In my previous blogs on the fieldwork of the Learning Layers (LL) project I have firstly focused on stakeholder engagement events and then on the blogs of the full-time trainers (Lehrwerkmeister) in Bau-ABC. Now I will shift the emphasis to the wok with video material, again carried out by the colleagues in Bau-ABC. Here, it is worthwhile to notice that the progress of the trainers with blogs (as tools for organising workplace learning projetcs) is a result of the Multimedia Training organised by the LL partners (Pontydysgu and ITB). In a similar way the work with video material has been a major theme in these training workshops. Now the colleagues from Bau-ABC have sent a message via video to the LL project consortium meeting in Tallin (when they themselves have not been able to come to the meeting). Although the video is a lengthy one (31 minutes) and it is mostly in  German language (not accessible to all LL partners), I hope these brief commentaries in English will help us to receive the message as original version with the hear and soul and the sincere commitment of our colleagues in Bau-ABC Rostrup.

So, please have a look at the video message to us even if it (as it stands now) might seem a long message! It is rich with content and there are several messages to convey – as I will describe briefly below. The link is the following:

http://youtu.be/Z2JoZSn4PyY

1. How to use the Learning Toolbox in the training of Bau-ABC

Already during the three first minutes of the video you get insights how the trainers and apprentices of Bau-ABC demonstrate uses of tools like the Learning Toolbox in the training. Mr Schütte, trainer fot the mechanic engineering and machinery shows the multitude of chains for different equipments for the training – each one of them being a unique example for pulling different loads with different maximum weights. They have already been tagged but it would be beneficial for all parties involved if a tool like Learning Toolbox would have all this information stored.

In a similar way Arnold, an apprentice in his second year of apprentice training shows how he can drive the heavy vehicle with the help of the driving instructions that he gets via QR-tags. As we know, one of the key features of the Learning Toolbox is the QR-reader. And one of the key features in the LL Multimedia Training was to create QR-codes.

2. How to enrich the apprentices’ projects with the help of the Learning Toolbox?

After these starters the video offers us several (lengthy but interesting) examples, how the apprentices work with typical workplace learning projects and how they are instructed.

Martin, apprentice in his second year of training for industrial maintenance work (Industriemechaniker) demonstrates firstly with instruction and planning & evaluation documents what he has to carry out. Then he demonstrates with tools and materials how this works and how he can support this work with smartphone/tablet PC and with the Learning Toolbox (LTB) how he can carry out his project with access to information resources. Here, the big difference with the LTB is  the fact that the search processes can be repeated. Also, the key advantage is the possibility to access the health and safety requirements while completing such tasks and to get alerted to clothing, procedures and to treatment of materials.

In a similar way the full-time trainer (Lehrwerkmeister) of road-builders, Mr Wiedenstried, is demonstrating the process of instructing new apprentices in his trade (road building) into the basics and then he shows a video on the ‘ticks of the trade’ in getting the plastering of the roads more even when using specific ‘old-fashioned tools’ (Sandhobel). Here we have a clear case for the Learning Toolbox to provide access to such exemplary videos as ‘tricks of the trade’.

Likewise, the full-time trainer (Lehrwerkmeister) of the carpenters, Mr Pape demonstrates the usability of Learning toolbox in getting quick instructions for building the scaffolding (Gerüstebau)  and for wearing the right clothing (that complies with the health and safety requirements) when building such scaffolding.

3. Reflections on the LL project, on the Multimedia Training and on the Learning Toolbox

In the third part of the video we see four full-time trainers (Lehrwerkmeister) reflecting on their experiences with the LL project and on their expectations on the LTB. Here, the trainers indicate that when they have revealed some of the featurtes of the emerging Learning Toolbox, the apprentices have been full of enthusiasm and that they themselves have got convinced that the use of smartphones and other mobile devices will be positive already in the near future. (Officially these devices are still banned to avoid distraction.)

When thinking about the multimedia training they have gone through in the context of the LL project, they have a high opinion on it. also, they have got positive feedback from their apprentices on the blogs they have set up and on the way they have supported the projects of apprentices.

Finally, regarding the Learning Toolbox, the trainers are looking forward to have a beta-version of a functioning tool to work with. They – just as their colleagues in other trades – have identified quite a lot of points where they could make use of it. In a similar way they are confident that the apprentices are capable of addressing how  the tool could be developed further. They are not expecting a product in its final stage but something that can be used and developed further.

4. PS: What can a trainer’s blog achieve and what messages to the LTB developers?

As the first ‘bonus track’ the video contains an introduction (by Mr Pape) to the carpenters’ blog (Zimmererblog) and to the way in which such a blog can be used to guide the self-organised learning of apprentices at different stages. Also, the reflection session shows how the blog has suddenly become international. So, there we are – the Layers’ fieldwork agenda is taking off, far quicker than we expected.

As the second ‘bonus track’ Mr Schoka – well known to usd as a participant in the Helsinki Design Conference – addresses the general wish of the Bau-ABC colleagues: to get a nice package with the LTB tiles and to find a fully functioning mobile phone with the LTB functionality ready to be tested. The trainers and their apprentices are ready for this step!

I guess I have written enough to convey the message of our Bau-ABC colleagues. The ball is clearly on our side of the (tennis) court. What shall we do next?

More blogs to come …

In my previous blogs on the fieldwork of the Learning Layers (LL) project I have focused on stakeholder engagement events. This time I shift the emphasis to the results of our earlier activities. As I have been reporting, an integral part of our fieldwork has been the Multimedia training that we (Pontydysgu and ITB) have carried out in Bau-ABC from August 2013 onwards. Now we start to see, how this training bears fruit and has an impact on the initial vocational training (VET) in the construction sector. In order to demonstrate this I will explore three blogs of the full-time trainers (Lehrwerkmeister) of Bau-ABC.

1. Zimmererblog – the Carpenters’ blog

This blog has been started by Meister Markus Pape, who made an early start with developing his blog as a tool for organising the training and learning activities in his domain.

The main content areas are descriptions of project tasks for the apprentices in their first, second and third years of training. The tasks are presented with project sheets from the White Folder of the Bau-ABC and illustrated with (3D) pictures. Alongside the progress of the training, the selected tasks become more demanding. Also, the blog provides a supporting resource area (Hilfe), a slideshow of pictures and section with literature recommendations. Considering the initial design idea of Sharing Turbine – the digitisation of the White Folder, this blog is a long step forward in implementing it – inasmuch as the contribution of trainers is concerned. However, it also reveals that support for apprentices and the learning activities can best be provided by a solution like the Learning Toolbox.

2. Tiefbau – the Roadbuilders’  Pipeline-builders’ and Sewage-builders’ blog

This blog has been started by a group of of trainers and it covers three areas of construction work – road building, pipeline building and sewage building. Thus, it has three main sections for these areas of specialisations.

In a similar way as in the above mentioned case, each area provides examples of project tasks for the first, second and third year of apprentice training. However, since this blog is being created by a group of trainers from different areas, it is still under construction and contains fewer examples. In addition  to the project descriptions it has also a special area for supporting info sheets and a slideshow of pictures.

3. Mauerwerksbau – the bricklayers’ blog

This blog has also been created by a group of trainers but working in the same domain – training bricklayers and concrete-builders. They also provide training for construction workers in the neighbouring areas.

In a similar way as the two above mentioned blogs, this blog provides a set of exemplary project tasks for apprentices in their first, second and third year of training. Likewise, it contains a section for support resources with several inputs. The special feature of this blog is the combination of pictures and brief info sheets on Slideshare. Like the others, this blog has a slideshow of pictures.

Altogether, these blogs serve as a evidence that the Multimedia Training has paved the way from learning (acquisition of new skills and insights) to knowledge utilisation (putting the skills and insights into practice). Apparently the three blogs are at a different evolutionary stage. Also, they are based on different degree of teamwork. However, a major point of interest is that they have spread the idea of using digital media and web tools across a wide number of trades. Also, they have developed a germinal cell for wider dissemination of innovative practice.

More blog posts to come …

With my previous post I started to report on the recent steps in the fieldwork of the Learning Layers (LL) project in the construction sector. I firstly reported on the participation of LL partners in the large German construction sector fair NordBau and on the stakeholder talks we had their with several companies. A major topic was to engage them into pilot activities on the LL tools in particular with the Learning Toolbox (LTB). This post will give insights into the recent Pilot workshop with craft trade companies on LL tools. This workshop was organised and documented by our ITB colleague Werner Müller. He has written a more detailed report for internal use. I will highlight here some points that give a general picture, how our pilot activities are moving on.

The workshop was planned as a follow-up to the stakeholder engagement activities that we carried out during the Well-builders’ fair in May 2014 (65. Brunnenbauertage) in Bau-ABC Rostrup. However, before launching a wide range of workshops, we agreed to have first a smaller pilot workshop. We invited two companies that we had interviewed during the initial phase of the project and with which the LL partners had good contacts.

The company K is a carpentry company with currently 36 employees. It is involved in the network for ecological construction work (Netzwerk Nachhaltiges Bauen – LL partner organisation) and in several domain-specific networks. The company has been pioneering with company-specific apps and is in the process of introducing tablet PCs for team leaders. At the same time the company is paying attention to the fact that introduction of new ICT tools will not cause a digital divide in access to information and communication. The company has regular meetings to discuss quality issues (QT-Runde).

The company W is a larger medium-sized company with ca. 430 employers and specialised on pipeline-building. It has most of its staff working on missions in teams of two or three skilled workers. This company has a long-term cooperation with Bau-ABC. The company W has been pioneering with digital pens, mobile offices (laptops with internet access) allocated to teams and with centralised databases. Yet, the company has had mixed experiences with the effectivity of such tools regarding time used for searches vs. finding adequate solutions. The company itself has centralised databases and is concerned of knowledge management and confidentiality issues. Concerning knowledge sharing and learning across teams, there are very limited possibilities to provide face-to-face meetings.

In the workshop we presented a general picture on the Learning Layers project and invited the companies to present their own situation assessment on their use of ICT, Web tools and digital media (including use of mobile technologies). Then, we presented a demonstration on the emerging Learning Toolbox (LTB) as a framework for managing web resources and apps with a mobile device. in the next rounds of discussions we were mapping different situations for piloting with the LTB and needs to which it could respond.

At this point it is not appropriate to go into details of the subsequent discussion. For the LL project it was important that both companies found their specific entry points to pilot activities. For the company K these were more in the intra-company communication and knowledge sharing and in the network-wide knowledge sharing. For the company W they were in the filtering of different quality guidelines and requirements (provided by different electricity providers or public authorities). Altogether, both companies agreed to continue the cooperation with the project and to organise further talks and pilot workshops in their companies.

After this pilot event and after the stakeholder talks during the NordBau fair (see my previous post) we are looking forward to the next pilot workshops.

More blogs to come …

During the summer months it has not been possible to report much on the fieldwork for the Learning Layers (LL) project. Due to the holiday periods there have been no major events. Yet, thanks to the efforts in May and June and due to preparatory measures by several colleagues, we have been able to take several steps forward when coming back from holidays and conference trips. In this first post I will give a report on the LL partners’ visit to the German construction fair NordBau that took place yesterday.

The annual NordBau fair in Neumünster, near Hamburg, is the biggest sectoral fair for construction industry and craft trades in North Germany. The exhibition halls present products, tools and services whilst the large outdoor areas are filled with heavy machinery by all major suppliers. Bau-ABC is a regular visitor and this event has served as a major opportunity for contacting suppliers and cooperation partners. This time we decided that Melanie Campbell, Kerstin Engraf and I will make a one-day-visit to join the trainers – Mr Grewe and Mr Schütte, who were attending the whole time. We agreed that we three will first explore the exhibition area of ICT service providers and then join Mr Grewe and Mr Schütte with their talks with the suppliers.

1. Observations in the exhibition area of ICT service providers

We were interested to find out, to what extent the ICT service providers were presenting services for construction workers and their supervisors in the construction sites – based on mobile devices. From this point of view the general picture was far more traditional – most of the exhibitors were presenting CAD/CAM software for design work or business management software . Very few exhibitors were promoting mobile applications – and they also were primarily addressing architects or business managers. Yet, we got brochures from some software providers to have a closer look from the LL perspective.

A special compartment was the BIM exhibition container (Building Information Modelling) that was provided by a German research project consortium. involving several universities and software developers. The project demonstrated use of RFID-technologies and integrated software solutions with which the modelling covers the whole supply chain. Starting from product design and actual production (adjusted to customer needs), following through the logistic chain (including reporting, tracking and quality control) the software solutions gave information to the point of using the products in the construction project (and reporting of good match or eventual mismatches). Here, the emphasis was on integration of software and different steering/controlling technologies. From the LL point of view it was interesting to note that this project had been working with prototype solutions without involvement of real application partners and that the engagement of real users was seen as a task for different spin-off and follow-up projects.

2. Talks with supplier companies

The second part of our visit consisted of short visits and stakeholder talks in the outdoor areas in which suppliers to construction companies were presenting their machinery and equipments. Altogether we visited the areas of the following supplier companies:

• Liebherr
• Wirtgen Group
• TractoTechnik
• Vetter GmbH Kabelverlegetechnik
• Tramann + Sohn
• Wacker Neuson

These visits had been orchestrated and scheduled by Mr Grewe and they were part of his normal agenda for meeting suppliers to make arrangements for cooperation in training users of such machinery in the context of initial and continuing training programmes. This time, however, during most of these visits we had discussions also on the Learning Layers project and in particular on the Learning Toolbox. To me it was important that the colleagues from Bau-ABC had already integrated the promotion of Learning Toolbox (and engagement of their partner companies) to their normal business talks. Also, in these talks the colleagues from Bau-ABC were very attentive concerning the possible benefits that the company representatives could see (and very convincing in eliminating eventual misunderstandings). Yet, it was clear to all of us that our counterparts in these talks were the sales persons (and only in few cases the managers/owners of the companies). Thus, the agreements on subsequent pilot workshops were to be made with the management representatives.

At the end of the day we could conclude that our visit was well-timed and that we got good feedback regarding the Learning Layers project:

• Concerning the ICT exhibition area and the BIM projects, we noticed that there is a gap in providing services for construction workers on the site and in engaging them in co-design processes. From this perspective both the task of the LL project and its approach can be seen as pioneering work.
• Concerning the talks with the supplier companies, the colleagues from Bau-ABC demonstrated clearly that they had integrated the promotion of Learning Toolbox (and engagement of partner companies into pilot activities) as an essential part of their cooperation with business partners.

Also, the fact that such cooperation is valued became clear during our chance meeting with the team from the company W. (who had just participated in a pilot workshop on Learning Toolbox – see my next blog). So, we felt very much empowered and are looking forward to the next steps.

More blogs to come …

In my three previous posts I have reported on the three sessions via which the Learning Layers (LL) project contributed to the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER’14) in Porto, Portugal. With this one I try to pick up some key points from the feedback we got from our colleagues.

Firstly, the presentation on the Legacy of the Work Process Knowledge network was well received – given that the network itself had been strongly present in ECER conferences between 1998 and 2006. But, what was more striking to me was the fact that the most recent changes in technologies – e.g. “Internet of things” – trigger a new interest on human interaction in organisational contexts. Thus, our researchers in vocational education and training (VET) want to find out, whether ‘organisational learning’ is merely a result of management strategies and consultants’ interventions. Or – like the WPK network argued – often unintended consequence of designed actviities, supported by shared knowledge processes.

Secondly, our symposium “Construction 2.0” appeared to be a heavy load of information. Yet – no one complained that we had all these inputs (accompanying research methodologies, the encounters between work process knowledge and mobile learning and framework for scaling up innovations). We tried to focus on the work in construction sector. As a consequence, we failed to give a sufficient picture of the other parts of the project. We tried to emphasise the relevance of our activities for work organisations. As a consequence, we got questions, why we don’t focus more directly on (vocational) learning. Yet, by the end of the symposium we had probably covered most of the questions on understanding. And furthermore – we had brought the reality of complex R&D projects into discussion.

Thirdly, with the research workshop on “Interactive research” we had clearly found a good format to bring into comparison and dialogue different innovation projects. By using a common background framework and a common format for posters we had a focused discussion on four parallel cases in similar innovation programmes. Here we can speculate whether it would have been better to have the symposium first and the workshop afterwards. Or – was the successful and dialogue-oriented workshop a good starter for digesting the heavier symposium.

Altogether, we saw that we could share knowledge on the complex and dynamic LL project already at this stage. And, moreover, we got interested counterparts who want to deepen this practice into joint knowledge development. We are looking forward to the next steps.

More blogs to come …

In my previous posts on the contributions of the Learning Layers (LL) project to the ECER’14 conference in Porto, Portugal,  I have reported on the Opening Colloquium of the VETNET network and on the LL symposium “Construction 2.0”. This third post will give insights into the joint German-Dutch research workshop on the theme “Interactive Innovation Research in VET and Working Life: Lessons from Dutch and European Projects”.

The background of this workshop was a similar session in the ECER’13 in Istanbul in which three Dutch research groups presented parallel interactive research projects and experiences with boundary-crossing practices in educational innovation projects. This triggered the initiative to prepare a similar session between a merged Dutch research group and the LL research team of ITB. We agreed to present an update on one of the earlier Dutch project and a new project. From the German side we presented the LL development projects “Learning Toolbox” and “Captus – the Learning Exhibition”.

In the workshop session we started with a joint Power Point, presented by Aimée Hoeve (HAN University of Applied Sciences). She gave insights into the key concept “Interactive research” by Per-Erik Ellström (VETNET keynote speaker at ECER’08) and into the framework of Akkerman and Baker for analysing boundary-crossing practicies in innovation practices. Based on these conceptual impulses the Dutch colleagues had developed a poster format to present complex interactive projects with focus on the following points:

• Brief description of the innovation context;
• Characterisation of the interrelations between the activity systems ‘Research’ and ‘Practice’;
• Characterisation of boundary-crossing practices in the project work;
• Reflection on lessons learned.

After the brief introduction Aimée and Loek Nieuwenhuis (also from HAN) presented the two Dutch project cases:

1. The Hybrid Learning Environment project that was carried out in two sectors Catering and Construction, see

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B02cXf0hbQH0Tm9HUE1JN0l5T0k

2. The Better Learning in Practice (BLIP) project that is being carried out in several vocational schools, see

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B02cXf0hbQH0UHVYWHdIeVdOMXM

In a second round of discussions I and Joanna Burchert presented the two LL project cases from Germany:

3. The LL development project Learning Toolbox carried out in the training centre Bau-ABC, see

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B02cXf0hbQH0TWdxbG0xWnVWTHM

4. The LL development project Captus carried out in with the Network for Ecological Construction work, see

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B02cXf0hbQH0Q0sxQ3B1VGQ2RFE

In this context it is not appropriate to try to go into more detailed discussion. (We have jointly written an article that will be published in a short while.) However, we are pleased to report that this workshop format – even in the lecture theatre -shaped room – served the purpose of bringing the audience into active interaction with us. Also, via this mode of communication we got a better understanding of each others’ projects and agreed to continue this kind of cross-project dialogue and knowledge sharing. As the next milestone we agreed to organise a joint contact workshop with more detailed information on each others’ projects. We also agreed to invite a newer Norwegian project to this cooperation.

More blogs to come …

In my previous post I started a series on the contributions of the Learning Layers (LL) project to the European Conference on Educational Research – ECER’14 – in Porto, Portugal, last week. In this entry I will focus on our main contribution – the LL symposium with the theme “Construction 2.0: Concepts, Challenges and Chances for the research & development work in the Learning Layers project”.

We had prepared this session to give an overview on

1. the R&D work in the construction sector as dynamic participative design process,
2. on the specific design issues that require mediating between work-related challenges and mobile learning and
3. on the challenges regarding ‘scaling up’ of innovations.

 The first paper – authored by me together with Ludger Deitmer and Lars Heinemann – had the title “The Role of Accompanying Research and Participative Design in the Learning Layers Project”. Our key messages can be summarised in the following way:

1. Key message: Initial shaping of the project concept of Learning Layers: In the initial phase the key achievement of the consortium was to overcome one-sided technology-push approaches and simplistic assumptions on the adaptability of web tools and software solutions that seemed context-relevant. The interim conclusion for the whole project was to launch participative design processes with relatively open innovation agendas and to allow several iterations. The interim conclusion for the ITB team was to support the interaction of different parties and to facilitate their search for specific solutions.

2. Key message: Building on prior accompanying research in innovation programmes: When looking back to prior experiences with accompanying research, the ITB has built upon the work in the  networked innovation programmes (Work and Technology, New learning Concepts) in which the coordination units supported knowledge sharing across the projects and the outreach activities. The interim conclusion for the ITB team was to look for opportunities to engage professional organisations and networks on the participative design process and to promote targeted outreach activities.

3. Key message: Adjusting the documentary and interpretative contributions to the process dynamics of participative design: During the design process (with manifold workshops) the ITB team has been responsible for the real-time documentation of the events and subsequent interpretation of the steps taken.  In this way the research team has provided a basis for joint reflection and process-awareness across different parties involved. The interim conclusion for the ITB team is that such material provides a basis for deeper conceptual interpretation of the design and transfer processes.

4. Key message: Adjusting research interventions to further development of design and transfer processes: In general, accompanying research is being legitimated as evaluation measure. Yet, in the light of the dynamics of the design process – and taking into account the goals for scaling up innovations – it has been appropriate to delay the evaluation measures.The interim conclusion for the ITB team is that the evaluation activities need to grasp the initial pilot contexts, the potential transfer contexts and the role of multipliers and peer tutoring and/or peer learning.

 The second paper – authored by me and Joanna Burchert  – had the title “Work Process Knowledge meets Mobile Learning – Insights into conceptual backgrounds and sectoral challenges within a participative design process”. In this  paper we focused on the legacy of the Work Process Knowledge network (see also my contribution to the VETNET opening colloquium) and the newer insights into mobile learning technologies. The recapitulation on the theme “work process knowledge” drew attention on the (informal) learning gains in organisational innovations. As a contrast, the newer discussion on mobile learning tends to be overshadowed by technology-push approaches and there are fewer insights into work contexts – and they tend to address motivational aspects. Here, we drew attention to the feedback we had got from apprentices and from company representatives at different phases of the participative design processes. As a conclusion, we pointed out to the need to analyse more the risks and conflicting interests that are at stake when introducing the LL tools into work organisations. Here, we saw the analogy to the case studies of the Work Process Knowledge network.

The third paper – authored by Gilbert Peffer and Tor-Arne Bellika – had the title “Designing and organising for scale – Experiences from a large-scale TEL project”.  This paper provided a wider overview on the whole LL project in its full complexity and addressed different aspects of scaling that we can take up. It explored some threads in the literature and some paths easily available for the LL pilots.Then it started working with a conceptual (synthesis) model that covers different organisational levels and brings into picture our outreach activities (including the work with managed clusters outside the pilot regions). Based on this introduction the paper looked closer at the design processes with Learning Toolbox as a progress from disconnected insular pilot to an open and expansive innovation agenda. In a similar way the paper outlined the work with cluster organisations.

I think this is enough of our input to the symposium. I will get back to the discussion in a later posting.

More blogs to come …

In my three previous posts I have discussed the Learning Layers (LL) project consortium meeting in Bau-ABC Rostrup from different perspectives. Firstly, I have reported on the Demo Camp workshops with trainers and apprentices of Bau-ABC. Secondly, I have given insights into the Learning Café workshops that developed mid-term roadmaps for the project. Thirdly, I have described a special case of our outreach activities (in the light of an ad hoc meeting) and linked this experience to our discussions on technical development, mutual communication and scaling up processes. Now it is time to present some final impressions and to raise some points for follow-up.

Firstly, I try to give an overview of my impressions of the highlights of the three days (taking into account that I missed some of the parallel sessions):

1) For Day One that agenda had envisaged as the main activity three “Theoretical integration” sessions that focused on working with the research claims in our Development Projects and on collaborative interpretation of empirical data (collected from both target sectors and across the sectors). As a parallel activity we had planned a small German-speaking session to demonstrate some LL tools used in the construction sector (mainly to the trainers of Bau-ABC and to eventual interested apprentices). Here, quite contrary to our expectations the Demo Camp grew much bigger with its altogether ca. 100 participants (who came in several waves and swept across different stations).  The intensity of the discussions in the four demo stations was far higher than we expected and we got rich feedback. In this respect the sideline activity became the highlight event. It was a pity that a major part of the consortium missed this event but this could not have been helped – the room could not accommodate a larger audience and use of interpretation would have cut the discussions at the demo stations.

2) For Day Two the Learning Café sessions took shape only shortly before the consortium meeting. Yet, it was interesting to see, how quickly the participants adjusted to their roles as Topic table facilitators and as members of  the sustainability scenario teams. Also, it was interesting to see, how many tools we could bring forward to support these discussions and to shape the emerging conclusions. Furthermore, it was interesting to see, how all scenario groups could work their ways through the different topic tables and to give genuine and mutually complementing contributions.

3) For Day Three the agenda had envisaged a “Technical integration” session as the main activity and opportunities for parallel sessions alongside it. Luckily enough we agreed on some modifications. Firstly, the technical integration issues were started in a plenary session already on Day Two (which turned into a comprehensive situation assessment). The Day Three program was then structured as two parallel sessions – one with technical integration issues and another one with focus on Wrap-up of the Learning Cafés discussion on an Integrative evaluation concept (with reference to the developments in the fieldwork). To me, these were all important sessions but I could really see the value of these talks when we had had the ad hoc meeting with the trainer of Bau-ABC, who brought into picture a cooperation prospect with a supplier company in the construction sector. All our plans and scenarios started to get more content and scalability in the light of such initiatives.

Looking forward, there is a need to work further with the materials and the interim results:

a) We have ‘harvest’ the feedback from apprentices and trainers that we got during the Demo Camp (cards on the pinboards, drawings and audio recordings).

b) We have to harvest the results of the Learning cafés firstly to get a joint overview of the tools that were used in the Topic tables and secondly to get the interim results worked into coherent roadmaps.

c) We have to feed special cases from our outreach activities to our discussions on technical integration, participative design and stakeholder engagement to improve our understanding of our communication channels.

Altogether, a lot of homework for the follow-up. But, as I see it, we took some steps forward on all fronts and we can build upon it.

More posts to come (on the follow-up) …

In my two previous posts on the Learning Layers (LL) project consortium meeting in Bau-ABC I have followed the chronological order. I have first reported on the Demo Camp workshops with trainers and apprentices of Bau-ABC (Day One). Then I have reported on the Learning Café workshops of Sustainability Scenario groups rotating across topic tables (Day Two). In this post I will firstly jump to an ad hoc meeting that took place after the consortium meeting (Day Three, afternoon) and link it to our discussion on technical integration (Day Two and Day Three, morning).

The ad hoc meeting was initiated by one of the full-time trainers (Lehrwerkmeister) in Bau-ABC and he wanted to discuss an initiative for the follow-up of the Brunnenbauertage event (7.5.-9.5.). The trainer has developed a long-term cooperation with a supplier of machinery for construction work. For certain machines the users have to be certified for safety reasons. The company has developed an e-learning program to support the necessary training but has not enough resources to cater for the training. Therefore the company is looking for cooperation with training centres like Bau-ABC. In this context the trainer saw a possibility to link such cooperation to the work of the LL project, in particular to the development of the Learning Toolbox.

Most of the LL partners had to catch their planes or trains so only three of us (with closer involvement in the Brunnenbauertage and the follow-up) could stay for this discussions. Nevertheless, we felt this initiative promising and well-timed for the following reasons:

• The company in question is looking for opportunities to scale up training and (informal) learning with the support of the e-learning program. In this context the company is not looking for exclusive arrangements merely for its own benefit.
• Bau-ABC has a tradition to develop such training schemes and learning opportunities as vendor-neutral events that provide parallel vendors to contribute with their inputs (when appropriate and mutually compatible).
• For the LL project this cooperation prospect has been put into discussion at the moment when we can shape the Learning Toolbox in such a way that it will provide access to such programs.

I think this is as much as I can tell about the results of this meeting.  We encouraged the trainer to continue his talks with the company and to inform of the interest of the LL project to join these talks. We are looking forward to hearing more in a short while.

I have reported this episode as a special case case of the outreach activities of the LL project in construction sector. We couldn’t have anticipated it before the consortium meeting, whilst the opportunity grew up in talks between the trainer and the company. We couldn’t have scripted it – neither for the sake of decision-making nor for the sake of software development. We (the ones who were there) saw the chance and agreed that this is an appropriate step forward in the follow-up of the Brunnenbauertage. However, in this respect we could rely on the conclusions that we had jointly agreed in the 3rd Internal Exploitation Meeting of the Construction sector shortly after the Brunnenbauertage (involving a wider range of LL partners).

I have highlighted this case because it serves as a test case for contrasting views on outreach, technical development and scaling up in the LL project. Some colleagues may see these processes from the perspective of technology-push. The role of outreach activities would then be to extract user-requirements to be passed for technical developers and then bring the solutions to users. The development would then take place in a ‘black box’ remote from users. (I know that I am drawing a caricature and I do not wish to point directly to any of our technical partners with this picture. Yet, I want to put into question, what kind of communication with traget groups and user engagement we are looking for.) In our case we were ready to enter conversations and interaction that may give rise to several thready of co-design activities.

I do not wish to go into details of our internal discussions on technical development and technical integration. I believe that these discussions helped us to put into perspective the technical partners’ internal communication, the ‘translation’ processes between technical issues and user-concerns as well as the integration of front-end services by LL tools and linked web resources. However, this was not the whole story of the results of our meeting. Moreover, these were interim results and we need to work with them.

More posts to come …

In my previous post on our experiences in the Learning Layers (LL) project consortium meeting in Bau-ABC I reported on the Demo Camp workshops with trainers and apprentices. Indeed, this exercise grew in few hours into a major stakeholder event that provide a lot of focused feedback for the development of the LL tools. Now it is time to shift the emphasis to the workshop sessions that were planned to support the further development of the LL project itself.

In this context I would highlight the Day Two workshops or Learning Cafés that worked with our Sustainability Scenarios. Four Sustainability Scenarios were presented for the Construction sector, Healthcare sector, Managed clusters and Open Source communities. Participants then signed into scenario groups that started to rotate across four Round Tables (topic tables) that highlighted different working issues to be taken up in the work with the scenarios. Altogether, the aim was that the scenario groups develop Mid-term Roadmaps for planning further activities in a more integrative manner.

The four Round Tables had the task to organise discussions on the following working issues:

• Capactity building and Training as support activities for the LL counterparts (moderated by Pekka Kämäräinen, ITB and  Jörgen Jaanus, TLU);
• Learning Stories/ Learning Scenarios as support for co-design and development activities (Moderated by Sebastian Dennerlein, TUG and Vladimir Tomberg, TLU);
• New Stakeholder Initiaves and their role in Scaling up processes (Moderated by Debbie Holley, UWE and Graham Attwell, Pontydysgu);
• Offerings of the LL project and their role in Scaling up processes (Moderated by Gilbert Peffer, CIMNE and …).

Altogether, the first round table was set up as a more conversational workshop (with some tools to be used if they were taken up in the discussion). The three latter ones were organised as more hands-on workshop to produce learning scenarios, stakeholder matrixes and structured descriptions of offerings. In this respect it was more difficult to report back the results from these round tables. Also, it will take some time to incorporate the results into the roadmaps that started to take shape.

As a first glimpse to the results it is possible to give a brief report on discussions in RT1 on Capacity building and Training. Below I will highlight some main points raised in the sessions of the four respective scenario groups:

a) The Construction sector scenario group had started working with a more focused scenario that presented Living Lab as an infrastructural innovation for the interaction of Bau-ABC, its apprentices, trainees and clients regarding training and continuing professional development. In this scenario the mobile training equipment unit was closely linked to wider use of the Learning Toolbox and the Baubildung.net platform. The group discussed, how to develop further the outreach to such SMEs that are not immediately reached by Bau-ABC or similar multiplier organisations and their networks. This discussion drew attention to some everyday-life tools for SMEs that will offload them from currently time-consuming work.

b) The Healthcare sector scenario group had already got a very advanced mid-term worked out, but in regional terms it was very UK-specific. For outreach activities that look at other continents we considered it necessary to identify other (different) reference systems than the NHS (that is specific to UK) that has provided an institutional framework and acceptance for LL pilots. In this respect the HSKA partners reported on their preliminary talks with South-German quality cicles in the healthcare sector that have been stimulated by the (public) health insurance bodies. Altogether, the group came to a conclusion to organise a workshop on Transnational engagement around the LL Healthcare pilots in the UK. The workshop will be proposed for the Europe-wide AMEE conference in 2015.

 c) The Open Source communities’ scenario group was not working on the basis of a very elaborated scenario draft. Therefore, the discussion started as a mapping, how these communities could feed through LL training channels specific know-how on software options and information on events that promote mutual understanding (between users and developers). In this respect we discussed specific events like camps, sprints, hackathons as well as targeted competitions (contests) to mobilise developers to support specific  LL design initiatives.

d) The Managed clusters’ scenario group discussed the dynamics of capacity-building initiatives that have a potential to grow beyond mere training (for limited target groups). In this respect we got the challenge to look at the4 wider prospects of the Bau-ABC Multimedia Training activities. As another major issue the group discussed the (re)vitalisation of communication channels in decentralised clusters after the initial start with a lot fo face-to-face activities. As a third point the group discussed the mutual learning processes between different cluster regions that aim to take further steps towards internationalisation.

I think this is enough to give an impression of the discussions. We will make an effort to share and digest the results – in particular to incorporate them into the emerging roadmaps. But this needs some further conversations.

More posts to come …