Learning in vivo

Student disability impacting experiential learning

Klein (2009: 11) argues that it is important for academics to be aware which disabilities are present among a student population and how these disabilities may impact the performance of individual students. He cautions that “students with a wide range of disabilities can encounter significant obstacles when experiential instructional methods are implemented assuming that learners are disability-free”. Klein (2009: 13) differentiates visible and invisible disabilities, as well as “either permanent, temporary, or occasional impairment”—of which the last two “include students receiving chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer, students recovering from surgery, and some depressions”.

There is an increased awareness of, for example, differences in learning styles, cultural differences, varied origins of students, and the realisation to alter (and vary) instructional practices to better reach more students. Similarly, disabilities presents another important way in which students may differ. This warrants reflection and action about experiential instructional methods such as “role plays, case analysis and discussion in groups, and other exercises designed to test and build student capabilities and skills”, says Klein (2009: 12), who argues that academics should be more responsive to and accommodating of students with disabilities. Experiential learning is described (p. 16) as “a direct encounter with the phenomena being studied rather than merely thinking about the encounter [… and] ‘what experiential learning does best is to capture the interest and involvement of participants but most importantly it contributes significantly to the transfer of learning’”.

Klein (2009: 13 – 14) published a taxonomy of student disabilities:

• Visible disabilities include students who are blind, who have cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, or muscular dystrophy; and/or use a wheelchair, crutches or braces.
• Invisible disabilities include visual impairment including color blindness and macular degeneration; hearing loss and deafness; neurological disorders such as Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), learning disabilities, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and Asperger’s Disorder; Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS); psychiatric disorders; and a chronic health impairment such as epilepsy, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, cancer, cardiac problems, and HIV/AIDS.
  • Learning disabilities is a group of disorders marked by significant difficulty in taking in, encoding, organizing, retaining and/or expressing information. Remembering, reading, writing and speaking may be affected. There is also one kind of learning disability (prosopagnosia) that makes it difficult for individuals to remember the faces of others, though this disability can also arise from a traumatic brain injury.
  • Psychiatric disorders include chronic or temporary major or minor depression; bipolar disorder characterized by alternating periods of high, even manic, energy and periods of moodiness, irritability or depression; anxiety disorders, including social anxiety disorder; and obsessive-compulsive disorder, in which adherence to ritual, or avoiding germs or close proximity to others, drives behaviour
  • [ADD and ADHD] An individual with ADHD is impulsive, easily distracted, inattentive and hyperactive, often wanting to get up and change his or her location. An individual with ADD has difficulty is sustaining attention but is not characterized by hyperactivity.
  • Asperger’s Disorder was first described in the 1940’s by Viennese pediatrician Hans Asperger, who observed autistic-like behaviors and difficulties with social and communication skills in boys who had normal cognitive and language development. Individuals with Asperger’s often want to fit in and interact with others, but they may be awkward, not understanding of conventional social rules, or show a lack of empathy. Common are limited eye contact, difficulty in sustaining normal conversation, unusual speech patterns – e.g., lacking inflection or too loud - and not understanding the subtleties of language, such as gestures, irony or humor.

Klein (2009: 24) reports on the development of a student self-assessment questionnaire (pp. 33 – 34, note that permission required for duplication and distribution) and associated fact sheet. The primary purpose, he says, is to prompt students who may have an undiagnosed disability, as well as those who are trying to cope on their own with a known disability, to make contact with the disabilities services office. The self-assessment questionnaire has thirty-four questions, group in eight sections. The development of the questionnaire drawn from a number of sources. Candid completion thereof facilitates the identification of the presence of up to nine disabilities: learning disabilities; ADD and ADHD; a health problem or impairment; social anxiety disorder; Asperger’s Disorder or Syndrome; clinical depression; bipolar disorder or bipolar depression; and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The associated fact sheet (pp. 35 – 37) provides basic information on each of the disabilities.

Other proactive strategies Klein (2009) mentions towards making reasonable accommodations for students who have, or who believe they have, a disability include (a) a voluntary self-disclosure disability statement (p. 31) and (b) a set of interview questions (p. 32) serving a guide with regard to a discussion pertaining help with disabilities. Klein (2009) points out that for this approach to work a student must be willing to make his or her disability known. Students are not necessary required to name his or her disability, however, must be sincere and willing to disclose the kinds of difficulties encountered.

Klein, G.D. 2009. Student Disability and Experiential Education. The Journal of Effective Teaching (since rebranded as the Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education), 9(3), 11-37. Electronically accessible from https://uncw.edu/jet/articles/vol9_3/volume0903.pdf

Online programmes which include work-integrated learning could pose serious pedagogical challenges

An increasing need for the flexibility of fully online study while earning, in order to enhance career trajectories, is prevalent. However, “implementing online learning can pose serious pedagogical challenges particularly when programs contain work-integrated learning (WIL) components”, if not perceived as ‘can’t be done’, say Quinn, Cioffi, Hill, Kor, Longford, Moller and Rathore (2019: 1). Contrary to online learning frequently being perceived as a passive and second class; the practical outcomes are accomplishable.

A wide-dispersion of online students renders it impractical to include a shared physical learning site. Quinn et al. (2019) report, for example, on the creation of an interactive virtual learning environment, in collaboration with construction companies, through significant state funding, portraying the construction of an eight-storey building. This high quality resource is supplemented by “comparatively low-cost environments demonstrating the construction of a residential, industrial, and multi-storey building construction sites”, including “embedded images, explanatory videos and documents which students can interact with” (Quinn et al. 2019). Virtual site visits, “comparable to traditional site visits”, are embedded in online learning materials in order to “motivate students to reflect on and refine their understandings based on the authentic context they are experiencing”.

Quinn et al. (2019) report the benefits construction management, for example, students reap from repeat visits to the same site, namely appreciating “the spatial constraints (e.g. how construction products are related to one another in a particular building site) and temporal constraints (e.g. the dependencies for coordinating subcontractors)” as well as “how these constraints change over the life of the building project”. However, difficulties in aligning the timing of visits to construction sites could result in students developing a piecemeal understanding of the construction worksite. Virtual field trips include, for example, augmented realities; simulations; and learning environments making use of 360-degree images of the construction of a building over time; contribute to a four- dimensional virtual work-integrated learning environment.

Quinn, D.; Cioffi, E.; Hill, S.; Kor, M.; Longford, A.; Moller, R.; & Rathore, P. (2019). Implementing work-integrated learning in online construction management courses. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 16(1). Available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol16/iss1/9

When traditional forms of experiential learning are unlikely to be feasible

Nation, Reed and Swank (2014: 312) looked into “the question of how and why experiential learning methodologies might be modified” because of the difficulty “to deliver instructionally sound real-life experiential learning experiences”, and in order “to identify the experiential learning methodologies which would be most practical for a large online university” programmes. A fundamental principle of andragogy (adult learning theory) is that adults learn best when the learning is ‘just-in-time’, or relevant to current tasks or challenges. Learning is therefore most effective if opportunities for practical application in real-life situations exists.

Nation, Reed and Swank (2014: 312) say that “Experiential learning is most simply defined as learning by doing, as opposed to” other forms, such as reading, listening or viewing. They emphasise action, doing, discovery and exploration; but caution that care should be taken to ensure that learning conditions are fertile.

An abundance of academic literature contains reasons for engaging students in experiential learning. However, Nation, Reed and Swank (2014: 313) report that faculty found upon reviews of online undergraduate and degree programmes, “that most traditional forms of student engagement in experiential learning (e.g., service-learning, using community as learning laboratory, apprenticeships, and other face-to-face interactions) would not be feasible due to the scope and scale of the online program, as well as the diverse lifestyles, employment situations, geographic locations and other responsibilities of the primarily adult online learner population”.

Because of increasing numbers of students engage in online learning—experiential learning need to change—say Nation, Reed and Swank (2014: 312). Although case studies are considered a valuable learning-tool and are widely used; case studies are not deemed an effective substitute for experiential learning. Nation, Reed and Swank (2014: 314) advance that “real projects should form the core of the experiential learning opportunities”. Real projects that could “lead to necessary adaptations and successful change for both individuals and organizations”.

Nation, Reed and Swank (2014: 314) report about an investigation into experiential learning methodologies towards supporting best practices in university teaching, and found that “participative activities designed to improve skills in critical thinking and problem solving through practical application” are best to achieve active participation in the learning process. Experiential learning “connect academic content to the professional world, increase learner involvement, and to increase learner appreciation of a particular subject” say Nation, Reed and Swank (2014: 315) produced exhibit 1 below, namely a comparison of adopted experiential methodologies (on the right) to two sets of experiential learning characteristics identified by Gentry (1990) and Kolb & Kolb (2005) respectively.

The literature review by Nation, Reed and Swank (2014: 317) include experiential simulations in the virtual classroom, which highlight the importance of defining what learning is needed when considering a simulation as well as the associated constraints. Other best practices for the virtual classroom, according to Nation, Reed and Swank (2014) include games and simulations, which could infuse fun and engaging students in creative problem solving and decision making.

Nation, D., Reed, L. & Swank, A. 2014. Innovations and future directions for experiential learning for a large business degree program. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 41, 312-320. Electronically accessible from https://journals.tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/article/viewFile/2133/2102

A comprehensive framework for assuring the quality of work-integrated learning

Much emphasis is placed on the notion of ‘quality’, on quality assurance measures and initiatives, and on improvement plans (or frameworks), state McRae, Pretti and Church (2019: 1-2). Quality could be described as a desired end-state, a striving for excellence.

There are a number of frameworks of quality standards deemed relevant:

• Smith’s (2012) framework for evaluation of the work-integrated learning (WIL) curriculum proposes six measures of specific domains, namely authenticity, integrated learning support, alignment, supervisor access, and induction (or preparation processes)
• The Council on Higher Education (2014) criteria for the coordination of work-based learning programmes presented by distance higher education institutions.
• The McRae, Pretti and Church (2019) triple-A star (AAA★) framework below, comprising five main sections, namely (1) the foundation, concepts, terminology and five stakeholder groups (students, host organisations/employers, the educators, academic institutions, and governments—in each of the stakeholder groups there are potentially “advocates”, which are bodies representing the interests of and/or supporting the group); (2) the participation aims of each of the stakeholders; (3) the actions by each of the stakeholders that is critical for quality; (4) the expected achievements (or outcomes, impacts, measures, and key performance indicators) for each of the stakeholders; and (5) finally a synthesis of four sections, as well as an outline of a continuous improvement process.

Figure: Triple-A star (AAA★) framework (McRae, Pretti & Church, 2019: 1)

Whereas the Council on Higher Education (2014) reiterates the 2004 accreditation criteria; Smith (2012: 250) presents a new evaluation framework which structurally and conceptually divides the WIL curriculum into six domains or constructs:

1. Authenticity
2. Alignment of teaching and learning activities with integrative learning objectives (Align-TLA)
3. Alignment of assessment with integrative learning objectives (Align-Asst)
4. Integrated Learning Support (across the two university and workplace sites) (ILS)
5. Supervisor Access (Sup. Access)
6. Induction and Preparation Processes (IPP)

The Council on Higher Education (2014) furthermore persists with the use of the term work-based learning (and the coordination thereof), whereas Smith (2012: 250) asserts that authenticity “is at the heart of all workplace-situated learning”. Smith (2012: 247) asserts that work-integrated learning (WIL) entails students spending time “in professional, work or other practice settings relevant to their degrees of study and to their occupational futures”; but points out that “WIL is not the same as work experience or work-based learning, neither of which require students to specifically learn, apply or integrate canonical disciplinary knowledge”. Both physical authenticity (providing students with real work environments) and cognitive authenticity (where students personally engage in, encounter, and participate in meaningful and relevant learning within the specified disciplinary framework) of curricula are deemed important. The authenticity is assessed with regard to what extent the environment would expose students to the real work settings and to which students can observe, interact and respond to that particular context. Projects should be meaningful and consequential. Freestone, Williams, Thompson and Trembath (2007) illustrate the application of a variant of the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), namely the Work Experience Questionnaire (WEQ), as measure of the workplace learning experiences of students. The WEQ had been designed to explore the perceptions of students about their learning environment. The WEQ requires students to respond on a conventional five-point scale, ranging from strong disagreement (1), through to strong agreement/concurrence (5), with the intermediate points not labelled. The dimensions of ‘clear goals’ and ‘support for learning’ have been found to correlate highly with student learning. The WEQ questionnaire consisting of 33 items (questions), with items bundled into scales, namely:

• Clear Goals Scale (3 items)
• Support for Learning Scale (5 items)
• Generic Skills Scale (5 items)
• Menial Tasks Scale (3 items)
• Overall Satisfaction (1 item)
• Ungrouped individual questions (7 items)
• Additional Generic Skills (9 items).

Conceptually, there is a substantial difference between what is deemed quality. Whereas the Council on Higher Education (2014) focusses on various elements of coordination; Smith (2012) focusses on what constitutes good teaching and learning. He (p. 248) argues that WIL “focuses attention on the integration of discipline learning and workplace practice or application”. Smith (2012: 251) advances the “notion of the constructive alignment of learning objectives with teaching and learning activities (TLAs) and assessments”. He alludes to the fact that during WIL placements students are not at their host universities, but at workplaces, and therefore urges curriculum design deliberately integrated support services in the delivery, in order to improve the individual learning by alleviating stress. This up with the management of pedagogical aspects through induction and preparing students, both pedagogically and practically. Smith (2012: 252) recognises that such present an extra burden on academics, which is compounded by the need for maintaining contact “between the academic convenor (or appropriate others – e.g. tutors) and students in situ” (notion of supervisor access).

McRae, Pretti and Church (2019: 7) assert that “WIL is a collaborative endeavour and the perspectives of multiple stakeholders need to be incorporated to ensure the quality of WIL outcomes” and elaborate that “each of these stakeholders has a connection to quality WIL as described by the key aspects identified by P.E.A.R.”:

• P for pedagogy — the curriculum needs to be designed “to allow students and host organizations to make the most of the experience and students need to engage with the curriculum”
• E for experience — “educators need to verify that the opportunity aligns with the educational goals of the course/program, host organizations need to provide opportunities for meaningful and substantial contributions, and WIL students need to fully engage with the host organization to make the experience valuable for both themselves and the organization”
• A for assessment — “designed by the educator with input from the student and host organization”
• R for reflection — the educator must provide prompts “to facilitate reflection on the experience for the student and the host organization ensuring maximum learning gains from the experience”

McRae, Pretti and Church (2019: 4-5) cites the Canadian national association for Co-operative and Work-Integrated Learning (CEWIL) definition of work-integrated learning (WIL), namely “a model and process of curricular experiential education which formally and intentionally integrates a student’s academic studies within a workplace or practice setting. WIL experiences include an engaged partnership of at least: an academic institution, a host organization, and a student. WIL can occur at the course or program level and includes the development of learning outcomes related to employability, personal agency, and life-long learning”. They further differentiate nine different models or forms of curricular WIL that exist in many post-secondary institutional contexts, namely:

• Apprenticeship
• Co-operative Education (co-op alternating and co-op internship models)
• Internship
• Entrepreneurship
• Service Learning
• Applied Research Projects
• Mandatory Professional Practicum/Clinical Placement
• Field Placement
• Work Experience

McRae, Pretti and Church (2019: 17) conclude that a quality framework for work-integrated learning is a critical, because each stakeholder has finite resources that they can be directed towards WIL, and each need to be intentional in how to allocate available resources. Many stakeholders support the positive outcomes of WIL in higher education as well as expansion, however, the outcomes are not guaranteed. Quality must remain in focus. McRae, Pretti and Church (2019: 17) suggest that through articulating the aims; accomplishing the actions; assessing the achievements of the primary stakeholders; and by using the acquired information it is possible to set a continuous improvement process in motion through quality can be assured.

References

Council on Higher Education. 2014. Distance Higher Education Programmes in a Digital Era: Programme Accreditation Criteria (pp 81-107), in Distance Higher Education Programmes in a Digital Era: Good Practice Guide — Criterion 15, p. 104. Electronically accessible from http://www.che.ac.za/sites/default/files/publications/CHE%20-%20Distance%20Higher%20Education.pdf

Freestone, R., Williams, P., Thompson, S. & Trembath, K. 2007. A quantitative approach to assessment of work-based learning outcomes: an urban planning application. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(4), December, 347–361. Electronically accessible from https://tandfonline.com/toc/cher20/26/4?nav=tocList

McRae, N.T., Pretti, J. & Church, D. 2019. Work-Integrated Learning Quality Framework. University of Waterloo, Waterloo Centre for the Advancement of Co-operative Education (WatCACE), Electronically accessible from https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-advancement-co-operative-education/research-publications/wil-quality-framework

Smith, C. 2012. Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: a comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 247–262. Electronically accessible from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07294360.2011.558072