Learning in vivo

Learning contracts, agreements, or plans

‘Field education’ is significant to, among many others, social work education because theoretical learning becomes alive and real through supervised professional practice (or workplace experiences) say Leitmann and Palmer (2013: 26). However, it is essential to develop a ‘learning plan’ to structure a students’ learning on ‘placement’ or ‘practicum’, they indicate. A ‘structured framework’ keeps students focused on meeting the learning objectives and to make appropriate selections, say Ward et al (2001: 92), who indicate that “three-way contracts between workplace supervisor, the teaching institution and the student, have been the basis for work experience programmes in fields as diverse as history, engineering, nursing, physiotherapy, business management and information technology”. However, “because of the difficulties arising out of the legalistic context of the expression ‘learning contract’ many educators prefer to substitute ‘plan’ … [or alternatively] ‘study plans’ or ‘performance agreements’ and ‘self-development plans’ are [other] terms used”. The notions ‘learning contract’ or ‘learning agreement’ is defined as “a formal written agreement between a learner [student] and a member of the teaching staff which details what is to be learnt, the resources and strategies available to assist in learning which will be produced as evidence of learning having occurred and how the product will be assessed”. Such a “learning plan links professional activities to be undertaken with learning outcomes to be achieved along with how these are to be assessed within a specific time frame” say Leitmann and Palmer (2013: 26).

Lamiri et al (2022: 2) cite Knowles (1986), who defined a ‘learning contract’ as a tool (or instrument) that enables a student, lecturer (and workplace) “to establish a preestablished plan … it is a bilateral agreement that serves to indicate, in a precise manner, the objectives, the activities or the means adopted to achieve the commitments of each party”. Knowles qualified a ‘learning contract’ as most effective means to promote self-directed learning, “it improves the learners' [student’s] sense of responsibility and allows the establishment of learner-centred learning objectives”, say Lamiri et al (2022: 2). A ‘learning contract’ is a methodological aid “to help develop the project, a source of motivation, a tool for socialisation, and a tool that has psycho-pedagogical value” and is said to have “a positive impact on students' knowledge acquisition ability, learning satisfaction and academic productivity”. Research on ‘learning contracts’ found that “this pedagogical tool has proven to be effective, especially with regard to the factors that influence and enhance learner motivation, namely (a) confidence, (b) recognition of value, (c) responsibility and (d) satisfaction”. ‘Learning contracts’ furthermore improve “students' learning autonomy and motivation, as well as assisting learners in making a personal and relevant choice of assignments that are relevant to their needs”, especially if “a list of options from which learners can choose” is included. The ‘learning contract’, as instrument “in the process of integrating theory and practice” further has been found to help “students to organise their learning more effectively, and encourages them to develop creativity through knowing and using the most appropriate resources and strategies in the learning process”. However, ‘learning contracts’, if done well, requires individualised time and effort to complete and ‘contract’.

Eardley, Bussey and Brooks-Martin (2011: 198) report that although ‘learning agreements’ (LAs) were piloted early in 2005, LAs went live in 2007 and brought about “a change of learning culture for surgical trainees in” 2011. Learning became transparent with explicit formative feedback. Surgical trainees were required to “demonstrate that their learning has met defined standards of conduct and practice” at frequent appraisals, making use of a ‘learning agreements’ (LA), with their assigned educational supervisor (AES). The LA assists the surgical trainees to identify their educational needs, to plan and to manage, together with their AES, their surgical training. An annual review of competence progression (ARCP) is done by the programme director (PD) who is responsible for the training programme. The ARCP replaced the former record of in-training assessment (RITA) of the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme (ISCP).

The ‘learning agreement’ (LA) is essentially an appraisal tool which specifies what surgical trainees should learn during their clinical placement, “how they should learn it and what evidence they need to show that they have learned it”. LAs summarise the learning objectives already achieved by surgical trainees and provide feedback about their performance. “The ARCP is a formal deanery process that scrutinises each surgical trainee’s suitability to progress to the next stage of training or programme completion.” The sign-off by the assigned educational supervisor (AES) of the ‘learning agreement’ (LA) and the assessment of the surgical trainee’s progress over the duration of the clinical placement is of significant important.

Anderson and Boud (1996), cited Ward et al (2001: 92), identified eight steps, summarised in Fig. 1 (p. 93), towards developing a learning contract. They observed that different styles of contracting portray differing degrees of learner independence.

• Highly independent students would identify their learning need/s, draft the contract, present it to the supervisor for negotiation and approval.
• With inexperienced students the supervisor may initiate and work through each section of the contract with the student.

Image source: https://twitter.com/jiahui1231234/status/1003258749568643072

Eardley, I.; Bussey, M. & Brooks-Martin, J. (2011). The ISCP Systems Group: Enhancements to the Learning Agreement and ARCP. The Royal College of Surgeons of England (Bulletin), 93:6, 198-199. Electronically accessible from https://publishing.rcseng.ac.uk/doi/epdf/10.1308/147363511X575480

Lamiri, A., Lhbibani, A., Qaisar, R., Khoaja, D., Abidi, O.,  Khyati, A., & Bouzoubaa, H. (2022). The Learning Contract and its Impact on Scholarship among Moroccan Nursing Students. The Open Nursing Journal, Volume 16. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.2174/18744346-v16-e2206270

Leitmann, S., & Palmer, M. (2013). (Re)presenting the creative potential of learning plans. The Journal of Practice Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 26-47. Electronically accessible form https://doi.org/10.1921/jpts.v12i2.287

Ward, A., O’Neill, R., Kostrzewski, A., & Dhillon, S. (2001). Using Learning Agreements in a Competency-based Training Programme: Introduction and Evaluation by Preregistration Pharmacists. Pharmacy Education, 1(2), 91-104. Electronically accessible from https://pharmacyeducation.fip.org/pharmacyeducation/article/view/6

Unease about the impact of imposing workplace-based learning contracts

Gaffney‐Rhys and Jones (2010: 711) explored the implementation of contracts to manage associated risks pertaining to universities and students. Their findings could possibly extend to workplace-based learning providers, as third party? They indicate that the legal nature of the relationship between student and university is a complex matter, in that it “is governed by the principles of public law and the private law of contract” (p. 712). Furthermore, as “a public body, the decisions of an HEI [higher education institution] are subject to judicial review. They also indicate that it has been “confirmed that the relationship between a student and his or her HEI is based on a … legally binding contract [that] is formed when an offer made by an HEI, [and] is accepted by the applicant”, or student by registering. They add that “it is not legally necessary to present the contractual terms in a written document”.

The Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF) of the Department of Higher Education and Training (South African Government 2014: 17) states that the incorporation of work-integrated learning (WIL) into the curriculum is characteristic of vocational and professionally-oriented qualifications. Section 34 indicates that “WIL may take various forms including simulated learning, work-directed theoretical learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning and workplace-based learning” and that the selection of appropriate form depends on a number of factors. However, section 35 states: “Where the entire WIL component or any part of it takes the form of workplace-based learning, it is the responsibility of institutions that offer programmes requiring credits for such learning to place students into appropriate workplaces. Such workplace-based learning must be appropriately structured, properly supervised and assessed.” (emphasis added).

The South African Council on Higher Education, as independent statutory body and Quality Council for Higher Education (CHE: n.d.), recognises that “arrangements for work-based learning will likely be more complex in distance provision due to the more distributed nature of students and the geographic footprint of distance programmes which may even extend beyond national borders” (CHE: 2014, Criterion 15, emphases added), but states that “appropriate arrangements will be needed for placement, mentoring and supervision for a more distributed student body to ensure an equivalent learning experience across a wider range of contexts” and reiterates the “coordination of work-based learning must be done effectively, including adequate infrastructure, effective communication, recording of progress made, monitoring and mentoring”. Criterion 15 adds that “learning agreements or contracts implemented through which the student, the higher education institution, the employer (workplace-based learning provider) and mentor negotiate, approve, adhere to agreed roles and responsibilities, and assess the objectives and outcomes of the learning process”. It is however not explicitly stated that a formally legally binding contract is meant. Furthermore, is it reasonable to subject a workplace-based learning provider, which willingly make resources available to, additional contractual obligations?

In addition to the generic statutory requirements above, qualification-specific statutory bodies such as the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), South African Council for Social Service Professions (SACSSP), South African Nursing Council (SANC), and the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC), and vocational bodies may specify additional criteria.

Nevertheless, “the contract to educate requires the HEI to provide adequate teaching and adequate facilities” indicate Gaffney‐Rhys and Jones (2010: 712) and (p. 713) that “the primary obligations of the HEI are to provide adequate teaching and facilities” deducing that the “contract between an HEI and a student is thus a contract for services”, which in accordance to section 35 of the HEQSF includes “the responsibility of institutions that offer programmes requiring credits for such [workplace-based] learning to place students into appropriate workplaces”, bearing in mind that section 34 of the HEQSF does present universities with the option of alternative forms of WIL “including simulated learning, work-directed theoretical learning, problem-based learning, [and] project-based learning”.

As far as the legal status of contracts between the “student, the higher education institution, the employer (workplace-based learning provider) and mentor” (as per criterion 15) appear not, according to Gaffney‐Rhys and Jones (2010: 713) to “create a contractual relationship [between HEI and student] it simply formalises its terms”. If such a contract “contains university regulations and/or repeats information that was included in the prospectus … it is merely drawing the student’s attention to terms that are binding” say Gaffney‐Rhys and Jones (2010: 713). However, “if the HEI wants to impose further conditions on the student … and wants such requirements to be legally binding the document (the name of which can vary) should be sent to applicants [students] with the offer letter in order to expressly incorporate the terms into the student contract”, they caution and indicate that it “might constitute a variation of contract, which requires the student’s consent”. Gaffney‐Rhys and Jones (2010: 714) also indicate that it need to be understood “that the point at which the document is distributed, the contents of the document and the style of the document determine whether it is legally enforceable, rather than the title, as many would assume”. The notion of persuading companies to offer workplace-based learning opportunities and thereafter impose legal requirements might be questionable?

The impact of formal workplace-based learning contracts on the satisfaction of both providers and students possibly need to be investigated?

Council on Higher Education (n.d.) Legislative and policy mandate. Electronically accessible from https://www.che.ac.za/about-us/legislative-and-policy-mandate

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. Electronically accessible from https://www.saide.org.za/documents/CHE_-_Distance_Higher_Education.pdf

Gaffney‐Rhys, R. & Jones, J. (2010). Issues surrounding the introduction of formal student contracts. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(6), 711-725. Electronically accessible form https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902977749.

South African Government (2014), Department of Higher Education and Training, Government Notice No 819. Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework. Government Gazette No. 38116, 17 October 2014. Electronically accessible from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201410/38116gon819.pdf