Learning in vivo

Construct clarity and validity

A vague notion put forward by a line manager prompted a literature search, which rendered articles captured in this post.

Zongozzi (2021: 151) emphasises the importance of grounding, of clearly articulated theoretical and/or conceptual frameworks, and of construct clarity, as essential components of a good theory; stating that “Theories undergo rigour check and therefore, a theory without clear construct(s) is deemed to lack rigour”. Further citing Tight (2004) who says “theory is frequently used in an overlapping sense with ‘concept, epistemology, model, paradigm or philosophy, as well as methodology’”.

‘Constructs’ are the foundation and the building blocks of theory, says Suddaby (2010: 346) and states that “clear constructs are simply robust categories that distil phenomena into sharp distinctions that are comprehensible to a community of researchers”. A ‘construct’ is a concept that has been deliberately and consciously devised or espoused for a special scientific purpose. Construct clarity comprises four aspects, says Suddaby (2010: 347):

1. Definition — “skillful use of language to persuasively create precise and parsimonious categorical distinctions between concepts”
2. Scope — delineated “conditions or contextual circumstances under which a construct will or will not apply”
3. Relationships — clarity with regard to conceptual distinctions, as well as “semantic relationships to other related constructs”
4. Coherence — the degree of “or logical consistency of the construct in relation to the overall theoretical argument”

Suddaby (2010: 347) indicates that meanings “are notoriously difficult to specify”, because “meanings of words are never fixed or permanent”, and existing constructs are applied to a new empirical context the meaning of terms often changed. However slightly the change, over time and multiple empirical applications, the definition of constructs tend to drift. It is therefore obligatory to qualify meaning. It is important “to strip away the extraneous meaning that has become attached to a construct” (p. 348).

Construct validity, “flows from the ability to crisply and precisely describe theoretical constructs” and pertain to operationalization of empirical questions of and measurement, says Suddaby (2010: 346) who further indicates (p. 354) a tension between the ‘umbrella advocates’ versus the ‘validity police’.

The term umbrella advocates refers to those researchers who argue that constructs should be viewed as large buckets or broad concepts loosely defined because this better captures the inherent complexity and messiness of the empirical world we study. The term validity police refers to those researchers who argue that constructs should be small buckets narrowly defined in order to bring more scientific rigor and validity to the study …

While busy with the review of relevant literature, core concepts and conceptual frameworks emerge, often as ‘ah uh’ moments. The conceptual framework becomes a significant reference point. Berman and Smyth (2015: 127) indicate that it is important to align epistemology, ontology and methodology, as reflected in table 1 below.

Berman and Smyth (2015: 130) explain that “what is to be researched, the ontology, or the reality of the context of the research problem, needs to be clear and bounded in order to establish a solid foundation for shared meaning and conceptual validity”. They elaborate that “the prompts for this [ontological] dimension of research focus on describing the context of the research and the key concepts and relationships between those concepts that exist in that context”. These are ‘connected with the epistemological basis of research’, say Berman and Smyth (2015: 130).

Berman, J., & Smyth, R. (2015). Conceptual frameworks in the doctoral research process: A pedagogical model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(2), 125–136.

Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35, 346–357.

Zongozzi, J.N. (2021). A concept analysis of theory in South African Open Distance and E-Learning research. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 36:2, 149-163, DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2020.1743172

Beyond ‘panic-gogy’ to adoption of innovative WIL pedagogies and practices

The “COVID-19 pandemic has provided a sudden and significant driver for rapid change and adoption of innovative online WIL pedagogies and practices” say Dean and Campbell (2021: 355). They argue for moving beyond the initial ‘panic-gogy’ to quality, innovative, and sustainable non-placement models of WIL. ‘Panic-gogy’ is a tongue-in-cheek term coined for the transitional online pedagogies pursued during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baker (2020: 1) quoted Morris who says “the term being batted about on Twitter … referring to this idea of just grasping at straws, trying to figure out what you could possibly do … suddenly forced to go online and experiencing that kind of panic”. Educators had been seeking pedagogies to bridge the gap, to retain some kind of normality, a pedagogy of resilience, of kindness, very flexible and human-centred.

Dean and Campbell (2021) indicate that the disruptions caused by COVID-19, accelerated many emerging changes with the required rapid move to online and/or distance learning models. The “value of alternative forms of work-integrated learning (WIL), in spaces other than physical workplaces, has been realized“, they observe. After the initial state of ‘panic-gogy’, with rife experimentation, purposeful design of ‘non-placement work-integrated learning’ (NPWIL) now requires attention. Experiences shown that different models and approaches can provide authenticity of work practices.

The ways of working, as well as where work is undertaken, are evolving. “Work is no longer simply completed within the confines of a bounded office and constraints of time periods”, observe Dean and Campbell (2021: 355); with for example, “remote work settings, fluid time constraints and continuous connectivity” becoming common practice. However, there is not consistency across the economy with regard to the changing nature of work. Changes tend to be industry and sector specific, as well as piece-meal, often driven by organisational specific goals.

Dean and Campbell (2021: 357) postulate that “with both the constructs of work and learning evolving rapidly as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic it is an inevitability that WIL, which connects these two worlds, also has to transform”. They remark that over the past two decades WIL models have been steadily experiencing innovation and a range of alternative models of WIL have emerged. Furthermore, as result of the changing world of work graduates needed to develop diverse and transferable skills.

Dean and Campbell (2021: 357) mention WIL models such as micro-placements, hackathons, competitions and events; including models beyond workplace-based experiences or requiring extensive time in workplaces, such as engaging students through short, authentic activities; and partnering with, or creating small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) to develop entrepreneurial skills. They observe that the notion of the building of SMEs spurred the development of start-ups, consultations and incubators. WIL models further are increasingly multi-disciplinary within industry contexts, as well as engaging students from across disciplinary areas through interdisciplinary WIL. The location of WIL is further broadened beyond local contexts, with global mobility. Some WIL models are moving beyond physical constraints, by using technological platforms, online projects, virtual placements and various forms of online simulations.

Challenges such as teaching to large cohorts, resource limitations or scalability, and needing to provide access to all students, emphasise the need for one-to-many WIL models (i.e. replacing the one workplace supervisor or mentor guiding the work of one student or small group of students, “with multiple staff across an organisation working with, guiding and coaching large cohorts of students”), say Dean and Campbell (2021: 357). An increased agile curriculum, which allow for increased variability in student experiences, is required. Hopefully, such shorter, less resource intensive WIL models, would result in increased willingness of industry and also community, to partner with higher education institutions.

The COVID-19 pandemic induced ‘pivot online’ may, ponder Dean and Campbell (2021), be the catalyst to move towards more inclusive WIL approaches, such as opportunities for students in regional and rural settings; bespoke activities or partnership experiences, and/or scaling WIL through novel, collaborative, virtual platforms. Higher Education institutions “need to enquire into the needs of industry and community and explore how we can work together, think outside-the-box, and design authentic experiences for student cohorts” say Dean and Campbell (2021: 358). “Placements are not the only solution to authentic work practice when work practice itself continues to shift and is enabled by technology, they argue (p. 360).

Dean, B.A. & Campbell, M. (2021). Reshaping work-integrated learning in a post-COVID-19 world of work. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 355-364. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_4_355_364.pdf

Baker, K.J. (2020). Panic-gogy: A Conversation With Sean Michael Morris. The National Teaching& Learning Forum, 29(4), 1-3. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.1002/ntlf.30239

Designing ‘WIL’ placements to improve student employability

There are six (6) aspects pertaining curriculum design that matter with regard to work-integrated learning (WIL) placements that would improve student employability, say Smith, Ferns and Russel (2016: 200). Table 1 below reflects six WIL placement curriculum factors which empirical evidence suggests are important:

Smith, Ferns and Russel (2016: 197) indicate that the notion ‘work-integrated learning’ (WIL) “is a very broad rubric for a variety of educational activities” that intends to deliberately integrate theory with work practice and thereby provide students with exposure to ‘real-world’ work experience.

The term ‘rubric’ commonly refers to a set of guidelines, for example, an assessment protocol for how portfolios would be assessed and marks allocated. ‘Rubric’ originates from Latin rubrīca, meaning red ochre or red lettering to set it apart. Something written or printed in such a way as to distinguish it from the rest of the text. A heading, or title, or direction of mode of conduct or procedure; protocol.

Smith, Ferns and Russel (2016: 198) observe that the term ‘curriculum’ is not used consistently with within literature. They qualify their use of the term ‘curriculum’ to mean those activities organised for students to experience whilst on a work placement. Their premise is that workplace supervisors should deliberately orchestrate learning experiences; and that the quality thereof assured by academic or professional staff charged with designing ‘WIL curricula’.

Smith, C., Ferns, S. & Russell, L. (2016). Designing work-integrated learning placements that improve student employability: Six facets of the curriculum that matter. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(2), 197-211. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/APJCE_17_2_197_211.pdf

Widened definition of 'virtual learning environment' (VLE)

Eisenberdt (2021: 124) indicates that initially virtual learning environment (VLE) was understood as a synonym for a learning management system (LMS), constructed based on the client-server architecture, and cites the Cambridge Dictionary definition, namely ‘a system for learning and teaching using the internet and special software’. He also cites Wrycza’s (2010) definition: “a system supporting the administration, organization and conduct of e-learning training with the use of tools for creating educational materials and online communication”, which reflects a widening of the notion VLE. Eisenberdt (2021: 124) indicates that the understanding of this term has changed over time to integrate separate tools, “distributed architecture and cloud computing, and sometimes even artificial intelligence technology”, concluding by citing Dillenbourg (2000) that ‘the virtual learning environment is a designed information space’, capturing the essence.

Top Hat Monocle, Inc. (n.d.), a Canadian developer of interactive learning software, states that a “virtual learning environment refers to a system that offers educators digitally-based solutions aimed at creating interactive, active learning environments”. Top Hat adds that VLEs enable creation, storage and dissemination of content; the planning of courses and lessons; and fostering communication between students and lecturers (through online interaction, digital communication, and quizzes or polls). Top Hat state that VLEs “are often part of a higher education institution’s wider learning management system (LMS)”, an online-based platform that provides students and lecturers with “digital solutions that enhance the learning experience”, harnessing technology to supplement learning.

The table below portray the VLEs at six Polish universities, each with more than 10 years traditions of e-learning. Eisenberdt (2021: 131-2) found many similarities, such as all “use the Moodle e-learning platform and Office 365 as a cloud computing solution”. However, also differences, with regard to the student service system, in that University Study-Oriented System (USOS, https://www.usos.edu.pl/) is popular with most public universities; but dedicated systems are also used. For “synchronous communication, Microsoft Teams and Zoom are most often employed in teaching”, but also other systems. “The most popular virtual desktop tool is VDI – IBM VMware Horizon”, but not the only option. The selection of VLE elements probably consequential, based on “previously selected solutions or the choice between popular and recommended systems”.

Source: Part of Table 2, Eisenberdt (2021: 131)

Eisenberdt, T. (2021). Virtual learning environments as a remedy for universities against the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis. Problemy Zarządzania (Management Issues), 19(3), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.93.6.

Top Hat. (n.d.). Glossary of Higher Ed. https://tophat.com/glossary/v/virtual-learning-environment/.Top Hat Monocle, Inc. (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) develops interactive classroom software. The Company allows for students to use various mobile devices to participate in polls, quizzes, interactive demonstrations, open ended discussions, and learning management systems within classrooms.

Meaning of the notion ‘virtual learning environment’ (VLE) and some concerns

What is meant by the notion ‘virtual learning environment’ (VLE)? Flavin and Bhandari (2021: 165) state VLEs, “otherwise known as learning management systems [LMSs], are established technologies that have been supporting learning and teaching in higher education for over 20 years”. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, distance learning has increasingly become the norm, making it timely to reflect on the VLE they say. Flavin and Bhandari (2021: 164) analysed and coded 99 peer reviewed academic journal articles, identified and classified the research method and focus of each, as well as the specific brand of VLE. They found most output “to be quantitative, to focus on students and on the micro level of learning and teaching, to not have a clear theoretical focus, to not specify which brand of VLE is used, and to be produced in affluent countries”. In the late-1990s VLE systems began to spread and swiftly became a status symbol of innovation, enabling anytime, anywhere access. VLEs held the potential to transform teaching and learning, enabling both synchronous and asynchronous collaboration, regardless of spatial and temporal boundaries. However, because of the initial limited use in practice to mainly store content, metaphors for VLEs included ‘security blanket’, ‘crutch’, and ‘electronic filing cabinet’.

VLEs, such as ClassFronter (a Norwegian system), WebCT and Blackboard (which merged, trading in the latter name), Moodle (head office is in Australia) “are customarily produced in affluent countries [and] exported worldwide”. Technologies are expensive and use of digital technology in higher education, a multi-billion dollar business. The adoption of “commercial marketplace norms”, may not only “undermine core functions and values of education”, but the “design features of VLEs [also] prompt culturally specific forms of learning”, say Flavin and Bhandari (2021: 166). The influence of western countries and universities abroad—a group of universities in the United States, for example, developed Sakai—further dominate curricula and methodologies and hold the danger that VLEs may politically and technically “reproducing geopolitical structures and imbalances of wealth and power”, say Flavin and Bhandari (2021: 167). They therefore (p. 176) caution about ‘digital colonialism’ and ‘colonial pedagogy’ through dominance by affluent countries.

Flavin and Bhandari (2021: 174) mention the scarcity of theoretical lenses used in articles analysed, and mention that very few articles declared any explicit. The image below reflect four, of which the most popular theoretical lens the ‘Technology Adoption Model’, which is not an educational lens, but “not surprising, as this model analyses how people engage with technologies and the criteria they apply to evaluate technologies’ usefulness” (p. 175). Another theoretical lens is the ‘Community of Practice Theory’, which “is suitable for analysing VLEs from a social perspective and monitoring learners’ progress in learning communities, as the theory focuses on how learning communities evolve and on how people establish effective identities in communities of practice”. A third theoretical lens is ‘Activity Theory’, “is more suitable for analysing technical and social aspects of technologies and how they interact, by anatomizing systems into interactive nodes”. The fourth mentioned is ‘Grounded Theory’, which pertains to analysis of data collected.

Flavin, M. & Bhandari, A. (2021). What We Talk About When We Talk About Virtual Learning Environments. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 22 (4), 164-193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v23i1.5806