) gives guidance for promoting organisational learning with relevant tools, arrangements and facilitation that make it possible to transfer and scale up the innovations.

 I guess this is enough of this theme for the moment. There are still some contributions on the pipeline.

More posts to come …

In my previous post I informed of the initiative to work with an LL Theory Camp in the forthcoming Aachen Integration Meeting. I also informed of the start of the local follow-up in Bremen. With this post I inform of the further discussion in ITB team to the work with a wider set of themes and to continue with Theory Camps after Aachen.

Theory Camp(s) in LL project: What needs – What issues?

In the follow-up discussions of the LL teams of ITB and Pont  we welcomed the approach to work with ‘theory camp’ but we had several questions, how this could best be done:

a) Is the general level of discussing ‘learning theories’ enough or should we have a more differentiated look at the theoretical foundations of of our project activities?

b) Is it enough to have one joint ‘theory camp’ in the meeting in Aachen or should we have a set of ‘theory camp’ activities that can nurture each other?

c) How do we deal with the issue ‘integration’ in the theory camp activities – are we assuming that inventarisation of some ‘theories’ would give us an integrated body or do we need more work to examine the interrelations between theories, tool development and cooperation with users in the two sectors?

Contributing to the Integrative Theoretical Discussion

In the light of these discussions we started to work with the  theme “Theory camp preparation” to support the forthcoming activities. We acknowledge the central role of the Aachen event we consider it appropriate to have similar (local) events before and after Aachen. From this perspective we created the above folder “Theory Camp preparation” to provide a wider forum for the preparation(see https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B02cXf0hbQH0ZFg1eVlUM28zZ0U). In this sense we have accommodated the Innsbruck documents and direct follow-up contributions under the sub-folder “Contributions to theoretical integration debate” (see https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B3M81ETIl7QETzdZTHpMT250VG8).

Reviewing the heritage of “Work Process Knowledge network”

Concerning the scope of theories, concepts and methodologies, we concluded that the work in the Innsbruck group and in the follow-up was somewhat disconnected from the fieldwork and form the co-design processes. Our point was that the the LL project needs to inform itself of the work of “Work process Knowledge network” (FP4, TSER) and the follow-up project “Organisational Learning” (FP5, Improving Human Potential). This, to us was not only a matter of academic perfection but a matter of learning from their fieldwork and on their interaction with stakeholders. From this perspective we have created the sub-folder “Reviewing Work Process Knowledge & Organisational Learning” (see

https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B02cXf0hbQH0UDl1bmlJdjdhc2c).

Providing theoretical insights into Workplace Learning

Concerning the theme ‘Workplace learning’ we have been concerned that it has so far had a somewhat marginal role vis-à-vis themes like ‘informal learning’, ‘scaffolding’ etc. For the ITB team it has been important to bring into picture several aspects of workplace learning in the context of the German vocational education and training (VET) culture – including the integrative concept ‘Beruf’, cooperation between learning venues and the role of working and learning tasks.  For these themes we created the gDrive folder “Workplace Learning: Contexts, Processes, Tasks, Outcomes” (https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0B3HPtAul4vyHSzB0RzJIUnJwVTA ).

Reviewing different approaches to ‘action research’, ‘accompanying research’ and ‘interactive research’

Another major need for similar work was to clarify our concept of participative design processes, e.g. by reflecting different positions in the field of participative research. In ITB and in the VETNET network of EERA-ECER there is a longer tradition of discussing the relations between the general genre of ‘action research’ and the more specific forms as ‘accompanying research’ or ‘interactive research’ that support innovation programmes in education/training and working life and/or specific pilot projects. The reviewers’ recommendation to widen the scope was taken into account and the thread ‘transdisciplinary action research was spotted. For this work we created the gDrive folder “Reviewing Action research – Accompanying research – Interactive research” (see

https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B02cXf0hbQH0NzB2QV9EY3MxWFk ).

In the following posts I will give insights into the two themes that we have prepared for Aachen – Work Process Knowledge, Workplace Learning. Then, I will add some remarks, how we can bring these themes into common discussion in Aachen.

More posts to come …