Learning in vivo

Ideas or notions transferred, but practices not necessary enacted

Why are published best practices, or published quality criteria, not necessary embraced or pursued? Scholkmann (2020) elucidates that ideas, or notions, do not simply find their way like fashion or a virus, because it is convincing or powerful by comparison. Instead, notions and concepts transfer and travel on the pathways of social relations and networks. The intensity and steadiness of those circulations determines the prevalence a notion acquires. This is traced back to the research tradition of the Scandinavian New Institutionalism, and the lens of ‘translation theory’ of social-constructionist and systemic perspectives, where ‘translation’ is not understood in a linguistic sense, but as a metaphor to describe the transformative processes that concepts and ideas undergo when ‘traveling’. Wæraas and Nielsen (2016: 236) inform that “translation research within organization studies has entered its third decade”, and differentiate three perspectives on ‘translation’ within organization research, namely actor–network theory (ANT), knowledge-based theory, and Scandinavian institutionalism. They remark that coexistence of multiple and competing perspectives is not unusual in academia; and observe a general lack of common ‘language’. ‘Translation’ is conceptualised “as a complex process of negotiation during which meanings, claims and interests change and gain ground” say Wæraas and Nielsen (2016: 237). ‘Translation’ has political meaning (“pursuit of interests or specific interpretations, frequently involving acts of persuasion, power plays and strategic maneuvers”); geometric meaning (“encompasses the mobilization of human and nonhuman resources ‘in different directions’, the result of which is ‘a slowmovement from one place to another’”); and semiotic meaning (“concerns the transformation of meaning that occurs during the movement of the object in question”), they convey.

Why has, for example, cooperative education and work-integrated learning been adopted by certain institutions, educational teams, or individual academia, while not by others? Why adopted in various degrees? What made those institutions and actors more ‘adoption-ready’, compared to others? What made work-integrated learning (or cooperative education) ‘adoptable’ in the first place? The “overall argument of translation theory is that the diffusion and adoption of an idea is not a rational decision, but happens based on a complex interplay of motives, interest, and socially constructed interdependencies”, say Scholkmann (2020). The processes of ‘imitation’ and of ‘identification’ are of significance. Institutions ‘imitating’ a practice observed in other similar institutions; and institutions imitate those they relate to and those with whom they identify. Institutions and individuals will further adopt an idea because the idea will distinguish (competitive advantage) them from other institutions, but at the same time make them more similar to those they deem relevant. Certain concepts and ideas come in waves (fashion metaphor), get adopted, but perish after some time. Other notions might remain dormant (virus metaphor) and subsequently get re-activated when conditions (for example, funding lines, educational change agendas, or external pressures) are favourable. “Both these metaphors stress the fact that ideas do not diffuse mechanically from one place to another, but undergo active transformative or translational processes in migrating from one context to another”, say Scholkmann (2020).

According to Scholkmann (2020) small-scale individual implementation is often as result of collegial exchange or an encounter with an engaged educational developer and adoption of a notion or concept, because it was deemed an appropriate solution. For a notion to transfer throughout an institution it needs to be adopted by a critical mass within the institution. When notions or concepts are imposed from a top-down, it may only result ‘ceremonial adoption’, with no actual impact on practice or identities. True adoption only occurs once actors can relate them to their experiences and identities. ‘Appropriateness’ means individuals as carriers of adoption assess concepts in light of their practices, experiences, and identities. Adoption is to the extent that it makes sense to local and personal circumstances. There furthermore need to be a joint sense of necessity and urgency

Scholkmann (2020) indicates “that what is transferred is not the concrete idea enacted in local practice, but the materialization of this idea or practice in various types of artefact”. In order for transfer to occur “ideas have to be de-contextualized and de-coupled from the actual local practice and condensed in tangible artifacts, which can overcome spacetime distance and materialize in new places”. Inevitably, the ideas transferred by means of the artifacts will change in this new environment, because their contextualized interpretation in the new setting is different from what they were in the original time and space. There are two types of artefacts. Firstly, condensed essence how-to guides, prototypes and templates communicated through textbooks, workshops, and knowledge-transferring talks. Secondly, individual intra-institutional accounts of variations and re-contextualised principles

Wæraas and Nielsen (2016: 237-238) suggest that four stages are necessary in a ‘translation’ process:

• Problematisation, “when actors offer problem statements and seek to convince others that they have the correct solutions”;
• Interessement, corresponding “to the strengthening of the links between the interests of various actors”;
• Enrolment, referring “to the participation of actors and their acceptance of their role in prioritizing a particular problematization”; and
• Mobilization, concerned with “the maintenance of the network by ensuring that spokespersons act according to its interests”.

Translation “is a process of ‘creating convergences and homologies by relating things that were previously different’”, say Wæraas and Nielsen (2016: 238). An important focus area is how power is enabled, accepted and diffused. Citing Latour (1986), they indicate that “power is enabled if others choose to accept it”; but might be changed “into something completely different” in pursuance of different agendas or own goals.

Scholkmann, A. (2020). Why don't we all just do the same? Understanding variation in PBL implementation from the perspective of translation theory. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 14 (2), Special Issue: PBLing the unPBLable. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijpbl/article/view/28800/35707

Wæraas, A., & Nielsen, J. A. (2016). Translation theory ‘translated’: Three perspectives on translation in organizational research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(3), 236–270. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12092

The acronym ‘PBL’ represents a significant range of problem based learning practices

“The label ‘PBL’ covers an amazing diversity of educational practices”, say Ryberg and Nørgaard (2013: V); citing Kolmos and Graaff (2003: 657), who observe the use of the acronym “ranging from problem-oriented lectures to completely open experiential learning environments”; as well as Barrows (1986: 485) who states it “addresses different objectives to varying degrees”; and recommends “any PBL method must be analysed in terms of the type of problem used, the teaching learning sequences, the responsibility given to students for learning and the student assessment method used”.

Barrows (1996: 3) summarises the “factors that motivated the need for curricular change”, the introduction of problem-based learning (PBL) in 1969, and developments that followed. Countless “approaches to problem-based learning”, representing a significant “variety of methods”, resulted in a notion with “far less precision than might be assumed” observes Barrows (1996: 5). Scholkmann (2020) reaffirms that “Variations in PBL implementation need to be seen as the norm rather than the exception, since local PBL practice will always diverge from the ‘original model’”. Despite “the many variations of PBL that have evolved”, Barrows (1996: 5-6) argues that “a core model or basic definition with which others can be compared is needed”, and outlines (paraphrased below) the original method developed for the medical school of McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences:

• Learning is student-centred, in that students must take responsibility for their own learning, identify what they need to know to better understand and manage the problem on which they are working and determining where they will get that information.
• Learning occurs in small student groups of five to nine students randomly assigned with a tutor for each curricular unit, giving students practice in working intensely and effectively with a variety of different people.
• Teachers/lecturers/tutors are group facilitators or guides, asking students the kinds of questions that they should be asking themselves to better understand and manage the problem. Tutors are not content experts and discouraged from falling back on old teaching reflexes and giving the students direct information and guidance
• Problems form the organizing focus and stimulus for learning, presented as a written case, case vignette, standardized (also called simulated) patient, computer simulation, videotape. The problems represent challenges students would face in practice, and provides the relevance and motivation for learning. The problems give students foci for integrating information from basic sciences and various disciplines.
• Problems are vehicles for the development of clinical problem-solving skills (professional practice) presented in a format similar to the real world. Students are permitted ask the patient questions, carry out physical examinations, and order laboratory tests.
• New information is acquired through self-directed learning, in that students are expected to learn from the bodies of knowledge and accumulated expertise by virtue of their own study and research, just as real practitioners do. Students work together, discussing, comparing, reviewing, and debating what they have learned.

Moust et al. (2005: 668) illustrate (Figure 1 below) the problem-based learning (PBL) process “connected with the various underlying learning principles in each phase of students’ learning”. They remark that “PBL can be seen as an example of a learning environment that fosters active, constructive, contextual, cooperative, and goal-directed learning”, and that research “has shown that implementation of these principles has a positive effect on students’ learning processes”.

Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning, 68, 3–13. Jossey-Bass. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804

Kolmos, A., & Graaff, E. D. (2003). Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 2003(19), 657–662.

Moust, J. H. C., Berkel, H. J. M. Van., & Schmidt, H. G. (2005). Signs of erosion: Reflections on three decades of problem-based learning at Maastricht University. Higher Education, 50(4), 665–683. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6371-z

Ryberg, T. & Nørgaard, B. (2013). Introducing Problem Based Learning in Higher Education. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), I-VI. https://journals.aau.dk/index.php/pbl/article/view/274/201

Scholkmann, A. (2020). Why don't we all just do the same? Understanding variation in PBL implementation from the perspective of translation theory. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 14 (2), Special Issue: PBLing the unPBLable. Electronically accessible from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijpbl/article/view/28800/35707