Learning in vivo

Differentiating the work-integrated learning chameleon

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

Scaffolding, with the intent to ensure the quality of work-integrated learning

Scaffolding, in education, refers to an assortment of teaching strategies (or instructional techniques) employed to progressively enable students in the learning process. The term (or notion) ‘scaffolding’ itself, serves as descriptive metaphor of the “successive levels of temporary support that help students reach higher levels of comprehension and skill acquisition” (Glossary of Educational Reform, 2015). Similar to physical scaffolding, supportive teaching strategies are either implemented or removed as circumstances require.

Differentiation, in contrast to scaffolding, refers to adaptations made to accommodate individuals with diverse learning needs, such as students with disabilities. Scaffolding and differentiation, although distinct, have similar teaching goals, namely learning progression, and might be blended together.

The opposite of scaffolding work-integrated learning (WIL) would be to expect students to find their own relevant place of experiential learning; to negotiate their own learning experiences; to seek their own mentoring; and to submit a specified portfolio of evidence; for assessment. Scaffolding with the intent to ensuring the quality of WIL may include:

• The university (or teaching institution) has relevant WIL ‘study’ guides, experiential learning provider (ELP) guidelines, and mentor guidelines in place
  • Students are prepared for (briefed/readiness) their prerequisite WIL through provided 'study' guides
• The university (or teaching institution) having access to sufficient accredited experiential learning providers in order to facilitate to placement of students for prerequisite WIL
• Facilitation of the placement of students, including contracting of the learning, and the appointment of a suitably qualified mentor for each student
  • In the event of students with disabilities, the placements would include reasonable accommodation cognisant of the nature of disability
• Follow-up monitoring of the learning progression of each student, and regular communication with the experiential learning providers concerned
  • Appropriate intervention/s if such is deemed necessary, for example corrective action
• Assessment of each student’s attainment of specified learning outcomes by both the experiential learning provider and academic staff concerned
• Revision of the curriculum of the academic programme, which might include either or both academic subject/s and/or the WIL part/s, when perceived necessary

Scaffolding. 2015. The Glossary of Education Reform for journalists, parents and community members. Electronically accessible from https://www.edglossary.org/scaffolding/

Live project model deemed a form of work-integrated learning

Tezcan, Durakovic, Smith, Lloyd, and D'arcy (2020: 522) reason that whilst the live project model is often used as a means to offering workplace practice-learning to architecture students, it should indeed be regarded as a form of work-integrated learning (WIL). Use of live projects are reported, among others, at business schools and information technology. Guar (2017) reveal that top business schools in India use live projects to make MBA students job ready, as live projects offer opportunities to apply theoretical management knowledge in a “real-world scenarios and work within real constraints of resources, people factors and other organizational constraints”. A live project is a real-time management education game changer, and the “the major takeaways of live projects are learning to be a team player, engaging with colleagues in a productive manner, rubbing shoulders with the bosses, understanding and aligning with the cultural values of the entity, among others”. Sarmang Software, a fast-growing open source software solution and software training provider firm, differentiates between dummy projects and live projects. Accountability is a key factor of the latter and learning entails:

• to work on deadlines
• to survive work pressures
• to test actual results
• to face and resolve real-time issues to work efficiently
• to handle important data

 

Chirag Solutions, a technology, outsourcing and consulting company, corroborate the aforementioned and states that a “live project is the phase when you finally implement most of the things that you have learnt during your software training”.

Chandler (2013) argues that the classic ‘studio taught’ project is a naïve simplification. He advocates for the dynamic conditions of a live project. Four people responded to the query on Quora ‘What is the advantage of LIVE project?’ praising the benefits.

Chandler, A. (2013) So Why Do a Live Project? Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 8(1), 58-72, DOI: 10.11120/jebe.2013.00005

Chirag Solutions. (n.d.) Live project training and its benefits. Electronically accessible from https://www.chiragsolutions.com/live-project-training-and-its-benefits/

Gaur, V. 2017. How do live projects in B-schools enhance job prospects? Careers 360. Electronically accessible from https://bschool.careers360.com/articles/how-do-live-projects-in-b-schools-enhance-job-prospects

Sarmang Software. (n.d.) Dummy project vs live project. Electronically accessible from https://www.sarmang.com/training/dummy_project_vs_live_project.php

Tezcan, N.; Durakovic, I.; Smith, C.; Lloyd, E. & D'arcy, S. 2020. Scaffolded, simulated work-integrated learning in design education: Beyond the live project. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 521-529. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_5_521_529.pdf

Quora. What is the advantage of LIVE project? Electronically accessible from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-advantage-of-LIVE-project

Live Projects and Scaffolded WIL

“A live project comprises the negotiation of a brief, timescale, budget and product between an educational organisation and an external collaborator for their mutual benefit. The project must be structured to ensure that students gain learning that is relevant to their educational development.” say Anderson and Priest (2020). They elaborate, that they ‘tried to make this definition representative of the common factors’, as well as ‘to be as inclusive as possible’, of scope (wealth, variations, and diverse motivations for) of live project practice that they have observed. Live Projects are “pedagogic means to extend the institutional confines of the design studio”, and may also be referred to as ‘Design Build Projects’, ‘Live Build Projects’, ‘Real Projects’ and ‘Service Learning’. Similarly, the University of Sheffield School of Architecture (2020) state that ”Live Projects set real constraints, responding to budget, brief and time. In each project students and clients work together to define the project and develop a brief”.

Tezcan, Durakovic, Smith, Lloyd, and D'arcy (2020: 522) report on re-framing the scholarly discussions about the ‘design studio’, and the nuances of design studio teaching strategies and pedagogy. They observe that “the live project model is commonly adopted by universities globally as a means of offering architecture students the opportunity for workplace practice-learning”, and argue “live projects form an embedded, scaffolded core subject in design studio education, rather than discreet, standalone offerings”. They indicate that work-integrated learning (WIL) “is an umbrella term for the integration of academic theory with workplace application”, and state that scaffolded WIL “involves a sequence of WIL experiences that structure core disciplinary subjects within a program curriculum”. Scaffolding is not merely a rickety structure, but a well-designed curriculum to move students toward career readiness and professional practice. The live project model resembles both the workplace and professional practice; and “it promotes deep, transformational and authentic learning” (Tezcan et al., 2020: 524).

Tezcan et al. (2020), however, do express concern about (among others) the financial constraints pertaining live projects, in particular the potential accumulation of costs incurred by both students and universities, which may result in depletion of resources. Adaptation of the South African sector education and training authority (SETA) funding disbursement is recommended. Pursuing of live projects for reconstruction and development should further be pursued.

About Live Projects. 2020 The University of Sheffield School of Architecture. Electronically accessible from http://www.liveprojects.org/about/2/

Anderson, J & Priest, C. 2020. About (web page), Live Projects Network. Electronically accessible from https://liveprojectsnetwork.org/about/

Tezcan, N.; Durakovic, I.; Smith, C.; Lloyd, E. & D'arcy, S. 2020. Scaffolded, simulated work-integrated learning in design education: Beyond the live project. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 521-529. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_5_521_529.pdf

How work-integrated learning could possibly mitigate some anticipated challenges with respect to the future of work

“The future of work and how to best prepare for it is one of the biggest challenges currently facing governments, employers, educators, and policy makers” say Tara Stevens, Judene Pretti, Norah McRae, from the University of Waterloo. They synthesised 32 contemporary reports and produced an online document which identified six major future of work trends. The further made recommendations about how work-integrated learning could help mitigate some of the anticipated challenges with respect to the future of work.

1. ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY—the threats of increased technology, artificial intelligence and automation call for a talent pipeline with appropriate human and technical skill development. Work-integrated learning could contribute to bridging the gap between graduate attributes and industry requirements. Students could reverse mentor workplaces with regard to digital skills and new technologies.
2. DEVELOPING SKILL AGILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY—increasingly needs for complementary skills, agility and ‘hybrid roles’ are evident, which could be developed through work-integrated learning.
3. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADAPTATION TO THE FUTURE OF WORK—increasingly employees experience pressures to remain abreast and continue to update their skills through lifelong learning. Work-integrated learning is believed to not only lay a foundation, but also serve as model for mid-career upskilling and/or re-skilling.
4. FOSTERING CULTURES OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION—needs for more culturally, racial and demographically diverse and heterogeneous employees are experienced. The reflective and reflexive nature of good work-integrated learning practice may contribute increased self-awareness, uncovering of biases, and enhance cultural awareness.
5. THE GIG ECONOMY AND PRECARIOUS WORK—with a increase in gig work, less social protection and financial stability are experienced. Stints of work-integrated learning may provide first hand experiences and awareness of the implications of precarious work and the associated realities and challenges.
6. EMPLOYEE VS. ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES—widening gaps between organisational and personal values are observed. Work-integrated learning could aid students in gaining clarity on own values, as well as an awareness of what talents organisations need. This in turn would contribute to more purposeful engagement after graduation. Organisations in turn could benefit from participating in work-integrated learning provision by more efficient job design, talent attraction and post-graduate conversion and retention.

Perusal of the full online publication is recommended.