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

More posts to come …

Last autumn, we undertook a survey of how apprentices in the German construction industry use mobile devices. This was undertaken as part of the Learning Layers project. We produced a report on this work in December, when some 581  apprentices had completed the survey. Now we have more than 700 replies. We plan to update our analysis to include those who responded after that date. However a number of people have asked me for access to the report as it is and so I am publishing it on this blog.

In summary we found

• 86,7 per cent of apprentices survey have a smartphone, 19,4 per cent a tablet
• 94 per cent  pay for internet connectivity themselves
• 55.6 per cent use their smartphone or tablet more than 10 times a day
• 42.8 per cent say they use their mobile or tablet often or very often for seeking work-related information. However this relates to use outside work time, in the workplace the numbers are much lower.
• 58% use mobile devices for work-related conversations and 53.2 for work-related information
• 11.2 per cent say they often or very often use web tools in the workplace
• 95.9 per cent had heard of WhatsApp, only 16.7 per cent of the BoschApp designed for the construction industry
• The most frequently used app in the workplace was the camera, with 19.6 per cent using it often or very often
• 79.3 per cent sought information in text format and 59.2 per cent video.

Around half would like more information about using web tools for learning in the work process and 115 have left their email addresses for us to send further information

The survey indicates that the vast majority of German apprentices in the building trades possess devices and the skills to use them. These devices could be used as part of the Learning Layers project. As the cost of tablets and smartphones becomes cheaper, the digital divide does not seem to be a major issue for this group. Smartphones are used for acquiring work-related knowledge, through personal communication or from the internet. These activities are to a large extent carried out in the apprentices’ own time.

However, the work-related use of digital devices is still uncommon. 20% of the apprentices use their smartphones to make work related photos and such existing practices, could be used by the Learning Layers project for enabling the collective development and sharing of learning materials. The majority of apprentices think that the support offered by mobile devices at the workplace would be useful. The Learning Layers project has the chance to scale up the use of mobile devices by offering apps that are helpful and/or showing the possibilities of making innovative use of existing apps.

Knowledge about work-related apps is gained to a large extent from personal contacts with other apprentices, colleagues, and trainers.

You can download the full report here. If you would like access to the full data please email or skype me.

I seem to be spending a lot of time looking at the potential of various technologies for supporting learning at work. I am not talking here about Virtual Learning Environments. In the construction industry we are looking at how mobile devices can be used to support learning and knowledge sharing between the different contexts of the vocational school, the industrial training centre and the workplace. And through the Employ-ID project we are looking at how to support continuing professional development for workers in public employment organisations across Europe.

None of these is particularly easy. Pedagogically we looking at things like co0counselling and at MOOCs for professional development. And another target on our horizon is Learning Analytics. Like so many things in technology advanced learning, Learning Analytics launched with a big fanfare, then seems to haver sunk under the surface. I was excited by the potential of using data to support learning and wanted to get in there. But there seems to be a problem. Like so often, rather than looking to use the power of Learning Analytics to support learners and learning, institutions have hijacked the application as a learning management tool. Top of the list for UK universities at least is how to reduce drop out rates (since this effects their funding). Rather than look at the effectiveness of teaching and learning, they are more interested in the efficiency of their approach (once more to save money).

So we are back where we have been so many times. We have tools with a great potential to support learners, but institutional managerialism has taken over the agenda. But perhaps I am being overly pessimistic and looking for information in the wrong places. If anyone can point me to examples of how to use Learning Analytics to support real learning please post below.

NB. Another issue concerning me is how to tell users what data we are collecting and how we are using it. Once more, does anyone have any pointers to good practice in this respect

Last year I managed to blog almost regularly on our progress with the Learning Layers (LL) project. To my own disappointment I have to admit that I have not been able to continue that tradition this year. Now – before the end of March – it is high time to break the silence and to catch up with the activities of the LL project.

Before I go to the ongoing activities (in my next blog posts) I need to make some explanatory remarks.

Firstly, this has not been a quiet period in the LL project. On the contrary, we have had a lot of activities. Even more, we have had to struggle with deadlines to be met with different kinds of contributions. That has pushed the good habit of blogging out of the way.

Secondly, we have done quite a lot of internal development work inside the project. For that we have also needed internal discussions to reach common conclusions. That has also delayed blogging of the results.

Thirdly, we are reaching an integrative phase in which we need to get several initiatives and prototypes linked to each other. This also requires its own time and privacy. Therefore, there has been no case to rush to blogging.

Fourthly, we are entering also a phase that is characterised by joint self-reflection regarding our theoretical foundations, methodological commitments and on their implications for our fieldwork. Here, we also need space and time for mutual adjustment. This has also delayed blogging (although blogs can facilitate dialogue and mutual awareness).

In addition to the points above there have been practical issues that need not be discussed here in detail. After having said all this, I have come to the conclusion that I should not give up the good habit of blogging on our progress. So, in the coming posts I will try to catch up and pave the way for ongoing reporting.

More posts to come …

Last week I went to the Bristol Mobile Ideas in Mobile Learning Symposium (programme and links here). I thoroughly enjoyed the event. Just a general point before I get to the specifics. I am increasingly bored with large conferences where you sit passively listening to string of paper inputs – good bad or indifferent – and then perhaps get to ask one or two questions. Smaller events such as the Bristol symposium, allow a real discussion and best of all, continued debate in breaks and in the evening. This is the kind of event which promotes learning!

I made a presentation on the Learning Toolbox mobile application we are developing for the Learning Layers project in the penultimate session of the symposium. I followed an intriguing presentation by Daniel Spikol on Using Augmented Reality, Artistic Research and Mobile Phones to Explore Practice-based Learning (see video above). Daniel has been working with Dance groups in Sweden, using the Aurasma Augmented Reality app for recording and augmenting dance performances. At first sight that would seem a long way from my work on developing an app for apprentices in the construction industry. But there were many links. Amongst other things Daniel made two key points which I could relate to. One was the need for continuing and iterative development in the use of apps (and here it was interesting that they had used an existing application, rather than trying to develop their own code). Second was the use of technology in capturing and representing physical performance. And in terms of work based learning, that is exactly what we are trying to do (and struggling with) in using mobile devices. In this regard I am interested in the ideas about practice.  Practice is related to competence and qualification and includes cognitive, affective, personal and social factors (trying to find citation for this). In terms of learning (and using technology for learning) practice based activities – whether based on formal or informal learning – are:

• Purposeful
• Heavily influenced by context
• Often result in changes in behaviour
• Sequenced in terms of developing a personal knowledge base
• Social – involving shared community knowledge

Returning to Daniel’s questions, the challenge is how we can design and shape technology to augment practice.

(Editorial remark 21.11.2016:) This post documents a transformation of perspective in the Learning Layers co-design work in Bau-ABC: the transition from the initial design idea ‘Sharing Turbine’ (digitisation of the Bau-ABC White Folder) into the new framework concept ‘Learning Toolbox (LTB)’. This text was not originally published as a blog post but only as an internal workshop report on a working meeting of Bau-ABC trainers and research partners from ITB (Pekka Kämäräinen) and Pontydysgu (Owen Gray). Since this is the earliest document in which the shift of the initial design idea to the new one has been described, it has been retrospectively included into the Working & Learning blogs, category ‘LTB-blogs. From this point on we have the original text of the workshop report:

“Situation assessment/ Sharing Turbine: In this context Pekka and Owen indicated that the original idea for comprehensive digitisation of the projects of the White Folder had to be given up. Firstly, it pointed out to be very time-consuming for the programming work and there was a lack of support for coding that could not be resolved in due time. Secondly, it pointed out that in many tasks typing with mobile devices would also take more time than writing on paper. Therefore, the emphasis was shifted from a full-scale digitisation of the work with White Folder to the development of a supporting mobile toolbox that facilitates the completion of the training projects and learning at workplace.

Demonstration of the new wireframes for the mobile app for Learning Toolbox

Owen presented the new wireframes that had been designed with Prototyper software and outlined the following areas: “Information”, “Create”, “Tools and Materials”, … “Don’t panic”, “Settings”.

We had a discussion on the functionality of each areas and how it supports knowledge processes in the training projects and in real work situations. In all these contexts it was made clear that the app is to be used locally by each user and that they have to decide themselves, what to share and what to export elsewhere.

In the discussion several points were raised to ensure that the pictures, audios and videos could be “signed” as original contributions of the persons presenting them (or as appropriate quotes with credit to the original source). Also, the use of QR tags was proposed to link contributions of apprentices to the course/project they are completing. In addition, it became clear that the written project report (with downloaded digitised contents) can be scanned and stored as set of digitised contents). With some areas there was a closer discussion, how to meet the needs of a training project (support for learning) and how to meet the needs of work situation (facilitation of problem-solving and decision-making). Altogether, the wireframes were greeted and the participants were looking forward to the next iteration. (In the meantime Owen will visit TU Graz to discuss closer cooperation in the design process.)”

– – –

This is the part of the Workshop report that deals with the transition from the old design idea to the new framework. Not much has been written down on the discussion in Bau-ABC. The wireframes (not available as they were presented at that point) were already convincing enough to demonstrate that the new framework builds upon the earlier discussions in our joint co-design sessions. We had now found the focus for software development. I think this is enough of the start of the work with ‘Learning Toolbox’.

More blogs will follow …

The posts of this series are about the Year One (Y1) Review Meeting of the Learning Layers (LL) project that took place last week. In the first two posts  I discussed the event as such and our inputs (as team presentations). In the final one I will discuss the feedback that was given and how we respond to it.

I am aware of the fact that the reviewers need still some time to finalise their comments. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to try to give a comprehensive summary (before the review panel has completed its own work). However, already at this stage it is possible to pick up some messages that are not controversial and pieces of advice that can be taken on board without further delay.

Below I present some comments of the reviewers that focus on the research, design and development activities.

1. Coherent approach to theories, designs and prototypes: The reviewers appreciated the knowledge of relevant theories on technology enhanced learning, workplace learning and learning in informal contexts. Yet, some of the reviewers drew attention to the fact that the designs and prototypes are based on specific assumptions on learning. The project was challenged to discuss these underlying assumptions and consider the compatibility between the conceptual orientations and the designs.

2. Commitment to action research in an explicit and reflected way:  The reviewers noted that the project has made in several deliverables commitments to action research. Yet, the relations to different traditions of action research have not been discussed thoroughly and the methodological implications are not clear. The project was challenged to organise a workshop to make the relations to different traditions and its own methodological commitments more explicit. (Here, attention was drawn to transdisciplinary action research as a strong emerging approach.)

3. Balance and coherence between different activities: The project had demonstrated a wide range of activities. This was appreciated but at the same time the reviewers pointed to the risk that the activities remain parcelled and disintegrated. In particular they emphasised that research data should not be collected for the sake of showing data. The project was challenged to demonstrate, how the collection and analysing of data supports the design and development activities.

4. Documentation of co-design and stakeholder engagement activities: The project had demonstrated a great number of events with sectoral stakeholders and their organisations. Yet, the role of such activities and the progress with the counterparts had not been clearly reflected in the deliverables. It seemed that the dynamics of the activities had been lost in the logic of reporting on the basis of work packages. The project was challenged to document the processes and the results more explicitly (not only in terms records and minutes of meetings).

At this moment I can raise some points for discussion, how the project can respond to these comments:

ad 1) Coherent approach to theories, designs and prototypes: This is clearly an issue for the whole consortium and needs a proper conversation in a near future.

ad 2) Commitment to action research in an explicit and reflected way: This comment meets our own self-assessment. In the joint meetings of the ITB and Pontydysgu teams we had already agreed to organise a joint workshop to promote dialogue between (classical) action research, accompanying research (DE), interactive research (NL) and design research (WP2).

ad 3) Balance and coherence between different activities: This comment also meets the situation assessment of several partners. Already during the review meeting we started a discussion, how to arrange the collection of research data in a more synergy-promoting and coordinated way. We also took note that the different dynamics of design activities in the two pilot regions should be taken into account in the scheduling of data collection.

ad 4) Documentation of co-design and stakeholder engagement activities: This comment draws attention to the risk of paying too little attention to the process documentation when prioritising research results or progress in design and development activities. This meets the situation assessment of the sectoral partners and the coordinators of sectoral activities. In many respects this issue is connected with the need to clarify the commitment to action research.

I think this is enough at the moment. We will discuss the feedback and our responses in greater detail when we have the report of the reviewers.

The discussion will be continued …

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

The posts of this series are about the Year One (Y1) Review Meeting of the Learning Layers (LL) project that took place last week. In the first post to this series of blogs I discussed the event as such. In this post I will focus on our inputs and how we presented then. In the next ones I will discuss the feedback that was given and how to respond to it.

I do not try to give a comprehensive overview on all presentations that were given by the project consortium. Instead, I will focus on the following ones:

1. The presentation of the North-German partners on the Construction pilot region [05] and
2. The presentations of the Work Package 7 team [13-18] on stakeholder engagement, open innovation and scaling up.

ad 1) The presentation on the North-German Construction pilot region [05]

In our presentation we provided firstly insights into the pilot region, partner organisations and domain-specific issues to be considered (building and construction work as mobile work with high risk of occupational hazards and specific emphasis on process innovation). We then moved to the challenges for sectoral R&D work, research methodologies used (including the ‘rapid ethnography) and the role of interviews, user stories and personas). We then moved to the overview on the design process, the role of different workshops and the progress in two design teams (Captus and Sharing Turbine) and then via interim results to tensions and and possible measures. At the end we outlined a picture of Y2 activities based on the key role of two major pilot activities, the support from empirical research and stakeholder engagement as well as further support from joint training activities and affiliated projects (e.g. the Layers PBL projects).

This presentation is available in the shared Google Drive, please click the link here.

In this context it is worthwhile to emphasise that both the finalisation of the slides and the presentation itself were chaacterised by intensive teamwork. This was not just a matter of few researchers putting the slides together and sharing the task to present with others. The final version was reworked during the rehearsal and the application partners (from Bau ABC and Agentur) played their roles as presenters very prominently. In this way we managed to perform as a team that played the ball to each other (Melanie Campbell, Ludger Deitmer, Stefan Thalmann, Pekka Kämäräinen, Melanie Campbell, Tobias Funke and Pekka Kämäräinen). Thus, we gave a joint presentation on our common experiences in a process that we have been planning, implementing and shaping together.

ad 2) The presentations of the Work Package 7 team [13-18] on stakeholder engagement, open innovation and scaling up

The contribution of the Work Package 7 team was a complex set of presentations that moved a coherent story forward (with different sets of presenters/panelists that gave short inputs):

• Scaling up – A Strategy and its Implementation – the core of the story (Graham Attwell and Gilbert Peffer)
• Creating results through open innovation – including the affiliated pilots (Graham Attwell, Patricia Santos, Merja Bauters, Ralf Klamma and Gilbert Peffer)
• Engaging stakeholders and building capacity for adoption and impact – providing insights into networks and scaling up measures in the pilot regions (Graham Attwell, John Bibby, Paul Carder, Melanie Campbell, Ludger Deitmer and Gilbert Peffer).
• Working towards sustainability – providing scenarios of sustainability based on support from different stakeholder communities (Tor-Arne Bellika, Gilbert Peffer, Melanie Campbell, John Bibby, Ralf Klamma and Graham Attwell).
• Wrapping up – with Roadmap for Y2 (Graham Attwell).

This presentation is also available in the shared Google Drive, please click here.

This latter presentation was even more strongly characterised by teamworking to give a coherent message of research, design and development work that relies very strongly on the involvement of sectoral partners and committed researchers/ technical support.

It is worthwhile to have a closer look at the message that was presented. It was also appreciated in the meeting.

To be continued …

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

Last week the Learning Layers (LL) project had the Year One (Y1) Review Meeting in Barcelona. In the first post to this series of blogs I want to take a look at the event as such. In the following ones I will discuss our inputs, the feedback that was given and how to respond to it.

The panel of reviewers had already examined the Deliverables of the Y1. Now the face-to-face meeting provided an opportunity for the consortium to set accents and to give live impressions on the work. For the reviewers this meeting provided the possibility to ask questions and give direct comments on specific issues. Altogether, the review is completed with a written report. Thus, we should wait for the report before we make very specific conclusions. Yet, it is appropriate to make some preliminary remarks on the event, on our contributions and on the dialogue that took place in Barcelona.

Firstly, it is worthwhile to consider the event as a learning opportunity for the project consortium. We had agreed to work with a common storyline – instead of presenting the work packages in a compartmentalised way. Therefore, we needed the two days’ rehearsal to link the contributions from work packages, pilot regions and design teams to each other. It really helped us to get an idea, how our presentations can refer to each other and how we can get the messages stronger.

Secondly, since the presentations had been rehearsed, we were in a better position to listen to the feedback, respond to questions and take the comments on board. Also, we were in a better position to start our on reflection, how to adjust our activities on the basis of useful advice from the reviewers.

I think this is enough of the event itself. Now it is time to look back, what we presented and what kind of comments were given.

To be continued …

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

One of the frustrations with the Personal Learning Environments conferences has been the time it has taken us to publish papers after the conference. This year we tied up with e_learning Papers who publish an electronic journal on the European Commission Open Education Europa portal. And I am delighted to say they have just published a special edition of the journal on PLEs, edited by Ilona Buchem and  Tapia Toskinen.

The foreword to the edition is included in full below together with links to the different papers.

“The proliferation of learning innovations such as personal devices, granular and distributed applications, services, and resources, requires the learner to develop his or her own strategies for managing the various information streams and tools to support learning. Such strategies are necessary not only in educational settings, but basically in any life situation which can become a moment or an episode of learning. Digital and non-digital building blocks can be individually combined by learners in their own Personal Learning Environment (PLEs).

More of an approach or strategy than a specific learning platform, a PLE is created by learners in the process of designing and organising their own learning, as opposed to following pre-arranged learning paths. In this way, PLEs are distinctly learner-centred and foster autonomous learning. PLEs are by no means isolated; they are interconnected in a digital ecosystem of media, tools and services. Instead of asking learners to navigate within one monolithic environment, PLEs act as a gateway to an open and connected learning experience. This approach marks a shift towards a model of learning in which learners draw connections from a pool of digital and non-digital building blocks, aggregating, mixing and combining them into unique constellations as part of learning.

While emphasizing the active role of a learner, the PLE approach implies that learning is not located in a specific time and place, but is an ongoing, ubiquitous and multi-episodic process. As PLEs allow the collocation of diverse learning activities, tools, and resources, contexts permeate and learning becomes connected. In this sense, PLEs challenge some dominant paradigms in education and in the traditional understanding of borders, be it in view of learning places, educational roles or institutional policies.

This special issue builds on the current PLE discussion and focuses on crossing the boundaries of learning contexts. It features some emerging practices, including the construction of PLEs as part of an augmented localised learning experience with mobile devices; PLEs as an approach to supporting learning through work practice; and using gamification and open badges as part of the PLE approach. The findings and insights of the articles in this issue demonstrate the rich contribution of the PLE approach to the opening up of education.”

Download Print Version

Articles

Personal Learning Environments in Smart Cities: Current Approaches and Future Scenarios
Author(s): Ilona Buchem, Mar Pérez-Sanagustín

A gamification framework to improve participation in social learning environments