Learning in vivo

Monitoring workplace-based learning or internships

Monitoring means to observe and check the progress, or the quality of (something) over a period of time; to keep under systematic review or to maintain regular surveillance over. Monitoring entails a process to periodically collect, analyse and use information, to actively manage progress, maximise the desired outcomes, and minimise the risk of not accomplishing. Monitoring is derived from the Latin monit-, meaning ‘warned’.

Framework means a basic structure underlying a system of rules, values, concepts, criteria, ideas, or beliefs that is used to plan or decide something. A framework is a conceptual structure intended to guide. A monitoring framework indicates how to determine, for example, if specific workplace-based learning (WPBL) or an internship is on course to achieve the specified learning outcomes.

The Council on Higher Education (2011) ‘Good Practice Guide’ denotes (p. 55) under partnerships for workplace-based learning the:

1. Role of the academic partner to monitor workplace issues, includes the performance of the workplace supervisor. The lecturers “are responsible for planning issues, and the level and nature of engagement, as well as the implementation issues of monitoring progress, assessing work and programme evaluation.” (p. 60) The lecturer uses “learning plan or learning contract to document negotiated agreements on learning outcomes and processes with students. The university teacher should take prime responsibility for coordinating with workplace supervisors and monitoring students’ workplace activities to ensure that they remain consistent with the intended programme outcomes and assessment criteria.” (p. 63) Workplace-based learning takes place within a relevant workplace context, and may require that lecturers “regularly with them for the purposes of ‘debriefing’, monitoring progress, and dealing with problems.” (p. 64) Such meetings need not be physical, but may take place online.
2. Role of the external/professional partner is to monitor the student’s workplace performance

Hansen et al (2022: 74-75) present Schonell and Macklin’s criteria for good practice regarding work-integrated learning (WIL), which is portrayed in Table 1.

Table 1: Work-integrated learning good practice criteria (Table 8, Hansen et al, 2022: 75).

Hansen et al (2022: 76-77) illustrate in Figure 1 the work-integrated learning model and aptly describe “the recommended WIL process starting from initiation, industry engagement, implementation, and evaluation. At the initiation stage, the university must determine the requirements that students should meet in order to carry out the WIL program properly. These requirements are generally in the form of the fulfillment of minimal theoretical and practical subjects. The university must also determine the target industry according to the needs. Furthermore, the university is advised to make a guideline regarding the WIL program so that the procedure becomes clear to all stakeholders. At the industry engagement stage, universities and students should establish good communication with the targeted industry. At this stage, the university and students will provide information regarding the implementation of the WIL program to the industry, including benefits for industry partners and workplace supervisors. Written agreement may be required to create a legal partnership between university and industry partners. Furthermore, briefings or workshops can be conducted as a means of delivering practical information before the WIL program is executed. 

At the implementation stage, students must carry out certain preparations, including personal needs, immunizations, and visas (for overseas placements). Student placement is determined based on an agreement between stakeholders on certain considerations such as the availability of accessibility, accommodation, and the achievement of expected learning outcomes. During execution, supervisors and lecturers are actively involved in the process of mentoring and monitoring students. The last stage is evaluation where assessments related to the achievement of learning outcomes by students are carried out. It is recommended that the university to carry out a debriefing meeting to review WIL program implementation and to explore lessons learned for the improvement of future program execution. 

In brief, the implementation of WIL programs must consider the following key aspects:

• The designated WIL course must be established. This includes the objective, and a statement about the various aspects of WIL activities (e.g. selection, placement, monitoring, evaluation, etc.)
• Detailed preparation regarding academic and non-academic requirements must be considered. Academic requirements include the fulfilment of grade point averages and required subjects while non-academic requirements include acceptable behavior, confidentiality, ethics, immunization and visas (if placement is abroad).
• The duration of the program must be considered according to the WIL credit course and the time available. A minimum of 9-12 weeks duration is required for a full-time basis program while a longer duration may be required for a part-time basis program.
• WIL program consists of: the three stages of pre-internship, internship and post-internship; involve authentic engagement with partner organizations; be assessed in line with the University’s Assessment policy; comply with relevant government regulations and University policies and instructions.
• The WIL activities may vary in different locations and/or with different cohorts. It can be in form of internships, project-based learning, work-directed learning, etc. and can be offered online and offline, full-time or part-time basis.”

Figure 1: Work-integrated learning model (extract from Figure 3, Hansen et al, 2022: 77).

The aforementioned are deemed significant aspects to take into consideration when developing a monitoring framework for workplace-based learning (WPBL) or internships.

Council on Higher Education (2011). Work-Integrated Learning: Good Practice Guide. HE Monitor No. 12, August 2011. Pretoria: IeCommunications. Electronically accessible from http://cctprojects.co.za/wbeproject/documents/WIL/Higher_Education_Monitor_12.pdf or http://digitalknowledge.cput.ac.za/handle/11189/5205

Hansen, S., Rostiyanti, S.F., Setiawan, A.F., Koesalamwardi, A.B. (2022). Developing a work-integrated learning model adjusting to Construction 4.0 concepts. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 23(1), 65-80. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_23_1_65_80.pdf

Non-placement and online work-integrated learning — a manuscript

The table of contents of the manuscript: Download Non-placement and online work-integrated learning 

PROLOGUE

Foundational WIL as ‘category’

Applied WIL as ‘category’

Comprehensive WIL as ‘category’

INTRODUCTION

WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED ONLINE

WORK-DIRECTED THEORETICAL LEARNING

ONLINE STUDIO-BASED LEARNING

The essential parts and elements of studio-based learning

Studio-based learning as pedagogical approach, extended to many fields    

A teaching model of collaborative learning communities and professional practice

THE CASE STUDY AS ELEMENT OF AN E-TEACHING PLAN

The elements or parts of a case study

How to create or compose a case study

Step 1: Consider the story

Step 2: Attend to the legalities and ethics23

Step 3: Write the statement of purpose

Step 4: Gather the case data

Step 5: Start the writing

Step 6: The solution

SIMULATED WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING

ENQUIRY, IN PROJECT AND PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING, IS THE ENGINE OF DEEP LEARNING

Problems of the real world are not neatly organised into disciplinary categories

Community service as a method to develop academic knowledge

USING A LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (LMS) FOR WIL

The functions of the various MOODLE elements/tools

Welcome message (Overview page)

Calendar

Announcements

Lessons (learning units)

Additional resources

Assessment (tests) tools

Discussion forums

Synchronous chat and workshops

Glossary

FAQs

Wiki

Feedback/survey

WORK INTEGRATED RESEARCH HIGHER DEGREE (WIRHD)

Fertile conditions for work-integrated research at doctoral level

The statutory context in South Africa permits work-integrated research

Focus on real-world practice-based problems, relevant to workplace settings

One foot in academia and one in work-life

Landscape of various models of doctoral education

Conclusion

REFERENCES

Pondering about shadowing on an examination bed

Shadowing entails following someone else while they are at work to learn about that person's job. Often shadowing takes place during orientation (onboarding) at a new place of work, or new job by initially shadowing a more experienced employee.

While undergoing an abdominal ultrasound examination, I pondered shadowing. The sonographer gave several instructions while operating the ultrasonic imaging device to produce diagnostic images. While lying on my back or either side with my hands above my head, I have been asked to breathe in deeply and holding my breath during scanning. I was also asked to pinch my nose, puff my cheeks, and hold my breath during scanning; and to engage in starting sit-ups, and to hold my abdominal muscles tight while scanning. These are the various techniques to acquire the best possible three-dimensional diagnostic images for the ultrasound report. If a student-sonographer that is undergoing clinical training, were to only receive the images, there would not be much learning opportunity. However, if the individual were introduced to me, my consent requested, actions explained while observing—being told what is done and why, then significant training would probably be derived from such shadowing.

Time spent shadowing intellectual work seems to require telepathy. Often shadowing is advocated as a means for existing employees who are aspiring to advancement, to gain experience laterally. However, unless the future role-taker is entrusted aspects of work to intellectually engage with on their own, while under supervision and guidance, little learning could be expected. Merely being kept in the loop through email traffic does not allow for shadowing of the intellectual processes involved.

WIL bridges the knowledge-to-practice gap

The “gap between what is known from research and what is done in applied practice—is called ‘the science-to-service gap’” say Grassetti et al. (2021: 175); and add that this gap “is further exacerbated by a lack of intentional collaboration between researchers and practitioners”. They assert that “Students will be positioned to make valuable contributions in their future careers if they are trained to think from an implementation science framework, apply data-driven decision-making to practice in the field, and collaborate with community partners.” This notion is deemed equally applicable to work-integrated research higher degrees (WIRHD) focussing on real-world practice-based problems and issues, relevant to workplace settings and similar contexts such as communities.

Service learning (SL), as a form of work-integrated learning, “is a progressive, cooperative pedagogical approach that grounds experience as a primary basis of learning and uses student engagement in community service as a method to develop academic knowledge and skill” say Grassetti et al. (2021: 176). It “may enhance graduate education by challenging students to apply their knowledge to community service where they may further develop practical skills” (p. 175).

“There are many definitions of service-learning” say Machtmes (2009: 156) and various forms or models thereof. One such is “a ‘problem-based service-learning course’ in which students work individually or in teams work with community partners to ‘meet specified community needs’ which ‘provide community situations and problems as service-learning opportunities for students’”. With problem-based service-learning students gain experience by acting as consultants to, for example, a community organization.

The National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, cited by Machtmes (2009: 156), states that all definitions of service-learning have the following components:

Service-learning combines service objectives with learning objectives with the intent that the activity change both the recipient and the provider of the service. This is accomplished by combining service tasks with structured opportunities that link the task to self-reflection, self-discovery, and the acquisition and comprehension of values, skills, and knowledge content.

By acting as consultant to a community, the doctoral candidate could through service-learning undertake research, and in that way bridge the gap between knowledge and real-world realities.

Grassetti, S.N.; Solic, K. & Getz, Z. (2021). Bridging the science-to-service gap: service learning in graduate-level psychology education. Teaching of Psychology, 48(2), 175-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320971208

Machtmes, K., Johnson, E., Fox, J., Burke, M. S., Harper, J., Arcemont, L., Hebert, L., Tarifa, T., Brooks, R. C., Reynaud, A. L., Deggs, D., Matzke, B., & Aguirre, R. T. (2009). Teaching Qualitative Research Methods through Service-Learning. The Qualitative Report, 14(1), 155-164. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2009.1398

Practice-based research of real-world problems and issues

This blogpost relates to two previous posts on work integrated research (WIRHD) at post-graduate level, relevance in the workplace. This post draws from scholarly research practice literature that advocates the researching of “real-world problems and issues relevant to” “workplace communities and contexts” (Klenowski et al, 2011: 681). In addition to those key issues, practice-based (or work-integrated) research “doctorates begin by framing the practice-derived problem, as opposed to the gap in knowledge that is more typically associated with” (San Miguel and Nelson, 2007: 75, emphasis added) traditional postgraduate research. Doctoral candidates would be examining a problem arising from their own or workplace context. The “positioning of the researcher/practitioner vis-a-vis the research site and participants” (p. 77) must be clearly articulated, and the literature review should address and should grow out of the problem under investigation.

The “growth, in recent years, of research projects and degree programmes with strong industry links has generated much discussion in the higher education literature” indicate San Miguel and Nelson (2007: 72). Strengers (2014: 552) indicates that “Industry usually refers to a broad cross section of interests and stakeholders, including government organisations, community organisations, businesses, companies and external research organisations”. San Miguel and Nelson (2007: 73) state that such “doctorate degrees are designed for mid-career professionals who do not aspire to become academics but rather to undertake research that emerges from, and will be useful to, their own workplaces and professions”. Strengers (2014: 546) further observes that in contrast to ‘traditional-academic-discourse’, both interdisciplinary and industry collaborations are becoming more common for doctoral research. Whereas historically the doctoral candidate has been a “disciple of an academic master”, by the knowledge economy is pushing for the skilled candidates. San Miguel and Nelson (2007: 71) encountered some challenges pertaining ‘practice-based research’, such as the “framing [of] a real-world problem as a research issue; incorporating one’s own (and others’) professional knowledge; and using the literature to contextualise and theorise the issue under investigation”.

Mindful that “the pressing problems of the real world are not organized into disciplinary categories, there is an urgent need to make doctoral education more interdisciplinary” says Rashid (2021: 508). “The term ‘discipline’ was coined as ‘disciplina’ by the Romans [and] by medieval times, ‘disciplines’ referred to a handful of professions (e.g. law, medicine, engineering) that required specialized knowledge”, indicates Rashid (2021: 509). The contemporary “concept of disciplinarity emerged from developments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries” and can be defined as “an identifiable but evolving domain of knowledge that its members study using certain tools that serve as a way of knowing that is powerful but constraining”. Each discipline is furthermore “characterized by an epistemology, i.e. beliefs about how (much) we can understand about the world” and tends to be the organising principle within universities. However, “the disciplinary approach to addressing a complex problem is a reductionist one that focuses on an aspect of the problem that the discipline is concerned with, whereas the interdisciplinary approach is a holistic one that integrates insights from different disciplines concerned with different aspects of the problem” indicates Rashid (2021: 509). There is furthermore a “delicate balance needs to be maintained in ensuring that the boundaries of the project are sufficiently broad (and defined) to allow for interdisciplinary understandings of the problem, without compromising the discipline within which the candidate is seeking to gain accreditation” caution Strengers (2014: 552).

Neuhauser et al (2007: 5) admit that there is no consensus about the many existing terms and propose to follow the typology of research practice:

• Level 1. Multidisciplinary: Researchers from different fields work independently or sequentially (with little interaction), each from his or her field, to address a common problem.
• Level 2. Interdisciplinary: Researchers work jointly, but still from their own disciplines, to address a common problem.
• Level 3. Transdisciplinary: Researchers work together from the outset to develop a shared conceptual framework that integrates and extends discipline-based concepts, theories, and/or methods to address a specific common problem.

San Miguel and Nelson (2007: 76) further submit that it is “useful to consider the two modes of knowledge identified by Gibbons and his colleagues (Gibbons et al., 1994)” namely:

• Mode 1. Knowing-in-theory: “knowledge is generated within universities and then applied to practical, ‘real-world’ problems in the broader society”
• Mode 2. Knowing-inaction: “knowledge is generated in the broader society”

Universities must prepare doctoral graduates “for the complexities and challenges of the twenty-first century. To address problems as complex as climate change, environmental pollution, sustainability, healthcare, and the Covid-19 pandemic, students need relevant skills.” (Rashid, 2021: 508). “Professional doctorates were introduced in the 1990s for practitioners to research ‘real-world’ problems relevant to their respective workplace communities and contexts” say Klenowski et al (2011: 681). One of the strengths of such doctoral degrees “is that it bridges the worlds of academe and the professions by equipping candidates with academic knowledge and research skills required to explore professional contexts” they indicate.

Klenowski, V., Ehrich, L., Kapitzke, C. & Trigger, K. (2011). Building support for learning within a Doctor of Education programme. Teaching in Higher Education, 16 (6), 681-693.

Neuhauser, L.; Richardson, D.; Mackenzie, S.; & Minkler, M.  (2007). Advancing Transdisciplinary and Translational Research Practice: Issues and Models of Doctoral Education in Public Health. Journal of Research Practice, 3(2), 1-25. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/103/97

Rashid, R. (2021). Updating the PhD: making the case for interdisciplinarity in twenty-first-century doctoral education. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(3), 508–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1892624

San Miguel, C. & Nelson, C.D. (2007). Key writing challenges of practice-based doctorates. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 71–86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158506000658?via%3Dihub

Strengers, Y.A-A. (2014). Interdisciplinarity and industry collaboration in doctoral candidature: tensions within and between discourses. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 546–559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709498

WIL at post-graduate level facilitate greater relevance of higher education in the workplace

“Within the South African higher education context, the most significant effort to align doctoral education with the world of work has been the introduction of Work Integrated Learning (WIL)” observe Treptow (2013: 83), who derived insights from employers through interviews. This blogpost builds on ‘work integrated research higher degree (WIRHD) studies’. Further to the integrative framework of the WIHRD context in which both Chen et al (2008: 133), as well as Stewart and Chen (2009: 162), illustrate the unique components; Bernhard and Olsson (2023: 517), in a manuscript aptly titled ‘one foot in academia and one in work-life’, illustrate with the bold arrow in the figure 1 below the required mutual relationships.

Bernhard and Olsson (2023: 517) assert that “the industrial PhD student should not alone be responsible of bridging academia and work–life”, but that “the interactions between these academia and industry need to be strengthened throughout the entire PhD education”. They remark that “both academia and industry must have detailed insights into industrial PhD education to recognize and fully exploit these learning benefits while building, sustaining and resilient collaboration over time promoting a future workforce of researchers with skills, practices and learning capabilities applicable in contemporary society”. In another manuscript the same two authors present (figure 2 below) a ‘WIL-based framework of industrial PhD education collaboration’ (Olsson & Bernhard, 2023: 532).

Olsson and Bernhard (2023: 526) report about “explorative qualitative research on industrial PhD student collaboration was conducted over a three year period (2019-2022)”. Their findings reflect the integrated perspectives “industrial PhD students (IPS), academia (A), and practice (P)” with WIL applied as theoretical lens to identify both benefits and challenges (p. 528). Table 2 (p. 529) illustrate the mutual benefits with selected quotes and categorised “in sub-themes: (i) access to practice – inclusion in networks, projects, and empirical data; (ii) understanding of practice – contextual understanding, inclusion, and tacit knowledge; and (iii) integration of theory and practice – multiple perspectives and knowledge creation” (p. 528).

Despite the benefits above, there are also challenges and tensions indicate Olsson and Bernhard (2023: 529-530). The identified challenges, illustrated by selected quotes in Table 3, “are categorized in the following sub-themes: (i) understanding and expectations of the collaboration; (ii) formal agreements for collaboration – administrative bureaucracy, financing, and conflicts of interest; (iii) inclusion and access; and (iv) integration of research in practice – societal impact”.

 

The significance of collaboration, mutual understanding, agreements, inclusion and integration are noteworthy. These are key success factors towards industry PhDs.

Bernhard, I. & Olsson, A.K. (2023). One foot in academia and one in work-life – the case of Swedish industrial PhD students. Journal of Workplace Learning, 35(6). 506-523. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-11-2022-0157

Olsson, A.K. & Bernhard, I. (2023). Transforming doctoral education: Exploring industrial PhD collaboration in Sweden. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(4), 523-536. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_24_4_523_536.pdf

Treptow, R. (2013). The South African PhD: Insights from employer interviews. Perspectives in Education, 31(2), 83-91,142.

 

Work integrated research higher degree (WIRHD) studies

“Doctoral education is transforming” say Ohlson and Bernhard (2023: 523). The “traditional doctoral training and research mode is facing some challenges in meeting the industry needs in this fasting changing economy” indicate Chen et al (2008: 129). They point out that “there is greater pressure for research to be linked to applied usage, be aligned with private-sector or government objectives and to have shared intellectual property arrangements”. Treptow (2013: 83) reiterates this saying “current international trends reveal that doctoral education is increasingly expected to satisfy workplace demands”. There is furthermore an “expanding job market for PhD holders entering entirely new fields” say Chen et al (2008: 129), and “pressure on doctoral training to be more flexible and aimed at a wider array of jobs than the traditional academic profession”. Project doctoral programmes furthermore evolved, having “greater emphasis on research conducted and directed within the workplace” and both professional and project doctoral candidates tend to “research topics that are closely associated with the context of their workplace” that “bring together the academy and the workplace with an emphasis on professional practice” (p. 130). Because of these reasons the Work Integrated Research Higher Degree (WIRHD) has emerged “and is intended to be a significant piece of original research which makes a new contribution to science and the discipline”. Chen et al (2008: 133), as well as Stewart and Chen (2009: 162), present a graphical illustration (Figure 1 below) of the integrative framework comprising the unique components of the WIHRD contexts.

The solid-line circle represents the powerful supervisor-student relationship which should enjoy prominence; however the research involves both the academic and industry contexts, therefore the second dotted-line circle, portraying the industry supervisor. WIRHD “is nested within three-tiers of department/discipline, University/Organisation and social/supra-societal contexts”. The establishment of a project-based partnership arrangement between the university and the industry is deemed necessary to enhance communication and co-operation. Furthermore, a structured approach to enable the student and the supervisors to specify the objectives; to outline the duties and roles of both students and supervisors; and to set “the principles and structures for performance monitoring, information exchange and dispute resolution”. Ohlson and Bernhard (2023: 523) studied “the perspectives of industrial PhD students, academia, and industry … with work-integrated learning as a theoretical lens to identify benefits, challenges, and prerequisites for how to structure and manage such a collaboration”.

In the South African context, section 34 of the Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF, 2014: 17) states that “Some qualifications will be designed to integrate theory and practice through the incorporation of work-integrated learning (WIL) into the curriculum … and may be incorporated into programmes at all levels of the HEQSF” (emphasis added). The higher education qualification descriptor (p. 38) for a Master's Degree (Professional, NQF Exit Level 9) states that “in some cases, a professional Master's degree may be designed in consultation with a professional body or fulfil all or part of the requirements for professional registration or recognition, and may include appropriate forms of work-integrated learning” (emphasis added). The descriptor for a Doctoral Degree (p. 40) states that “the designator of Philosophy is typically used for general doctoral degrees by thesis. However, other designators may be used to denote the area of study or the name of the discipline” and for Professional Doctoral degrees (p. 41) the qualification type may be followed by a designator that indicates the area of study or name of the discipline, for example, Doctor of Business Administration (DBA); Doctor of Commerce (DCom); Doctor of Education (DEd); Doctor of Engineering (DEng); Doctor of Law (LLD); Doctor of Nursing (DNursing); Doctor of Pharmacy (DPharm); Doctor of Psychology (DPsych); and Doctor of Social Work (DSW). Furthermore, that the PhD title should not be used; however, the qualification may include appropriate forms of work-integrated learning; the research component should comprise at least 60%; demonstrate a high level of research capability; and the application of theoretical knowledge to highly complex problems.

“Traditional doctoral research training is structured around a master and apprentice transmission model, relying predominantly on primary supervisors for candidate research training” say O'Connor (2023: 567) and indicate that “in this model, professional development of candidates typically centers on discipline-specific knowledge and research techniques”. “A new landscape for various models for doctoral education is emerging” say Ohlson and Bernhard (2023: 523) and add that “university-industry collaboration is a widespread phenomenon for education and innovation in response to societal challenges”. “There is a world-wide increase of alternative forms of doctoral education based on collaboration between academia and work-life such as the professional doctorate” they reiterate (p. 524). The “alternative doctoral training models aim to broaden PhD candidate training”, say O'Connor (2023: 567). “The concept of [work-integrated learning] WIL has developed over time and is today an umbrella term covering education, collaboration, and research” (p. 525). An “approach for university-industry collaboration is work-integrated learning (WIL)”, with an industrial PhD focus, where “industrial PhD students embody the collaborative interplay between education and work influencing organizational learning” (p. 524). However, there is potential “tension between the tasks, time, and cognitive load required to develop qualified researchers as discipline stewards” indicate O'Connor (2023: 568). The design and delivery need to occur in a careful, considered and evidence-based manner he states, and advocates “four emergent design principles for alternative doctoral training models” (p. 569), namely:

• An increased range/breadth of content experts that are providing training to PhD candidates
• The scope of WIL activities and content delivery should be broader than commercialisation
• Adequately scaffold the WIL activities of PhD candidates, keeping in mind their specific needs and be observant of changing needs at different stages of their research candidature
• Purposefully co-designed WIL activities, because simply placing research students in an industry environment would not necessarily translate into powerful learning experiences

O'Connor (2023: 568) also state that PhD candidates should be attracted from any research discipline for whom the additional training is beneficial; but to avoid candidates where prior employment and experience do not match the research programme. He further cautions about potential disengagement due to ineffectual content or WIL activities; as well as “stress due to inadequate communication or management of candidate and supervisor needs”. He recommends minimisation of cognitive overload and workload associated with additional training, but without compromising effectiveness, because “doctoral candidates already experience a variety of stressors inherent to their PhD studies”. He indicates that “alternative doctoral training programs require resources, support systems, qualified personnel, peer networks, and content”.

The focus of knowledge creation by universities gradually shifted because industry recognised the value of creating knowledge indicate Bernhard and Olsson (2023). “University–industry interactions in doctoral education are of importance for mutual life-long learning by integrating workplace learning and research redeveloping work practices related to new concepts, technologies and organizational principles” (p. 507) they add. Industrial PhD students “are spanning boundaries between university and industry generating continuous opportunities for validation and testing of empirical results and models in industry” state Bernhard and Olsson (2020: 147). As key stakeholders industrial PhD students “embody the informing flows between practice and university and between practice and research”, enabling the “short-lag dissemination of research results”, “may enable increased research quality”, and strengthen legitimacy.

Stewart and Chen (2009: 167) remark that the work integrated research higher degree (WIRHD) emerged in an informal manner “for contemporary research students to develop both high-level professional capabilities in a real industry environment as well as strong research skills, which create knowledge through original research of academic rigour”. WIRHD further ensures relevance of engineering doctorates.

Ajjawi, R. & Kent, F. (2022). Understanding Realist Reviews for Medical Education. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, June. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00334.1

Bernhard, I. & Olsson, A.K. (2020). University-industry collaboration in higher education: exploring the informing flows framework in industrial PhD education. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 23, 147-163. https://doi.org/10.28945/4672

Bernhard, I. & Olsson, A.K. (2023). One foot in academia and one in work-life – the case of Swedish industrial PhD students. Journal of Workplace Learning, 35(6). 506-523. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-11-2022-0157

Chen, L., Stewart, R.A., Willis, R. & Britton, T. (2008). Work integrated research higher degree studies: experiences, benefits, barriers and coping strategies. In: Mann, Llewellyn (Editor); Thompson, Adam (Editor); Howard, Prue (Editor). 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Yeppoon: To Industry and Beyond; Proceedings of the. Barton, A.C.T.: Institution of Engineers, Australia, 2008: [129]-[134].

O'Connor, M.D., Denejkina, A. & Arvanitakis, J. (2023). Preparing doctoral candidates for employment: Delivering research and employability skills training in the PhD via work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(1), 19-42. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_24_1_19_42.pdf

O'Connor, M.D. (2023). Design principles for work-integrated learning-based, alternative doctoral training programs informed by PhD candidate feedback. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(4), 567-582. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_24_4_567_582.pdf

Olsson, A.K. & Bernhard, I. (2023). Transforming doctoral education: Exploring industrial PhD collaboration in Sweden. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(4), 523-536. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_24_4_523_536.pdf

Taylor, N. & Maxwell, T.W. (2004). Enhancing the relevance of a professional doctorate: The case of the Doctor of Education Degree at the University of New England. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 5(1), 60-69. https://www.ijwil.org/files/APJCE_05_1_60_69.pdf

Treptow, R. (2013). The South African PhD: Insights from employer interviews. Perspectives in Education, 31(2), 83-91,142.

South African Government. (2014), Department of Higher Education and Training, Government Notice No 819. Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework. Government Gazette No. 38116, 17 October. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201410/38116gon819.pdf

Stewart, R.A. & Chen, L. (2009). Developing a framework for work integrated research higher degree studies in an Australian engineering context, European Journal of Engineering Education, 34:2, 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790902833325

Valencia-Forrester, F. (2019) Internships and the PhD: Is this the future direction of work-integrated learning in Australia? International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 389-400. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_20_4_389_400.pdf

Workplace friendships in remote or electronic WIL contexts

Knapp, Xing and Drewery (2023: 506) differentiate two forms of workplace friendships related to work-integrated learning (WIL) scenarios, namely with (a) fellow students and (b) host-organisational members. Their literature reviews found that workplace friendships are a common phenomenon in WIL settings, both among students and with the hosting organisation’s staff, and is “positively associated with job satisfaction, career development, organizational commitment, and conversion intention”.

During workplace-based learning (WPBL) students often work with other students. “When they do, they seem to interact in ways that can result in workplace friendships” say Knapp, Xing and Drewery (2023: 506). They may socialise and bond while having lunch together, help each other settle in and “navigate challenges at work together”.

Anyone who works within a WPBL hosting organisation is a potential member, mentioned in (b) above, including mentors, supervisors, managers, and junior workers. In some situations, “workplace friendships may develop between students and their supervisors”, and such relationships may even transcend traditional roles, which is deemed a significant advantage. Friendships characterised “by trust, intimacy, and personal connection” might emerge and “develop into voluntary, intimate, and personal connections”, despite limited duration of interaction (Knapp, Xing & Drewery, 2023: 506).

With the rise in remote WIL, there are concerns about reduced outcomes, because “students are more likely to develop friendships when they work in-person rather than remotely”. Knapp, Xing and Drewery (2023: 505) found that “Informal socialization occurred less in remote work, which partially explained why remote workers reported fewer friendships”. Historically, most WPBL were in-person in workplaces, with students physically managed by host organisations. The COVID-19 pandemic forced a shift to remote WPBL. It has been found that it stunted the development of some students and is believed to be a result of reduced meaningful social interactions that would typically contribute to a student’s development due to three reasons. Firstly, fewer opportunities for informal socialisation in contrast to those working together in person and often informally connect for a chat. Secondly, tasks are seldom shared when working remotely, whereas when physically together, colleagues more easily naturally collaborate, share ideas and together develop solutions. Thirdly, the greater segregation implies less opportunity to talk about for example favourite television shows or weekend plans and to notice similarities; less opportunity to celebrate shared triumphs, and also to lament shared losses.

“Collaboration among students is fundamental for knowledge building and competency development”, state Pulgar et al (2021: 1), including the reflection of students on their WPBL experiences. The effectiveness of collaboration among students is depended on the extent and the nature of actual interactions. Pulgar et al (2021: 1) found that despite the mediation of collaboration and interaction by Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), “such as forums, chats, emails, or video conferences among other alternatives”, that “the transition to remote teaching has added new challenges for collaboration” among students.

Pulgar et al (2021: 1) made use of Social Network Analysis (SNA), which “affords relevant methodological and theoretical tools to capture the different types of social relationships” that students are engaging in; and “how these foster (or hinder) their learning potential”. They report that “researchers have used SNA to explore different forms of participation on online courses” (p. 2), such as through “posts on discussion forums”. The findings of their study are worth noting, in particular the differences of social networks found, and the effects of these on grades achieved. They do admit the limitation of their study pertaining the absence of information about the internet connectivity and accessibility of the students in remote settings.

Joshi (2021), a Delhi-based freelance anchor, observes “that remote working is here to stay with many organizations announcing some form of hybrid working future” and add that “with the right technology platform it is entirely possible to work, connect, and collaborate seamlessly online”. Copp (2023) corroborates by indicating that 30% workers in the United States are working in a hybrid working environment, with 13% totally remote. Pelczarski  (2021: 76-77) provides a list of points that apply happy, motivated and productive remote employees, and a further list applicable to remote managers. He indicates that “certain types of job positions lend themselves to remote work (e.g., office, sales, IT, finance)”, but state that “industry and manual services workers are typically more difficult to employ remotely than professional and office workers”. He further offers a list of various types of employees deemed highly difficult to set up and function effectively in a remote capacity, and a second list of medium-difficulty positions to set up remotely.

Varagur (2021), an award-winning journalist and former Wall Street Journal columnist, states that “starting a remote job [or an internship] can be hard [because of the absence of the ‘proverbial water cooler to generate casual encounters’], but many people have found new ways to forge work friendships”. “Making friends at work was getting harder even before the pandemic”, she says and indicates that a 2017 survey found “more than half of people had five or fewer friends at work” and that earlier surveys found far fewer “had at least one ‘confidant’ at work”.

However, Varagur (2021) also relates that “some have found new ways to make work friends” during the COVID-19 pandemic, for example two people connected initially through a shared sense of humour during “large Zoom meetings, which turned into private Slack chats, then phone calls and one-on-one video calls, and an endless stream of text messages that continues to this day”.

Joshi (2021) states that “as the future of work continues to evolve, organizations must chalk up a comprehensive policy to connect, engage and empower their teams”, and propose elements towards such:

• Importance of recognising differences, such as whereas “some people may thrive in a remote set up” others “may crave the personal interactions of the” workplace, or “may need the physical separation between their personal and private spaces and look forward to the bustle of the office to be productive”.
• Investing in relevant distributed technology prioritizing security, networking, and virtual collaboration.
• Establish best communication and collaboration practices for each channel, including guidelines pertaining etiquette, duration of virtual meetings, response time frames, etc.
• Prevention of miscommunication, misunderstandings, and exclusion through two-way communication such as “regular town halls with senior management, meetings with team leads and informal chats”.
• Seek ways towards building camaraderie—a spirit of trust and goodwill among people closely associated in an activity or endeavour—by being sensitive and avail support regarding mental health.

Copp, M. (2023). Hybrid workplaces need locker room leadership. Plumbing & Mechanical; Troy Vol. 41(6), 34-37.

Joshi, M. (2021). How to cultivate a people centric work culture while working remotely? Business World; New Delhi (8 March).

Knapp, K.; Xing, I. & Drewery, D. (2023) Implications of remote work for co-operative education students' workplace friendships. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(4), 505-521.

Pelczarski, K.  (2021). Would you make a great remote employee? Tribology & Lubrication Technology; Park Ridge, 77(3), 76-78. www.stle.org

Pulgar, J. Ramírez, D. Umanzor, A. Candia, C. & Sánchez, I. (2021). Student networks on online teaching due to COVID-19: Academic effects of strong friendship ties and perceived academic prestige in physics and mathematics courses. Cornell University, arXiv an open-access archive free distribution: Physics Education. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.06245.pdf

Varagur, K. (2021). How to make friends while working from home? Ask these office newbies. Remote work can feel isolating for new employees, but many younger workers turned digital hangouts and Zoom calls into real-world meetups.  Wall Street Journal (Online); New York, N.Y. (1 August).

A framework for electronic work-based learning (eWBL)

The electronic work-based learning (eWBL) “framework [below, developed by Perusso and Wagenaar (2023: 1)] comprises five primary phases: design, preparation, onboarding, delivery, and assessment. Each phase contains several sub-phases that offer practical implementation steps to WBL trainers in higher education and industry on how to deliver high-quality eWBL”.

Perusso and Wagenaar (2023: 3) “followed a multiple case study method based on 27 case study reports” derived from an eWBL project. Their data collection and analysis, methods, and resources are detailed in the referenced article. Figure 1 (p. 5) below summarises and illustrates the methodological process they followed.

Phase 1 — Design

This “phase comprises the planning of eWBL at the curricular level” (p. 5) and include decisions such as when (in “which semester WBL takes place”), the scope (duration and how many learning credits), the type (e.g. “of employment contract”), and “the general responsibilities of interns and employers”.

Insights derived from the various case studies include, among other things:

• “disciplines like management and engineering are more adaptable to the online environment than, for instance, hospitality and social care” (p. 5), suggesting that the nature of academic fields should be considered during design
• “virtual internships are well suited to foster competencies associated with the digital world, including digital communication, proactivity, and time management oftentimes at the expense of teamwork, creativity and networking skills” (p. 6), suggesting the learning outcomes should reflect and capitalise on such
• practicalities such as “electricity, IT equipment (laptop, monitor, printer), software, office supplies, high-speed internet, and ergonomic office space” (p. 6) should be taken into consideration

Table 3, p. 6, reflect the “main insights of the design phase”.

Phase 2 — Preparation

This “phase, the preparation phase encompasses the more practical activities that companies and HEIs [higher education institutions] have to perform before the beginning of the ‘work’ phase of the internship. Items that require particular attention include (i) aligning the intern’s skills with remote work, (ii) establishing and implementing online application and recruiting procedures, and (iii) providing training to HE [higher education]  and company staff on the needs of remote work” (p. 6). “Table 4 provides an overview of the main findings from the preparation phase” (p. 7).

Phase 3 — Onboarding

This “phase starts when the intern has secured a placement and is ready to commence working” (p. 7). Onboarding typically includes four activities, namely “(i) introducing the internship aims, (ii) meeting colleagues and stakeholders, (iii) detailing the workflow and (iv) IT and other practical matters”. These are detailed on pp. 7-8, with an overview of key findings presented in Table 5 (p. 9) below.

Phase 4 — Delivery

This phase involves the main work-based learning activities of the internship. There are “three critical areas associated with the delivery stage of eWBL: (i) task briefing, (ii) task monitoring and (iii) networking and socialisation activities” (p. 9). Table 6 (p. 10) portrays the main insights of the delivery phase.

Phase 5 — Assessment

“Assessment in eWBL typically divides into (i) feedback and mentoring and (ii) formal evaluation [say Perusso and Wagenaar (2023: 11)]. The first is a constructive and continuous process that is sometimes referred to as formative assessment, taking place throughout the entire duration of the internship. The second takes place at the end of the programme and has a more summative orientation, ultimately aiming at learning validation and acquisition of credit points.” Table 7, p. 11, summarises the key findings of the assessment phase.

Perusso and Wagenaar (2023: 11-12) point out “that a robust WBL design requires a clear definition of the intended learning outcomes, the assessment methods, the general responsibilities of the interns, the length of employment, contractual and compensation concerns, and potential pathways to long-term employment”.

Perusso, A. and Wagenaar, R. (2023). Electronic work-based learning (eWBL): a framework for trainers in companies and higher education. Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2280193

Work-related learning entails acquisition of knowledge & skills to function optimally

The homepage of the International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL) defines (in part) work-integrated learning (WIL) as "an educational approach involving three parties - the student, educational institution, and an external stakeholder - consisting of authentic work-focused experiences as an intentional component of the curriculum” and provide examples such as “work-related projects/competitions” (emphasis added).

Gijbels et al (2012: 417), citing Taris (2007), define work-related learning (WRL) as the “acquisition of new knowledge and skills that are of importance in order to be able to function within the work situation”. They remark that formal learning programmes unfortunately do not necessarily keep up with the rapidly changing “requirements for workers’ knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSA) to stay competent” in jobs that are constantly changing. Therefore, they observe that WRL is of “increasing in importance for retaining a productive workforce, and for the employees themselves in retaining their employability”.

Gijbels et al (2012: 417) indicate that WRL includes both formal employer-sponsored training and educational initiatives, as well as informal “learning from the workplace environment and the job structure. Everyday work practice is full of potential learning processes”. Often informal learning takes place unconsciously, for example, from correcting/rectifying mistakes made, overcoming problems encountered, by consulting peers or asking for advice from colleagues, through observation, reading, and listening.

Van Puijenbroek et al (2014: 159) indicate that “The increasing use of social media at work offers organizations new opportunities for employee learning on the job”. Generally, the use of mobile devices and a multitude of social media are increasing. Instead of discouraging usage in the workplace, “a supportive organizational culture, where learning and knowledge sharing are values shared by all employees” is recommended; which would be encouraging employees “to communicate faster and to share knowledge”, as well as to “learn anytime and anywhere”; by interacting, sharing information with each other, and learning continuously. “An important dimension of such an organizational culture is communication, especially dialogue and inquiry”, where “employees collaborate by building trust, giving each other feedback and asking for it in return” (p. 160).

Virtual human resource development (VHRD) “is defined as ‘a mediarich and culturally relevant web environment that strategically improves expertise, performance, innovation and community building through formal and informal learning’”, indicate Van Puijenbroek et al (2014: 159) by citing Bennett (2009, p. 365).

Van Puijenbroek et al (2014: 161) researched “the effect of social media use on workplace learning”. The conceptual model of their study, comprising two hypotheses, is presented in Figure 1 below.

• Hypothesis 1: Employees who use more social media in their job will perceive they learn a lot compared to employees who use little or no social media in their job.
• Hypothesis 2: The effect of social media use on work-related learning will get stronger as employees perceive a stronger culture of dialogue and inquiry.

Van Puijenbroek et al (2014: 167) found “that social media use has a positive relationship with learning activities that employees say they carry out in their jobs”. Those “employees who highly use social media in their jobs” learned more frequently.

Gijbels, D.; Raemdonck, I.; Vervecken, D. & Van Herck, J. (2012). Understanding work-related learning: the case of ICT workers. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24 (6), 416-429.

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL) https://www.ijwil.org/

Van Puijenbroek, T.; Poell, R.F.; Kroon, B. & Timmerman, V. (2014). The effect of social media use on work-related learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12037