Learning in vivo

DHET Learning Programme Regulations, 2012

The South African government notice, referenced below, conveys the Minister of Higher Education and Training intention to repeal the Learnership Regulations (published in Government Notice R 519 in Government Gazette No 30010 dated 29 June 2007) and makes available Learning Programme Regulations—under the Skills Development Act, 1998 (Act No. 97 of 1998)—for public comment a 30 day period that ended 5 August 2012.

The notice defines a "learning programme agreement" to mean an agreement as intended in the regulations. The notice further specifies and defines, among others, the following:

• Candidacy—meaning “the practical and work experience training that is an occupational qualification as determined by the relevant professional body and follows the completion of an academic qualification required for access to the assessment for the issuing of a professional designation. This learning must lead to the issuing of a designation registered on the NQF” (emphasis added).
• Internship—meaning “the structured work experience component of an occupational qualification registered by the” Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO) as contemplated in Section 26G of the Skills Development Act.
• Learner—meaning “the learning party to a learning programme agreement, who is enrolled in a registered learning programme that has a curriculum registered with QCTO and includes [the] Iearner contemplated in both section 18( 1) and section 18(2 )of the Act” (emphasis added).
• Learnership—meaning “a learning programme that leads to an occupational qualification or part qualification and includes an apprenticeship and cadetship”
• Placement—meaning “a learner is placed in a workplace to complete part of an internship”
• Structured learning component—includes both “the knowledge and practical curriculum components of an occupational qualification” and the structured work experience component "means the workplace curriculum components of an occupational qualification” (emphasis added).
• Successful completion—meaning that “the Iearner has successfully completed the learning programme and has been declared competent”.
• Termination—means “the cancellation or dissolution of a learning programme agreement before one or more of the components of the learning programme agreement have been successfully completed”.
• Work integrated learning—“means a process that formally integrates a student's academic qualification or part qualification with work experience in participating employer organisations” (emphasis added).

The definitions quoted above are in need of some editing, because the way they are currently stated excludes—probably unintentionally—certain types, for example, the definition of a learner by implication excludes higher education qualifications.[The Directorate: SETA Support and Learnerships of the South African national Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) advised that the regulations are not finalized yet, the staff are still busy with the consolidation of public comments. As soon as the revised regulations are approved by the Minister, theywill then be publish in a gazette and also on the DHET website.]

Chapter 2 deals with the registration and management of learning programme agreements; chapter 3 with disputes; and chapter 4 with administrative provisions. Annexure A1 (pp. 12-20) reflects the full Learning Programme Agreement (excluding Skills Programmes) and annexure A2 the agreement for skills programmes.

Republic of South Africa. 2012. Department of Higher Education and Training. Government Gazette, Skills Development Act: Regulations: Learning Programme: Draft, (G 35489, General Notice 545), 5 July. Electronically available from http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=169917 and/or http://www.dhet.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RY4DaZ62eQU%3d&tabid=346&mid=1415

Workplace-based mobile-enabled learning is gaining importance

“Work-based mobile learning is increasingly becoming one of the most important means of providing knowledge, skills and competencies to the workforce” reports Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 219). They point out that whereas traditionally on-the-job training had been prevalent, increased access to Internet and enhanced wireless communication resulted in individuals training themselves in any location of their choice.

The rudimentary model of the master-crafts-person teaching one of more apprentices worked well for many centuries. Fast-paced progress; reduced learning time and more complexity with regard to knowledge, skills and competency; resulted in a need for more rapid learning and continuous adaptation to changes.

Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 229) caution those designing and implementing work-based mobile learning to consider adult learning theories such as:

• The experiential learning theory of Charles Rogers (1969) focussing on significant learning only when people actually do things. Cognitive learning according to Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) often represents knowledge of encyclopaedia nature; which become irrelevant if not complemented by affective and psychomotor dimensions. Laird’s (1985) sensory stimulation theory advocates that increased incorporation of the senses in instruction consolidates learning. Sight and sound enhances learning; as does kinaesthetic/tactile or learning-by-doing that involves actual manipulation of objects. Action learning and action research stems from these foundations.
• Adult learners bring past experiences—both positive and negative—into the new learning situation; which suggests that the learning contexts must be non-threatening. Whereas young learners can be coerced by grades; adults adapt to cope with life’s changing demands. Often work-based learning opportunities are pursued in order to take advantage of developmental, advancement or promotional opportunities. Learning therefore takes place because of its relevance to immediate needs.
• Stephen Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis (Krashen, 1987) postulates that when a person is threatened or the what is learned conflicts to the person’s existing views; then the learning would not be as fruitful as when the learning reduces perceived threats or complements existing thinking.
• Malcolm Knowles promoted andragogy as adult learning theory in the 1970ties and gained a substantial following; but not without resistance. Zemke (1984) emphasise four important aspects of andragogy, namely: (a) adults learn best if they perceive immediate value; (b) when included in the organisation more learning takes place and learners are more satisfied; (c) actually doing things (kinaesthetic learning) consolidates theory by pooling the senses; (d) and previous experiences are used to relate current learning to.
• The Characteristics of Adults as Learners (CAL) model of Patricia Cross (1981) takes into consideration both personal (such as physical—eye sight, hearing, reaction time; stage of life; experiences; cognitive development—degree of independence, decision-making, vocabulary and reasoning abilities; as well as psychological, social and cultural variables) and situational characteristics (for example, voluntary versus obligatory learning; full or part-time engagement; etc.).

Four aspects to take into consideration when designing mobile work-based learning (p. 233):

1. Explain why specific matters (for example commands, functions, and operations) are being taught.
2. Make instructions task-orientated and contextualise learning activities within performance requirements.
3. Keep in mind the potential wide variety of learner backgrounds and make provision in instructions for various levels and types of previous experience.
4. Make use of the self-directedness of adults and enable learners to discover things for themselves; but provide guidance and corrective assistance where necessary.

Auer, M.E.; Edwards, A & Zutin, D.G. 2011. Online laboratories in interactive mobile learning environments, pp. 119-248. In N Pachler, C Pimmer & J Seipold (Eds). 2011. Work-based Mobile Learning — concepts and cases. Oxford: Peter Lang.

Enabling distant laboratory learning via mobile technologies

“Online laboratories are necessary for distance or mobile learning for the same reason laboratory practices are important in traditional educational settings” reports Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 229). They observe that although there appear to be general agreement that laboratory experience is necessary; there is little consensus about what the basic objectives thereof are. They further report (p. 223) that during the four years 1993 to 1997 only 6.5 per cent of the articles published in the Journal of Engineering Education used laboratory as keyword; and during the subsequent four years 1998 to 2002 even less, namely 5.2 per cent. Little has been published about what laboratory experience is expected to accomplish, with no specific objectives or outcomes stated.

Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 222) assert that “synchronous active interaction with experiments and problem-solving helps individual or collaborative learners directly acquire applicable knowledge that can be used in practical situations, which is why pedagogical theory and practice considers laboratory experimentation an essential part of the educational process, particularly in the sciences and engineering”. Online access to remote laboratories through Internet is gaining importance. The domain of Online Engineering is an interdisciplinary field comprising engineering, computing and telematics catering for live interactive engineering activities such as “programming, design, control, observation, measuring, sensing, and maintenance” to both remote and localised users (p. 222).

Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 224) differentiate three kinds of engineering laboratories:

• The development laboratory is used by practicing engineers to obtain experimental data in order to answer specific questions and/or to design and develop products. Furthermore to ascertain if a specific design performs as it is intended.
• The research laboratory serves to seek broader and new additions to knowledge to generalise and systemise.
• The educational or instructional laboratory serves to allow undergraduates to learn what they as graduates would be assumed to understand and know.

Web-based laboratories were introduced in 1996 by universities in undergraduate engineering education. The field of remote engineering since matured; the number of remote laboratories dramatically increased; and the range of disciplines in which remote laboratories used expanded. The need for remote access to experimentation and for flexibility with regard to time and place of laboratory access are powerful motivators — “Anytime and anyplace learning is presently revolutionising learning in the workplace” (p. 226). Developments of mobile technology further accelerated advancements.

Auer, M.E.; Edwards, A & Zutin, D.G. 2011. Online laboratories in interactive mobile learning environments, pp. 119-248. In N Pachler, C Pimmer & J Seipold (Eds). 2011. Work-based Mobile Learning — concepts and cases. Oxford: Peter Lang.

E-portfolios and assessment via mobile technologies

The South African Council for Higher Education (CHE) imperatives with regard to programme (qualification) accreditation include, among others:

• That the programme must bring about an understanding within students about the specifics of the occupation for which they are being trained.
• That the students should master the techniques and skills required for a specific profession or occupation.
• And where feasible that work-based learning and placement in a work-based environment should form an integral part of the curriculum.

The CHE imperatives with regard to work-integrated learning further include (1) a mentoring system that enables the student to recognise her/his strengths and weaknesses in his/her work, to develop existing and new abilities, and to gain knowledge of work practices; as well as (2) regular and systematic monitoring. Mobile devices may well enable both these.

However, Coulby, Laxton, Boomer and Davies (2011) caution that without a sound pedagogical rationale for the use of mobile devices; technical and infrastructural realities may very possibly reduce student engagement.

Higher educational health and social care curricula often comprise a blend of classroom instruction (in residential education); simulations and work-based placement/s. The latter provide for learning opportunities and the assessment of competencies and professional attributes that cannot be cannot be replicated in the former two. The authentic nature of work-based placement/s enables holistic preparation; preparing graduates for professional practice, including the culture and practices of the particular community of practice. Primary care community clinics are utilised for placements in teaching. (Coulby, et al citing Billet, 2001; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978).

Although work-based placements are regarded essential; Coulby, et al realise that these learning and teaching environments are challenged by practical and sometimes complex issues such as:

• Unreliable or restricted access to PCs and IT infrastructure; resulting in a lack of access to contemporary information; learning materials and social networks.
• Students experiencing uncertainty due to inadequate feedback on their performance resulting in unpreparedness; as well as insufficient monitoring, mentoring and tutoring (pastoral care) due to inadequate resources.

A potential solution explored is the ‘Assessment and Learning in Practical Settings’ (ALPS) programme, which employed mobile technologies. Common competencies, representing ‘readiness’ for professional practice were identified and developed into mobile assessment tools—which enable and encourage students to seek a spectrum of assessment opportunities such as from peers in the health and social care professions; from service users (patients); and self-reflection. The ‘ALPS’ assessments are completed are automatically captured online in e-portfolios; which in turn enable tutor and student review and commentary—in this way future practice of students are shaped and high-level scaffolding feasible. The University of Leeds, for example, has several hundred students in six different discipline/qualification cohorts.

Coulby, C; Laxton, J; Boomer, S & Davies, N. 2011. Mobile technology and assessment: A case study from the ALPS (Assessment and Learning in Practical Settings) programme, pp. 51-70. In N Pachler, C Pimmer & J Seipold (Eds). 2011. Work-based Mobile Learning — concepts and cases. Oxford: Peter Lang.