Taccle was one of our most successful projects. The original handbook on technology for learning went out in some 7000 hard copies in six languages, with a number of further languages being added by volunteer translators and regular reprints in different countries. This is not counting the thousand of downloads. The handbook was designed for teachers wanting to introduce e-learning into their practice. There was also a series of training events for teachers based on the handbook. Both the handbook and the courses were rated highly by teachers but feedback from readers and from course participants was that there were still ‘gaps’ that needed to be filled.

Firstly, although teachers across the subject range said they found the both the courses and the handbook useful for developing generic technical skills there were many who still found difficulty in translating that into specific learning activities within their subject area or sector.

Secondly, although many teachers, as a result of reading the handbook or attending the courses, now feel confident about designing learning objects or using web 2.0 applications, they are less confident about engaging pupils in producing and publishing their own. The TACCLE 2 project addresses these issues by providing a series of 5 supplementary handbooks (in Dutch, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian) written in the same style as the original, around specific subjects –  primary education, maths, science and technology, key competences, arts and culture and humanities.

Nic Daniels and Jenny Hughes are editing the first handbook on primary education now and we hope to publish it in October (we will put out an order form in next couple of weeks).

Nic has been working on the design of the handbook. And I loved this mock up template he has circulated to project partners. It gives an idea of what you can expect from the project. You can keep up to date with development on the project web site.

The last few weeks have been hectic with travel, conferences, bids and more. In the next few days ~I will try to update on some of this but first, before I forget, some quick thoughts on the Personal Learning Environments 2012 conference in Aveiro.

First on the form of the conference. PLE is what is now becoming known as a flipped conference. Rather than formal paper presentations, chairs of sessions work together with presenters to find more participative forms of delivery involving interaction with participants. The aim is not just to present research findings and ideas, but to discuss and build on that work and develop new knowledge.

This was the third PLE conference and with a sufficient number of participants having been at previous conferences and enthusiastic about the format, the sessions were even better than before. This year we were better at recording outcomes and many of the sessions have been well documented on the project web site. The physical space is central to this type of event and in that respect Aveiro was perfect with flexible spaces and good connectivity.

As in previous years we continued our practice of organising two unkeynote presentations, each with two people. Antonio Dias de Figueiredo and Frances Bell involved the participants in discussing a number of key issues, crowd sourced previous to the conference (see report on Frances’s blog). On the second day Ricardo Torres and Grainne Conole presented a series of video clips reflecting on the VLE versus PLE debate. And whilst I think that the issue is somewhat out of date, it sparked a big and ongoing response on twitter and on the Cloudworks site.

Each year we try to introduce new ideas. This year we piloted the idea of ‘One Conference – Two venues’ with face to face meet ups taking place (more or less) simultaneously in Aveiro and Melbourne. The time differences prohibited any real time link ups. But with both venues using the same #PLEConf hash tag, there was an almost seamless 24 hour flow of tweets around PLEs. Interestingly it was hard at times to work out which of the venues the tweet had been sent from.

Anotehr innovation this year was experimenting with the use of Mozilla Badges. Whilst the badge titles seemed to multiply alarmingly in the run up to the conference, it provided us with a very good insight into both technical and pedagogical issues involved with badges. I think overall the verdict was positive but their are still questions to answer. You can see a full collection of the badges here.

This year the organising committee instigated a two stage review for contributions – reviewing firstly abstracts and then secondly full papers. I was personally opposed to this fearing that such a ‘heavier’ review process would discourage participants. I think I was wrong. It might be due to other factors, but the quality of the contributions this year – at least those that I have read – seemed much higher than in previous years. And, if done well, such a review can support people in developing their ideas. Overall though, I remain unconvinced about review procedures and wonder if we could try some other forms of supporting contributors in developing their ideas (open review processes or on-line review workshops? ).

There was also a noticeable change in terms of the focus on many contributions.

At the first conference, in Barcelona in 2010, PLEs were a largely new and unexplored concept. Much effort and discussion was expended in trying to arrive at a common definition of a PLE, in debating the dichotomy between technological and pedagogy approaches and constructs to developing Personal Learning Environments, and the role of PLEs in institutional strategies.

Further discussions focused on the impact and affordance of Web 2.0 and social software on developing PLEs.

The following year at the Southampton PLE conference concerns – for instance over a tension between pedagogic and technical developments – appeared less irreconcilable with the majority of participants agreeing that a PLE can be seen as a pedagogical approach with many implications for the learning processes, underpinned by a ‘hard’ technological base.

Participants also agreed on the need to continue thinking around practices for enriching the learning process through formal and non formal learning and begun to explore the different contexts in which PLEs might be used. In this process, attempts to invent new acronyms to differentiate contexts (of PLE components, or tools), often at only a theoretical level, addded little extra-value to the previous analysis.

Aveiro had a different focus. Many of these previous debates seemed slightly irrelevant. PLEs were no longer a construct but a reality 0- in part I guess due to the increasing use of social media for learning but also with the main streaming of Massive Open On-line Courses and the increasing attention being paid to extra institutional learning.

Where as before we had many discussions about what a PLE might look like, there were now many examples of applications supporting PLEs, ranging from mash ups to Cloud services to institutional provision.

Thus the focus shifted to the different contexts in which learning takes place and to pedagogic processed, in particular how to support learners in developing their learning through a PLE. And with an increased focus on context, research had broadened. Instead of being confined within the education domain, we are seeing the emergence of interdisciplinary research – for instance bringing together work science and innovation research to understand how PLEs might be of use for learning at the workplace.

The latter subject is of particular interest to me and a group of us agreed we would set up a wiki to continue working on this. Of course commitments made in the hothouse of an intensive conference are not always fulfilled but I hope we manage to do this. And if anyone else is interested please get in touch.

Finally, despite the best intentions of all of us to support the conference organisers, inevitably much of the work falls on the shoulder of the local team. Many thanks to Carlos Santos and to Luis Pedro  and all the other colleagues from Aveiro who made the conference such a success.

I’ve not read more than the abstract so far. But I have added this Masters dissertation by Clint Lamonde  entitled “The Twitter experience : the role of Twitter in the formation and maintenance of personal learning networks” (see abstract below) to my dropbox collection of papers for reading on my iPad on long trips!

Having read some of the papers for next weeks #PLEconference in Aveiro and Melbourne, there seems to the the emergence of a great deal of serious research on Personal Learning Environments and Personal Learning Networks. I think this research is important in helping us understand how people are using technology for ICT mediated relationships and informal learning.

I will publish more links to recent papers over the next couple of weeks.

Abstract:

This qualitative phenomenological study involving in-depth interviews with seven educators in K-12 and higher education examines the role that the microblogging service Twitter plays in the formation and development of Personal Learning Networks (PLN) among educators. A double hermeneutic data analysis shows that Twitter plays a role in the formation and development of PLNs by allowing educators to; engage in consistent and sustained dialogue with their PLN, access the collective knowledge of their PLN, amplify and promote more complex thoughts and ideas to a large audience, and expand their PLN using features unique to Twitter. This research also examines the nature of a PLN and shows that participants believe their PLN extends beyond their Twitter network to encompass both face-to-face and other ICT mediated relationships. Secondary research questions examine how Twitter differs from other social networking tools in mediating relationships within a PLN, what motivates an educator to develop a PLN, how trust is established in a PLN, what the expectations of reciprocity are within a PLN, and what is the nature of informal learning within a PLN. Keywords: Twitter, microblogging, Personal Learning Network, PLN, informal learning

for the last eighteen months or so Pontydysgu have been a partners in a project called Webquests for HRM coordinated by the  Management Observatory Foundation (MOF) from Poland. The project is developing a Collaborative and Blended Learning model for what we call Webquest 2.0 defined as “an inquiry–oriented activity that takes place basically in a Web 2.0–enhanced, social and inter-active open learning environment, in which the learner can decide to create his own learning paths choosing the Web 2.0 tools and the on–line resources needed for the completion of the final Webquest 2.0 product” (Perifanou, 2011).

The project is funded by the European Commission under as strand of the Lifelong Learning project called ‘the transfer of innovation’. In our particular project, we are seeking to transfer a pedagogy and approach to the use of technology for learning develop in schools and academic education for training in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). We have published the first drafts of the methodology and a guide for trainers on the project web site. Over the last six moths or so, we have been piloting the approach with SMEs in Poland and in the UK.

The following text, which is the draft of an extra chapter for the second, revised edition of the trainers’ manual, relates some of our findings. I think it is particularity interesting because most, if not all of the findings are more generally applicable to the challenge of introducing technology enhanced learning in SMEs.

9. Webquest 2.0 training experiences: Flexibility and Creativity

The first edition of this handbook was published in January, 2012. Since then we have been piloting the use of Webquests 2.0 with Small and Medium Enterprises in Poland and in the UK. The pilots have involved both training trainers in SMEs to create Webquests 2.0 and piloting the Webquests 2.0 themselves with employees of SMEs. We have also piloted different approaches to blending learning, Including using online activities within face to face workshops, and delivering distance learning though the synchronous and asynchronous use of technology. Similarly we have experimented with both individual tasks and group tasks through the pilot Webquests 2.0. In the process of the pilots we have learnt a great deal about the issues involved in using Webquests 2.0 for HRM in Small and Medium Enterprises. This extra chapter in the second edition of the manual summarises some of the issues we have discovered and more importantly what trainers may need to do to deal with these issues.

9.1 Platforms

For our initial pilot Webquests 2.0 we used a wiki on PB Works as a platform. Although not open source, PB Works is free to educational organisations. However the licensing costs for use on commercial organisations may prove a barrier to take up in SMEs. We have subsequently experimented with a number of different platforms including the free and open source WordPress Content Management system. We have found that some organisations do not wish to use a separate platform but wish to incorporate the Webquests 2.0 within their own Enterprise Systems such as Microsoft Sharepoint. Conversely some organisations have told us they are looking for more flexible and cheaper solutions than their present organisation web platforms.

9.2 Web 2.0 tools

In the handbook we have drawn attention to a wide range of powerful Web 2.0 and social software tools that can be incorporated within Webquests 2.0 and can be used to develop a rich, collaborative and immersive learning experience.

In practice we have encountered a number of issues. Organisational firewalls are a particular problem. Whilst some organisations are relatively open in their policies, many firewall particular applications and tools. This can be a serious problem, for instance when employees are unable to view YouTube videos. In some cases we have been able to persuade system administrators to provide access to us to tools needed for training sessions with Webquests 2.0, in others we have been able to persuade them to review their policies, pointing out the value of these applications for learning. In still other cases, we have had to revise our training courses and Webquests 2.0  to reflect the security policies of the organisation.

Useful tip:

Whatever the answer, if you are developing a Webquest 2.0 you need to pay attention to this issue in advance.

We also found that trainers and SME employees often had only a limited knowledge of and experience of using Web 2.0 and social software tools. Almost all enjoyed learning about these tools in the course of the training sessions we organised and trainers in particular appreciated how they could use these tools in their own training practice. However, there was a tendency for learning about the tools to take over the whole dynamic and subject of the workshops. It was also felt that providing too many tools could be intimidating for trainees in SMEs. Therefore we would recommend that you restrict the number of tools you use in a Webquest 2.0, particular for those with less experience of using computers. The tools need to be chosen carefully. Some tools may promote greater collaboration and creativity but may be more difficult to use. Conversely, some tools may be easy to use but have little added value to promoting creative learning and higher order thinking skills.

Useful tip:

Remember that you will have to support learning about the topic and learning about the tools at the same time and think about the best strategy for doing this.

9.3 Blended Learning

One of the main successes of the pilots was the use of different forms of blended learning. Many organisations had not used computers intensively as part of a face to face training session and appreciated its potential. Equally participants were grateful for the opportunity to access the Webquests 2.0 and the learning materials after the training sessions. However one of the issues in this mode of blended learning was access to computers. Whilst in a number of SMEs we were able to find dedicated computer training rooms the layout of these rooms limited opportunities for groupwork and collaboration. One organisation was able to provide laptops for all participants and this worked much better. Whatever the solution, the layout and design of the learning space in a face to face session needs conscious attention.

In some of the pilots we used a mixture of face to face and online learning. This was seen as very successful with many organisations beginning to appreciate the potential of online learning for professional development and training in their organisations. This was particularly so with SMEs with a geographically dispersed workforce.

Furthermore, a number of the Webquests 2.0 involved the development of practice in the use of soft skills in SMEs. It was felt that learning about these practice based skills in a classroom was inappropriate. Online learning could provide better integration with practice in the workplace.

However, one of the issues this raised was the skills and competences of the trainers. Training on line involves many of the skills and competences that any good trainer will have. It is not the same as face to face training and may involve extra competences. We do not have space in this handbook to go into these in detail. At a minimum, we would recommend that any trainer providing e-learning and Webquests 2.0 online for the first time should themselves first participate in an elearning course or session and reflect on the similarities and differences and how they need to adapt their practice to cope with the opportunities and difficulties online training and learning provides. In particular they need to think about how they can support their trainees on line. It may involve the use of different tools and a different way of organising work, as well as knowledge in using computers and a broad variety of software.

9.4 Producing Webquests 2.0 is time consuming

One of the major issues that arose was the time it took to develop a Webquest 2.0. This brings us close to the heart of the problem that led us to develop the Webquest 2.0 project. Producing any online learning materials is time consuming. Of course it is possible to buy off the shelf, online training packages. However, these often do not meet the diverse needs of employees in SMEs. Once more, it is possible to commission commercially produced bespoke training materials. But this is very expensive.

In reality, producing any training materials is time consuming. It is only if these materials are reused that the unit cost becomes cheaper. This is also so for online training such as Webquests 2.0. Producing bespoke a Webquest 2.0 for an individual group will be expensive. We know it is important that the Webquest meets the needs of particular groups of learners. We would suggest that over time the speed of production will increase as trainers become more familiar with the approach and the tools and develop a bank of reusable content and materials. At the same time we would emphasise that online training is not just a cheap alternative to traditional forms of training. Our major motivation is to improve the quality and effectiveness of training and learning, not just to reduce cost. SME managers need to appreciate that they will have to invest in trainers’ time if they are to reap the benefits that online learning through Webquests 2.0 can bring. We will return to this issue further on in this section of the manual.

9.5 Self Directed Learning

The aim of the Collaborative Blended Learning Model (CBLM) is to develop and support self motivated and self regulated learning. Concerns were expressed that such an approach requires new skills from both trainers and learners, especially as much traditional training in SMEs is quite strongly trainer directed.  To some extent this concern may be justified. Learners may have little experience of self directed learning and may lack the skills and motivation to plan and direct their own learning. But this may also reflect a misunderstanding. The overall aim of the Webquest for HRM project is to develop self directed and self motivated learning as we believe such processes are critical to the development of lifelong learning in SMEs. On the other hand, we acknowledge the key role of trainers in providing appropriate support for learners at every stage in a Webquest 2.0. Without this support we will never achieve our ultimate goal.

9.6 Open and closed evaluation

In the manual we propose sharing the outputs from a Webquest 2.0 through the Worldwide web as a means of gaining community feedback and evaluation. Some enterprises are not prepared to allow their employees to do this. We understand there may be legitimate concerns over security and competition, however, in general, we feel the advantages in allowing employees to use Web 2.0 tools and social software in a responsible manner outweigh the dangers for SMEs.

9.7 Sharing Resources

As we said above, one of our motivations in developing the Webquest for HRM project and CBLM manual was to stimulate the development of high quality, online learning materials for use in Small and Medium Enterprises. We were aware that creating a Webquest 2.0 was time consuming. However, we felt that if trainers were prepared to share the Webquests 2.0 they had produced we could develop a dynamic repository of high quality materials. To that end we have worked on developing a rubric for evaluating the quality of the Webquests 2.0. Our initial pilots have revealed that most SMEs are not prepared to openly share learning materials. They either see these as providing competitive advantage or want to sell such materials to others. We believe such an approach to be short sighted and would urge enterprises to consider carefully the most advantageous long term strategy in developing e-learning and e-learning materials. We also note that when the idea of Open Educational Resources first emerged in the education sector, many institutions had a similar reaction. However most are now embracing OERs. Of course trainers will have to respect company policies in licensing Webquests 2.0. But we urge enterprise managers and trainers to think carefully before ruling out sharing resources.

9.8 Flexibility and Creativity

We have attempted to develop models and tools that can help trainers to produce high quality Webquests 2.0 to use in their own training practice. As part of this we have developed the seven step Learning Circles framework and templates to follow in developing a Webquest 2.0.

However, some of the trainers with whom we have piloted the Webquests 2.0 and tools, have felt the template and model to be too prescriptive and too restrictive for what they want to do. Of course any model is just that – a model. And templates are meant to be adapted and changed to meet particular needs.

Useful tip:

If you feel some parts of the model do not meet your needs, this is fine. Similarly feel free to change the templates to suit the needs of your trainees.

Our main aim is to develop flexible and creative training opportunities. And for that to happen we need to engage with trainers who can make flexible and creative use of the opportunities which technology provide for learning.

Last week I wrote about the TACCLE 2 project. Amongst other things, I said,  TACCLE will provide for teachers:

• 5 step-by-step guides to integrating ICT and e-learning in YOUR classroom: primary education, maths, science and technology, key competences, arts and culture and humanities.
• practical materials and ideas customised for YOUR subject area and pupil age range

Pontydysgu are coordinating the production of the first handbook, for primary education. This work is being led by Jenny Hughes, Angela Rees and Nick Daniels. Nick is an experienced primary school teacher and author of childrens’ books (check out his very cool web site) and produced the following magical activity for the handbook.

Everything produced under the Taccle project is available under a Creative Commons License. So please feel free to translate this into other languages. And, if you are a primary school teacher, try it out. We’d love your feedback.

Title

Dream Weaver                        5-7yrs

Ease *****

Overview

This activity really encourages learners to express their wildest imaginings as they recall and describe their dreams. Here, the software is used as a visual stimulus and to encourage pupils to express opinions.

Description

As an introduction, ask learners to tell you everything they know about dreams. Ask them if they know what dreams are, where they come from and if they think they have any meaning. Select learners to describe a dream they’ve had to the class.

Explain to them that they’re going to be weaving their own dreams but in order to do so everyone must go to The Land of Wild Imagination!

You will have loaded the online software on the interactive whiteboard, explain to learners that the software, like us, has dreams! In the box you’ll need to finish the sentence starting “I dreamed that…” You can continue in one of two ways. Either you can type in a concise description of a learner’s or your own dream (there is a maximum of 140 characters), or you can type in key nouns, verbs and adjectives only e.g. “I dreamed that… Ghost scream, wolf howl, rocket whirring, red moon, gold stars, boy running, scared, home, mother, safe.”

When you’ve done this click on ‘Max My Dream’. The software will take a few seconds to weave the dream so use this time to ask the children what images they think they’ll see in the dream. Ask them to name everything they see appearing in the dream as it appears.

After the dream has finished, discuss with the dreamer if it was similar to their actual dream. Ask what was different also. You can replay the dream or re-run the activity as many times as you like using different learners’ dreams.

To finish, explain to the learners that over the coming week, they are going to create their own dream collage. They will need to think of their best dream ever (for those who cannot remember a dream they’ve had, ask them to create a dream they would like to have) and write a list of all the things in their dream e.g. ‘me, dog, moon, rocket’. Next, they’ll need to find images for each thing on their list, they can do this either by searching the net or by taking photographs with a digital camera and printing them.

Give each learner a large piece of card and ask them to decorate it with glitter, paint, sequins – anything they would like to use to create a background or ‘dream-board’. When their dream-board is ready and they have all their images, they can cut them out, arrange them on their dream board and finally glue them into place when their happy with it.

When they’ve finished, ask them to present their dream and dream-board to the class.

Key information

Meatadata – to be added

What do I need?

Internet access, interactive whiteboard, large card (A3?) and as much art and craft stuff as you can find… the brighter and gaudier the better!

Suggested tools

www.maxmydream.com/  (for dream making)

www.creativecommons.org/  (for license-free images)

www.images.googlecom/ (for images)

Added value

Dreams are difficult enough for adults to comprehend, for children they can be both wonderful and terrifying. This software is incapable of creating horrific dream sequences, regardless of the dream description you put in! The dreams created are often very silly causing the whole class to laugh! It can help children make peace with their dreams and nightmares. Obviously, dreams are very abstract in nature so this software allows learners to create a visual representation of something which is sometimes very difficult to articulate. Therefore, creating the dream visually and then describing it supports the development of oracy skills.

Hints and tips

You know your class, and you know if you want to steer clear from nightmares altogether. In the description above, we focussed on ‘best dreams’ or ‘a dream you’d like to have’. You may prefer to stick to this idea.

If you’re doing the craft activity with one or two groups at a time, you may want to have other pupils experimenting with the software, typing in their own words and phrases in order to create brand new dreams!

Personal notes

Depending on your internet connection and your hardware, the software can be slow to load; this makes the recap of ‘what we expect to see in the dream’ very useful.

URLs

www.maxmydream.com/

Many of you signed up on a form here for the first Taccle handbook, on using social software and web 2.0 for teaching and learning. The handbook was written for teachers wanting to introduce e-learning into their practice. There was also a series of training events for teachers based on the handbook. Both the handbook and the courses were rated highly by teachers and the handbook has been translated into some 8 or 9 languages and been reprinted in some countries

However,  feedback from readers and from course participants was that there were still ‘gaps’ that needed to be filled.

The gaps

First, although teachers across the subject range said they found the both the courses and the handbook useful for developing generic technical skills there were many who still found difficulty in translating that into specific learning activities within their subject area or sector.

Second, although many teachers, as a result of reading the handbook or attending the courses, now feel confident about designing learning objects or using web 2.0 applications, they are less confident about engaging pupils in producing and publishing their own. TACCLE 2 addresses these issues by providing a series of 5 supplementary handbooks (in Dutch, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian) written in the same style as the original, around specific subjects.

What Taccle 2 will do

TACCLE 2 for teachers will provide:

• 5 step-by-step guides to integrating ICT and e-learning in YOUR classroom: primary education, maths, science and technology, key competences, arts and culture and humanities.
• practical materials and ideas customised for YOUR subject area and pupil age range
• complementary training courses based on the handbook
• access to web based materials for e-learning
• opportunities to join a network of like-minded colleagues across Europe
• a chance to join in and influence the work of the project as it develops
• free download of the popular E-learning Handbook for Classroom Teachers produced by the Taccle 1 project
• signposts to other banks of open educational resources for your subject

We will be publishing examples of some of the work as it is developed on this web site you can follow the development of the project on the Taccle 2 website.

Its very encouraging to see the emergence of an increasing number of imaginative primary school websites and blogs.

I love the 100 word challenge from the Kirkheaton Primary School blog. James Roberts writes

I think you should go on the one hundred word challenge because it is a fun way to get yourself writing about anything and everything. Also it is a great challenge because one hundred words is really hard to get, you have to take off words or add words into your writing to get to the magic one hundred .One of the best things about it is that if your writing is good enough, it will be put on the one hundred word challenge website so everybody in great britain will be able to read it and write comments about it.

I read an interesting paper at the weekend that Sebastion Fiedler will be presenting at the  Open and Social Technologies for Networked Learning 2012 conference (OST’12) in Tallinn, Estonia. The paper,  “Challenging learning myths through intervention studies in formal higher education”, is co-authored with Terje from the Centre for Educational Technology at Tallinn University. The paper is based on research at Tallin University on Personal Learning Contracts for modeling Personal Learning Environments.

Essentially the researchers have been trying different pedagogical approaches to attempt to get students to take more responsibility for their learning. And quite often the students didn’t like it. Nothing new there. At least in the UK, lecturers frequently moan that students expect to be spoon fed and are not prepared to make the extra effort needed for deeper learning. And similarly students have often been seen to be skeptical about adopting social software for learning.

This has often been attributed to the impact of fee based, mass higher education with students concerned to ‘get the facts’ they need to get their grades and the increasingly overloaded curriculum. Indeed continuous assessment may have reulated more pressure to work to the tests.

However, Sebastionm considers the problem to be more deep rooted, talking about students ‘false myths’ about their own learning abilities. I am not sure that myth is quite the right word but can see that the culture of learning in schools and the ever more heavy assessment processes may mean students have little idea of how to manage their own learning, on an individual level and in collaboration with others. Sebastion suggests that when students are able to overcome these ‘myths’ they have about their own learning abilities, they are able to develop sophisticated Personal Learning Environments and cultivate Personal Learning Networks.

Interesting stuff and I look forward to the publication of the paper.

the last three months have been pretty hectic. So much that I have been somewhat lackadaisical in posting on this blog. Partly it has been due to the sheer volume of work and also traveling so much. For some reason I always find it difficult to blog when I am on the road. Another reason is that a lot of the work has been developmental and has naturally generated a series of notes and emails but little writing. Its time to make amends.

In this post I will give a short run down on what we have been up to. Over the next couple of weeks I will post in a bit more detail about the different projects and ideas. All the work shares a series of ideas in common:

• The work is based on the ideas of open education and open data
• The projects seek to enable practitioners to develop their own learning materials
• Most of the project incorporate various elements of social software but more importantly seek to utilise social software functionality to develop a shared social dimension to learning and knowledge sharing
• Most of the work supports both face to face and online learning. However we have been looking hard at how learning and knowledge development is socially mediated in different contexts.

Open Data

Over the last year we have been working with a series of ideas and applications for using open data for careers guidance. Supported by the Mature-IP project, by Careers Wales and Connexions Northumberland and more lately UKCES, we have been looking at how to use open data around Labour Market Information for careers advice and guidance. Needless to say, it has not proved as easy as we thought, raising a whole series of issues around target users, mediation,  and data sources, data reliability and data interpretation, amongst others.

We have encountered a series of technical issues but these can be overcome. More important is understanding the social uses of open data for learning and decision making which is much harder!

Webquests 2.o

The original idea of  Webquests was based around a series of questions designed to encourage learners to search for new meaning and deeper understanding using web based tools and resources. Although Webquests have been used for some time in schools and colleges, we have been working to adopt an updated Webquest 2.0 approach to the needs of learners in Small and Medium Enterprises. These inquiry–oriented activities take place in a Web 2.0–enhanced, social and interactive open learning environment (face to face and/or on–line) that combine at the same time collaborative learning with self–paced learning.

Once more, this work has posed a series of challenges. While we have been pretty successful in using webquests 2.0 with SMEs, it has proved harder to enable practitioners to develop their own online learning materials.

Work based learning

We have been continuing to explore how to use technology to support work based learning and in particular how to use mobile technologies to extend learning to different contexts in Small and Medium Enterprises. We are especially interested in focusing on work practices and how technology can be used to support informal learning and practice in the workplace, rather than the acquisition of more formal knowledge. In order to finance this work we have developed a number of funding applications entailing both background research and (more enjoyably) visits to different companies.

We are fairly confident that we will get support to take this work forward in the near future.

Social media and social empowerment

We have been looking at how to use social media and in particular internet radio, not for promoting social inclusion, but for giving a voice and opportunity for expression to those excluded form access to traditional education and media. Once more, we are confident that we will be able to launch a new initiative around this in the next couple of months.

We will be publishing more about this work over the next couple of weeks. If you are interested in any of these ideas or projects please get in touch.

Those of you who I have had the pleasure of talking to lately will know we are working on a sereis of new ideas. However, we have been so busy that this blog and website are running beyond. Hopefully int he next few weeks, I will I have the opportunity to get it back up to date. In the meantime, here is the abstract of a paper by Ludger Deitmer and myself, submitted for the PLE2012 conference, which describes the work we are developing on using technology for informal learning in the workplace and specifically in Small and Medium Enterprises in the building and construction trade.

Developing Work based Personal Learning Environments in Small and Medium Enterprises in the Building and Construction Industries

Graham Attwell, Pontydusgu

Ludger Deitmer, ITB, University of Bremen

Introduction

Research and development in Personal Learning Environments has made considerable progress in recent years. Yet such research continues to be focused on learning through formal educational institutions. Far less attention has been paid to work based learning and still less to the particular context of learning in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Yet it could be argued that it is in just these contexts, where work can provide a rich learning environment and where there is growing need for continuing professional development to meet demands from new technology and materials and changing work processes that PLEs could have the greatest impact. However, for this to happen requires a dual approach, based on informal learning and the development of network and mobile technologies. This paper will describe an approach being developed for learning in SMES, specifically in the building and construction industry in north Germany.

The challenge for knowledge and skills

Many industries are undergoing a period of rapid change with the introduction of new technologies, processes and materials. This is resulting in new quality and certification requirements and standards, and in the emergence of new skill requirements. It is generally acknowledged that a key factor for enterprises to staying agile and adaptive is to have a highly skilled workforce. With the rapid development of new technologies, staying up-to-date with know-how and skills increasingly becomes a challenge in many sectors.

Technology Enhanced Learning

While technology-enhanced learning (TEL) has been suggested as a means to address this challenge and support learning at the workplace, its potential has not yet been fully realized. Especially in many Small and Medium Enterprises (SME), the take-up has not been effective. A critical review of the way information technologies are being used for workplace learning (Kraiger, 2008) concludes that still today most solutions are targeted towards a learning model based on the ideas of direct instruction in a more or less formal manner. That is, TEL initiatives tend to be based upon a traditional business training model with modules, lectures and seminars transferred from face to face interactions to onscreen interactions, but retaining the standard tutor/student relationship and the reliance on formal and to some extent standardized course material and curricula.

Informal learning and Personal Learning Environments

However research suggests that in SMEs much learning takes place in the workplace and through work processes, is multi episodic, is often informal, is problem based and takes place on a just in time basis (Hart, 2011). Rather than a reliance on formal or designated trainers, much training and learning involves the passing on of skills and knowledge from skilled workers (Attwell and Baumgartl, 2009). In other words, learning is highly individualized and heavily integrated with contextual work practices. While this form of delivery (learning from individual experience) is highly effective for the individual and has been shown to be intrinsically motivating by both the need to solve problems and by personal interest (Attwell, 2007; Hague & Lohan, 2009), it does not scale very well: if individual experiences are not further taken up in systematic organisational learning practices, learning remains costly, fragmented and unsystematic.

The Building and Construction Sector

The building and construction trades are undergoing a period of rapid change with the introduction of green building techniques and materials followed by new processes and standards. The EU directive makes near zero energy building mandatory by 2021 (European Parliament 2009). This is resulting in the development of new skill requirements for work on building sites.

The sector is characterized by a small number of large companies and a large numbers of SMEs in both general building and construction and in specialized craft trades. Building and Construction projects require more interactive collaboration within as well as under different craft trade companies. Following the logistical chain also with planners and architects as well as with suppliers of new materials.

Continuing training is becoming increasingly important for dealing with technological change. Much of the further training offers are too little connected with real work projects and there is often little transfer of learning. The cost pressure in building enterprises limits chances for time-consuming training measures far away from the workplace. (Schulte, Spöttl, 2009). In all this there is an issue of how to share knowledge both between workers in different workplaces and of how to provide just in time training to meet new needs and how to link formal training with informal learning and work based practice in the different craft trades.

Mobile technologies

In the past few years, emerging technologies (such as mobile devices or social networks) have rapidly spread into all areas of our life. However, while employees in SMEs increasingly use these technologies for private purposes as well as for informal learning, enterprises have not really recognized the personal use of technologies as effectively supporting informal learning. As a consequence, the use of these emerging technologies has not been systematically taken up as a sustainable learning strategy that is integrated with other forms of learning at the workplace.

An approach to developing PLEs

We are researching methods and technologies to scale-up informal learning support for PLEs so that it is cost-effective and sustainable, offers contextualised and meaningful support in the virtual and physical context of work practices. We aim to:

• Ensure that peer production is unlocked: Barriers to participation need to be lowered, massive reuse of existing materials has to be realized, and experiences people make in physical contexts needs to be included.
• Ensure individuals receive scaffolds to deal with the growing abundance: We need to research concepts of networked scaffolding and research the effectiveness of scaffolds across different contexts.
• Ensure shared meaning of work practices at individual, organisational and inter-organisational levels emerges from these interactions: We need to lower barriers for participation, allow emergence as a social negotiation process and knowledge maturing across institutional boundaries, and research the role of physical artefacts and context in this process.

The paper will explore the evolution of this work in developing work based PLEs, capturing informal learning.