Learning in vivo

Preference of students for case studies as experiential learning-based assessments

Melo, Monteza, Colson and Zhang (2022: 15) found that “students have a clear preference for supporting experiential learning-based assessments, such as lab activities and simulations or analysis of case studies, and a strong dislike for assessments that involve supervised and time-constrained assessments (e.g., proctored exams)”. Furthermore, students also value professional presentations and final projects, they indicate. They further say that “most students would prefer assessments that are driving (develop different skills such as creative thinking) and realistic (develop skills transferable to the real world)” (p. 1). They state that “How students perceive assessment methods is critical because it can affect their learning experience and academic achievements”.

Melo, et al. (2022: 12) provide, in Fig 3 below, an intuitive interpretation of their research results. The “results reveal that participating in lab practices and simulations (presented to participants as practical activities that support technical skills rehearsal) and analyzing and discussing case studies (subjects were told that knowledge of the subject, good writing, and coherence are evaluated) were the most and second most desirable options that contribute to student learning”. Professional presentations, involving the use of audio-visual materials to assess knowledge of a topic, shown as the third most important form of assessment. A final project, although it demands more time and effort from students, is considered the fourth-most important form of assessment. The fifth most important is continuous quizzes of open-ended questions.

Melo, et al. (2022: 1) observe that “previous literature has not analyzed, from the student perspective, what methods are preferred for evaluating performance in experiential learning”. They made use of the best-worst scaling approach in two online surveys, involving 218 undergraduate students that were enrolled in experiential learning-based programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. They presented students with a description of several assessment formats and is confident that students understood the options. Table 1 below lists the assessment formats and table 2 the attributes that were identified for the research.

In contrast to rating scales, such as Likert scales, or approve/disapprove questions, Melo, et al. (2022) used the best-worst scaling (BWS) approach to adequately research preferences for various assessments. Unlike conventional approaches, where respondents are required to rank from “most important” to “least important”, BWS requires respondents to make trade-offs among alternatives. BWS further prevents a bias effect, and rankings among best-worst (BW) choices is deemed of lower cognitive difficulty for participants, relative to discrete choice experiments.

Melo, G., Monteza, D., Colson, G., Zhang, Y.Y. (2022). How to assess? Student preferences for methods to assess experiential learning: A best-worst scaling approach. PLoS ONE, 17(10). Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276745.

Empowerment through virtual experience programmes — virtual internships

Mid 2022, Standard Bank South Africa announced the launch of an initiative of virtual internships, with the aim of helping “students gain practical skills and experience that mirrors the work they will do”. The Head: Youth Development, Maymoona Ismail, explains that “the Virtual Experience Programmes aim to bridge this gap between education and industry” by means of video-guided “content, case studies and assessments” (TechFinancials). The virtual internships are free, self-paced and completely online “bite-sized 5-6 hour virtual work experience programs that give students a genuine career advantage” (Forage). Upon successful completion students will receive certificates to add to their resumes.

The virtual internships is one of several dedicated youth development and employment (YDE) initiatives towards “enabling access to inclusive quality education, job creation and supporting economic development in order to reduce inequality” (Digital Street).“Access to education is critical to unlocking the full potential of today’s youth, and we want to supplement their studies with insights that will allow young people to make more informed study and career decisions that lead to job creation,” says Ismail.

Two of the Virtual Experience Programmes are already live (Africa.com), namely ‘Accessing Work Opportunities’ and ‘Getting Ready for the World of Work’ (ITWeb) including “skills such as job searching, business communication and networking, personal branding, interview preparation and more” (Hypertext). Five more programmes to follow in August 2022 include “retail and investment banking, software development, engineering, and data science”. Those interested may sign up for free at https://bit.ly/SBWorkReadiness

Getting Ready to Join the Workforce Virtual Experience Programme - Register

Accessing the World of Work Virtual Experience Programme - Register

Forage recognises that there is a gap between the worlds of education and work. Forage endeavours to empower educators free of charge, to integrate scalable project-based learning, from leading international companies, into curriculums and internship programmes. Forage already offers more than 70 programmes in a range of fields (catalogue).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manageable approach to Live Case Studies for larger student cohorts

In order to fulfil the expectations of industry for “highly skilled, adaptable and flexible graduates”, “who are change savvy, capable of solving complex and ambiguous problems”, and who are “work ready”, “universities should adopt pedagogical methods mirroring challenges faced in the workplace” say Schonell and Macklin (2019: 1197). They advocate ‘Live Case Studies’ (LCSs) as a means “to engage learners in approximations of desired future performances”; qualifying that “LCSs are a form of ‘work integrated learning’ (WIL), an umbrella term for student centred, structured education strategies that facilitate the integration of academic theoretical knowledge with experiential knowledge gained in practice contexts”. They remark that LCSs has significant currency in higher education “as a method where students are emotionally and behaviourally involved in experiential learning”. They indicate that “LCSs are experiential and highly authentic forms of learning that are fully embedded or integrated in academic” (p. 1199).

Although “the LCS approach is typically resource intensive”, Schonell and Macklin (2019: 1197) believe their “approach to LCS is suitable for all institutions, regardless of funding or time constraints”, including “publicly funded institutions where student numbers are high and funding is tight”. They acknowledge that LCSs generally require of “Lecturers [to] spend considerable time finding a business or professional practice provider, initiating contact, determining case details, supervising students and coordinating the case project” (p. 1199). Of particular importance, say Schonell and Macklin (2019: 1205) are “establishing strong networks with potential case study organisations”. Although “‘cold-calling’ on workplaces can lead to fortuitous opportunities” they admit, “an academic’s networks are likely to lead to less rejections and time delays”. They further indicate that preparatory planning should take into account unpredictability, such as changes in strategy that may lead to workplaces, for example, withdrawing their participation. Live cases furthermore cannot be left to run on their own without overseeing.

A live case study “enables students to engage with and evaluate real-world contemporary practice more effectively than traditional written cases while offering a WIL opportunity to a large group of students” say Schonell and Macklin (2019: 1201). They remark that their “LCSs enabled students to study real practices, fostering deep engagement with the discipline and moving their thinking beyond the abstract towards a dynamic interaction with” practitioners, and that “many students saw the LCS as an opportunity to apply their emerging understanding of theory and practice to real and weighty problems”. The LCS presentations and reports suggest students exceeded ‘minimum required effort’ attitude to pass, and instead reflect insights ground in literature and fitting to circumstances faced by the LCS organisations.

The efficiency of live case studies can be improved, and significant time savings achieved, through group-based assessment, indicate Schonell and Macklin (2019: 1201). Group assessment further contributes to team-based work which adds to authenticity, and mimics workplace realities, they say. However, that acknowledge that group work is sometimes put at risk by freeloaders, interpersonal conflicts, and around grade distribution. To overcome the potential of freeloading, they recommend requiring of groups write up and submit meeting minutes. Those students not minuted as participating would lose marks.

Schonell, S. & Macklin, R. (2019). Work integrated learning initiatives: live case studies as a mainstream WIL assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 44(7), 1197-1208. Electronically accessible from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2018.1425986

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

Placement and non-placement work-integrated learning (NPWIL)

Through this blogpost I attempt to provide some guidance regarding the scope of placement and non-placement forms of work-integrated learning (WIL).

Work-integrated learning (WIL) is generally associated with placements, whereby students spend periods of time in the workplace. However, in recent years, many innovations–without placement time–with regard to integrating work practices into teaching and learning occurred. There has been “evidence to suggest universities were exploring and experimenting with new ways” and an uptake of non-placement WIL activities, “to include a range of simulated, virtual, authentic and industry-based activities” say Dean, Eady and Yanamandram (2020: 1-2). The global Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic escalated experiments, which were further leveraged through technological platforms, and described by some as a learning revolution. It most certainly served as impetus for questioning the dominant modes of WIL, and extending interest into alternative WIL models. Examples of non-placement WIL (NPWIL) “may include (but not limited to) authentic industry projects, simulations, field work, creative studio work, digitally enabled or virtual WIL and other NPWIL experiences”.

Whereas my employer opted about a decade ago to use experiential learning as umbrella term, differentiating WIL and simulated work experiences (SWEs), others broadened the range of WIL to include forms of non-placement. Dean, Yanamandram, Eady, Moroney, O'Donnell, and Glover-Chambers (2020) indicate that over the last decade WIL has moved away from the narrow conception of ‘work placements’ to a much broader and widening lens. An earlier typology of WIL entails three models, namely professional programmes, service learning and cooperative education; where students reside in different ‘workplaces’. Another typology delineates different types of WIL experiences, based on ‘on-site’ activities, namely systematic training (e.g., apprenticeships); the structured work experience (e.g., field experience, mandatory professional practice, co-op and internships); and institutional partnerships (e.g., applied projects, service learning). Dean, et al. (2020) indicate that boundaries with regard to WIL are often unclear because of complexities of multiple variables and understandings. They convey five innovative models that are growing, given the advancements in technology, globalisation and creativity, including micro-placements, online projects or placements, competitions such as hackathons, incubators or start-ups and consulting.

Dean, Yanamandram et al. (2020) caution against the use of WIL ‘type’ nomenclature for categorisation, because of variations in terminology, yet relatively similar definitions. They support the notion of classification based on the defining features of WIL rather than specific modes or models of WIL. Dean, Yanamandram et al. (2020) cite a typology by Kaider, Hains-Wesson and Young (2017: 158), comprising a two dimensional grid, namely authenticity vertically and proximity horizontally, depicted in my blogpost ‘Evolving work-integrated learning typologies and frameworks’.

The authenticity axis portrays the learning activity, and the assessment thereof, with regard to the extend students work on problems, processes and projects that they may encounter in the future workplace, and to what extend artefacts that students need to produce would reflect the practice. The proximity axis represents the degree of closeness of learning experiences to real workplaces or practice contexts, and the degree of direct interaction with industry practitioners or community members on work related activities. Kaider et al. (2017) overlaid their grid with exemplars of activities that could take place across three different stages of university education. However Dean, Yanamandram et al. (2020) find this problematic and present both the Universities Australia typology based on the delivery of WIL activities, and the University of Wollongong, Australia, university-wide approach of a WIL Curriculum Classification (WILCC) Framework. Informed by all these, I propose a three-dimensional-kind of typology (or framework), based on Kaider et al. (2017: 159) authenticity-proximity axes, but overlaid by my three broad categories I propose, namely: (a) foundational, (b) applied, and (c) comprehensive, depicted in the diagram below.

Kaider et al. (2017) do not include a grouping for both low-authenticity and low-proximity, because they do not regard such means of teaching and learning as WIL.

Foundational WIL as ‘category’

The four groupings serve as examples of credit-bearing WIL which require of students to observe, explore, analyse or reflect on the application of theory in practice. Activities should be purposefully designed to provide for career development learning, developing of identities, and to guide the learning and reflection of students about the discipline, concepts, skills, ethics and aptitudes. Foundational relates to groundwork or laying the basis for future practice.

Applied WIL as ‘category’

These three groupings also serve as examples of credit-bearing WIL which generally require of students, or provide students opportunities to practise, while also critically reflect while directly engaging in work practices. Applied WIL activities compliment theoretical learning and should be purposefully designed with practical purpose in mind, involving engagement with the actual phenomena.

Comprehensive WIL as ‘category’

This category includes examples of large scope or extensive coverage generally of substantial credit-bearing WIL. However, in some cases internships may involve postgraduate work under supervision with the aim of professional registration. Such WIL should be purposefully designed to provide students opportunities to practise and reflect on actual work with supervisory guidance and feedback. University staff generally provide briefing/debriefing, reflection and support sessions, monitoring and assessment. Students may further be required to participate in activities to share, reflect on and integrate their learning experiences. Comprehensive WIL displays both high levels of authenticity, and high levels of proximity to future work practice.

References

Dean, B., Eady, M.J. and Yanamandram, V. 2020. Editorial: Advancing Non-placement Work-integrated Learning Across the Degree. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(4), Available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol17/iss4/1

Dean, B., Yanamandram, V., Eady, M.J., Moroney, T., O'Donnell, N., & Glover-Chambers, T. 2020. An institutional framework for scaffolding work-integrated learning across a degree. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(4). Available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol17/iss4/6

Kaider, F., Hains-Wesson, R., & Young, K. 2017. Typology of authentic WIL activities and assessment, Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 153-165. Available at: https://www.ijwil.org/files/APJCE_18_2_153_165.pdf

An institutional-wide approach to work-integrated learning (WIL)

“There is value to undertaking an institutional approach to WIL” state Dean, Yanamandram, Eady, Moroney, O'Donnell, and Glover-Chambers (2020: 5); however, it requires both vision and leadership for WIL initiatives are to be successful, they add. The role of leaders include ensuring “that all key stakeholders embrace or support the vision or direction for development”. At the University of Wollongong (UOW), Australia, the “vision is to ensure that every student has real-world, inquiry-led learning opportunities”. The “aim is to provide every UOW student with the opportunity to engage in a variety of scaffolded, purposefully designed and learner-centred WIL experiences within their degree” (Dean et al. 2020: 5). The UOW (2020) definition, derived through consultation by a steering committee comprising representation, of WIL is:

Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) describes activities that integrate work practices with learning in an academic institution. Through WIL, students undertake authentic, experiential learning relevant to their program of study. WIL may occur in person or remotely, in a physical or simulated workplace, or in the classroom. It includes practicums, placements, internships, service learning, industry projects and experience, workplace simulations and professional activities.

WIL activities at UOW: are purposefully designed; are informed by design principles; draws on industry expertise, where relevant; foster opportunities for reflection and engaged feedback; and shape and support students’ career goals through alignment of activity with career development frameworks.

While the nature, scope and extent of WIL may vary considerably across the institution, WIL is classified into five clusters: Co-curricular WIL, Foundational WIL, Embedded WIL, Applied WIL and Professional WIL.

(Dean et al. 2020) present and explain an institutional framework, the Work-Integrated Learning Curriculum Classification (WILCC) Framework, which makes provision for a range of placement and non-placement WIL, in order to make WIL practices overt university-wide, and serves to develop, map and report WIL. The summary (copied from Dean et al. 2020: 10) WILCC Framework differs from other typologies of WIL. The categorisation is based on the learning practices of students rather than activity-type. It focuses on what the student does by learning through practice, and the classification represents a gradient of increasing authenticity of engagement in performing or doing work practices.

Dean, B., Yanamandram, V., Eady, M.J., Moroney, T., O'Donnell, N., & Glover-Chambers, T. 2020. An institutional framework for scaffolding work-integrated learning across a degree. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(4). Available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol17/iss4/6

Experiential learning can be accomplished on-line

Bates (2014) contested a colleague who believed that experiential learning cannot be done online that “experiential learning is [indeed] like most design models: it is independent of the mode of delivery. What matters is how well it is done.” Bates points out that there is a range of teaching design models that embed real world contexts into learning, namely problem-based learning, case-based learning, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, cooperative (work- or community-based) education, and apprenticeships. §34 of the ‘Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework’ further states that “The selection of appropriate forms of work-integrated learning depends on the nature and purpose of the qualification type programme objectives and outcomes, the NQF level at which the WIL component is pegged, institutional capacity to provide WIL opportunities, and the structures and systems that are in place within professional settings and sites of practice to support student learning” (South African Government, 2014: 17). 

Bates (2014) acknowledges, “Advocates of experiential learning are often highly critical of online learning”, but argues, “online learning can be used very effectively to support or develop experiential learning”. In blended or flipped learning, for example, students can gather information by accessing online resources; students can further collaborate online, critique and evaluate each other’s work. Bates adds “experiential learning can be applied fully online, through a combination of synchronous tools such as a web conference, asynchronous tools such as discussion forums and/or social media for group work, and e-portfolios and multimedia for reporting”. Bates (2014) concedes, “Indeed, there are circumstances where it is impractical, too dangerous, or too expensive to use real world experiential learning.” However, real conditions could be simulated online to reduce the time to master a skill, says Bates. 

Dadze-Arthur and Raine (2016: 146) explain that “e-learning, also referred to as distance learning or online education, can be understood as learning that involves students doing all their classroom activities outside the traditional classroom, at a distance from their school or college, and supported by technology-based tools”. However, Beard, Wilson and McCarter (2007: 4) remark that a limited number of underpinning theories exist with regard to e-learning, which is often “technology-led rather than theory-led”. They coined the expression E²-learning with regard to the fusion between experiential learning and e-learning. Experiential-electronic learning (EE-Learning), the notion of ‘experiential learning in a distance-learning environment’, is generally to be understood as a combination of experiential learning and e-learning with the goal to create a strong, interactive learning community (Dadze-Arthur & Raine, 2016: 146). According to Baasanjav (2013: 576) the term “refers to the possibility of bringing together everyday experience and communication technologies”. Dadze-Arthur and Raine (2016: 146) simply uses experiential-electronic learning (EE-Learning), qualified as the notion of ‘experiential learning in a distance-learning environment’, which is generally to be understood as a combination of experiential learning and e-learning with the goal to create a strong, interactive learning community. 

Knud Illeris (2016: 201), inducted in 2006 to the ‘International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame’ (2018) in the fields of continuing education and adult learning, remarks that ‘workplace learning’ and work-based learning’ taking place directly in the workplace “became popular slogans in the context of vocationally orientated education”. He indicates the paradoxical nature of this popularity in the light of historical trend that the bulk of curriculums were transferred from workplaces to formalised education. Illeris (2016: 202) points out “this has been absolutely clear: more and more schooling and less and less educational training at the workplaces”. Enterprises furthermore want education to be financed by the state. Karina de Bruin, a counselling psychologist and managing director of the JvR Academy, quoted by Hesse (2018) “Many jobs change dramatically over relatively short periods. Workers need to constantly update their existing skills and knowledge and acquire new skills and knowledge to ensure career success”. Whereas Illeris (2016) emphasise the need for lifelong learning during work life, with the view of continuously ‘upgrading’ the base qualifications of employees; de Bruin (in Hesse 2018) advocates self-directed learning and agility in order to survive and to keep aligned with the rapidly changing environment. 

Many aspects evolved since the beginning of the twentieth century, when cooperative education systems and sandwich education programmes were introduced in Northern America and Europe respectively, and subsequently spread internationally. Among the many changes, there had been an explosion of e-learning, say Arthur and Raine (2016), who indicates two main reasons. First is technological advances associated with the Internet that resulted in substantial affordable educational resources, networked learning, new ways in which knowledge is imparted, etc. The second reason is the importance of knowledge for economic growth. “At a time of budget constraints …” say Arthur and Raine (2016: 144) “… efficiency drives and a continuous emphasis on optimising value-for-money, the contemporary and emerging technologies offer unique opportunities for the education sector.” The emphasis on e-learning and diminishing opportunities for workplace learning as part of the curriculum, prompt the pursuance of simulations and educational alternatives to real-life experience, in order for graduates to gain competence. 

Baasanjav, U. (2013). Incorporating the experiential learning cycle into online classes. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(4), 575—589.

Bates, T. (2014). Can you do experiential learning online? Assessing design models for experiential learning. Electronically accessible from https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/12/01/can-you-do-experiential-learning-online-assessing-design-models-for-experiential-learning/

Beard, C.; Wilson, J.P. & McCarter, R. (2007). Towards a Theory of e-Learning: Experiential e-Learning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 6(2), 3-15. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/95b4/bf51ed82edf9bb529574d65df250fb595df7.pdf

Dadze-Arthur, A. & Raine, J.W. (2016) Experiential Learning and Teaching at a Distance: How Distinctive an Experience? In Developing Public Managers for a Changing World. Published online: 19 Dec 2016; 141-159. Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/S2045-794420160000005008

Hesse, M. (2018). e-Learning your key to unlocking earnings. Published online in Personal Finance, 12 June 2018, https://www.iol.co.za/personal-finance/e-learning-your-key-to-unlocking-earnings-15441631?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Illeris, K. (2016). Working and learning, chapter 18, 201-216. In Learning, Development and Education, from learning theory to education and practice—the selected works of Knud Illeris. New York: Routledge.

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 — §34 and §35, p. 17. Electronically accessible from http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/38116_gon819.pdf

 

Odgers Berndtson's CEO for one day leadership selection initiative #ceox1day

An “opportunity to assess [prospects] without any obligations” (p. 136) of creating permanent employment expectations, has long been advocated as one of the benefits for companies to participate in cooperative and work-integrated education. Odgers Berndtson, an acclaimed executive-search global consultancy, took the initiative to design “the CEO X 1 Day program” with the aim “to uncover promising future leaders and give students the opportunity to walk in the shoes of a senior executive”. It entails a rigorous recruitment and selection process:

1. Applicants must first complete and submit an online application. A team of executive search experts at Odgers Berndtson review each applicant’s resume of “paid and unpaid work experience, extra-curricular activities, community involvement or charity work, and awards”, academic transcripts, and written essay about thoughts on leadership.
2. Screened applicants must next complete an online leadership assessment with the view of creating “a profile of their competencies and leadership potential”. Odgers Berndtson search consultants assess the strengths and competencies of applicants with regard to confidence, ambition, stress handling effectivity, political astuteness, dependability, and values; as well as ability to learn and develop new skills.
3. Further screening is done through a short 15-20 minutes telephonic interview by an Odgers Berndtson search consultant who will evaluate each applicant’s “quality of answers to the interview questions and their ability to articulate themselves over the phone”.
4. Semi-finalists are there after invited to half-day face-to-face sessions during which they “will be assessed on how they think on their feet, work in a group situation and their overall fit … through activities like case studies, presentations and in-person interviews” with Odgers Berndtson search consultants. Odgers Berndtson reciprocates in that search consultants give semi-finalists “feedback on the online leadership assessments they completed in Phase 2”.
5. Each finalist will spend a full day shadowing a CEO—an opportunity to spend one-on-one time—to learn about the CEO’s background, career path, and how the CEO create value in the organization. Finalists will attend meetings with the CEO’s leadership team and tour the host company’s facilities to ensure it is a meaningful and memorable experience. The one-day experience will be unique to the host company.

Use case studies to instil interdisciplinary approaches to complex future problems

The engineer of the future, many other professionals and employees in general will be facing more and more complex challenges that would require much wider skills sets and interdisciplinary knowledge applications that integrate “science, technology and social systems” (National Academy of Engineering 2004, cited by Davis and Yadav 2014, 163). It is envisaged that “work environments will be inherently ill structured and complex owing to conflicting goals, unanticipated problems, multiple solution methods, non-technical success standards, and unavoidable constraints”.

Situated learning in “authentic and meaningful contexts”, enabling students to experience to complexities they may be faced with, is easier said than done. During the 20^th century cooperative and work-integrated education went a long way towards placing students in authentic workplace learning environments. However, “anchored instruction” is advocated as the solution for formal education settings.

The goal of anchored instruction is to overcome the inert knowledge problem by creating environments that enable students and teachers to experience the problems and opportunities experts in the field face and tools they use to tackle the problems. Furthermore, anchored instruction models are how experts change their own thinking based on new concepts and theories, rather than looking at new information as facts or mechanical procedures that need to be memorised (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt [CGTV] cited by Davis and Yadav 2014, 164).

Davis, C. and Yadav, A. 2014. Case studies in engineering, pp. 161 – 180. In A. Johri and B.M. Olds (eds). 2014. Cambridge handbook of engineering education research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

National Academy of Engineering. 2004. The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

Similarities and differences between case studies and problem-based learning

Davis and Yadav (2014, 163) indicate that Burgess (2004) suggests “that cases could be developed that provide students with authentic experiences of solving real-world problems and promote flexible, adaptive learning needed for the work-place”.

However, apart from pointing out directly below important similarities and differences “between case study learning and problem-based learning”, Davis and Yadav (2014, 163) present a comparison in a table (copied from p. 164):

• Cases “are an account of current/past activity and contain information that reflects the perspectives of a previous problem solver or case author”.
• Problem-based learning “presents real-world problems to students who require new skills or knowledge to solve the problem”. Citing Burgess (2004) Davis and Yadav (2014, 163) indicate that “students need to discover what is required to solve the problem and build a case”.

 

Burgess, K.L. 2004. Is your case a problem? Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 1/2, 42-44.

Davis, C. and Yadav, A. 2014. Case studies in engineering, pp. 161 – 180. In A. Johri and B.M. Olds (eds). 2014. Cambridge handbook of engineering education research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Case studies or histories present students with actual projects and problems encountered

Cases, case studies or case histories “are narratives that present real-life scenarios/problems and allow students to experience how professionals address problems encountered in the field” say Davis and Yadav (2014, 161). Stated differently, a case study is a written account of something actually done; a micro-context focussing on a specific subset of a larger domain. Davis and Yadav (2014, 162) mention three major types of cases, namely (a) descriptive or analytical, (b) problem-solving or synthetical, and (c) problem identification. Citing Merseth (1994), cases comprise three main elements convey Davis and Yadav (2014, 161), namely:

1. “they are based on real-life events or realistic situations that allow students to experience problems they are not likely to encounter first-hand;
2. they present both contextual and technical information that is based on careful research and study;
3. [and] they may present no clear-cut solutions to allow students to develop multiple perspectives”.

It therefore follows that cases mimic real-world scenarios, which require students to solve authentic ill-structured problems with complexities, and to experiment within safe confines.

Case studies have a long and effective teaching history, since 1870, in business, law and medicine. The Harvard Business School adopted in 1908 case studies as instructional method. In 1940s an entire science course was offered by means of case studies. Since the 1950s cases have been used in chemical and civil engineering.

Davis, C. and Yadav, A. 2014. Case studies in engineering, pp. 161 – 180. In A. Johri and B.M. Olds (eds). 2014. Cambridge handbook of engineering education research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Merseth, K.K. 1994. Cases, case methods, and the professional development of educators. Eric Digest. Retrieved 14 July 2014 from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED401272