Learning in vivo

The design and implementation of problem-based internships in business education

A framework, “inspired by pedagogical action research to connect [problem-based learning] PBL international internships with international business”, is proposed by Hermann; Amaral and Bossle (2021: 205). They state (p. 206) that the “supervision structure, derived by the hosting organization, the partner university, and the students’ home university, creating a three-party collaboration with the student at the center of the learning process” is an important, if not essential, component of an internship, as learning device. Furthermore, illuminating that internships are resource-intensive, requiring besides supervision backup from the business school concerned, which “must help the student find a placement, offer networking activities for information sharing, provide recognition in the form of study credits, and fund or promote the activities”.

Over the past three decades, since 1994, international internships have been gaining increasing interest among international business education academics, along with a paradigm shift “toward learner-centered education and the enrichment of educational programs by practical knowledge gained through students’ interaction with actors external to the university”, say Hermann; Amaral and Bossle (2021: 203). Factors that fuelled attention include (a) “internships enhance employment potential” and (b) providing “students with intercultural communication, teamwork skills, and increased experience, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of their CVs after graduation”

Hermann; Amaral and Bossle (2021: 203) report on three areas of research pertaining ‘international internships’, namely (a) the global mind-sets and competences acquired by students who participate in such internships, the preferences of employers for candidates with such experience and personal traits, and how business schools can cultivate such through co-curricular activities; (b) “the role of support structures in the development of international internships” that are critical when students work abroad as part of their internship; and (c) “the pedagogical elements of the internship in international business”, initially the focus had been on problem-solving skills, and later on assessment, as well as “the duration and organizational aspects of internships that suit experience-based study programs”. The current debate and “research is concerned with the effectiveness of internships in enhancing the employability of graduates and thus reducing unemployment” (p. 204), the curriculum, and “how to integrate the internships into existing business and management education”.

Within contemporary research are a number of gaps, say Hermann; Amaral and Bossle (2021: 204), among others the “absence of teaching frameworks that can indicate how to organize international internships through a student-centered perspective while also considering resources and the perspectives of both students and hosting organizations”. They posit that by “connecting problem-based learning (PBL) as a potential pedagogical device to international internship design [it] could address this gap while simultaneously tackling a less-studied area – the relationship between the three building blocks of managerial education”, namely ill-defined problems, real-world character, and reflection. PBL promotes both active learning and a student-centred approach they indicate. “Students are introduced to an ill-structured problem that they must solve in groups, relying on their existing knowledge. As the teams work independently, they engage in self-directed learning. During the final phase of group work, the students present their solutions to each other”.

Hermann; Amaral and Bossle (2021: 209) “adapted the Identify, Think, Do, Evaluate, Modify, Disseminate (ITDEM’D) pedagogical action research methodology” for the methodological framework of their research. The circle in the presentation portrays the conventional action research phases, expanded to their version of six steps. The start entails “the [1] identification of an issue or problem that requires attention” (p. 210, number and emphasis added). Once identified, planning (or [2] thinking how) follows, whereafter action is taken ([3] doing). Systematically and ethically observing with the aim of reflecting and making sense ([4] evaluating) and to improve ([5] modifying future practice), whereafter ultimately [6] dissemination of findings.

The findings of the research emphasised the value and frequency of supervision (and coaching) throughout an internship period, and the opportunity to present work in progress and receive feedback thereon. Furthermore, the differentiation of the roles of host organisation supervisors (mentors) versus academic supervisors is significant. The problem-oriented collaboration dynamics is, among others, another significant finding.

Hermann, R.R.; Amaral, M. & Bossle, M.B. (2021). Integrating Problem-based Learning with International Internships in Business Education. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 32(3-4), 202-2. Electronically accessible from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08975930.2022.2033667

Core values of a medical residency programme

‘Residency’ refers to “the period during which a physician gets specialized clinical training”. The Northeast Georgia Medical Center (NGMC) Graduate Medical Education offers an Emergency Medicine Residency, “a three-year program designed to provide residents with top-notch clinical training”, a term used in the field of medicine for work-integrated learning, meaning among others ‘related to the bedside of a patient, the observation and treatment’.

‘NGMC Emergency Medicine Residency’ tweeted 24 September 2021: “We believe that any major endeavor -- like starting a new residency -- should be mission-driven and purposeful. We spent a lot of time developing our 6 official (and 1 unofficial) core values that impact and drive everything we do in our residency. Here are our core values:”

• Core value 1: Clinical education and becoming a good EM doctor is foundational -- the bedrock of any career in emergency medicine. If you want to be a leader, administrator, researcher, advocate, or teacher, you first have to be a good doctor and take good care of patients
• Core value 2: We serve our patients best by actively cultivating an environment of respect for diversity. A diversity of ideas, backgrounds, and experiences, makes us all better and helps us provide better medical care for our patients
• Core value 3: We have a firm expectation of honesty, integrity, and transparency at all levels of leadership. We hold ourselves to a high standard and we will hold our residents to a high standard
• Core value 4: We will always push ourselves and challenge ourselves to be better. We want to exist outside our comfort zone in order to continually grow, improve, and be resilient
• Core value 5: We recognize that residents and physicians perform their best when they have ownership of their work environment and educational environment. We want to recruit high achievers and give them the means and opportunity to develop their own path in medicine
• Core value 6: We believe the best learning comes from unofficial mentorship and we will cultivate a collegial and family feel amongst our residents and faculty
• Unofficial core value 7: Food is love. We will feed our residents, their families, and their children and welcome them into our homes and prepare meals for them

We are looking for residents who are similarly mission-driven, who want to push themselves, who want to be challenged, who are innovative, and who want to impact future generations of emergency medicine!”

The programme webpage states “Training in the fast-paced, high-volume emergency departments and learning from passionate, experienced educators at Northeast Georgia Emergency Medicine Residency will prepare graduates to work in any environment world-wide and will be a springboard for a long and satisfying career in emergency medicine.”

Source

Relationships between student and supervisor, within studio-based learning, have an effect on student learning

“With each ‘singular emotional episode’ the student learns about the supervisor and themselves” and with “repeated exposure these singular events can develop into ‘emotional stances’, which influence the student’s approach to learning”, say Belluigi (2016: 21) and adds that “such stances may be productive, reproductive or counter-productive depending on how power dynamics, affective concerns and discourses position and manage those involved”. She states (p. 22) that it “is important in education to recognise that teachers’ conceptions of their roles have an impact on student learning”, in that it may either undermine or support. Drawing from her art education research, she portrays constructions of the roles of supervisors and of students respectively, as well as resulting relationships.

Six constructions of the studio-supervisor (p. 23)	Four constructions of the student (p. 29)
The master (p. 23) Master–apprentice mimetic model, originated from the medieval guild workshop; apprentice making the master’s art; now obsolete and inappropriate for contemporary studio	The apprentice (p. 29) Hierarchical, ‘earning your stripes’, becoming a journeyman and then master; marked absence of student voice; in some cases a lack of concern for students’ aspirations
The atelier coach One-to-one ‘studio conversations’, arose from the 19th century Romantic French academy; constructive criticism of the student’s artwork as medium of learning; not sustainable under production and educational pressures	The emotional/intuitive artist-student Romantic artist genius and humanist notions of the artist as the ideal of fulfilled selfhood; believing morally superior and emotionally more sensitive than non-artists, and ‘pitted against a cold and corrupt society’
The reflective practitioner (p. 24) Observation and formative feedback; requires ‘sensitive, trusting and responsive teacher–student relationships; dependency because continually respond adapt to what emerges; reflection-both in and outside-action	The reflexive practitioner (p. 30) Reflexivity is essential to contemporary artmaking; fluidity between formal learning spaces and everyday life, theory and practice; fluidity between formal learning spaces and everyday life, theory and practice
The critical friend Students often intentionally use for alternative interpretations, and to situate themselves in community; model require caring, mutually engaging, partnership openness	The collaborator Postmodernist ‘co-constructivist’ concept ‘artist as collaborator’; interconnected with various different ‘knowledges’, experiences and communities; critical adult learning
The liminal servant (p. 25) Relating to the threshold (or point) beyond; both cognitive and social scaffolding; enthusiastic engagement and openness; empathy; and shared learning management
The analyst (and patient) Similar phenomena with therapy, within trust environment and sense of security, for student to explore widely and freely without constraints; play, awareness, mirroring, and transference; growth-promoting symbiosis

How the inherent differences of the respective roles and models are understood from within the constructions, is of significance and should not be overlooked.

Belluigi, D.Z. (2016). Constructions of Roles in Studio Teaching and Learning. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(1), 21-35. Electronically available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jade.12042

Key determinants in achieving an optimum studio-based learning experience

“Studio-based learning (SBL) is a teaching and learning methodology that combines different learning pedagogies such as social constructivist, problem-based, and active learning to mimic real-world working experience.” say Kumar, Silva and Prelath (2020: 611). As result of the successes in providing a real-world industry experience through studio-based learning, the application has been extended as pedagogical approach to many fields, such as engineering, programming, communication, entrepreneurship and non-arts programs.

Technological advancements changed the way we live and learn. “The 21st century has seen the move to an era in which information, innovation, creativity and imagination are important attributes”, which “are seen to be the backbone of the new economic world” say Fung (2015: 71). Entrepreneurial and creative industries are triggers for economic development and therefore of increasing importance, indicate Fung (2015: 72), because such “provides job opportunities, creates wealth, produces consumer goods and services for local and overseas markets, and enables growth in overall consumption”. Studio-based learning is deemed a means to stimulate creativity and entrepreneurship development.

The essence of studio-based learning lies in providing students the opportunity to actively apply their knowledge by developing “projects through an iterative cycle that involves problem-solving, collaboration, and autonomous learning”, say Kumar, et al. (2020: 612). An authentic learning experience is enabled through critical review of projects, while going through the iterative cycle, by fellow team members, peers, instructors/lecturers, and potentially industry professionals, and real clients. This provides students with a glimpse to real workplace issues and motivation to resolve problems critically. Problems are deemed essential, because students are prepared to face obstacles by learning and adapting. Kumar, et al. (2020: 613) identify six fundamentals steps to implement studio-based learning:

1. Identifying projects that can be executed through different methods
2. Project implementation individually or through teamwork
3. Project presentation
4. Constructive feedback from peers or mentors (critique session) which may be done face-to-face or online
5. Alteration for resubmission or presentation
6. Repeat of steps 1 to 5

Fung (2015: 73-74) group the studio-based learning process into parts, illustrated in Figure 1 (p. 74):

1. The project brief, which is set out by the teachers according to the skills required to be learnt by students at different stages of their study. Often the project brief is the stimulus for creative ideas, strategies and a holistic view of the planning for creative outcomes, and should be interesting, motivating, realistic, mindful, clearly defined, and giving freedom of design deliverables.
2. Features of studio-based learning, including the studio, participants (teachers and students) and critique.
3. Learning process by students, via learning-by-doing and problem-solving skills; these involve the reiteration of ideas during the critique from teacher to student until the maturity of the idea and/or the approach of the deadline.
4. Learning outcomes, which include the presentation and determination of final ideas and portfolio respectively.

Fung (2015: 74) emphasises the role of the lecturer (teachers) and students, as important informants; but focusses on the project brief, features of studio-based learning, learning process and learning outcomes act as the framework, as illustrated in Figure 2. She undertook research to identify the key contributing factors to optimise studio-based learning practice. Five key determinants were identified that are influencing optimum studio-based learning, namely the behaviour of the teacher, management of expectations, exposure to industry, the design of the project brief, and the communication channels (pp. 82-83). Fung (2015: 90) superimposed these to her studio-based learning model, thereby indicating that “teachers’ behaviours, expectation management and industry exposure are interconnected in affecting students’ motivation to learn”. Furthermore communication channels and project brief designs are deemed important determinants towards optimisation of the studio-based learning process.

Fung, M.S.K. (2015). Studio-based learning experiences in vocational design education in Hong Kong. International Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, 7(2), 71-96. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.219519164808585

Kumar, J.A., Silva, P.A. & Prelath, R. (2020). Implementing studio‑based learning for design education: a study on the perception and challenges of Malaysian undergraduates. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 611–631. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10798-020-09566-1.pdf

Case-based learning instructional model

In an article published under Creative Commons Attribution License terms, Şen-Akbulut and Hill (2020) present a four phase instructional model for case-based pedagogy, for specifically teacher education, which could probably be generalised. The four sequential phases, left to right, are preceded by introductory activities. The model portrays three levels, namely (a) the design principles, at the top, below the introductory activities, informing each phase; (b) the instructor/lecturer’s role in the middle; and (c) the role of the students at the bottom.

Five design principles are deemed essential to constructivist pedagogy, say Şen-Akbulut and Hill (2020):

1. Learning should be embed in both authentic and relevant contexts, because for learning to enable more efficient functioning the relevance should be evident. From a social constructivist perspective, learning should be authentic, because individuals need to construct knowledge personally, as well as mediate that knowledge socially. In the case-based learning context the complexity and uncertainty of reality should be portrayed.
2. Learning should, from a constructivist perspective, be embed in social experience, in order to facilitate development of socially relevant skills. Individual construct understanding from social experiences, either validating knowledge structures, or contradicting them. The learning context should therefore encourage collaboration between all individuals involved. All students should prepare, share different perspectives; contribute to suggesting solutions; and reflect on the final proposed solution.
3. Social constructivism emphasises alternative views and encourages testing of ideas against multiple perspectives. There is no special ‘truth’, instead there could be a multitude of perceptual understandings which could transpire being more suitable. Learning should provide opportunities to engage in activities, enabling evaluation of alternative solutions as a means to evolving knowledge. Case materials should (a) allow curation of information from different sources and examining of issues from a variety of perspectives; as well as (b) allow for multiple correct responses and decision-making opportunities.
4. Underlying constructivism is the notion of providing opportunities for reflection. Students should be capable of explaining why and how they solved a problem in a certain way. The learning context should provide for time to think and evaluate the adequacy of required knowledge.
5. In order to challenge and support thinking cognitive conflict is necessary. The lecturer’s role is to guide students to an awareness of own meanings by challenging, supporting, and guiding; however not to lead to any specific conclusion.

Design principle (DP) 1 above applies to the first phase, namely the inquiry focus, with roles as indicated in the model. Both DP 2 & 3 apply to the second phase, which pertains to space and time for consideration. Three design principle, DP 3, 4 & 5, pertain to the third phase, active participation in learning; and DP 4 to the fourth phase, synthesize key ideas and practices. The model is derived from a University of Georgia 2017 doctoral dissertation.

Şen-Akbulut, M. & Hill, J.R. (2020). Case-based pedagogy for teacher education: an instructional model. Contemporary Education (Cont Ed) Technology, 12(2), ep287. Accessible from https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/8937

Doing, problem-solving, interacting, experimenting, and reflecting are significant elements of studio-based learning

The essential elements of studio-based learning entail learning by doing; interacting in a creative and reflective process with other students, lecturers, and external stakeholders; and re-doing with the aim of resolving real-world problems, in an effort to positively contribute to local communities, say Brown, Karle and Kelly (2015: 260-1). Studio-based learning evolved from the socio-cultural constructivism thread of constructivist learning theory. The intent of studio-based learning is to foster learning behaviours towards “discovery, integration, application and sharing of knowledge” (Brown, et al. 2015: 262). The practice of peer reviews, called ‘desk critiques’, facilitates development of problem solving abilities with regard to identification, iterative generation, exploration, assessment, comparison, and selection of best-fit solutions.

The use of studio-based pedagogy is relatively rare at universities, in that it involves smallish student to lecturer ratios, and permanent working spaces. Large registration groups are perceived prohibitive to enacting studio-based pedagogies. However, blended learning practices supported by collaborative technologies may provide the framework for scaling studio-based pedagogy to the pressures for increased provision, say (Brown, et al. 2015: 263). The gold standard key characteristics of studio-based learning, namely small groups, direct interaction, dedicated space, and learning through action, must be retained. The nature of studio-based learning were scaled and accomplished by dividing the students registered into sections and teams in order to enable direct interaction. Google Hangouts, a G+ community, Google Drive, Google Docs, and Blackboard Learn were used to manage the course.

Shraiky and Lamb (2013) report that an exploration of teaching strategies for inter-professional education (IPE) in healthcare, found that studio-based learning (SBL) embodies many features that are integral to effective IPE. Medical and nursing schools are pursuing IPE to facilitate students from two or more professions learn about, from and with each other. It is believed that IPE would transform the way to resolve complex problems through an integrative and more comprehensive approach. Studio-based learning offers a variety of ways to work together and resolve problems.

The studio-based learning notion originated from the École des Beaux-Arts, in Paris (source of image below), in 1648 (Murray, 2016), from the apprentice model, philosophically grounded in the notion that an art ‘master’ would pass artistic abilities and technical skills on. Students were assigned a design problem, which they would work through a rigorous learning-by-doing process. Their final product, known as ‘sketch problem’ was presented to and evaluated by the master.

Studio-based learning since abandoned the master-apprentice model in favour of student-directed frameworks, which emphasize creative problem-solving and experimentation. The lecturer or facilitator would pose either a hypothetical (grounded in likely scenarios) or actual problem as starting point. Students there after undertake in-depth data collection and review relevant literature. Students are encouraged to gather first-hand data through observation and interviews; team-work and sharing of responsibilities emphasised. Active and ongoing feedback is provided through charettes, crits, and pin-ups (Shraiky & Lamb, 2013: 462):

• Charettes are highly interactive workshops that bring stakeholders together to generate ideas to improve the solution. Students may design exercises for participants to try out or react to their proposed solutions, Charettes are fast-paced and dynamic and allow students to hear directly from their key customers.
• Crits (short for critiques) are informal feedback sessions held during each studio meeting. Instructors rotate among the student teams, engage with students about their progress, and offer suggestions, Crits are deeply embedded in the studio culture and provide a casual and non-threatening way for instructors to guide students, offer positive feedback, and catch problems early. External experts and consultants are readily integrated into the crit format and often rotate with instructors
• Crits are integrated with ‘pin-ups’ in which students display their documents and illustrations around the studio. Faculty and students rotate among the pin-ups while each team formally presents drafts of their design solutions.

Formal reviews further take place, which may serve as midterm and formal examinations. Student teams present their completed designs, in a public forum, to a preselected review panel of experts and academics, who identify strengths and areas for improvement. Feedback is typically direct and fast-paced.

There are several shared features in common between studio-based learning and inter-professional education, such as resolving realistic and complex problems. In both, process and product are important. Both are highly interactive and involves extensive exchange of ideas among students and faculty. Both combines problem-based and practice-based learning, and both observation and simulation learning are naturally evolving components

Brown, S.E., Karle, S.T. & Kelly, B. (2015). An evaluation of applying blended practices to employ studio-based learning in a large-enrollment design thinking course. Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(4), 260-280. Available at: https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6154

Murray, C. (2016). A brief history of the École Des Beaux-Arts, First, there was the Academy. In Culture Trip. Electronically accessed from https://theculturetrip.com/europe/france/paris/articles/a-brief-history-of-the-ecole-des-beaux-arts/

Shraiky, J.R. & Lamb, G. (2013). Studio-based learning in interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(6), 461-468. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2013.816273

Studio-based learning and online studio as forms of foundational WIL

In the framework of different categories of placement and non-placement work-integrated learning (NPWIL), ‘studios’ of ‘studio-work’ is reflected as a foundational form, potentially high in authenticity, but low in proximity.

The word ‘studio’ brings to mind a range of images, such as ‘the working place [workroom or atelier, from French—literally meaning a pile of splinters/chips (from Late Latin astella)] of a painter, sculptor, or photographer’; or a place of instruction or the practising of dancing or acting; or ‘a place where audio recordings or motion pictures are made’; or ‘a place maintained and equipped for the transmission of radio or television programs’; or a residential ‘studio apartment’. ‘Studio’ originated from the Latin stadium, literally meaning to study. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/studio and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/studio). Studio-based learning (SBL) is rooted in the apprentice model of learning, where students understudied a master trade’s person, in order to develop their craft. The intent of studio-based learning is to mirror practice within the field, within tuition, to resemble as closely as possible actual tasks the graduate will encounter in the occupational field. Fast forward to 2021 and the impact of Covid-19, studio-based learning probably entail approximating occupational (or professional) practice in an online virtual learning space or environment.

Lisa LaJevic (2021), an Associate Professor of Art Education (Art and Art History) at The College of New Jersey, Ewing, share her reflection on the Covid pandemic experience of having had to switch quickly, without much support, to remote instruction. Aware that many students were temporarily living with their parents under lockdown conditions, she was challenged to teaching activities based on materials and resources available to students that are confined to their homes. Although filled with uncertainty, opportunities for experimentation, and for risk-taking resulted in taking control in relatively powerless situation. Weekly assignments became a way for students to express themselves, cope, to de-stress, and even involving family members. Students were engaged, self-motivated, and learning activities helped dealing with anxieties. LaJevic succeeded in creating individualised virtual studios for teaching contemporary-art creativity with available art materials, processes and techniques. She made use of pre-recorded imperfect narrated PowerPoint presentations on Canvas, and mini-studio assignments which typically entailed creation of two artworks per week, dedicating 60 minutes to each, and then sharing of work on a discussion board and participation in critique.

Although studio-based learning is typically used in the fields of architecture, design, software engineering, and creative - and performing arts; Heikkinen, Seppänen and Isokangas (2016) regard studio-based learning and studio model education as promising pedagogical methods for developing an entrepreneurial mindset. The LAB studio model, pre-incubator style studio education, enables connections between work-life based problems and the development of business prototypes and start-ups. Studio-based learning could be diverse in form, but focuses on learning through action. Projects, based on the given problems serve as medium for educating. Heikkinen, et al. (2016) advocate moving beyond lessons and textbook structure, by connecting more strongly with activities focused on societal use. Although their focus is entrepreneurship education, working under pressure, uncertainty and solving contradictions in the activity, are common in most workplaces. Heikkinen, et al. (2016) promote learning methods that include functional project-based learning, with sufficient level of challenge and uncertainty. Students should be active and learning self-directed; and the building bridges with societal learning networks instilled. The LAB Studio Model (LSM) is grounded on the studio-based learning. LSM is an interdisciplinary education model entailing self-directed teams, with proven business pre-incubator potential. Students engage in relevant authentic learning and reflective practice or ‘knowing- and reflecting-in-action’, as well as integration of experienced professionals and coaches from the industry, that are bringing problems or ideas directly from targeted industries to the LSM, say Heikkinen, et al. (2016).

Dreamson (2020) remark that the online design studio is the emergent form of design education, not the next best contemporary alternative. The same could possibly be said about placement-based WIL? Dreamson (2020) states that the romanticised atelier model and apprenticeship system is no longer a sound approach in the digitally networked world. He asserts the transition from masters to apprentices cannot be retained or revert to. Rapid technological advancement and the tremendous speed at which knowledge and skills are updating through the network, have forever changed the landscape of education. The worldwide Covid-19 pandemic has merely accelerated the transition to digital teaching and learning. Educators have been cast into the new learning environment, and even if the pandemic ends, the changed landscape will probably not revert, says Dreamson (2020). Although “some essential physical design activities such as rendering & animation workstation, industrial design (e.g. jewellery engraving machine), and a large format printer in graphic design, could not be replicated to online activities” (p. 495), such would not stop digitisation of education. Instead, physically distanced, digitally integrated, instruction would be implemented for required physical activity.

Dreamson, N. (2020). Online design education: meta-connective pedagogy. The International Journal of Art and Design Education (iJADE), 39(3), 483-497, published in association with the National Society for Education in Art & Design (NSEAD). Electronically accessible from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jade.12314

Heikkinen, K-P., Seppänen, U-M., & Isokangas, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship education in studio based learning practices. In the proceedings of the 11^th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Finland, 247-256. Electronically accessed from https://www.proquest.com/docview/1860088388?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

LaJevic, L. (2021). My experience with remote instruction: choices in learning and artmaking. Art Education, 74(2), 10-13. Electronically accessed from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00043125.2020.1852383

Enquiry is the engine of deep learning

“Inquiry is the engine that drives learning in” project-based learning, which “has the potential to create powerful—and memorable—learning experiences for students” (Krauss & Boss 2013, viii-ix). The topic of this post reflects the title of the first section of a publication by Krauss and Boss (2013, 1-64). They unpack this description in tabular format:

“In project-based learning, students gain important knowledge, skills, and dispositions by investigating open-ended questions to ‘make meaning’ that they transmit in purposeful ways” (Krauss and Boss 2013, 5). 

	Meaning	So
In project-based   learning	The emphasis is on student experience—learning	The teacher does less direct instruction. He or she designs,   prepares, and guides projects and learns alongside students.
students gain important knowledge, skills, and dispositions	Projects are the curriculum—not an add-on—and through them, students   develop important capabilities	The teacher designs toward and assesses growth in all three areas.
by investigating open-ended questions	Questions activate, arousing curiosity and driving students to   inquiry	The right question at the start leads to more questions—ones that   students can investigate.
to ‘make   meaning’	The learning is important, unique, and holds value for the student   and others	Projects elicit high-order thinking: theorizing, investigating, analysing,   creating, and drawing unique conclusions.
that they transmit in purposeful ways	The form the project takes matches the function it’s meant to serve   (inventing, entertaining, persuading, motivating, or inspiring)	A “loose” project structure allows for creative expression, and   transmission of knowledge makes the learning “stick”.

(Krauss and Boss 2013, 6)

Similar to school teachers, unless academics gained substantial experience in the community of practice /occupational-field prior to moving into higher education, and regularly update their experiential frame of reference, it is unlikely that they will be equipped to “guide real-world inquiry into fields that they have never explored” (Krauss & Boss 2013, ix).

Krauss, J. and Boss, S. 2013. Thinking through project-based learning, guiding deeper inquiry. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin (Sage).

Constructivism teaching approach, inquiry- and project-based learning

It appears as if Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003) use project- (PjBL) and problem-based learning (PBL) interchangeably. They present the findings of a qualitative study about the perceptions and attitudes of students about a PjBL course introduced in mechanical engineering. Teams of students were required to carry out mini-projects involving design and construction of predefined devices. The data collection methods include semi-structured interviews, observations and analyses of students’ reports.

The objectives of this PjBL course are “to provide a clear overview of the different fields in mechanical engineering, to introduce the essence of engineering work and the processes of design and development of new technological products, to increase students’ awareness of the importance and necessity of analysis for finding optimal solutions for engineering problems, … and familiarize them [students] with the different aspects of mechanical engineering expertise” (Frank, Lavy and Elata 2003, 273).

This course is taught through mini-projects. “Many elements of PBL [meaning PjBL] are derived from principles of inquiry-based learning, which in turn, were derived from the constructivist teaching approach” state Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 273).

Constructivism as theory entail that humans are active learners who construct knowledge based on their experiences and their efforts to derive meaning from such experiences. In this course students were required, through trial and error, to form and modify their concepts of engineering. Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 274) mention three modes of constructivism, namely radical, contextual and social. The third mode applies to this PjBL course in that students construct their understanding as result of doing, contemplating and interacting with other students in the social contexts of teams. Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 274) name five characteristics of social constructivism, namely “active engagement, use and application of knowledge, multiple representations, use of learning communities, and authentic tasks”.

The teaching environment of this PjBL course is enquiry-based learning, which entail “applying the principles of scientific research to teaching”, state Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 275). Students are required to create knowledge, in contrast to the lecturer being ‘purveyor of knowledge’ or ‘provider of facts’. Each mini-project, as enquiry-based learning unit, comprise six stages, namely “defining the problem [or need], proposing hypothesis [or consider alternative solutions], doing the project/experiment [selecting the best solution and building the artefact], analysing the data [or measure the artefact’s performance], interpreting [or explaining] the results, and drawing conclusions”.

The means of instruction of this PjBL course is project-based learning through teams. It engages students in exploring meaningful engineering issues or problems. PjBL would probably increase the motivation of participating students, as well as providing a sense of satisfaction. PjBL contributes to developing long-term learning skills. Students gain “deep, integrated understanding of content and process” remark Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 276). Teamwork promotes collaboration to solve problems. Working together with other from varied backgrounds, is an important real-work skill. PjBL promotes independent learning and acceptance of responsibility. PjBL further develops data collection and presentation skills.

Frank, M.; Lavy, I. and Elata, D. 2003. Implementing the project-based learning approach in an academic engineering course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 273–288.

Online enabled workplace degree

Revill et al (2005, 231) published a paper that illustrates distance presents no restriction to collaborative learning and reports on a “learning in the workplace degree based upon an online learning community approach”. “Individualised learning plans, shared electronic portfolios and collaborative reflection on practice” (emphases added) are supplemented with online ‘hotseating’ and the use of workplace advocates. Revill et al (2005, 242) explain ‘hotseating’ as a “special type of discussion with expert witnesses [or specialists], who can be interrogated by” programme participants. Revill et al (2005, 238) state that “workplace advocate is ideally someone within the workplace who is both able to support study and to ensure that the place of work will benefit from the participant’s involvement in the programme”. Revill et al (2005, 231) claim is that the “paper exhibits that it is possible to build an online community for an award-bearing workplace learning degree”, however, they state that “tools and approaches need to be developed to ensure self-directed learning from experience and through reflection can take place in a community of learners”.

Revill et al (2005, 231) point out the “belief that the relationship between those studying for the degree and those offering the degree, is not one of ‘expert’ and ‘student’ exchange, but is aiming to develop a student-centred learning experience where students are valued as” co-practitioners for their contributions.

The underpinning ‘deep learning’ pedagogic principles of the online bachelor’s degree in learning, technology and research, which is directed at participants who have not previously had the opportunity of higher education, include “learning from experience; critical reflection; action enquiry; collaborative discourse in online learning communities; self-directed adult learning” and the use of “learning journals to collect and reflect upon critical incidents at work” (Revill et al 2005, 232, emphases added).

Revill et al (2005, 232) emphasise that “content does not form the basis of this degree” and report on experience “in online communities [that] has proven to be a powerful further stimulus and influence focusing upon collaborative discourse about practice in online communities”. Learning is promoted primarily through brief stimuli that lead into online discussions. Participants are empowered online through the facilitation of construction and structuring to move from specific tasks to the broad. This social action of negotiating meaning, participant choice and self-direction served as basis to plan the degree. The experiences with the first cohort served to establish a pathway for quality assurance requirements. The pathway is in essence a shell of generic modules that is adaptable the meet the contexts, learning needs and job roles of individual participants. The coherence of the curriculum gets negotiated at modular level with the learning facilitator concerned.

Each individual learning plan (ILP) frames the individual participant’s learning requirements for the term, explain Revill et al (2005, 233-4). It is a shared and negotiated web-based document created through a web-based tool. The ‘tool’ caters for individual ‘electronic portfolios’ of learning plans, assignments and commentaries according to the learning outcomes of each participant. Individuals can design their own learning activities, negotiate and modify their learning outcomes to ensure relevance to their own workplace. The intention is to maximise the impact of individual learning on-the-job. Participants further create their own products for assessment purposes, such as “CD-ROMs, web site or slide show presentations, digital films or text-based accounts”.

Revill et al (2005, 234-5) explain the use of the portfolio tool “to capture critical incidents, notes and moments of learning through the use of electronic journals, digital photographs and video clips”. Work-based ‘artefacts’ are meant to represent significant points of learning. Quantity of artefacts and data; such as notes, minutes, plans, methods, interview notes, survey results, observations and other; are encouraged to reflected upon and analyse.

Revill et al (2005, 236) state that “there is a growing body of evidence of the positive personal and professional effects that engaging in action research has on the practitioner”, which is the reason for it being at the heart of the degree. The intent of action research is “to build collaborative enquiries and development in the workplace”. Participants get guidance with the design of their projects, their data collection, analyses and ethics. The final year of the degree revolve around the notion of exhibiting and informing peers and the community of practice about lessons learned. This sharing in turn serves “as a lever of change and a stimulus for more collaborative and negotiated change”.

Reflective writing in the workplace represents the classic double-loop learning state Revill et al (2005, 236). The notion of ‘patchwork writing’ is encouraged, in addition to accumulation of work-based artefacts. Participants are required to document alternative reflective pieces and even encouraged to ”make photo albums, write poetry and design posters illustrating key incidents”, which are often reflected upon by using frameworks suggested in literature.

In addition to the ideal candidates to serve as workplace advocates, Revill et al (2005, 238) explain that the “advocate is not involved with the academic side of the degree work and its assessment but in providing an environment that will maximise” the participant’s learning. The advocate’s role include clarification of joint expectations; negotiation of appropriate learning activities; and enabling the sharing of effective practice, action enquiry and reflective practice. Revill et al (2005, 237) point out that “workplace degrees have a long history of developing mentoring and partnership arrangements”, because of “the importance of a conducive learning environment for work-related learning and emphasises”. It has been found that “more experienced peers offer the best workplace learning support”. Good human capital practices, such as widespread performance management and appraisal systems, imply that it should not be difficult to identify workplace advocates.

Revill, G.; Terrell, I.; Powell, S. and Tindal, I. 2005. Learning in the workplace: a new degree online Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42, 3, 231–245.

Healthy, sustainable relationships are core to work-integrated learning

Partnerships between higher education institution departments that offer qualification which include work-integrated learning in the curriculum; and workplace learning providers in the relevant occupational field/s are generally accepted as essential in the cooperative and work-integrated education community.

Kamper and Du Plessis (2014, 79) recommends the use of appreciative inquiry to assess the health and sustainability of an institution’s partnerships. The basic premise of appreciative inquiry is to focus on organisational strengths. By giving attention to organisational problems, more problems will be identified. However, by appreciating what is best in an organisation more and more good will be revealed. Through a collaborative appreciative inquiry approach, institutions and their industry partners would appreciate what is inherently good (an affirmative focus) and may envision what might be. By approaching partnership through appreciative inquiry a trust building and life sustaining environment is stimulated. Appreciative inquiry further offers an action research opportunity.

Kamper, G.D. & du Plessis, E.C. 2014.) Some critical reflections on open distance learning, with particular reference to work-integrated learning, Africa Education Review, 11:1, 77-90. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/18146627.2013.853568

Sustainability as emerging academic field challenges what is taught and how

If higher education graduates are to cope with society’s sustainability-challenges, universities must provide students with interactive, experiential, transformative, and real-world learning to suitably prepare them; say Brundiers, Wiek and Redman (2010). The authors undertook a synthesis of literature on sustainability education (an emerging academic field) with the view of determining how real-world learning can contribute to building key competencies in sustainability. Consensus exists that the capacity-uilding pathways of sustainability education should engage the “head, hands, and heart”.

Sustainability education is concerned with complex non-linear problems with long-term implications; that cut across economic, social, and environmental domains; not just on local but global scales; and involve high degrees of damage potential; and therefore urgency. These often manifest as a conglomerate of problems that require sophisticated “post-normal” solutions and elaborate problem-solving techniques; that challenges basic assumptions; and call for systems-thinking, anticipation, and participatory strategy-building models across established disciplines.

Key competencies in sustainability cannot be acquired by being told about sustainable development. Students need to see and work within a living learning place. They need to experience what a sustainable lifestyle means. Learning must focus on real-world problems, exposing students to corresponding real-world settings. A variety of learning models might be considered, for example project- and/or problem-based learning; service learning; and internships. However, not all real-world learning opportunities are appropriate. Some are more appropriate for extracurricular activities; whereas others do not relate well to the key features of sustainability. Brundiers, Wiek and Redman (2010: 311) present this “overview of key differences among dominant models of real-world learning formats”:

	Project-based learning	Service learning	Internship
Outcomes: what students learn/benefit	Collaborative problem-solving capacity	Education and teaching capacity	Professional working experience; career development
Practices: what students do	Collaborating with partners to develop solution approach	Educating people	Assisting or working on a professional project
Interaction with stakeholder	Two-way knowledge generation (co-production)	One-way knowledge transfer (students to community)	One-way knowledge transfer (employer to student and student to employer)
Integration of theory and practice	Explicit, supervised by faculty and stakeholder	Implicit, not supervised by faculty	Implicit, not supervised by faculty
Impacts on world	Systemic innovation	Support of social innovation and change	Modular innovation

Brundiers, K.; Wiek, A. & Redman C. L. 2010. Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: from classroom into the real world. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11 (4): 308-324.

The journal (IJSHE) is published by Emerald Group Publishing Limited in conjunction with Society of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF).

Workplace-based mobile-enabled learning is gaining importance

“Work-based mobile learning is increasingly becoming one of the most important means of providing knowledge, skills and competencies to the workforce” reports Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 219). They point out that whereas traditionally on-the-job training had been prevalent, increased access to Internet and enhanced wireless communication resulted in individuals training themselves in any location of their choice.

The rudimentary model of the master-crafts-person teaching one of more apprentices worked well for many centuries. Fast-paced progress; reduced learning time and more complexity with regard to knowledge, skills and competency; resulted in a need for more rapid learning and continuous adaptation to changes.

Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 229) caution those designing and implementing work-based mobile learning to consider adult learning theories such as:

• The experiential learning theory of Charles Rogers (1969) focussing on significant learning only when people actually do things. Cognitive learning according to Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) often represents knowledge of encyclopaedia nature; which become irrelevant if not complemented by affective and psychomotor dimensions. Laird’s (1985) sensory stimulation theory advocates that increased incorporation of the senses in instruction consolidates learning. Sight and sound enhances learning; as does kinaesthetic/tactile or learning-by-doing that involves actual manipulation of objects. Action learning and action research stems from these foundations.
• Adult learners bring past experiences—both positive and negative—into the new learning situation; which suggests that the learning contexts must be non-threatening. Whereas young learners can be coerced by grades; adults adapt to cope with life’s changing demands. Often work-based learning opportunities are pursued in order to take advantage of developmental, advancement or promotional opportunities. Learning therefore takes place because of its relevance to immediate needs.
• Stephen Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis (Krashen, 1987) postulates that when a person is threatened or the what is learned conflicts to the person’s existing views; then the learning would not be as fruitful as when the learning reduces perceived threats or complements existing thinking.
• Malcolm Knowles promoted andragogy as adult learning theory in the 1970ties and gained a substantial following; but not without resistance. Zemke (1984) emphasise four important aspects of andragogy, namely: (a) adults learn best if they perceive immediate value; (b) when included in the organisation more learning takes place and learners are more satisfied; (c) actually doing things (kinaesthetic learning) consolidates theory by pooling the senses; (d) and previous experiences are used to relate current learning to.
• The Characteristics of Adults as Learners (CAL) model of Patricia Cross (1981) takes into consideration both personal (such as physical—eye sight, hearing, reaction time; stage of life; experiences; cognitive development—degree of independence, decision-making, vocabulary and reasoning abilities; as well as psychological, social and cultural variables) and situational characteristics (for example, voluntary versus obligatory learning; full or part-time engagement; etc.).

Four aspects to take into consideration when designing mobile work-based learning (p. 233):

1. Explain why specific matters (for example commands, functions, and operations) are being taught.
2. Make instructions task-orientated and contextualise learning activities within performance requirements.
3. Keep in mind the potential wide variety of learner backgrounds and make provision in instructions for various levels and types of previous experience.
4. Make use of the self-directedness of adults and enable learners to discover things for themselves; but provide guidance and corrective assistance where necessary.

Auer, M.E.; Edwards, A & Zutin, D.G. 2011. Online laboratories in interactive mobile learning environments, pp. 119-248. In N Pachler, C Pimmer & J Seipold (Eds). 2011. Work-based Mobile Learning — concepts and cases. Oxford: Peter Lang.

Enabling distant laboratory learning via mobile technologies

“Online laboratories are necessary for distance or mobile learning for the same reason laboratory practices are important in traditional educational settings” reports Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 229). They observe that although there appear to be general agreement that laboratory experience is necessary; there is little consensus about what the basic objectives thereof are. They further report (p. 223) that during the four years 1993 to 1997 only 6.5 per cent of the articles published in the Journal of Engineering Education used laboratory as keyword; and during the subsequent four years 1998 to 2002 even less, namely 5.2 per cent. Little has been published about what laboratory experience is expected to accomplish, with no specific objectives or outcomes stated.

Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 222) assert that “synchronous active interaction with experiments and problem-solving helps individual or collaborative learners directly acquire applicable knowledge that can be used in practical situations, which is why pedagogical theory and practice considers laboratory experimentation an essential part of the educational process, particularly in the sciences and engineering”. Online access to remote laboratories through Internet is gaining importance. The domain of Online Engineering is an interdisciplinary field comprising engineering, computing and telematics catering for live interactive engineering activities such as “programming, design, control, observation, measuring, sensing, and maintenance” to both remote and localised users (p. 222).

Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 224) differentiate three kinds of engineering laboratories:

• The development laboratory is used by practicing engineers to obtain experimental data in order to answer specific questions and/or to design and develop products. Furthermore to ascertain if a specific design performs as it is intended.
• The research laboratory serves to seek broader and new additions to knowledge to generalise and systemise.
• The educational or instructional laboratory serves to allow undergraduates to learn what they as graduates would be assumed to understand and know.

Web-based laboratories were introduced in 1996 by universities in undergraduate engineering education. The field of remote engineering since matured; the number of remote laboratories dramatically increased; and the range of disciplines in which remote laboratories used expanded. The need for remote access to experimentation and for flexibility with regard to time and place of laboratory access are powerful motivators — “Anytime and anyplace learning is presently revolutionising learning in the workplace” (p. 226). Developments of mobile technology further accelerated advancements.

Auer, M.E.; Edwards, A & Zutin, D.G. 2011. Online laboratories in interactive mobile learning environments, pp. 119-248. In N Pachler, C Pimmer & J Seipold (Eds). 2011. Work-based Mobile Learning — concepts and cases. Oxford: Peter Lang.

Are computer games constructive tools to foster learning?

Konstantin Mitgutsch (2012: 572) shares “insights into the experience-based process of learning and its recursive motion, structures, and patterns”—“the recursive process of experiencing unknown situations and of restructuring former experiences”. He starts (p. 571) by asking the blog title question and by indicating it “reaches back to the roots of the institutionalization of education in general”. He continues to indicate that “ludologists, educators, psychologists, anthropologists, and philosophers” in the 18^th and 19^th centuries recognised and promoted the potential of playing. He adds that “players achieve an enormous amount of information through playing digital games”.

Digital games have been capturing academic interest since the early 1980s. Initially the dominant focus of research had been on risks and environmental effects. In contrast the focus of contemporary research shifted to the “positive and beneficial aspects of playing”—“A frequently applied term used to describe learning in games is digital game-based learning (DGBL)” (Mitgutsch, 2012: 572-3). He quotes the Federation of American Scientists (2006: 3) believes that “computer games are a constructive tool to foster learning”:

The success of complex video games demonstrates games can teach higher-order thinking skills such as strategic thinking, interpretative analysis, problem solving, plan formulation and execution, and adaptation to rapid change.

Although the PC-games industry develop and sell games that foster learning, it must be kept in mind that the focus is on profits and market preferences, rather than on an educational rationale. Mitgutsch (2012: 574-5) summarises literature that focus on reasons why computer games engage learners as well as several aspects that support the learning process.

Learning “is often reduced to an act of acquiring” while it is often overlooked “that every learning process starts with a particular experience of something”—people cannot necessary “choose to make a particular experience like” ordering from a catalogue; instead experience happens (Mitgutsch, 2012: 575). John Dewey in 1916 pointed out that learning from experience entails making backward and forward connections between what is done/tried and what is gained as result—it is not a linear act of acquiring; but rather “a circular process of suffering, doing, experimenting, transferring, and playing”. Games offer exploratory territories and therefore serve as powerful learning enablers.

Mitgutsch, K. 2012. Learning through play – a delicate matter: experience-based recursive learning in computer games, Chapter 36, pp. 571 - 584. [Retrieved 25 June 2012 from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h2534141vvm55m32/fulltext.pdf] in J. Fromme & A. Unger (eds). 2012. Computer Games and New Media Cultures—A Handbook of Digital Games Studies. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media. Retrieved 25 June 2012 from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-94-007-2776-2/#section=1083651&page=1

Does experience-taking offer a means of simulated learning?

Encounters with fictional characters offer the potential exposure “a diverse array of personalities, perspectives, events, outcomes, and realizations” remark Geoff Kaufman and Lisa Libby (2012: 1). Literature allows the imaginary transportation to other places; to other times; into characters with personality traits different from us; or the engagement in actions or the holding of ideas that are being aspired to. Biographies and fictional tales allow for the experiencing of life journeys of other people, which in turn may be an eye opener to the minds, struggles, achievements of individuals form diverse backgrounds. However, what is described here by no means happen automatically. On the contrary, it is required that the reader move beyond being a mere reader or spectator. It requires connecting to characters to such an extent that one step “into their proverbial shoes and experience the story from their perspective” (2012: 2), essentially to image becoming the characters while being in the world of the narrative. Kaufman and Libby (2012: 1) identify this as experience-taking and define the concept as “the imaginative process of spontaneously assuming the identity of a character in a narrative and simulating that character’s thoughts, emotions, behaviors, goals, and traits as if they were one’s own”. They undertook research to explore which factors facilitate and which impede experience-taking. They also demonstrate the influential impact experience-taking may have on the self-concepts, goals and actions of engaged readers. They further differentiate experience-taking from perspective-taking.

Kaufman and Libby (citing Oatley 1999, 2012: 2) suggests that experience-taking occurs when “readers simulate the events of a narrative as though they were a particular character in the story world, adopting the character’s mindset and perspective as the story progresses rather than orienting themselves as an observer or evaluator of the character”. In order to succeed in experience-taking, the reader need to set aside key aspects of own identity—“such as their beliefs, memories, personality traits and ingroup affiliations—and instead assume the identity of a protagonist, accepting the character’s decisions, outcomes, and reactions as their own” (Kaufman & Libby, 2012: 2).

It is suggested, based on the prediction and research findings of Kaufman and Libby (2012), that the better a simulation is capable to evoke experience-taking and to enable the participant to mimic the character’s subjective experience, the better is the potential of adapting self-concept, attitudes, and behaviour.

Kaufman, G. F.; Libby, L. K. 2012. Changing beliefs and behavior through experience-taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Mar 26.

Visit also: 'Losing Yourself' in a Fictional Character Can Affect Your Real Life

Oatley, K. 1999. Meetings of minds: Dialogue, sympathy, and identification, in reading fiction. Poetics, 26, 439–454. doi:10.1016/S0304-422X(99)00011-X

Avoid interferance in learning through attentive design

It is important for curriculum developers to understanding how the random assignment of learning activities and incongruent information can negatively affect learning. In particular, as the demand for simulations grows, so does the need for careful curriculum development in order to maximize learning. It is important to consider how learning is acquired and how information is retained in order to maximise the positive transfer of learning while minimising potential obstacles that may disrupt understanding.

Clapper (2011) highlights four important phases of learning:

1. Inquire phase — The aim of this phase is to facilitate the transferring in of frames of reference or schemata derived from past experiences related to the subject and knowledge accumulated. It is essential to keep in mind that while high-load prior work can impose a strain on working memory and will interfere with learning; successful transferring in of knowledge from prior work that is later found to be consistent with new learning results in positive learning transfer.
2. Gather phase — The aim of this phase is to enable the collection of information from various teaching and learning activities.
3. Process phase — During this phase information gathered is processed and synthesised. Once the information has been internalised through teaching and learning activities and reflection then positive learning transfer occurs.
4. Apply phase — The aim of this phase is to facilitate the transfer out of new knowledge to real-life settings. It is often the most difficult phase of learning.

Reflection-in-action is important throughout the four phases. Reflection-in-action involves stop and think to replay the experience (returning to); attending to the feelings evoked by the experience; and re-evaluating the experience in order to transfer the learning or move on. Learning designers and facilitators should be vigilant that learning environments may be creating interference and/or unintentionally providing conflicting information.

Clapper, T.C. 2011, May. Interference in learning: what curriculum developers need to know. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 7(3), e77-e80.

Learning in Work and the Community (LiWC)

Learning in the Workplace and Community (LiWC) is, according to Victoria University, "an umbrella term that encompasses the many models and integrated approaches to teaching, learning and assessment that involve learning in and through the workplace and community. These LiWC models and approaches may include but are not limited to, projects in a workplace, practical, co-operative and clinical placements, fieldwork, simulated learning environments, apprenticeships, traineeships or internships and enterprise initiatives."

Tweets enrich learning from work

Tweet-sharing presents a potentially powerful means of spreading learning derived from work experiences for students during prerequisite in vivo learning; for members of a community of practice; for participants in a learning through work programme; etc. Download Academic tweeting to learn MG29Jan-4Feb2010 What do readers of this post think of the idea? Could tweets and re-tweets become the material for reflective practice?

Reflective practice for collective learning

Raelin (2000: 101) calls "the process of public reflection" reflective practice; it is a community of inquiry and creates a collective identity. He defines reflection as "the practice of periodically stepping back to ponder the meaning to self and others in one's immediate environment about what has transpired. It illuminates what has been experienced by both self and others, providing a basic for future education", he adds.

Raelin (2000: 101-2) emphasises learning dialogues, as element of reflective practice, taking place in the security of trustworthy peers based on the direct experiences of work. Raelin (p. 103) refers to Plato's statement that 'the unexamined life isn't worth living' meaning that others need to be included in the examination of life experiences. It is more than collective naval gazing; it isintorspection midst of practice and in the presence of others.

"Reflective practitioners 'reinvest' in learning by participating in continuing education" and "engage in problem posing as much as problem solving, continually expand[ing] their solution database rather than select the first solution that works, view inconsistencies as opportunities rather than inconveniences, and enjoy reflecting back on their decision making rather than sealing off debate" (Raelin 2000: 105). Four explicit reflective practices that can be used each on its own or combined are presented by Raelin (2000: 115-145):

1. Learning teams

Work-based learning often involves action learning in teams. Co-workers undertake projects together, discuss dilemmas of work actions, as well as "the application or misapplication of concepts and theories to these actions" (p. 115). The learning device is to pose questions to one another.

2. Journaling

But "the journal is arguably the most endemic technique we have to enhance our self-reflection" admits Raelin (p. 124). Yet, he continues, although it is "often used as an introspective tool for personal growth, it can also serve as an aid to bring together the inner and outer parts of our lives. It offers a lens to view experience—be it before, during, or after the event under scrutiny—and it even allows further reflection on the journal entries themselves." The journal is a potent vehicle to collect private data for public learning dialogues and may include any one or more of the following:

• Logs or reports of specific factual experiences.
• Lists of observations or ideas.
• Portraits or descriptions of people or situations.
• Memoirs of personal experiences.
• Catalogues of feelings/perceptions in situations or about people.
• Intimate accounts including personal sentiments, confessions and notes.
• Dialogues recordings.
• Conceptual understandings.
• Commentary of applications of concepts.
• Social histories (stories) of issues unfolding.
• Maps of consciousness to capture the state of mind.
• Guided imagery, meditated frames of reference and/or dreams.
• Altered points of view in different contexts or timeframes.
• Contradictions or dilemmas experiences or observed.
• Inconsistencies noticed
• Surprises experiences.

3. Developmental planning

Developmental planning often linked to career development. It involves the individual interests, needs and expectations, as well as the organisational objectives and resource requirements. It is often an element of the overall organisational performance management strategy.

4. Developmental relationships

Examples of developmental relationships include coaching and mentoring.

Raelin, J.A. 2000. Work-based learning—the new frontier of management development. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.