Increasingly, work-integrated learning (WIL) is being incorporated into the curriculum of higher education programmes, in order improve the career readiness of graduates; indicate Wood, Zegwaard and Turnbull (2020). Concomitant with the expansion of WIL, is evident the development of diversity of WIL practices; which in turn resulted in likened to a chameleon.
The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated the growing diversity of practices, especially with regard to remote virtual workplaces, reality or projects, and simulations of the real or actual practice. Wood, Zegwaard and Turnbull (2020) indicate that some virtual and simulated learning could be controversial, considering the internationally accepted definitions of WIL. The differentiating criterion to meet is the involvement of all three key stakeholders, namely the university (academia), students and industry (the relevant community/field of practice). They (p. 333) define simulated WIL as follow:
an immersive WIL experience in a context created to emulate the functions of a workplace with input by the workplace/community, educational institution, and the student. Without input from an industry/external stakeholder, the learning activity would be a simulation rather than simulated WIL per se.
Some simulations, although deemed valuable learning experiences, therefore cannot be passed off as WIL. The characteristic of industry involvement signifies the original differentiating value of cooperative and work-integrated learning, of more than a century ago.
Wood, Zegwaard and Turnbull (2020: 332) state that “Virtual WIL is understood to be synonymous with remote WIL” in that workplace learning access is from a distance, or remote. During COVID-19 lockdown, ways of working remotely with digital access emerged. The defining feature of remote WIL (p. 333) would be “a WIL experience focused on the student completing authentic, relevant actual tasks for an organization through a remote connection to the workplace/community”, meaning “the student is physically separated from the workplace/community and located elsewhere”, for example a residential environment. This remote access is quite different from a virtual reality, or a digital/virtual workspace, which is why the term ‘remote WIL’ is recommended.
Wood, Zegwaard and Turnbull (2020: 347) propose a model depicting within an external circle which represents the three main stakeholders, different modes—conventional (C), remote (R), and simulated (S)—of WIL, as well as potential combinations: C/R, S/R and C/S. The visual presentation signifies the finding of a meta-analysis undertaken. They found (p. 346) two distinct instances where conventional and remote (C-R) WIL practices were combined, therefore the overlap indicated. However, there are potential combinations of conventional and simulated (C-S), as well as of remote aspects connected with simulations (S-R), indicated by no actual overlap (as yet).
Wood, W.I.; Zegwaard, K.E. & Turnbull, W.F. 2020. Conventional, remote, virtual and simulated work-integrated learning: A meta-analysis of existing practice. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 331-354. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_4_331_354.pdf
Comments