In December 2012 I started a series of blogs for the Learning Layers (LL) project with the question “What can we learned during on-site-visits“. In the first article I summarised my first impressions from a field visit of the ITB team to the work site of our partner organisation Agentur für Nachhaltiges Bauen. This visit (and the interviews we recorded) gave us a much richer picture of the special area ‘ecological construction work’ and of the innovations that our partners are pushing ahead in this field.

Now, in January 2013, the ITB team has started its work for LL with further field visits (including audio/video recorded interviews) to the sites of our partners in the North-German construction cluster. Yesterday I and my colleague Werner Müller visited the training centre BauABC Rostrup at Bad Zwischenahn (near Bremen). During our visit we had a quick look at some of the worksites and training workshops and carried out five interviews with seven counterparts.

It is worthwhile to emphasise that Bau ABC Rostrup is not whatever training centre in the construction sector in Germany. It has been launched by the central organisation of the construction industries and employers (Bauindustrieverband) of the federal states Bremen and Niedersachsen and it provides training services across North Germany. In some areas (see below) it serves as a nation-wide centre of expertise. In the initial vocational training serves primarily as an inter-enterprise training interface (überbetriebliche Ausbildungsstätte) that caters for such training blocks that cannot be provided by individual companies. In the continuing vocational training it is in charge of continuing professional development of skilled workers and of training for master craftsmen (Meister) and other specialists in the trade. Due to these training functions Bau ABC has in addition to its training rooms or workshops huge outdoor worksites on which different machines, equipments and construction techniques are piloted for training and development purposes. Moreover, the centre is all the time running real construction sites to convert old army warehouses into modern training facilities (designed by Bau ABC staff and built by their trainees).

Without going into details of the interviews and the points that were made, it is worthwhile to raise some points that help the other LL partners to consider, how they can best support the work of application partners – such as Bau ABC.  In this context I would like to draw attention to the following points:

1) Who are our counterparts and what is their role in the construction sector?  Firstly, we had a chance to talk with two senior Master Craftsmen (Meister) in the borehole building (Brunnenbauer). They were in charge of a whole range training activities – including initial vocational training and the trainings for advanced specialist (e.g. the training for new Meister). They were also involved in producing new learning materials and in examination boards. Then, we had a chance to discuss with two apprentices in the same trade. One of them took his apprentice training as a part of his medium-term contract for the German arm. The other one had taken this training after having had firstly a training in other trade (electrician). Finally, we had discussions with three younger master Craftsmen (Meister) who were in charge of initial vocational training for neighbouring occupational areas (bricklayers, carpenters, road-builders).

2) What kinds of occupational areas are covered by Bau ABC and how can they be linked to the LL project? A major occupational area for Bau ABC is that of borehole builders (Brunnenbauer) and groundwork constructors (Spezialtiefbauer). This trade is characterised by costly machinery and equipment and by high risks regarding the treatment of different geological layers and ground water sources. (Work in this trade has been documented by the German army with the Youtube video Wasser für Marmal.) In Germany there are not many training providers for this trade and among them Bau ABC is considered as a national centre of expertise. In the immdediate vicinity there are training facilities and work sites for the neighbouring trades, such as road-builders (Strassenbauer), bricklayers (Maurer) and carpenters (Zimmerer), who also need to have the know-how on laying the foundation of the buildings and for underground construction work.

3) What can be said about the penetration of ICT and Web technologies to different areas of construction work?  In this context it is worthwhile to make a distinction between the borehole builders (Brunnenbauer) and the more traditional crafts and trades. For the borehole builders the industries that produce their machines and are already intensively involved in the  development of ICT equipment and software. Therefore, the exhibitions of this trade are also characterised by the presence of web services and applications. In this respect the more traditional trades have adopted the use of smartphones and tablet PCs at a later date. Altogether, all of the said areas are making new experiences with the usability of ICT- and Web-based tools, apps and services.

4) What can be said of  the readiness of our counterparts to work with ICT, Web technologies and social media?  In general our counterparts were positive about testing and trying out new solutions (“Was man nutzen kann, soll auch benutzt werden.“) However, depending on their positions, training responsibilities and occupational areas the counterparts raised different issues. For some areas work the problems at worksite opened more opportunities for self-directed search for solutions (and on-site learning) whilst for other areas such problems need to be communicated further to external persons with specific responsibilities. This may reduce the range of skilled workers’ involvement in finding solutions. Yet, there were issues about taking note of different problem cases for the continuing training of specialists and of Master Craftsmen (Meister) – who complete their training programmes with practical examinations on real worksites.

Altogether, the visit and the interview sessions can be seen as  preliminary discussions that helped our counterparts to present their first situation assessment on problem-based learning opportunities in their trade and on the role of ICT- and web-based tools in making themselves aware of such learning. In this respect our counterparts are looking forward to further encounters with the Learning Layers project (e.g. the forthcoming Application Partner Days).

To be continued …

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

At the moment several contributors to Learning Layers project (from Pontydysgu, ITB, CIMNE, Bau ABC and Agentur) are participating in Online Educa Berlin. Pontydysgu will keep us updated on their contributions via live radio program (Sounds of the Bazaar),  podcasts and via Graham’s blogs on Wales-Wide Web.

While the travel team is busy over there, the home team is doing some stock-taking on lessons to be learned from prior projects. As a first contribution I have collected some links to video interviews that I produced as the ITB partner for another European project (Coop-PBL in VET).  As you see from the list below, the interview partners (from Pontydysgu and ITB) discussed issues that are relevant for the Learning Layers project as well:

• The interviews with Graham Attwell (four videos) focused on the development of European projects on ICT, Web and learning (in SMEs).
• The interviews with Jenny Hughes (two videos) focused on the experiences of two TACCLE projects in supporting teachers to create and share user-generated web contents.
• The interviews with Joanna Burchert and Sven Schulte (three videos in English, parallel versions in German) focused on the experiences with the German project expertAzubi that developed an interactive online platform for apprentices, workplace trainers and vocational teachers in the Bremen region.
• The interviews with Ludger Deitmer (four videos in English) focused on regional cooperation between vocational education providers, partner enterprises and different innovation programs since the early 1990s to present day.

It is not our intention to dwell in the past. But we do understand ourselves as part of a living tradition of innovation research and part of that ‘living’ is the ability to look back how certain ideas and cooperation patterns have developed. It is interesting to see new issues coming up in Graham’s and Ludger’s overviews. Moreover, it is interesting to see, how dynamic cooperation culture has developed in rather short-lived projects (as Jenny and Joanna & Sven tell in their reports of recent projects).

The story goes on …

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

Yesterday I wrote two blog articles based on the videos that the ITB team and the partners in Leeds produced at an early stage of the Learning Layers project. Now the project has officially started and we are going through several meetings, flashmeetings and skype meetings. In this phase we are learning more of each other and – as a consequence – we have to broaden our picture of the users, their expectations and their possibilities to contribute to the project.

So far my first blog article has discussed individual users (medical doctors in Leeds and craftsmen in electric installations in Bremen) as the starting point. My second article shifted the emphasis from individual users (and their workplaces) to their professional communities or networks and to enrichment of shared knowledge.

With this article I want to shift the role to “competence centres” (in German Kompetenzzentrum) and to their role as multipliers of innovative practice. Here I refer to the ideas that have been presented by Melanie Campbell who represents Bau ABC (one of the application partners of the LL project). I am aware that Melanie is preparing a more elaborate presentation for the Online Educa Berlin but I want to draw attention to some ideas already at this stage.

Firstly on the role of Bau ABC in the construction sector. It is easy to get a false impression that it would only be a more advanced vocational school or college (for apprectices) or a training centre (for adult learners on short courses). In this respect the range  of training activities of Bau ABC is wider and it caters for different target groups. In the initial vocational education it serves as an inter-enterprise training interface (Überbetriebliche Ausbildungsstätte). In the continuing vocational training it serves as a provider for different competence-giving and certified programmes. For this purpose it has huge training sites in which advanced training programmes (for various occupations) can be implemented in circumstances that are similar to real construction sites (instead of retreating to mere classroom simulations). And altogether, it serves as a nodal point for continuing professional development and as promoter for knowledge transfer from training contexts to everyday life practice.

For the Learning Layers project it is interesting to note what kinds of target groups can be approached via such competence centre and what kinds of working, learning and transfer processes they can bring into picture. (Here I am referring to the ideas that Melanie and other discussed freely in our skype meeting, we need to discuss this further.)

• Meister (Masters of craft) who are in charge of training in special occupational areas (e.g. die Brunnenbauer). Here we can assume that there are no markets for highly commercialised learning materials. Therfore,  training and learning processes have to rely to a major extent on  work process knowledge gained through work experience. How can this kind of knowledge best be mobilised and shared?
• Apprentices (Auszubildende) that select special areas of construction work tend to be highly interested in their occupation and try to adopt the role of explorers (asking for interpretation why things are done this way and putting the ‘normal practice’ in question). During their apprenticeship they attend in regular cycles Bau ABC and can be addressed at different phases of their learning careers.
• Skilled workers in Meister training programmes (or in other similar programme) are also going through transition in their career and are acquiring new competences. During their training they are confronted with challenges, how to organise group work and mutually linked work processes. Also they attend Bau ABC in different phases of their training.
• Pioneers in using ICT, Web and new media – here we are talking of individual trainers and guest instructors in different occupational areas. In the beginning phase of the project it became clear that there are already several pilot initiatives that have been tried or implemented in small scale. However, there is neither an overarching coordination nor a technical infrastructure (system architecture) that would enable good synergy across different initiatives. Therefore, inquiries on users’ needs or expectations should also take into account such developments.

I stop my list here. As I already said, Melanie Campbell will give more precise information and insights to these issues in the coming days (in particular via her contribution to Online Educa Berlin). Yet, I considered it appropriate to discuss the potential role of Bau ABC as a major regional competence centre as multiplier of innovative practices. As we have discussed it, we see different possibilities to go further but we have to start from the beginning steps.

This was an addendum to the issue “user stories”. But we are not through. The story goes on …

In my previous post I presented in a nutshell two ‘user stories’ that were produced as videos to support the proposal for the project “Learning Layers”. The partners from Leeds recorded a video in which John Sandars reflects his work as medical doctor (General Practitioner) and how he could benefit of the web support provided by the project. The ITB team from Bremen produced several videos in which the head of the trade guild for electric installation (Elektroinnung) Mr Siever presented similar views, how his technicians could benefit of the project in making their ‘work process knowledge’ transparent and shared across the company.

At this point it is worthwhile to raise the question, are we only talking of individual users (GPs) or individual companies as target groups and potential beneficiaries. Here it is worthwhile to note that neither John from Leeds nor Mr Siever from Bremen were speaking only for themselves. They both had a view on their professional communities (or networks) and on more general patterns for knowledge sharing.

Firstly, we know that in the area of Leeds there are active networks of GPs who have already been developing cooperation and knowledge sharing with each other and that public health authorities have supported this development. Also, we know that the GP practices have the obligation to revalidate themselves and the doctors have to provide evidence of their professional development. In this context the perspective of making the work process knowledge of doctors transparent across the community helps all of them to fulfill their obligations and to benefit from each others’ observations and findings. Here, it is worthwhile to note that the GPs are well aware of thew confidentiality issues and do not want to share sensitive details without anonymising the cases.

Secondly, we know that the trade companies in electric installations are competitors to each other. Yet, Mr Siever emphasised that most problems and problem-solving strategies to be treated by the ‘living system’ should be treated as a common possibility for the trade guild to promote the competences of the member companies and their employees. Altogether, the guild has an interest to raise the profile of the occupational field (both regarding client enterprises and young people who may be interested to choose the trade).

Here again, interesting parallelities could be seen between the two occupational fields and the respective professional communities. However, this is not yet the whole picture of the ‘user stories’. On the contrary, these were the starting points. Already at this stage the first meetings and skype conferences have brought forward more issues and ideas. Thus, the story goes on …

Graham Attwell has already reported of the kick-off meeting of the EU FP7 project “Learning layers” in his blog article “The Learning Layers project scales up informal learning at the workplace” on the Wales-Wide web.  Graham gave an overview on the key issues and presented several views of partners with different roles in the project.

My intention is to continue the discussion on the Learning Layers project with further insights into users’ interests and expectations. ITB (Institut Technik & Bildung) is involved in this project as a research partner with focus on promoting learning in organisational contexts. In particular ITB has the task to facilitate cooperation with partner enterprises in construction industry and related trades. At the same time ITB has a keen interest to study work process -oriented learning within the networks and communities of medical doctors (General Practitioners – GP).

During the preparation of the proposal the ITB team and the partners from Leeds produced quick video interviews to illustrate potential users’ needs, ideas and expectations regarding the work of the project and possible benefits. Here I would like to draw attention to the parallities between the users’ statements.

In the video produced in Leeds John Sandars presented a user’s story from the GP point of view. He referred to the complex prolems he has encountered in his work as GP with patients that each have a unique set of health problems. For GP it is vital to make quick but well-informed diagnoses. For this purpose it is of little help to overload the GPs with access to massive documents or guidelines. Instead, GPs are more interested in being able to share their notes on individual cases and get feedback of their fellow colleagues (taking into account the confidentiality and the need to anonymise the data). In this way the Learning Layers project is expected to provide facilities to store, share and enrich the work process knowledge that is generated by GPs in their work processes. Moreover, regarding the GPs’ obligations to provide evidence of their professional development (for the revalidation processes), the project can provide a cumulative knowledge resource for the individual doctor, for the GP practice and for the network of GPs.

In the video produced by the ITB team the director of an electric installation company and the head of the trade’s guild (Elektroinnung), Mr Siever makes similar points on the needs and expectations to support workplace learning in his trade. He also referred to the work situation of a technician doing repair or maintenance work with very little information of a problem and with little help of standard manuals or massive handbooks. In such situations (when the client is impatiently waiting for solution) the most likely option is phone call to colleague or to the boss (if they happen to be available). Moreover, if the problem is successfully solved, this may be documented by snapshots with mobile phone camera and some notes. Such storage and sharing of work process knowledge is very fragile and hardly leads to knowledge development. Therefore Siever was  in favour of a living system for documenting problems, key information and possible solutions in the way they have been encountered, tested and documented in critical work situations.

To me it has been striking that the videos that have been recorded in different countries, with different languages and with focus on different professions/occupations have raised similar points regarding the problem-relevance and usability of knowledge from the perspective of practitioners. for both kinds of user stories the emphasis is on the ‘living system’ of knowledge resources.

However, these were the opening statements. The story goes on …

The Working & Learning blog is now actively contributing to the start of the Learning Layers project (EU FP7). In the forthcoming posts there will be insights into the Learning Layers projects and into the tasks we (ITB and other partners) are carrying out to support workplace learning, work processes and professional development with the help of web applications, services and learning technologies.

However, in order to get new insights there is also a need to look back what has been achieved with prior (European and country-specific) knowledge development. So, there is a need to keep lessons from the past in picture while looking for new findings. Let us see what we find while we are working and learning in the new project …

Chris Sessums asks: “What would a knowledge base for the teaching profession look like? How can we get one?”

He goes on to say: “Imagine teachers collaborating around the globe to improve education. Sound like a fantasy? Is there a path that could lead from classrooms to a shared, reliable professional knowledge base for teaching? Is it because practitioner knowledge is highly personal, highly contextual, and lacks the vetting process associated with scientific research that such a path has never been developed? Given the millions of teachers producing knowledge of classroom practice everyday, is it worth examining what would be needed to transform teacher knowledge into a professional knowledge base for teaching? What would such a path look like?”

These are good questions. However, they pose problems over the nature of practice. Chris bases his idea of practioner knowledge around the idea of “elaborating a problem” and alaborating and testing answers to such a problem. But surely this is only part of the practice of a teacher. Can teaching be reduced to a knowledge base? In struggling to envisage what form such a knowledge base might take Chris suggests it could be developed around lesson plans. Although a readily accessible and open bank of lesson plans might be a valuable resource, it still ignores many elements of the practice of teaching. It is perfectly possible that no two teachers would use the plans in the same way. Of course that is not important. But such a knowledge base might then fail to capture the essence of professional practice (I am unconvinced of Chris’s distinction between practioner knowledge and professional knowledge).

Reckwitz (2003) distinguishes 3 different meanings or understandings of practice:

• Practice as embodied knowledge;
• Practice as a skilful performance with artefacts;
• Practice as implicit knowledge, as the implicit logic of doing things

It may be possible to develop a database of the background knowledge and of the artefacts. Far mor problematic is the skilful performance. Yet it is this element of practice which would seem to be most useful for teachers and trainers.

Is one of the problems the divisions we have made between so called scientific (or professional) knowledge and practice? I wonder if it might be possible to develop taxonomies for practice embodied as skilful performance and then develop social software which would allow the sharing of such practice. If, so how and what might it look like? Does anyone have any ideas?

Reference

Reckwitz, A. (2003). Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 32, H. 4, 282-301.

There have been a number of reports in the wake of the failure of public services to prevent the tragic death of child in London. The story below from the Guardian looks at the impact of the introduction of Management Information Services in social services in the UK. What it reveals is that professional workers are forced to spend increasing amounts of time completing tick box tracking report forms on computers. The result is not increased efficiency and effectivenesss but a failure to sharing information with those that need it. The MIS becmes the centre of attention, not the task – in this case the protecion of vulnerable children.

This is not limited to social wok. Studies we have carried out in the eduction sphere reveal the same tendency. Professional wokers are being diverted away from what they see as their job in the requirement to fill in tracking reports on ill designed Management Information Systems. The inormation held by the MIS is seen as primarily for tracking and funding pruposes. raher than helping with the work. Littlle attention is paid to how an MIS might assist in developing and maturing knowledge. Natural knowledge sharing and development processes, through dialogue and networking are left behind. Often staff develop their own informal systems, to exchange the knowledge that they need, in parallel to official procedures.

We need to review the purpose of such systems. Do we develop systems to help professional wokrers in their job or merely to collect infomation? What is the purpose of the information being collected? Who is it for and why? How can we design systems based on the abilities of ‘knowledge workers’, rather than relying on the number crunching outputs of the machine? And what approaches are need to the design of such human oriented systems? These are not just academic questions, as the report below tragically reveals.