PK-Logbook of Working & Learning blogs on Learning Layers 2013

Abstract

This dopcument is a Loogbook on the blog articles that I have written on the Learning Layers project on my blog "Working & Learning" on the website www.pontydysgu.org. These blog articles cover the first active year of the Learniing Layers project - the first field activities, the emergence of the initial design ideas and the early phases of co-design processes.

Full text

1
Logbook of Working & Learning blogs on Learning Layers 2012-2013
by Pekka Kämäräinen
1. Working & Learning back in Picture with the Learning Layers Project
November 16th, 2012
The Working & Learning blog is now actively contributing to the start of the Learning Layers
project (EU FP7). In the forthcoming posts there will be insights into the Learning Layers
projects and into the tasks we (ITB and other partners) are carrying out to support workplace
learning, work processes and professional development with the help of web applications,
services and learning technologies.
However, in order to get new insights there is also a need to look back what has been achieved
with prior (European and country-specific) knowledge development. So, there is a need to keep
lessons from the past in picture while looking for new findings. Let us see what we find while we
are working and learning in the new project …
2. Learning Layers – Insights into the views of (individual) users
November 21st, 2012
Graham Attwell has already reported of the kick-off meeting of the EU FP7 project “Learning
layers” in his blog article “The Learning Layers project scales up informal learning at the
workplace” on the Wales-Wide web. Graham gave an overview on the key issues and
presented several views of partners with different roles in the project.
My intention is to continue the discussion on the Learning Layers project with further insights
into users’ interests and expectations. ITB (Institut Technik & Bildung) is involved in this project
as a research partner with focus on promoting learning in organisational contexts. In particular
ITB has the task to facilitate cooperation with partner enterprises in construction industry and
related trades. At the same time ITB has a keen interest to study work process -oriented
learning within the networks and communities of medical doctors (General Practitioners – GP).
During the preparation of the proposal the ITB team and the partners from Leeds produced
quick video interviews to illustrate potential users’ needs, ideas and expectations regarding the
work of the project and possible benefits. Here I would like to draw attention to the parallelities
between the users’ statements.
In the video produced in Leeds John Sandars presented a user’s story from the GP point of
view. He referred to the complex prolems he has encountered in his work as GP with patients
that each have a unique set of health problems. For GP it is vital to make quick but well-
informed diagnoses. For this purpose it is of little help to overload the GPs with access to
massive documents or guidelines. Instead, GPs are more interested in being able to share their

2
notes on individual cases and get feedback of their fellow colleagues (taking into account the
confidentiality and the need to anonymise the data). In this way the Learning Layers project is
expected to provide facilities to store, share and enrich the work process knowledge that is
generated by GPs in their work processes. Moreover, regarding the GPs’ obligations to provide
evidence of their professional development (for the revalidation processes), the project can
provide a cumulative knowledge resource for the individual doctor, for the GP practice and for
the network of GPs.
In the video produced by the ITB team the director of an electric installation company and the
head of the trade’s guild (Elektro-Innung), Mr Siever makes similar points on the needs and
expectations to support workplace learning in his trade. He also referred to the work situation of
a technician doing repair or maintenance work with very little information of a problem and with
little help of standard manuals or massive handbooks. In such situations (when the client is
impatiently waiting for solution) the most likely option is phone call to colleague or to the boss (if
they happen to be available). Moreover, if the problem is successfully solved, this may be
documented by snapshots with mobile phone camera and some notes. Such storage and
sharing of work process knowledge is very fragile and hardly leads to knowledge development.
Therefore Siever was in favour of a living system for documenting problems, key information
and possible solutions in the way they have been encountered, tested and documented in
critical work situations.
To me it has been striking that the videos that have been recorded in different countries, with
different languages and with focus on different professions/occupations have raised similar
points regarding the problem-relevance and usability of knowledge from the perspective of
practitioners. for both kinds of user stories the emphasis is on the ‘living system’ of knowledge
resources.
However, these were the opening statements. The story goes on …

3
3. Learning Layers – Remarks on the role of professional networks
(communities) of users
November 21st, 2012
In my previous post I presented in a nutshell two ‘user stories’ that were produced as videos to
support the proposal for the project “Learning Layers”. The partners from Leeds recorded a
video in which John Sandars reflects his work as medical doctor (General Practitioner) and how
he could benefit of the web support provided by the project. The ITB team from Bremen
produced several videos in which the head of the trade guild for electric installation (Elektro-
Innung) Mr Siever presented similar views, how his technicians could benefit of the project in
making their ‘work process knowledge’ transparent and shared across the company.
At this point it is worthwhile to raise the question, are we only talking of individual users (GPs) or
individual companies as target groups and potential beneficiaries. Here it is worthwhile to note
that neither John from Leeds nor Mr Siever from Bremen were speaking only for themselves.
They both had a view on their professional communities (or networks) and on more general
patterns for knowledge sharing.
Firstly, we know that in the area of Leeds there are active networks of GPs who have already
been developing cooperation and knowledge sharing with each other and that public health
authorities have supported this development. Also, we know that the GP practices have the
obligation to re-validate themselves and the doctors have to provide evidence of their
professional development. In this context the perspective of making the work process
knowledge of doctors transparent across the community helps all of them to fulfill their
obligations and to benefit from each others’ observations and findings. Here, it is worthwhile to
note that the GPs are well aware of the confidentiality issues and do not want to share sensitive
details without anonymising the cases.
Secondly, we know that the trade companies in electric installations are competitors to each
other. Yet, Mr Siever emphasised that most problems and problem-solving strategies to be
treated by the ‘living system’ should be treated as a common possibility for the trade guild to
promote the competences of the member companies and their employees. Altogether, the guild
has an interest to raise the profile of the occupational field (both regarding client enterprises and
young people who may be interested to choose the trade).
Here again, interesting parallelities could be seen between the two occupational fields and the
respective professional communities. However, this is not yet the whole picture of the ‘user
stories’. On the contrary, these were the starting points. Already at this stage the first meetings
and skype conferences have brought forward more issues and ideas.

4
4. Learning Layers – the role of competence centres as multipliers of
innovative practice
November 22nd, 2012
Yesterday I wrote two blog articles based on the videos that the ITB team and the partners in
Leeds produced at an early stage of the Learning Layers project. Now the project has officially
started and we are going through several meetings, flashmeetings and skype meetings. In this
phase we are learning more of each other and – as a consequence – we have to broaden our
picture of the users, their expectations and their possibilities to contribute to the project.
So far my first blog article has discussed individual users (medical doctors in Leeds and
craftsmen in electric installations in Bremen) as the starting point. My second article shifted the
emphasis from individual users (and their workplaces) to their professional communities or
networks and to enrichment of shared knowledge. With this article I want to shift the role to
“competence centres” (in German Kompetenzzentrum) and to their role as multipliers of
innovative practice. Here I refer to the ideas that have been presented by Melanie Campbell
who represents Bau ABC (one of the application partners of the LL project). I am aware that
Melanie is preparing a more elaborate presentation for the Online Educa Berlin but I want to
draw attention to some ideas already at this stage.
Firstly on the role of Bau ABC in the construction sector. It is easy to get a false impression that
it would only be a more advanced vocational school or college (for apprectices) or a training
centre (for adult learners on short courses). In this respect the range of training activities of Bau
ABC is wider and it caters for different target groups. In the initial vocational education it serves
as an intermediate training interface (Überbetriebliche Ausbildungsstätte).
In the continuing vocational training it serves as a provider for different competence-giving and
certified programmes. For this purpose it has huge training sites in which advanced training
programmes (for various occupations) can be implemented in circumstances that are similar to
real construction sites (instead of retreating to mere classroom simulations). And altogether, it
serves as a nodal point for continuing professional development and as promoter for knowledge
transfer from training contexts to everyday life practice.
For the Learning Layers project it is interesting to note what kinds of target groups can be
approached via such competence centre and what kinds of working, learning and transfer
processes they can bring into picture. (Here I am referring to the ideas that Melanie and other
discussed freely in our skype meeting, we need to discuss this further.)
● Meister (Masters of craft) who are in charge of training in special occupational areas (e.g.
die Brunnenbauer). Here we can assume that there are no markets for highly
commercialised learning materials. Therefore, training and learning processes have to rely
to a major extent on work process knowledge gained through work experience. How can
this kind of knowledge best be mobilised and shared?

5
● Apprentices (Auszubildende) that select special areas of construction work tend to be
highly interested in their occupation and try to adopt the role of explorers (asking for
interpretation why things are done this way and putting the ‘normal practice’ in question).
During their apprenticeship they attend in regular cycles Bau ABC and can be addressed at
different phases of their learning careers.
● Skilled workers in Meister training programmes (or in other similar programme) are also
going through transition in their career and are acquiring new competences. During their
training they are confronted with challenges, how to organise group work and mutually
linked work processes. Also they attend Bau ABC in different phases of their training.
● Pioneers in using ICT, Web and new media – here we are talking of individual trainers
and guest instructors in different occupational areas. In the beginning phase of the project it
became clear that there are already several pilot initiatives that have been tried or
implemented in small scale. However, there is neither an overarching coordination nor a
technical infrastructure (system architecture) that would enable good synergy across
different initiatives. Therefore, inquiries on users’ needs or expectations should also take
into account such developments.
I stop my list here. As I already said, Melanie Campbell will give more precise information and
insights to these issues in the coming days (in particular via her contribution to Online Educa
Berlin). Yet, I considered it appropriate to discuss the potential role of Bau ABC as a major
regional competence centre as multiplier of innovative practices. As we have discussed it, we
see different possibilities to go further but we have to start from the beginning steps.
This was an addendum to the issue “user stories”. But we are not through.

6
5. Learning Layers – Learning lessons from prior projects – part 1
November 29th, 2012
At the moment several contributors to Learning Layers project (from Pontydysgu, ITB, CIMNE,
Bau ABC and Agentur) are participating in Online Educa Berlin. Pontydysgu will keep us
updated on their contributions via live radio program (Sounds of the Bazaar), podcasts and via
Graham’s blogs on Wales-Wide Web.
While the travel team is busy over there, the home team is doing some stock-taking on lessons
to be learned from prior projects. As a first contribution I have collected some links to video
interviews that I produced as the ITB partner for another European project (Coop-PBL in VET).
As you see from the list below, the interview partners (from Pontydysgu and ITB) discussed
issues that are relevant for the Learning Layers project as well:
● The interviews with Graham Attwell (four videos) focused on the development of
European projects on ICT, Web and learning (in SMEs).
● The interviews with Jenny Hughes (two videos) focused on the experiences of two
TACCLE projects in supporting teachers to create and share user-generated web contents.
● The interviews with Joanna Burchert and Sven Schulte (three videos in English, parallel
versions in German) focused on the experiences with the German project expertAzubi that
developed an interactive online platform for apprentices, workplace trainers and vocational
teachers in the Bremen region.
● The interviews with Ludger Deitmer (four videos in English) focused on regional
cooperation between vocational education providers, partner enterprises and different
innovation programs since the early 1990s to present day.
It is not our intention to dwell in the past. But we do understand ourselves as part of a living
tradition of innovation research and part of that ‘living’ is the ability to look back how certain
ideas and cooperation patterns have developed. It is interesting to see new issues coming up in
Graham’s and Ludger’s overviews. Moreover, it is interesting to see, how dynamic cooperation
culture has developed in rather short-lived projects (as Jenny and Joanna & Sven tell in their
reports of recent projects).

7
6. Learning Layers – Learning lessons from prior projects – part 2
December 10th, 2012
My previous posting for this blog (with reference to the Learning Layers project) dealt with the
issue “Lessons from prior projects”. I drew attention to several video interviews that I had
prepared for another European cooperation project (Coop-PBL in VET). My colleagues in the
learning Layers project might consider that the material might be a bit remote to the ongoing
project and to the current working issues – maybe, maybe not.
With this post I want to draw attention to the work of an immediate predecessor of the Learning
Layers project as regards the work with the German construction sector. The German project
Vila-b (Virtual learning in construction work) explored the usability of mobile devices in the
context of continuing training for construction workers. The video interviews with researcher
Sven Schulte (ITB) make transparent the project concept and users’ acceptance of new media.
In the first video Sven tells about the approach of Vila-b, of the measures to ensure user
engagement and of the conclusions, how to make such projects relevant for users.
http://vimeo.com/55277044
In the second video Sven tells about the challenges for getting construction workers interested
in using web support. He also draws attention to progress that has been made in the meantime
with technologies (e.g. smartphones) and software (e.g. apps). His main point is that active
mentoring at workplace has been crucial for supporting workplace learning (in general) and the
use of web-based support.
http://vimeo.com/55277043
With these videos I hope to bring the lessons from prior activities closer to our ongoing
discussions on current challenges and tasks.

8
7. Learning Layers – What can we learn during on-site visits? (Part 1)
December 20th, 2012
My latest blog postings on Learning Layers focused on lessons to be learned from predecessor
projects. We still need to follow that track. There is surely something to be discussed when we
get statements from colleagues who have been involved (and taken the opportunity to think
aloud about their learning gains).
However, now the current phase of the Learning Layers is pushing forward the on-site visits and
the work with interview materials. At the moment we are just making the very first interviews and
the editing of recordings and the detailed analyses are on the agenda in January 2013. Yet,
already at this point it is worthwhile to consider, what we (as researchers) can learn during the
on-site visits when talking to people who know their trade (and the issues to be studied) via
their own practical experience.
Three members of the ITB team visited earlier this week our Application Partner organisation
“Agentur für Nachhaltiges Bauen” in Verden near Bremen. We didn’t have much time to look
around at their exhibition areas or at their test sites. Yet, we got interesting insights into the wide
area of ‘ecological construction work’. Here some points as starters while waiting for the
analyses and the Application Partner Days (that provide an opportunity for more partners to
make such on-site visits):
1) Who are our counterparts and what do they represent: We were told that we would be
having interviews with a student (doing his Praktikum at the Agentur) and with two architects.
During the discussion we learned that they all seemed to have a background as skilled workers
(and eventually as master craftsmen - Meister) in the construction sector before starting their
studies. Thus, their learning histories and occupational careers combined practical work
experience and academic studies.
2) What is “ecological construction work” about: Another issue to be considered was the
diversity of approaches to ‘sustainability’ and ‘ecological construction work’. Some approaches
emphasise sustainability without thinking that much on ecological impact of preparatory
processes, logistic chains etc. Some approaches are very thoroughly committed to ecological
materials and to construction tehniques with minor ecological consequences. These different
positions may also have implications on the use and acceptance of mobile devices and ICT in
general.
3) What is the relation between ‘competitiveness’ and ‘knowledge sharing’: Our
counterparts gave us a colourful picture of constraints to share knowledge (and make the
construction site work together) and to keeping one’s professional secrets to themselves. Both
pressures are there – at the individual level and at the level of organisations. It was interesting

9
to discuss, what kind of experiences and observations our counterparts had made about
readiness to share knowledge (and with whom, in particular).
4) What works in knowledge transfer and what doesn’t: Each of our counterparts had made
experiences of the use of different media to support knowledge transfer. They drew our
attention to personal trust and to social relations (how to get good communication work) above
any ranking of possible (old or new media). Yet, they had interesting views on, what kind of
media are OK for certain target groups and what might not be considered OK.
5) Cultural changes – readiness or resistance: The pioneers of ecological construction work
had made a lot of experiences with changes in construction techniques – both regarding the
resistance and regarding the readiness to accept new ideas once you had tried. This was also
important for the discussion on usability of web tools and services.
I could go on with this list but prefer to stop here. As I said before, these were just first
impressions and rather vague answers to the question, what we as researchers can learn
during on-site visits.
8. Learning Layers – What can we learn during on-site visits? (Part 2)
January 16th, 2013
In December 2012 I started a series of blogs for the Learning Layers (LL) project with the
question “What can we learned during on-site-visits“. In the first article I summarised my first
impressions from a field visit of the ITB team to the work site of our partner organisation
Agentur für Nachhaltiges Bauen. This visit (and the interviews we recorded) gave us a much
richer picture of the special area ‘ecological construction work’ and of the innovations that our
partners are pushing ahead in this field.
Now, in January 2013, the ITB team has started its work for LL with further field visits (including
audio/video recorded interviews) to the sites of our partners in the North-German construction
cluster. Yesterday I and my colleague Werner Müller visited the training centre Bau-ABC
Rostrup at Bad Zwischenahn (near Bremen). During our visit we had a quick look at some of
the worksites and training workshops and carried out five interviews with seven counterparts.
It is worthwhile to emphasise that Bau-ABC Rostrup is not whatever training centre in the
construction sector in Germany. It has been launched by the central organisation of the
construction industries and employers (Bauindustrieverband) of the federal states Bremen and
Niedersachsen and it provides training services across North Germany. In some areas (see
below) it serves as a nation-wide centre of expertise. In the initial vocational training serves
primarily as an inter-enterprise training interface (überbetriebliche Ausbildungsstätte) that caters
for such training blocks that cannot be provided by individual companies.
In the continuing vocational training it is in charge of continuing professional development of
skilled workers and of training for master craftsmen (Meister) and other specialists in the trade.

10
Due to these training functions Bau ABC has in addition to its training rooms or workshops huge
outdoor worksites on which different machines, equipments and construction techniques are
piloted for training and development purposes. Moreover, the centre is all the time running real
construction sites to convert old army warehouses into modern training facilities (designed by
Bau ABC staff and built by their trainees).
Without going into details of the interviews and the points that were made, it is worthwhile to
raise some points that help the other LL partners to consider, how they can best support the
work of application partners – such as Bau ABC. In this context I would like to draw attention to
the following points:
1) Who are our counterparts and what is their role in the construction sector? Firstly, we
had a chance to talk with two senior Master Craftsmen (Meister) in the borehole building
(Brunnenbauer). They were in charge of a whole range training activities – including initial
vocational training and the trainings for advanced specialist (e.g. the training for new Meister).
They were also involved in producing new learning materials and in examination boards. Then,
we had a chance to discuss with two apprentices in the same trade. One of them took his
apprentice training as a part of his medium-term contract for the German arm. The other one
had taken this training after having had firstly a training in other trade (electrician). Finally, we
had discussions with three younger master Craftsmen (Meister) who were in charge of initial
vocational training for neighbouring occupational areas (bricklayers, carpenters, road-builders).
2) What kinds of occupational areas are covered by Bau ABC and how can they be linked
to the LL project? A major occupational area for Bau ABC is that of borehole builders
(Brunnenbauer) and groundwork constructors (Spezialtiefbauer). This trade is characterised by
costly machinery and equipment and by high risks regarding the treatment of different
geological layers and ground water sources. (Work in this trade has been documented by the
German army with the Youtube video Wasser für Marmal.) In Germany there are not many
training providers for this trade and among them Bau ABC is considered as a national centre of
expertise. In the immdediate vicinity there are training facilities and work sites for the
neighbouring trades, such as road-builders (Strassenbauer), bricklayers (Maurer) and
carpenters (Zimmerer), who also need to have the know-how on laying the foundation of the
buildings and for underground construction work.
3) What can be said about the penetration of ICT and Web technologies to different areas
of construction work? In this context it is worthwhile to make a distinction between the
borehole builders (Brunnenbauer) and the more traditional crafts and trades. For the borehole
builders the industries that produce their machines and are already intensively involved in the
development of ICT equipment and software. Therefore, the exhibitions of this trade are also
characterised by the presence of web services and applications. In this respect the more
traditional trades have adopted the use of smartphones and tablet PCs at a later date.
Altogether, all of the said areas are making new experiences with the usability of ICT- and Web-
based tools, apps and services.

11
4) What can be said of the readiness of our counterparts to work with ICT, Web
technologies and social media? In general our counterparts were positive about testing and
trying out new solutions (“Was man nutzen kann, soll auch benutzt werden.“) However,
depending on their positions, training responsibilities and occupational areas the counterparts
raised different issues. For some areas work the problems at worksite opened more
opportunities for self-directed search for solutions (and on-site learning) whilst for other areas
such problems need to be communicated further to external persons with specific
responsibilities. This may reduce the range of skilled workers’ involvement in finding solutions.
Yet, there were issues about taking note of different problem cases for the continuing training of
specialists and of Master Craftsmen (Meister) – who complete their training programmes with
practical examinations on real worksites.
Altogether, the visit and the interview sessions can be seen as preliminary discussions that
helped our counterparts to present their first situation assessment on problem-based learning
opportunities in their trade and on the role of ICT- and web-based tools in making themselves
aware of such learning. In this respect our counterparts are looking forward to further
encounters with the Learning Layers project (e.g. the forthcoming Application Partner Days).

12
9. Learning Layers – What have we learned during Application Partner Days
in Bremen (Part 1)
January 31st, 2013
My previous posts on the Learning Layers (LL) project raised the question: “What can we learn
during on-site-visits?” At that time the ITB team was busy doing interviews with application
partners from the North German construction sector. The first results were rapidly prepared as
draft User Stories for further analyses. In this context the blog articles served as ‘appetizers’ for
other partners: “Here is your chance for a sneak preview before live visits.”
Earlier this week a considerable number of LL partners were visiting the training centre area of
Bau ABC in Rostrup and the premises of Agentur für Nachhaltiges Bauen and its sister
organisations in Verden. The visitors had prepared themselves with the help of the User Stories
and the hosts had taken initiatives to bring the discussion further. So, after this shared
experience it is appropriate to ask: “What have we learned during the Application Partner
Days?” Obviously, this general question paves the way for a number of more detailed questions.
Most of these require a closer look at the videos recorded during the sessions and at the sheets
filled with notes and dots during the workshop sessions.
Therefore, I am not trying to wrap up all and everything that was learned in Bremen and in the
nearby areas on the two Application Partner Days dedicated to construction sector. Instead,
with the two subsequent blog articles I to give an impression of the events that were organised
and of the discussions in parallel sessions. I will also outline some questions that help us to
digest the impressions on workplace learning, use of (learning) technologies and of knowledge
development in construction trade. I then insert some remarks that arise from the joint
discussion of the ITB team after the event. I hope these preliminary remarks help to bring our
joint work further.
10. Learning Layers – What have we learned during Application Partner Days
in Bremen (Part 2)
January 31st, 2013
As I mentioned in my previous post, I am preparing brief reports of field visits that took place this
week as a part of the Application Partner Days (APDs) of the Learning Layers (LL) project. This
blog article focuses on the visit to the training centre area of Bau ABC in Rostrup (West of
Bremen). As we have been informed in the project, Bau ABC is one of the two major training
centres set up by the umbrella organisation of building and construction sector in North
Germany (Bauindustrieverband Niedersachsen-Bremen) and it is run as an operative arm of a
support association for training in building and construction sector (Verein zur Berufsförderung
der Bauwirtschaft Nord e.V.). The training centre Bau ABC in the municipality of Rostrup covers

13
a wide range of occupational fields including initial VET (Erstausbildung), continuing training
(Weiterbildung), training of Master Craftsmen (Meisterschulung) and other measures to support
professional development of construction specialists.
During our tour round the premises of Bau ABC we had the chance to look firstly at the
workshops of carpenters (Zimmerer), concrete builders (Betonbauer), and metal workers
(Metaller). In outdoor areas we saw the training sites for groundwork builders (Erdebauer),
road builders (Strassenbauer) and borehole builders (Brunnenbauer). Then, in the next
workshops we had a chance to inform ourselves more of the training of borehole builders
(Brunnenbauer) and of bricklayers (Maurer). Finally we saw the special areas for security
training with focus on occupational hazards that are related to explosions.
The afternoon program of the visit consisted of two parallel sessions. One session was
organised as a Focus Group involving some of the research partners and a number of trainers
(Lehrwerkmeister) and participants in advanced training programs from Bau ABC. This group
focused on the User Stories and tried to get further insights into workplace learning and uses of
new technologies. Parallel to this session there was a small ‘carousel’ workshop in which some
of the technical partners hosted small tables and participants from construction sector rotated
between the tables.
The technical partner teams (Graz, Tribal, Aalto and Karlsruhe/Pontydysgu) had made their
own preparations for a dialogue session. Bau ABC had provided exemplars of apprentices’ and
trainees’ working and learning tasks. Based on these inputs (and on some use stories) the
technical partners informed themselves of problems or challenges in construction work and
workplace learning. Then the discussion geared towards looking for possible solutions – uses of
technology, uses of software and uses of networks and web resources.
At the end of the day all participants had experienced manifold discussions and the participants
from Bau ABC had done their best to feed in inputs, ideas and experiences. So, there was much
food for thought to be digested.
11. Learning Layers – What have we learned during Application Partner
Days in Bremen (Part 3)
January 31st, 2013
I am continuing my reports of field visits that took place this week as a part of the Application
Partner Days (APDs) of the Learning Layers (LL) project. This blog article focuses on the visit to
the premises of Agentur für Nachhaltiges Bauen and its sister organisations in Verden (South-
East of Bremen). As we have been informed in the project, the Agentur is part of an
organisational grouping that is based in Verden and has formed a joint network to promote
ecological (sustainable) construction work. Currently this grouping runs an activity centre
(Ökozentrum) which provides room for craft trade companies, architect office and joint training
facilities. In the year 2014 the network will have a major exhibition building that is currently

14
under construction. The initial buildings were originally used by the German army and they have
been reshaped and repurposed for training activities. The new buildings are already
demonstration cases for using straw-bale material for constructing walls. The exhibition building
is a demonstration case for wood construction with five storeys.
After a tour round the premises the hosts brought us to a seminar room and organised a major
‘carousel’ workshop. The participants were allocated to four topic tables in which a network
member (or two) took the role of hosting the discussion. Each group had a large sheet of paper
to make notes (or to add to the notes of the previous group) and sticker dots to mark priority
areas for further discussion. After 25 minutes the groups rotated between the hosts. Altogether
we managed to complete three sessions in each topic table.
The topic tables were based on the following issues:
● Meister Manfred (Entrepreneur in carpentry and woodwork) hosted a topic table in which
he informed of the development of an iPad app for his company to inform their cost
calculation program of the time needed for specific jobs at the construction site. This input
(supported by a parallel case of another entrepreneur) triggered a discussion on other uses
of iPad (or other tablet PCs) at construction sites.
● Architect Enno (Director of the Agentur and co-founder of the network) hosted a table in
which he informed of everyday life experiences about lack of knowledge sharing between
contractors (entrepreneurs) and their staff (craftsmen who do the job). This input
(supported by the visualisation of the user story) triggered a discussion on simple
applications that would be helpful to overcome such gaps of communication.
● Architect Ute (Member of the network) hosted a table in which she informed of the plans
for the opening exhibition during the inauguration of the new building. The idea is to provide
a “learning exhibition” that makes good use of live experience on site, of effective web
demonstrations and active contact with different target groups (to serve them better on site
and via web). This input triggered a discussion of various groups and different needs or
interests to be catered for.
● Project managers Melanie (Bau ABC) and Tobias (Agentur) hosted a table in which they
facilitated discussion on knowledge sharing, collaboration and networking in craft trades.
They presented inputs on different regions and on different groupings with which they have
cooperated. These triggered a discussion on factors that restrict or increase willingness to
cooperation (“business as usual” or “competitive advantage with holistic solutions”).
After three rotations the carousel was finished with a brief plenary that had to be stopped
abruptly because of time constraints. Yet, the discussions were kicked alive and the issues were
there.

15
12. Learning Layers – How do we take our “lessons learned” with us to
design activities? (Part 1)
February 28th, 2013
So far the Learning Layers (LL) project has been working with initial interviews, drafting user
stories and with field visits that validate the picture – the Application Partner Days (see my
previous posts). Now it is time to take further steps to design activities. The opening event will
be the Design Conference in Helsinki next week.
The LL teams of ITB and Pontydysgu have prepared this step with reviewing the material that
has been used for the user stories that focus on construction sector. We have tried to put the
individual cases into wider contexts and look, how particular design ideas would meet the needs
and interests emerging from these wider contexts.
In the first phase we have done some contextual mapping to identify sets of working and
learning contexts (Entwicklungszusammenhänge) that are not necessarily visible in individual
user stories but become transparent when you construct a group picture of several stories and
exemplary situations. Below I give some insights into working issues and challenges that arise
from such wider contexts:
a) Contexts of induction, counselling and further qualifying: When studying the stories from
ecological construction work, we have noted that the leading organisations have to take wide
responsibilities in the induction and further qualifying of the new staff. In the same way they
have to act as counsellors and advisors of new crft trade companies that want to speacialise in
this field. The lack of institutions and resources in research and (higher) education and training
requires more efforts from actors in the field. This is a major challenge for mentoring, tutoring
and continuing professional development. Here, we have several design issues coming up
regarding the use of web.
b) Contexts of sharing information and knowledge – from particular construction sites to
wider forums: Other exemplary stories have drawn our attention to rather simple gaps of
communication and to limited access to (digital) documents at construction sites. This may
cause problems between planners and skilled workers who carry out the tasks. Whilst these
could be helped with simple applications, our partners have warned us that knowledge
development may not be a matter of collecting experience from individual cases. One of the
challenges in ecological construction work is to clarfy, which solutions may be appropriate for
certain sets of cases and inappropriate for others. Such level of knowledge sharing and mutual
critique requires forums that are characterised by mutual trust and commitment to common
cause. Here again, we have several design issues coming up.
c) Contexts that require new information and solutions for making learning gains
available for further use: Some of the user stories gave examples of problem situations in
which new information was needed on new materials or new regulations for special installations.
In such cases the craft trade companies had to carry out searches and to make the results
available across the company. In some cases there appeared to be a general pattern that could

16
be identified and made available for a more generals service across companies (e.g. by training
organisations or by joint associations or umbrella organisations). Here we see design issues
and questions on responsibility for joint services.
d) Specific challenges in the field of borehole-drilling and well-building: The field of
borehole-drilling and well-building (Brunnenbau bzw. Spezialtiefbau) is characterised by specific
risks both regarding health and safety and regarding possible damages caused for the
environment and materials. Therefore, the industries are engaged in developing applications
and web services. Yet, the examples reflected in user stories and APD workshops show that
there are possible gaps and needs for double-checking (that require attention from the
craftsmen). Another aspect is that the health and safety traininf is very well regulated but follows
a traditional pattern. Therefore, use of web services and new media could enhance the training
and the required health and safety awareness. Here again, we see several design issues
coming up – linked to the question of responsibilities and conformity with given regulations.
These remarks give insights into the challenges that the LL project is facing in the next step. In
my next posts I try give some answers, how the challenges could be responded by our work
with design ideas and with the developmental strategies that our application partners have
brought into discussion.
13. Learning Layers – How do we take our “lessons learned” with us to
design activities? (Part 2)
February 28th, 2013
In my previous post I mentioned that the Learning Layers (LL) project is heading from an active
phase of fieldwork to the joint start of design activities. I also told how the LL teams of ITB and
Pontydysgu had reviewed the user stories from North German construction sector and put them
into wider contexts. In this post I prefer to discuss, how the emerging design ideas would best
meet the needs and interests of our partners in the construction sector. In this context I want to
draw attention to the wider contexts that they have outlined for discussing eventual design
ideas, web applications, software solutions or internet services. I see them as two strategic
frameworks for pooling design ideas and linking them to their own developmental initiatives.
a) “The learning exhibition”: Our partner organisations in the ecological construction work
are expecting that their new building with an exhibition area will be ready next year. For the
inaugural event they are preparing a new kind of exhibition to promote general awareness,
professional interest and design ideas in ecological construction work. They want to combine
the possibilities of a real exhibition with physical artefacts (with possibilities to touch, sense and
feel) and the potentials of web technologies. Moreover, they want to be able to address
interested laymen, young apprentices, experiences craftsmen and architects as well as policy
makers and other stakeholders. All this requires a differentiated approach, how to present
advance information, real-time participation via web and follow-up possibilities.
Here it is worthwhile to note that the target groups are very heterogeneous and their readiness
to make use of web-based information varies to a great extent. From this point of view the work

17
with the exhibition may serve as an important preparatory step for wider use of specific web
applications, services and community support.
b) The “e-laboratory” (open learning centre/ self-learning space): Our partners working for
a major training centre that supports initial and continuing training in a wide range of ( industrial
and craft) occupations in construction sector have also developed similar thoughts. Their
concern is that some occupational fields are strongly supported regarding uses of ICT, mobile
technologies and web, whilst others are lagging behind. If the training activities were
complemented by an “e-laboratory” (including an open learning centre and a web space for self-
learning) they could better stimulate the integration of uses of web and internet into the culture
of learning and professional development across the range of industrial and craft occupations –
including different levels of qualifications.
Here it is worthwhile that such a learning facility and a related web space (if well organised)
could open new possibilities for self-organised learning, making transparent one’s own
capabilities and sharing knowledge. Moreover, they could make it easier to explore the
multitude of existing web resources and to make transparent professional forums for knowledge
sharing knowledge developments. Here again, the idea needs to be taken up by the responsible
organisations and communities to make it work.
I have mentioned these two frameworks for pooling the design ideas before going into the
detailed ideas. What strikes me here is that our partners have wanted to draft their own contexts
for presenting new solutions or informing of new ideas. Thus, when discussing specific design
ideas, there is a frame of reference – how to fit it into a bigger picture, how to present it in a
wider context. In this way the design ideas do not appear as one-to-one solutions to individual
problems (although these need to be taken into account as well). But these represent a bigger
agenda, into which the work with certain key ideas needs to be linked. Therefore – the ideas of
an exhibition and e-laboratory need to be brought to a mature phase and the particular design
ideas should have a role in it. Equally, this provides a possibility to develop patterns for
presenting design work done by others and developmental work in the LL project itself.

18
14. Learning Layers – How do we take our “lessons learned” with us to
design activities? (Part 3)
March 2nd, 2013
In my previous two posts I discussed the current transition of the Learning Layers (LL) project
from fieldwork to design activities. I raised the question, how the emerging design ideas would
best meet the needs and interests of our application partners in the construction sector.
In this respect I drew attention to two strategic frameworks for pooling design ideas and linking
them to their own developmental initiatives. In this post I want to draw attention to more specific
design design ideas and to challenges we need to take into account:
a) Digital learning logs or e-portfolios for apprentice training (and workplace learning)
One of the observations during the fieldwork was that the documentation of learning progress in
the apprentice training for German construction industries and trades is carried out manually
(the white folders). Likewise, there is a lack of good models for presenting evidence on prior
experience-based learning in the context of regulated continuing training (e.g. the
Meisterschulungen). In a similar way, companies have difficulties in ducumenting their
organisational learning. All this speaks for development of e-portfolios and learning logs. Given
the multitude of existing models, ther is a need for overviews that make transparent different
basic models, criteria for using them (e.g. for assessment, recognition and professional
development) and institutional and organisational boundary conditions for implementing them.
b) Software solutions for harvesting informal learning
Current software development brings forward solutions tham make large-scale collection of
evidence on (informal) learning possible, e.g. the so-called Tin Can API or Experience API.
These would provide a basis for learning analytics and datamining on work-based learning
across different databases. Although this discussion is at present at an early stage, it is
necessary to pay attention to this prospect (either as a spin-off development or as a
neighbouring field of work). At any rate it is essential to consider, how complex action-oriented
learning (based on occupational standards) can be made transparent with such software
solutions. Likewise, it is essential to analyse, how current methodologies for analysing and
measuring holistic competences could be linked to such software development prospects.
c) Linking physical artefacts with learning applications
One of the observations was that there is a rapid progress in using QR tags to share information
on physical artefacts in construction work. Yet, there are several communication gaps and
logistic problems that demonstrate that such potentials have not been exhausted. Therefore,
there is a need to develop complementary models (such as image recognition apps) that could
more direcly be linked to (digital) learning resources that inform of appropriate tools and
materials in the respective jobs. Here, it is necessary to draw conclusions of the unsuccessful
piloting with earlier equipments and applications (e.g. the digi-pens for construction sector).

19
Moreover, there is a need to get an overview of emerging technologies (QR-tags and
complementary apps).
d) Support for user-generated learning materials and multimedia resources
This prospect came up during several field visits. Many problem situations could be overcome
and many communication gaps could be bridges with short videos or other multimedia contents.
Many training centres, professional networks and supporting bodies could be in the position to
produce, collect and enriuch such contents. However, it is one thing to enable a wider range of
users to produce such user-generated contect and another thing to integrate such contents into
well-organised, well-checked and updated knowledge resources.
I stop here although the list is not exhaustive. My point is to give a picture of some design ideas
that emerge from the working and learning contexts that we have studied and can be discussed
alongside the overarching ideas of “learning exhibition” or “open learning centre”.
The discussion needs to be brought forward in the forthcoming Design Conference and in the
next phase of work of the LL project.

20
15. Learning Layers: How can we take our design ideas further? (Part 1)
March 8th, 2013
Earlier this week the Learning Layers (LL) project was assembled to its first Design
Conference (DC) in Helsinki, hosted by the LL team of Aalto University at Arabia Factory. The
event was organised as a “creative space” (or – if you allow me the expression: creative
spaceship) to work out initial design ideas to be taken further by design teams that will start their
work in the coming period. Some of the design ideas had a specific local flavour, whilst others
can be seen as more transversal. The challenge for the project is now: How to take these ideas
further and make them work “on the ground”?
The initial design ideas will soon be presented in detail on the LL wiki. Therefore, it is not
worthwhile to recapitulate them here. I would rather raise the question: What can we learn from
the whole set of design ideas and from the process of developing them in the parallel working
groups at the DC? Below some preliminary observations and remarks on the design ideas as
they were presented by the respective working groups:
a) “Learning funnel – Making sense of bits and pieces”
This working group focused on the process of preparing an e-portfolio for health professionals to
collect evidence of their learning and professional development. The driving force is the fact that
these professional have to go through a regular revalidation to be authorised to continue in their
profession. From this perspective the group simulated the present pattern of the professionals to
file experiences and useful bits of information to boxes. Then, with the help of the prepared
storyboard, the process of making use of such information (filed digitally) was reconstructed.
Much emphasis was given on the ideas of “protected learning time” and for the phase of
“sensemaking” in order to structure the bits and pieces as evidence within different learning
paths. This all was happening with a focus on health care but every now and then the relevance
for construction sector was discussed (e.g. in terms of “Erfahrungssammler” for SMEs and their
trade guilds).
b) “Captus – capturing knowledge and experience”
This team took as its reference point the plan of the Network for sustainable construction work
(NNB) to prepare a “learning exhibition”. The working group drafted frameworks for the mapping
the knowledge to be brought together by such approach. In addition, the group discussed
specific ideas, how to use new media for capturing the essentials of practitioners’ experience to
be presented. As an extension to topics of the previous group, this group raised the issue, how
to overcome cultural barriers or reservations regarding use of new media.
c) “The sharing turbine – the learning cycles across training and workplace learning”
This team took as its reference point the idea of Bau ABC to develop specific “open learning
centre” or “self-learning space” to support the domain-specific training and professional
development with support for using multimedia. The group developed s contextual map, how the

21
training centre could serve as “turbine” for learning and knowledge sharing in several cycles
(including initial and continuing training as well as personalised learning). Here it is also
worthwhile that the group discussed different kinds of learning curves and the implications for
scaffolding.
d) “Pandora – the living local guidelines”
The fourth working group discussed the need to complement the nation-wide guidelines of the
National Health Service (NHS) with “living local guidelines”. The working group had a similar
exercise as the previous one and it raised several questions, how its approach to “local
guidelines” could be relevant for the construction sector.
I think this is enough for the moment. (I probably need to make some amendments after all the
results of the working groups are presented on the wiki.) However, I hope that this is helpful for
the further work. In my next post I try to present some thoughts, how the preliminary ideas can
be “grounded” and adjusted to our working agendas on our home grounds (in the case of ITB
and in the cooperation with our application partners).
16. Learning Layers: How can we take our design ideas further? (Part 2)
March 15th, 2013
In my previous post I presented some first impressions on the results of the Design Conference
of the Learning Layers (LL) project in Helsinki in the beginning of March. I was still travelling
back and could only raise the question: How to take these ideas further and make them work
“on the ground”? Now we have had more time to digest the results and to develop our thoughts
with both feet steadily on the ground.
This week the ITB hosted a joint meeting of the LL partners working with the North German
construction sector (ITB, Pontydysgu, Bau ABC and the Agentur/ Netzwerk für Nachhaltiges
Bauen. We discussed the results of the Design Conference and how to organise local design
teams to get the design ideas properly grounded. Concerning the follow-up of the Design
Conference the participants took note of two videos that had been prepared after the design
conference:
● The video prepared by Tobias Ley (TLU) and his team that presented the results of the
design team Bits and pieces.
● The video (and slidecast) prepared by Tobias Funke (Agentur) to develop the design idea
of the team Captus further. (I now see that Tobias is reworking this video and has named
this one as “Old version” – work in progress!)
In the discussion the following comments were made on the results of the design teams in the
LL Design Conference:
a) The progress of the design team Sharing Turbine was appreciated since the group was
able to make good use of the inputs coming from the application partner (Bau ABC) and the

22
documents prepared by the ITB and Pont teams. The contextual map presented the learning
cycles between formal training and workplace learning as a dynamic turbine. The group was
approaching a common understanding of the challenges (and the application partners were
pleased about this progress).
b) The work of the design team Captus had not reached a similar process dynamic. The
abstract modelling of capturing knowledge and the illustration of particular applications could not
outline a context for common work. Therefore, there was a risk of design ideas falling apart from
user engagement (that was to be linked to the idea of Learning exhibition). From this
perspective the video and slide share prepared by Tobias Funke has brought into picture the
actual context of design activities and a strategy to address different user groups with different
apps.
c) The work of the design team Bits and pieces focused mainly on the healthcare sector (and
on the need to collect experience and evidence for the revalidation of health care professionals
on regular intervals). Yet, the approach that was piloted by the group – to collect notes to a box
file and then arrange the notes with the help of categories and learning paths seemed highly
relevant for the construction sector as well. In particular the approach responded to the needs
addressed by craft trade SMEs to develop a collector of problem cases or challenging jobs for
further learning (Erfahrungssammler). For the sake of launching a parallel activity the pictures
presented under this design idea and the video were helpful. However, to address the North
German construction sector, German language versions would be needed.
Based on this situation assessment the following conclusions were made concerning local
design teams to be launched for the North German construction sector:
1) The needs of Bau-ABC provided the basis for the work of the “Sharing Turbine” team.
Therefore, it is obvious that a local design team (in Bremen) is developing some key activities
that are supported by a wider design team (involving technical partners). In order to link the
work of the technical partners to local activities it is necessary to clarify, what occupational
areas are to be covered and what kind of examples of apprentices’ projects can be provided (as
scanned documents and translations). Also, to ensure a broad-based user engagement it is
necessary to clarify, at what stage different target groups (apprentices, trainers and teachers,
companies) will be involved.
2) The needs of the Agentur/Netzwerk für Nachhaltiges Bauen provided the starting point
for the work of the “Captus” team. Now, the video and slidecast of Tobias Funke have brought
the design ideas back into the working contexts of ecological construction work and addressed
the possibilities to use ICT and Web within the forthcoming exhibition. These new perspectives
need to be brought into discussion in the wider design team and on its wiki page. This provides
a basis for linking local activities and the involvement of the technical partners to each other.
3) The needs of the Bremen crafts and trades companies provide a basis for a sub-team of
the “Bits and pieces” team (working with the idea of the Erfahrungssammler for the companies

23
and the trade guilds. Here, the approach needs to be developed in the light of the progress of
the main team and the neighbouring teams.
I think this is enough in this context. The rest of our discussion was about planning the field
activities and making sure that we are entering the phase of local design workshops with
content-related issues and readiness to put the potential benefits of web technologies to the
context. Here it is worthwhile to draw attention to the need to maintain contacts between the
technical partners and the “local” partners working with issues raised above. I see two possible
traps that we need to avoid:
● If we leave the technical design work floating in its own realm and expect it to come up with
something useful we have the risk of putting the carriage before the horse (if I may use
such old-fashioned metaphor). It is not likely that the carriage could pull the horse or that
the horse would be willing to push the carriage.
● If we go too hastily to the local design workshops with expected users without having a
clear picture what our technical partners can deliver (or refer to) we have a risk of chasing
the horse running without the carriage. It is not likely that the carriage could catch up the
horse by itself or that a loosely running horse would like to get back to the carriage.
I have just spelled out the risks we have to keep in mind in our daily work and see that the work
of our design teams (both at the local level and at the consortium level) take this into account.
The good spirit at the Design Conference and the active involvement of partners in the follow-up
gives ground for optimism.

24
17. Learning Layers – What are we learning in the current phase of our
fieldwork? (Part 1)
June 8th, 2013
I see that I have been out of writing blogs on the Learning Layers project quite some time – the
previous ones are from April and March. I hope that no one gets the false impression that this
would have been a sleepy period in the project. To be sure: it is exactly the other way round.
Now, after the first Design Conference and after the Easter break the ITB team, the application
partners in North Germany and our supporting partners have been busily engaged in organising
Co-Design Workshops or supporting events and in doing their homework with design ideas,
relevant web tools and apps as well as drafting use cases and wireframes.
In this context the role of the ITB team has been to work as “explorers on the ground” in the
terrains of our application partners (the training centre grounds of Bau ABC, the headquarters of
the network/Agentur for ecological construction work and the offices of craft trade companies
(SMEs) in the construction sector. The previous phase of fieldwork was characterised by
collecting data of potential users of ICT/Web-based tools and apps – and of exemplary
situations in which they could be of some help. Now, the present phase of fieldwork is
characterised by a clear step to participative design work – for the users, with the users and by
the users.
Here we have encountered different sets of possibilities (and also hurdles) when working
together with our application partners (Bau ABC, NNB/Agentur and individual craft trade
companies). We have written quite a lot of this in the internal working documents with which we
update ourselves and our LL partners of the activities. We have also learned a lot of the visits of
other LL partners who have accompanied us to the field activities. Some of such ‘lessons
learned’ have also found their way to these working documents.
In the light of the above it is understandable that the motto of this series of blogs is not “what
have we learned” (= results) but “what are we learning” (= insights to be considered
carefully). This is all work in progress and – for us: learning alongside working in the project.
Also, in many respects, the lessons that we are learning, are not completely new – they are
similar lessons as were learned in earlier innovation projects for Work and Technology (Arbeit
und Technik) programmes in the late 1980s and in the 1990s. Apparently, some of these
lessons have to be learned anew every time in newer innovation contexts.

25
18. Learning Layers – What are we learning in the current phase of our
fieldwork? (Part 2: Bau-ABC)
June 8th, 2013
In my previous post I indicated that our current phase of fieldwork is preparing the grounds for
participative co-design processes “for the users, with the users and by the users”. So far, we
have had quite a lot of activities with the training centre Bau ABC and made also a lot of
experiences with different workshops. Here, the blessing for us has been that we have had a
chance to have joint workshops with groups of apprentices (during their stay at the centre) and
with full-time trainers (at the time slots when apprentices have been working independently with
their projects). Below some remarks on our workshops and on our learning experiences about
their ways of making the workshops their events in which they address their own issues,
concerns and initiatives.
Firstly, on the workshop concepts with which we worked: We firstly had conversational
workshops with one group of apprentices (from different trades) in the morning and with a
group of full-time trainers (Lehrwerkmeister) in the initial training plus the coordinator of
continuing vocational training programmes. These workshops were supported by some pre-
given guiding questions (Leitfragen) but they were run as relatively free conversation to let the
participants address their issues with their own accents and their own voice.
As a result, the apprentices spoke very freely of what they saw a needs and possibilities for
improvement regarding the training in the centre (vis-a-vis advanced practice in the companies).
They also emphasised their interest to have joint projects with apprentices from neighbouring
trades. The trainers gave positive comments on the views expressed by apprentices –
however, they drew attention to rather inflexible boundary conditions for accommodating the
apprentices’ training periods in the centre. Thus, there is very little room for manoeuvre for
meeting the wishes of apprentices re joint projects or more flexible timing of periods in
companies and in the centre. In addition, the trainers started giving thoughts, how they could
use digital media and web apps more effectively in informing themselves of new developments
in the trade and on advanced practice in companies. Here, it seemed that something that was
discussed in initial training was already in practice in the continuing vocational training activities.
In the second phase we organised a storyboard workshop that was based on group work to
make storyboards of exemplary working days of apprentices (in the morning) and trainers (in the
afternoon). The two parallel groups of apprentices had different tasks: one was invited to
portray a day in the training centre whilst the other was asked to portray a day in the company
and in the construction site.
The group that worked with a day in the training centre presented a spatial journey with
drawings of different locations at the Bau ABC sites and only after completing this started to

26
give thoughts on eventual problems and how they could be taken into account in the phase of
giving instructions.
The group that focused on working at construction site portrayed the work flow (and the daily
journey) from the company office to the site, setting the site and carrying through the process
(drilling the holes for the well to be built) and in completing the task. Here, the apprentices drew
attention to eventual obstacles and needs to start again or to give up if no water is found. Thus,
they highlighted key problems in the work process – in which however the availability of web
tools made very little difference. At the end of this session the joint plenary discussion started
top trigger ideas of new apps to extend the learning effect and to draw attention to good practice
and comments on the (limited) usability of existing apps.
The trainers gave very positive comments on the storyboards of apprentices and gave some
thoughts of the possible usability of existing apps as a basis for the proposed Maurer-App. In
their own group work phase they presented two parallel storyboards of trainers work at the
centre. One story focused on a relatively homogeneous group of apprentices in the initial
training whilst the other illustrated the growing complexity when there are apprentices from
different phases of their training and eventual visiting groups in continuing training (with visiting
trainers) to be supported at the same time.
Altogether, the storyboards drew much more attention to the complex social and organisational
processes to be managed alongside the key training functions (instruction, supervision,
monitoring, assessing and giving feedback). In the plenary sessions a lot of thoughts were given
on the possibilities to offload the trainers with digital solutions in the assessment and in giving
feedback. A major issue was the access to norms, standards and regulations in which context
new copyright problems had emerged. As a result, a list of several design ideas and issues was
drafted to be included into the workshop report (to take into account the issues arising from
initial and continuing training).
Here I have emphasised the workshop dynamics rather than particular ‘results’ to be listed as
apps or solutions that would have attracted most attention. In the preparation phase our
colleagues suggested different techniques to get feedback on particular ‘use cases’ or
wireframes drafted on the drawing boards elsewhere. As I have illustrated it above, when the
users got control of their workshops, they addressed concerns, how to improve their working
and learning processes on the whole. As I understand it, we are going through similar
collaborative learning processes as the earlier Work and Technology projects that couldn’t
successfully transplant new technologies into companies as ‘gifts that fall from Mt Olympus that
are parachuted upon users’ but had to discover the possible needs for innovations and benefits
for users in iterative processes that took their own time. Yet, after these experiences we have
the feeling the we are making progress.

27
19. Learning Layers – What are we learning in the current phase of our
fieldwork? (Part 3: SMEs in craft trade)
June 8th, 2013
My previous post informed of the fieldwork activities that we had arranged with the training
centre Bau ABC. In this context the construction companies were addressed in an indirect way
– via apprentices who were reflecting on their working and learning experiences in the
companies (and looking for new solutions). In this post I shift the emphasis from the training
context to cooperation with SMEs – directly or via their network organisation (in this case the
NNB/ Agentur).
In the case of Bau ABC we had a relatively easy start with the workshops. It is no major problem
for training centres to involve their learners and staff members in such workshops in the course
of their normal weekly schedule. However, it requires more effort from SMEs to participate in
similar events (either as their own event or as a joint event hosted by trade guild or a networking
agency – such as the NNB/ Agentur). Therefore, it has been necessary to find ways to present
design ideas of the Learning layers (LL) project for them in such a way that they would see the
benefit for them and commit themselves to the necessary preparatory events. Here our
colleagues Joanna Burchert and Werner Müller as well as Tobias Funke from NNB/ Agentur
have had to work hard to find ways forward. Here some remarks from an observer’s point of
view. Joanna and Werner have spent the last week on a course in Verden and deepened their
insights in the topic ‘ecological construction work’ and into the community. Thus, they will soon
have quite a lot of fresh first hand information to report.
Shortly after the LL Design Conference Tobias Funke raised the issue that the NNB/Agentur
should develop a specific offering – a Webinar – to inform its own staff and member companies
of possible uses of web applications and services that could be immediately useful. Werner and
Joanna from the ITB team started to work together with this concept and agreed to take the role
of trainers (to get themselves into a development-oriented dialogue with the participants). This
webinar was thought to be a preparatory step to a presence workshop in which the participants
could test the applications and try to customise them for their own context. However, the
Webinar turned out to be an internal training event – and as such a useful one – but with no
participants from the member SMEs. The planned presence workshop had to be postponed and
instead a working session was organised to see how the SMEs could be approached with more
targeted and customised offerings.
Without going into details it is worthwhile to mention that in our direct contacts with SMEs we
have had somewhat similar experiences. It has not been easy to find an obvious way to open
the discussion and design processes on other LL design ideas (although there is much good
will). It is becoming clearer to us that the benefits that we might be able to demonstrate in
optimising work processes may lead to non-trivial issues about redistributing decision-making
powers and responsibilities of risks. Thus, well-meant interventions to work processes may have
problematic side-effects on the business processes. Furthermore, these issues tend to be
perceived in a different light in different companies.

28
What we tend to see as the way forward is to develop similar exercises as the storyboard
workshop in Bau ABC for apprentices and/or skilled workers in interested companies. Here the
challenge is harder – the mapping of problems, hurdles and communication gaps in the process
of work is similar but the search for possible solutions may be more demanding in a mini-
workshop or individual exercise. Therefore, we see it necessary to continue the interviews with
company representatives and the harvesting of existing interview material.
Here, the picture is incomplete and may change soon in the light of newer information.
However, the message is the same: our efforts to bring the use of ICT- and web-based tools
and apps to the everyday practice of SMEs are not just simple measures of introducing new
tools for those who are interested. The processes of accessing information, sharing knowledge
and managing communication are very closely linked to business processes and to
(re)distributing roles, powers and responsibilities. The SMEs need to get convinced that it is
worthwhile taking the path that brings changes alongside developmental steps. We need to
work and learn with the SMEs to see the benefits together with them.
20. Learning Layers – What are we learning in the current phase of our
fieldwork? (Part 4: Learning from cluster organisations elsewhere)
June 8th, 2013
In my previous posts in this series I have mainly focused on the efforts of the ITB team and the
application partners in North Germany. However, an essential part of the picture of the fieldwork
is the involvement of external partners of the Learning Layers (LL) project who have
accompanied our field activities and provided feedback from parallel developments in Europe.
In particular we should pay attention to the work of Gilbert Peffer (CIMNE) and Tor-Arne Bellika
(I-Perform) who have taken the responsibility to find out as much as possible of European
cluster policies and of the functioning of cluster organisations in Europe.
In general, it was refreshing to learn from the functioning and of the services of well-organised
cluster organisations elsewhere in Europe.
In this respect it was interesting to learn of the cross-sectoral cluster region in Upper Austria
(Oberösterreich). In a similar way it was important to learn of the specific cluster organisation in
ecological construction work in Lower Austria (Niederösterreich). The former example drew
attention to new cooperation prospects across accustomed boundaries. The latter example
drew attention to new possibilities for knowledge transfer in the context of same area of
specialisation.
Also, the work of these ambassadors of knowledge transfer has drawn attention to the fact that
it was not only the ‘results’ and organisational´models of ‘mature clusters’ that were important in
promoting innovations. It has been very helpful to learn what kinds of services such cluster
organisations can provide for their members (e.g. in the context of HRD, talent finding, training,

29
ICT support and logistics). In particular it is important to see that the member organisations are
often SMEs who couldn’t provide such services on their own but can benefit of joining forces
with each other.
This perspective is very important for the LL project. There are many ways of presenting the
results of our design activities and sharing the results as ‘offerings’. As an example, the webinar
concept with which we have piloted in Verden, could be developed further as such offering.
Also. there are many ways of engaging users in our development activities. Its was inspiring to
find out that the participative co-design workshops of the LL project and the efforts to promote
user engagement attract the interest of cluster organisations elsewhere in Europe. This all is
part of what we are learning in the current phase of our fieldwork.

30
21. Learning Layers – What kind of transition phase are we going through
in our fieldwork (Part 1: Transitions on many fronts)
August 25th, 2013
Quite some time has passed since my latest blog postings on the Learning Layers (LL)
project. This doesn’t mean that the project would have gone quiet or that there would not have
been anything interesting going on in the fieldwork. On the contrary – there were a lot of
activities going on before the holiday break and the same has been the case after the holiday
break. Thus, we (from the ITB team) have had to put a lot of effort to get the events and the
activities and events documented with internal notes and reports. At the same time our
Pontydysgu colleagues have been busy with development work and with documenting their
work processes. (See the recent blog postings on Rapid Turbine and Reflect by Graham Attwell
and his colleagues on the Wales-Wide-Web.)
Looking back at the my earlier postings from May and June I see a gradual transition in the way
that we have worked. In our workshops and joint meetings with apprentices, company
representatives and trainers we were looking for possibilities to launch participative design
processes. We were working with storyboards and user journeys, getting insights into critical
situations or everyday life innovations in which use of digital media and web can play a role. In
the interviews, working meetings and reflection sessions we got feedback on the uses of web
tools and applications by professionals in construction sector. This all has been very valuable
for getting a better understanding, how to get participative co-design processes working. (And
we are not necessarily saturated with such material yet.)
However, from a certain point on our work started to have other characteristics. The
collaboration of ITB, Pontydysgu and Bau ABC started to focus more closely on using digital
media and web resources in selected working and learning projects. This was the step forward
from the overarching design idea “Sharing Turbine” – digitalisation of the White Folder (see
the earlier blog of Graham) and the related training/learning processes. Whilst this overarching
perspective needs to be kept on the agenda, it was necessary to start more focused pilot
activities on the ground. For this purpose a particular area of construction work was chosen, –
building pipelines for water supply and sewage (Rohrleitungsbau). This initiative was named
“Rapid Turbine” to emphasise that it is a quicker pioneering exercise within the larger agenda.
With the following blog postings I try to give some insights into our recent fieldwork activities
during the period that we have been working with the Rapid Turbine initiative and with
complementary activities. My own impression is that we have been going through a transition
from preparatory measures towards a real participative co-design process. Indications of such
transition can be seen in our workshops with apprentices and trainers, in the design work itself
and in related preparation of training models and in the rethinking of our research agendas in

31
the LL project. I think this is enough for an opening statement. There are a lot of issues to take
up in the forthcoming postings.
22. Learning Layers – What kind of transition phase are we going through
in our fieldwork (Part 2: Participative workshops)
August 25th, 2013
In my introductory statement to this series of blog postings I indicated that we – the ITB team
together with our colleagues in Pontydysgu and our are application partner Bau ABC) are going
through a transition phase in our fieldwork. Roughly, this transition can be characterised as a
shift from preparatory measures to active collaboration in participative co-design work. This
might seem a bit bold statement but I think this is exactly what we are experiencing at the
moment.
Looking back at our workshop reports and my early blog postings on the Learning Layers (LL)
project, I see that we were mapping the grounds for forthcoming pilot activities. During the
winter months (before the Design Conference) and the Easter break we had collected quite a lot
of interview materials and made several field visits. In this phase we were getting insights into
the work of individual company representatives and full-time trainers of Bau ABC. This material
was used for the initial User Stories for the Application Partner Days and for the Design
Conference of the . In Bremen we tried to group this material into contextual maps – to identify
emerging design ideas. (Later on some of the ITB colleagues have produced summaries of the
interviews and coded it with MAXQDA.)
After the Design Conference in March our key question was, how to get the initial design ideas
well grounded in the working and learning contexts of our application partners. We felt the need
to get a better and wider understanding on the working and learning contexts of apprentices
(both at their companies and at the training centre Bau ABC). We also wanted to get a better
picture how they were using mobile devices and web technologies – in particular as support for
working and learning. For this purpose we firstly organised a conversational workshop and then
some storyboard workshops. With the help of these workshops we got more holistic pictures of
the working days of apprentices in companies and in Bau ABC.
Furthermore, we got a glimpse of some trade-specific problem situations or challenges and
ideas, what role mobile technologies, web tools and software solutions may play. Also, some
ideas were raised for context-specific apps.
With the trainers of Bau ABC we also had a storyboard exercise to illustrate their working day
alongside apprentices’ projects. Then, during later working visits we have continued to review
the results of apprentices’ workshops but on top of that we have had further discussion on the
points of intervention for the first year pilot activities. With these discussions we have got more
comprehensive picture of needs to facilitate training and learning processes (with the help of
digital media and web) and of the limits of current software solutions and web applications.
Moreover, in these sessions the colleagues from Bau ABC have increasingly worked as a local

32
LL team with regular cooperation with researchers from ITB and developers from Pontydysgu.
(In this context we have also identified some spin-off initiatives for which we need to find
additional resources.)
In this way we are reaching the phase in which the workshops need to include demonstrations
of emerging tools, applications and web designs. Then, the workshops could give focused
feedback of the usability or shortcomings of the tentative solutions and/or the possibilities to use
complementary apps and solutions. This has further implications for the development process,
for supporting training activities and for our research agenda.
PS. With this series of blog postings I am focusing more closely on our cooperation with Bau
ABC in the context of the Rapid Turbine initiative. This doesn’t imply that our work with our other
application partners would have gone quiet. On the contrary – quite a lot of steps forward have
been taken by in the fieldwork and design processes of the Captus team that focuses on the
ecological construction work (represented by NNB/Agentur in Verden). However, since I have
not been present in these events, I am not in the position to give detailed reports. PK
23. Learning Layers – What kind of transition phase are we going through in
our fieldwork (Part 3: Design process and training activities)
August 25th, 2013
In the first post of this series of blogs I indicated that we (the ITB team together with our
Pontydysgu colleagues and the application partner Bau ABC) are going through a transitional
phase in our fieldwork for the Learning Layers (LL) project. In the second post I looked back at
the shifts of emphasis that had characterised our field visits and workshops in Bau ABC since
the first ones in winter to the latest ones before and after the summer holiday break. In both
postings I made the point that we had moved from preparatory measures to work in the context
of a participative design process. In this posting it is time to consider the implications of such
process for the design activities themselves and for the necessary training activities to be
planned and carried out.
In principle, there has been an implicit agreement among the LL partner that our project is not a
“technology push” project. Neither have we seen our application partners as clients in the
supermarket – making choices between ready-made solutions that are on the shelf. Instead, the
emphasis has been put on participative co-design processes. Yet, it has been quite a challenge
to get such processes take off in the domains and in the locations where we want to carry out
pilot activities.
In the case of the Rapid Turbine initiative Graham Attwell has given some insights into the first
steps of the design work, into the plans to produce videos (the helmet camera) and into
conceptual challenges (“closing the gap”). Much of this design work is still on the way and the
demonstrators are yet to come. However, we already know that much of the messages of
trainers and apprentices have been taken on board. The important thing is that the Pontydysgu
colleagues try to provide real support for completing working and learning tasks without

33
dropping the idea of self-organised learning. Thus, the web tools and the software solutions are
there to enhance the learners’ awareness of their own learning. At the end of the exercise, the
apprentices should have a picture what they can do, what the cannot do yet and what
challenges they can meet in the next phase. This is being discussed between developers,
trainers and us, the accompanying researchers.
This has also implications for getting the forthcoming Rapid Turbine designs work together with
existing applications and software solutions (such as the Reflect application for the LL project
and the software for the assessment procedures in Bau ABC). In this way the support for
project-based learning of apprentices would be linked to a tool that enables audio recording of
learners’ reports and trainers’ feedback – and to the assessment processes.
This, as we understand, will take some time and requires further efforts in the design process.
Parallel to this we have made progress in our discussions, how to give shape for training
activities that would support the Rapid Turbine initiative and enhance the general media literacy
of trainers and apprentices. Whilst the design work and the discussion on appropriate
workshops were firstly taking off as two different things, they seem to be getting closer to each
other. It is obvious that the design of the Rapid Turbine gives rise to specific training activities.
These can be seen as one part of a wider range of training options to be considered together
with the application partners. Here, we are pleased to be able to share experiences with the EU-
funded TACCLE projects that have a long experiences with such workshops for teachers to help
them produce user-generated web content.
Here I need to stress that both the design work for Rapid Turbine and the development of the
training concepts are at an early stage. Yet, we are carrying out this work via joint working
meetings in which different parties are actively engaged. This, to me, is already a good sign and
I am looking for the next steps that are taken very soon.
PS. I have written this blog posting just before a series of working meetings with several LL
partners and stakeholders that will bring these issues (and wider issues) further. As I will not be
present in all these activities and since I will be travelling some time afterwards, it may take
some time before we get updates. PK

34
24. Learning Layers: What kind of transition phase are we going through in
our fieldwork (Part 4: Implications for accompanying research)
August 25th, 2013
In the previous postings to this series of blogs I have characterised the transition phase that we
(ITB, Pontydysgu and Bau ABC) are going through with our fieldwork for the Learning Layers
(LL) project. I have firstly given a general overview (part 1), then looked at the participative
workshops (part 2) and then at the ongoing design work and planning of training concepts (part
3). In this final article I put into discussion some thoughts on the role of accompanying
research (Begleitforschung) in such a transition phase.
As I see it, the tasks taken up in the Rapid Turbine initiative give rise to a complex research
agenda, in which pedagogic challenges and socio-technical design processes become
interlinked with each other. In this context research work and development work are interacting
with each other as mutually complementing contributions to a participative development co-
process with the users – firstly with trainers and apprentices. Later on the process will also
involve also skilled workers and company representatives from construction sector as well as
vocational school teachers.
Instead of seeing the R&D processes as linear and expert-driven processes in which the users
are seen as informants (in the beginning) and as testers of prototypes and pre-final solutions (at
the end), the Rapid Turbine is being shaped on a participative and iterative process. In such a
process the design workshops and learning events serve that purpose of raising the users’
awareness on possible solutions and their own capacity to contribute. At the same time the
researchers have the opportunity to analyse, how the growing awareness of emerging solutions
makes it possible for the users to change their own working and learning culture. Parallel to this
the designers get new insights into key issues concerning the acceptability and possible
benefits of the proposed solutions.
Below some key questions are formulated for such R&D dialogue, in which researchers,
developers and users are challenged to find the turning points that help to overcome obstacles
and to make the proposed solutions work in practice:
1. How can potential users’ attitudes to mobile technologies, web tools and apps/services be
changed in the course of pilot activities. Is it possible to overcome general rejection or mere
leisure-time oriented consumerism and stimulate creative use to support working and
learning?
2. How can the use of such technologies, tools and apps/services help to bring the real
working life closer to the learning situations in training centre? How can impulses and
innovations be shared in such a way that they enrich working and learning culture?
3. How can wider access to information and learning resources be linked to better
understanding on the uses and quality of information? How can use of internet and new

35
media help the users to assess their own learning and professional growth (what they can
do and what they can’)?
4. How can improved access to information and communication resources and media from
different locations be utilised to make communication and knowledge sharing across the
organisation more effective (as support for working and learning)?
5. How can improved possibilities to record and analyse learning experiences at work to
support professional development of individuals and knowledge sharing in organisations?
As has been indicated above, such questions cannot be answered a priori on the basis of purely
observational research. Instead, the answers have to be found in the context of the participative
process – with reference to trials and errors in different phases. Therefore, the research work
has to be carried out as accompanying research that takes into account the open options,
intervening factors and the actors’ choices in the pilot activities.
So, researchers have to work in the participative process and have an insight into changing
circumstances, different interests, optional choices and new technical possibilities that come
into picture during the work. This is what accompanying research has to conceptualise and
analyse in such processes while working together with developers and users.
PS. This posting (as the other three of the same series) has focused mainly on the cooperation
of ITB, Pontydygu and Bau ABC with focus on the Rapid Turbine initiative. At the same time
other members of ITB team have been working with other technical partners and the application
partner NNB/Agentur with focus on the design idea Captus for the ecological construction work.
As I have not been involved in the recent events, I have not been able to cover these
developments.

36
25. One year Learning Layers project – One year reports on “Working &
Learning” blog
December 7th, 2013
I have just checked the reports (= podcasts) of the Pontydysgu colleagues from Online Educa
Berlin 2013. This reminded me that it was about one year ago and exactly during that
conference that I started my new career as blogger on the work of the ITB (Institut Technik &
Bildung) team in the Learning Layers project. Looking back, I see that I have covered different
periods of the Learning Layers project and of the work of our team:
In November 2012 I wrote some blogs with which I worked myself in into the project (by looking
at lessons from predecessor projects (e.g. expertAzubi and TACCLE2) and raising some
common issues regarding our work with partners in construction sector.
In December 2012 I started producing reports on site visits to our application partners (Bau
ABC in Rostrup and Agentur/Netzwerk Nachhaltiges Bauen in Verden) and to partner
enterprises. My question was: “What do we learn from site visits?”
In January/February 2013 there were reports on the Application Partner Days. At that time
most of the consortium came to site visits as well and we had series of workshops. These were
followed by blogs that prepared our contributions to the Design Conference (that took place in
Helsinki in March 2013). My questions were: “What have we learned from Application Partner
Days?” “How do we take our lessons to the design activities?”
In March 2013 there were reports on the results of the Helsinki Design Conference and further
thoughts, how to get the local design activities organised. My question was: “How can we get
the initial design ideas properly grounded?”
In April/May/June 2013 there were less blogs but far more field activities and internal reports.
The blogs written in June provided an overview of this phase in general, the workshops in Bau
ABC (involving apprentices and trainers), the parallel activities with Agentur/NNB and with craft
trade companies. The final blog of this phase gave insights into the stakeholder talks in the pilot
region and into the explorations of our partners (CIMNE, I-Perform) on organised clusters and
their roles in different European regions. My question was: “What are we learning in the current
phase of our fieldwork?”
In July 2013 there were no blogs due to summer holidays. Bau ABC was closed and most of
the ITB team was on holiday as well. Yet, something was moving ahead with the pilots and with
the design work.
In August/September 2013 there was a new high season of manifold workshops. In my blogs
of August I tried to put the newer developments into concept with my question: “What kind of

37
transition phase are we going through in our fieldwork?” I discussed new developments in the
design work (“Rapid Turbine prototype), in the workshops (shift of emphasis to design and
training) and in stakeholder engagement (more direct dialogue on the LL project work and
stakeholders priorities). Then, the flow of blogs was interrupted by a period of conference
travels and the LL consortium meeting in Pafos.
In September/October/November 2013 there has been a high season of preparing
deliverables and other contributions to the Year 1 review. At the same time we have made
important progress with workshops – in particular in developing the Multimedia training
approach for construction sector. Sadly, there was no time to comment these steps with blogs –
we were absorbed by the main duties.
Now, that we are heading towards the Year 1 review meeting in Barcelona, I find it appropriate
to have a closer look at the recent progress in our fieldwork and how it is reflected in different
activities.

38
26. Learning Layers: What are we achieving with our fieldwork of Year 1
(Part 1: Overview)
December 7th, 2013
In my previous post I looked back at my blogging on the Learning Layers (LL) project during its
first year of activities. I explained how the most recent weeks have been characterised by
reporting and preparation for the Year 1 review. I also made the claim that our fieldwork has
progressed from a transition phase (August/September) and made clear steps forward. Now it is
time to have a closer look at what has happened and why I give it such an importance.
However, before we go into details, it is worthwhile to clarify on what basis I am making these
comments and what status I assume them to have.
Firstly, I do not try to give an overall picture of the LL project as a whole – and not even on the
work in the construction sector. During the recent months I have been mainly involved in the
cooperation with Bau ABC (with focus on LL Design team Sharing Turbine and prototype Rapid
Turbine). Thus, I have not been able to follow parallel developments as thoroughly.
Secondly, my role has varied in different activities – sometimes I have been in charge of the
interpretation but most often I have been the one to make notes and reports. Thus, I have had
to keep an eye on the whole process and the details as well.
Thirdly, I am not trying to write these comments only from the perspective of ITB but looking at
the fieldwork as our joint effort – the research & development partners, technical support
partners and application partners working together.
I formulated deliberately my question as follows: “What are we achieving with our fieldwork of
Year 1?” I didn’t ask: “What have we achieved …? What is the great difference ? Does it really
matter, how the question is posed. To me and to us it does. The latter question draws attention
to the results but leaves aside the process, how they have been achieved. The question that I
have raised draws attention to the process and results as preconditions for each other. In this
respect, what we see as results now, may not be the whole truth of the achievements, if the
process has more potential and is only becoming mature.
Finally, I do not wish to give a list of separate achievements or indicators of improvement.
Instead, I try to give a picture of (initially) separate initiatives and activities that are growing
together as mutually supporting processes. Moreover, I want to give a picture of growing user
engagement. Here we can give examples of the empowerment of trainers as contributors to
participative processes – as dialogue partners in design sessions and as peer learners and peer
tutors in training activities. And finally, what we have been seeing in the recent phases, is the
growing interest to involve others once the activities are getting consolidated.
In the next blog articles of this series I will focus on the following activities and demonstrate,
how they exemplify the process dynamics that I have outlined above:

39
a) The developments in the work of the LL design team Sharing Turbine and in the work with
the Y1 prototype Rapid Turbine (see the next blog post – Part 2);
b) The developments in the training activities – progress from singular initiatives towards a
coherent and scalable training concept (see the following post – Part 3.
I stop my introductory remarks here and try to get to the two above promised blog articles
without further delay.
27. Learning Layers – What are we achieving with our fieldwork of Year 1
(Part 2: Co-design activities)
December 8th, 2013
In my previous post I raised he question: What are we achieving with the fieldwork activities of
Year 1 in the Learning Layers (LL) project? I outlined an argument that we are experiencing a
process dynamic in which several activities are growing together and that the engagement of
our sectoral partners is growing into new dimension. Now it is time to give some evidence.
I will start with the co-design activities in the construction sector and focus on the developments
in the LL design team Sharing Turbine and on the fieldwork in Bau ABC. Here I would formulate
the following thesis:
In the fieldwork for Sharing Turbine the role of Bau ABC staff has changed from ‘end-users’
(who give information and test prototypes) to active participants who contribute actively to the
development of prototypes.
When I look back at the reports on the co-design workshops in April and May 2013, I recognise
the phase of identifying problems and mapping possible points of intervention. The overarching
agenda of Sharing Turbine (digitalisation of the training and learning processes based on the
White Folder) seemed like a big package that overwhelmed us. We needed more insights from
the ground – from apprentices and trainers, whose work we tried to support with digital media
and web tools.
Therefore, the workshops were characterised by “problem-fishing” – drawing storyboards of
work processes in companies and in the training centre. We started to get a picture of gaps of
information/communication and situations in which use of digital media could really help.
However, the parallel work of the supporting partners (outside the pilot region) with ‘use cases’
and wireframes was not directly linked to these workshops.
When I look at the reports on the co-design workshops and to working meetings in June 2013, I
recognise a turning point in the process and a regrouping of actors involved in it. At that point
the problem-fishing was still continued with the apprentices but the work with the staff of Bau
ABC (trainers and managers) started to take a new course. Whilst we still kept the overarching
agenda of the Sharing Turbine, we agreed to select a focal area for ‘rapid prototyping’. We
chose the area of laying pipes and sewage (Rohrleitungsbau) and started looking more closely
on the project tasks in that area (in order to develop digital support and mobile apps). For this

40
pilot work we agreed to use the name “Rapid Turbine”. In this phase the staff of Bau ABC was
actively involved in making the decision on the pilot area and selecting project tasks for design
work.
When I look at the reports of the co-design workshops and working meetings from August, to
November 2013 , I see a clear change in the participation of Bau ABC staff. By this time the
colleagues of Pontydysgu had developed several proposals, how to insert data into the Rapid
Turbine application and tentative solutions for “Help” function. Now trainers and managers were
actively debating, which solutions would contribute to sustainable learning gains (and which
would likely to lead to copy-paste ‘learning’ without real learning gains). These discussions
were about small details, but yet there was an air about keeping the overarching learning goals
(the holistic craftmanship) in the picture. In a similar way the discussion of the “Help” functions
gave a differentiated picture of tools for those who are about to fail (“Don’t panic”) and of tools of
those who want to deepen their understanding (“Learn more”).
I think I have said enough of the developments in the co-design activities. Here I have shared
my impressions of the deeper level of participation that is coming into picture. In order to get an
insight into activities that are growing together, it is necessary to give a similar account on
training activities of the year 1 in construction sector.
28. Learning Layers: What are we achieving with our fieldwork of Year 1
(Part 3: Training activities)
December 8th, 2013
In my first post to this series of blogs I raised the question: What are we achieving with the
fieldwork activities of Year 1 in the Learning Layers (LL) project? In my previous posts I gave
an account on the developments in the co-design activities of the LL design team Sharing
Turbine (mainly taking place in Bau ABC). In this post I will complement the picture with a
similar account on training activities in the construction sector during the year 1 of LL project.
Here again, I will focus mainly on training activities that have started to take shape in Bau ABC
(but not exclusively on the host organisation).
Concerning the development of training activities I would formulate the following thesis:
In the training activities of the year 1 we have shifted the emphasis from ad hoc training
measures towards a more comprehensive (but transparent) approach. This gives the
participants a broad overview of web tools and enables quick trials. This helps them to select
their own priorities and make their own plans for further learning and utilisation in their own
area.
Looking back at April and May 2013, when we started the early pilots training activities, I have to
admit that we were rather cautious . We had good reasons for this, since the co-design activities
were only in the beginning phase and we indeed tried to avoid over-ambitious openings. Yet, we

41
understood that we need to develop some kind of project-specific training initiatives to improve
our user-skills in web and multimedia (jointly).
So, the ITB team prepared a Webinar for NNB/Agentur to support firstly the staff and later on
the network members in ecological construction work. Also, some demonstration sessions with
basic applications (e.g. Bosch app, Evernote) were organised with interested craft trade
companies. Moreover, some agreements were reached with training providers for craft trade
companies to support their training events. However, these initiatives did not raise a wide
interest. We were still at the advent of linking training activities to co-design initiatives and to
active utilisation of new tools.
The next step in developing training initiatives was taken in an ad hoc meeting in June 2013
(organised alongside the consortium meeting in Graz). One of the ideas put into discussion by
this meeting was to organise Do-it-yourself workshops in Bau ABC to create users’ own apps.
During the summer months this idea was reworked towards a Multimedia Training approach.
The First Multimedia Training Workshop (moderated by Jenny Hughes from Pontydysgu)
provided an orientation to different ways to create apps or to use services and tools in a
customised and user-adapted way. This workshop had already a strong hands-on emphasis but
it mainly served the purpose to outline the learning pathways forward.
The Second Multimedia Training Workshop in November (also moderated by Jenny Hughes)
was already planned as the second in a series to be continued. This workshop consisted of
several short sessions during which the participants trained with similar tasks but using
somewhat different software in different groups. The programme started with easier exercises
(setting up individual twitter accounts, making word clouds with wordle etc.). Then the
participants prepared glogsters ands padlets to present text and multimedia content on the
same page. Also cartoons, animations and videos were used to present task implementation in
construction work (measurement). In the next phase several other applications were
demonstrated with the help of the website of TACCLE2 project (that promotes multimedia
competences of teachers and gives advice to develop their own web contents). In the final
phase the participants trained with WordPress and developed their own blogs to bring together
results of the previous sessions.
In the concluding session the participants (including the director of Bau ABC) committed
themselves to continue with a series of such workshops. Pontydysgu volunteered to install a
dedicated WordPress site for the training and provide links to relevant contents on the
TACCLE2 website. In addition Pontydysgu volunteered to shape the training programme as
small modules with tutorials and tasks that support self-organised learning. The participants
agreed to continue independently with the proposed tools and to prepare for the next workshop
their individual plans for further learning and for domain-specific use of tools.
In a flashmeeting for planning the Y2 activities this development of the training approach was
given a new dimension when the participants of the meeting saw the continuation as a joint

42
opportunity to develop wider participation. Also, the development of the WordPress site and
modules was seen as a strategy for outreach to craft trade companies and for shaping
customised training packages.
…
I think this is as far as I can follow the development of the training concept for construction
sector. As I see it, this process has moved from smaller opening steps towards a collaborative
and participative shaping of a training programme that can be scaled up in the coming years.
Also, my impression is that the first steps have been paved by such ‘user engagement’ that
leads to empowerment of learners and capacity building in the organisations involved.
However, this is not the whole story of the process dynamics (of “growing together”, of “hatching
out” and of reaching out beyond the initial pilot contexts. Although I may have limited
possibilities to report on other supporting activities, it is appropriate to bring them also into the
picture by a concluding blog post.
29. Learning Layers: What are we achieving with our fieldwork of Year 1
(Part 4: Concluding remarks)
December 8th, 2013
In my first post to this series of blogs I raised the question: What are we achieving with the
fieldwork activities of Year 1 in the Learning Layers (LL) project? In the two subsequent posts I
gave an account on the developments in the co-design activities and in the training activities.
In this post I want to make three concluding remarks to complete the picture that may otherwise
look a bit inward-looking and self-sufficient:
1) It is necessary to pay more attention to external support activities that can enrich the co-
design and training activities – in particular the so-called Layers PBL projects;
2) It is necessary to have a closer look at the studies on regional innovation policies and the role
of organised clusters (that are being carried out by the WP7 team).
3) It is necessary to pay attention to the potentials of and challenges for accompanying
research.
1. Concerning the external support activities it is essential to note the valuable contribution
that is provided by student groups working in the “Layers PBL” projects that work with particular
tasks/apps proposed by LL partners. At the moment we have such projects working in several
universities (HSKA, RWTH, Metropolia UAS). In the co-design activities and training activities of
the year 2 we can count on the possibility to integrate their results into project work and to
initiate new ones.
2. Concerning the studies on regional innovation policies and organised clusters, we
have hosted several working visits of the WP7 team and attended to several sessions of
stakeholder talks. We have also got several reports on other working visits of the WP7 team.
This all has brought us closer to the understanding of regional and sectoral potentials and how
to use ‘scaling up’ opportunities that are supported by other funding programmes. This is
particularly important when we see the chance to involve other innovation regions with similar
initiatives.

43
3. Concerning the role of accompanying research it is worthwhile to pay attention to the
twofold relation of such research and the design/development activities. Firstly, the researchers
have to be sufficiently closely involved in the design and development processes to sense the
changes (progress or obstacles) in the process dynamics. Secondly, the researchers have to
keep a relative distance to be able to document and analyse the developments (without being
overly guided by their first impressions). In this respect the LL activities pose additional
challenges to carry out the twofold duties of accompanying research in a balanced way.
I think this is enough on these issues at this moment. After the review of the Year 1 activities we
need to get back to these issues when launching the Year 2 activities.

44
30. Learning Layers – Impressions on the Y1 Review Meeting (Part 1: The
event)
December 16th, 2013
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.
31. Learning Layers – Impressions on the Y1 Review Meeting (Part 2: Our
inputs)
December 16th, 2013
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.

45
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).

46
● 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.
32. Learning Layers – Impressions on the Y1 Review Meeting (Part 3:
Feedback and our responses)
December 16th, 2013
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 its relations to different traditions & its own methodological commitments explicit.
(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.

47
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 raise some points for discussion, how the project can respond:
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 for dialogue between (classical) action research,
accompanying research (DE), interactive research (NL), 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.