Learning in vivo

Workplace friendships in remote or electronic WIL contexts

Knapp, Xing and Drewery (2023: 506) differentiate two forms of workplace friendships related to work-integrated learning (WIL) scenarios, namely with (a) fellow students and (b) host-organisational members. Their literature reviews found that workplace friendships are a common phenomenon in WIL settings, both among students and with the hosting organisation’s staff, and is “positively associated with job satisfaction, career development, organizational commitment, and conversion intention”.

During workplace-based learning (WPBL) students often work with other students. “When they do, they seem to interact in ways that can result in workplace friendships” say Knapp, Xing and Drewery (2023: 506). They may socialise and bond while having lunch together, help each other settle in and “navigate challenges at work together”.

Anyone who works within a WPBL hosting organisation is a potential member, mentioned in (b) above, including mentors, supervisors, managers, and junior workers. In some situations, “workplace friendships may develop between students and their supervisors”, and such relationships may even transcend traditional roles, which is deemed a significant advantage. Friendships characterised “by trust, intimacy, and personal connection” might emerge and “develop into voluntary, intimate, and personal connections”, despite limited duration of interaction (Knapp, Xing & Drewery, 2023: 506).

With the rise in remote WIL, there are concerns about reduced outcomes, because “students are more likely to develop friendships when they work in-person rather than remotely”. Knapp, Xing and Drewery (2023: 505) found that “Informal socialization occurred less in remote work, which partially explained why remote workers reported fewer friendships”. Historically, most WPBL were in-person in workplaces, with students physically managed by host organisations. The COVID-19 pandemic forced a shift to remote WPBL. It has been found that it stunted the development of some students and is believed to be a result of reduced meaningful social interactions that would typically contribute to a student’s development due to three reasons. Firstly, fewer opportunities for informal socialisation in contrast to those working together in person and often informally connect for a chat. Secondly, tasks are seldom shared when working remotely, whereas when physically together, colleagues more easily naturally collaborate, share ideas and together develop solutions. Thirdly, the greater segregation implies less opportunity to talk about for example favourite television shows or weekend plans and to notice similarities; less opportunity to celebrate shared triumphs, and also to lament shared losses.

“Collaboration among students is fundamental for knowledge building and competency development”, state Pulgar et al (2021: 1), including the reflection of students on their WPBL experiences. The effectiveness of collaboration among students is depended on the extent and the nature of actual interactions. Pulgar et al (2021: 1) found that despite the mediation of collaboration and interaction by Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), “such as forums, chats, emails, or video conferences among other alternatives”, that “the transition to remote teaching has added new challenges for collaboration” among students.

Pulgar et al (2021: 1) made use of Social Network Analysis (SNA), which “affords relevant methodological and theoretical tools to capture the different types of social relationships” that students are engaging in; and “how these foster (or hinder) their learning potential”. They report that “researchers have used SNA to explore different forms of participation on online courses” (p. 2), such as through “posts on discussion forums”. The findings of their study are worth noting, in particular the differences of social networks found, and the effects of these on grades achieved. They do admit the limitation of their study pertaining the absence of information about the internet connectivity and accessibility of the students in remote settings.

Joshi (2021), a Delhi-based freelance anchor, observes “that remote working is here to stay with many organizations announcing some form of hybrid working future” and add that “with the right technology platform it is entirely possible to work, connect, and collaborate seamlessly online”. Copp (2023) corroborates by indicating that 30% workers in the United States are working in a hybrid working environment, with 13% totally remote. Pelczarski  (2021: 76-77) provides a list of points that apply happy, motivated and productive remote employees, and a further list applicable to remote managers. He indicates that “certain types of job positions lend themselves to remote work (e.g., office, sales, IT, finance)”, but state that “industry and manual services workers are typically more difficult to employ remotely than professional and office workers”. He further offers a list of various types of employees deemed highly difficult to set up and function effectively in a remote capacity, and a second list of medium-difficulty positions to set up remotely.

Varagur (2021), an award-winning journalist and former Wall Street Journal columnist, states that “starting a remote job [or an internship] can be hard [because of the absence of the ‘proverbial water cooler to generate casual encounters’], but many people have found new ways to forge work friendships”. “Making friends at work was getting harder even before the pandemic”, she says and indicates that a 2017 survey found “more than half of people had five or fewer friends at work” and that earlier surveys found far fewer “had at least one ‘confidant’ at work”.

However, Varagur (2021) also relates that “some have found new ways to make work friends” during the COVID-19 pandemic, for example two people connected initially through a shared sense of humour during “large Zoom meetings, which turned into private Slack chats, then phone calls and one-on-one video calls, and an endless stream of text messages that continues to this day”.

Joshi (2021) states that “as the future of work continues to evolve, organizations must chalk up a comprehensive policy to connect, engage and empower their teams”, and propose elements towards such:

• Importance of recognising differences, such as whereas “some people may thrive in a remote set up” others “may crave the personal interactions of the” workplace, or “may need the physical separation between their personal and private spaces and look forward to the bustle of the office to be productive”.
• Investing in relevant distributed technology prioritizing security, networking, and virtual collaboration.
• Establish best communication and collaboration practices for each channel, including guidelines pertaining etiquette, duration of virtual meetings, response time frames, etc.
• Prevention of miscommunication, misunderstandings, and exclusion through two-way communication such as “regular town halls with senior management, meetings with team leads and informal chats”.
• Seek ways towards building camaraderie—a spirit of trust and goodwill among people closely associated in an activity or endeavour—by being sensitive and avail support regarding mental health.

Copp, M. (2023). Hybrid workplaces need locker room leadership. Plumbing & Mechanical; Troy Vol. 41(6), 34-37.

Joshi, M. (2021). How to cultivate a people centric work culture while working remotely? Business World; New Delhi (8 March).

Knapp, K.; Xing, I. & Drewery, D. (2023) Implications of remote work for co-operative education students' workplace friendships. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(4), 505-521.

Pelczarski, K.  (2021). Would you make a great remote employee? Tribology & Lubrication Technology; Park Ridge, 77(3), 76-78. www.stle.org

Pulgar, J. Ramírez, D. Umanzor, A. Candia, C. & Sánchez, I. (2021). Student networks on online teaching due to COVID-19: Academic effects of strong friendship ties and perceived academic prestige in physics and mathematics courses. Cornell University, arXiv an open-access archive free distribution: Physics Education. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.06245.pdf

Varagur, K. (2021). How to make friends while working from home? Ask these office newbies. Remote work can feel isolating for new employees, but many younger workers turned digital hangouts and Zoom calls into real-world meetups.  Wall Street Journal (Online); New York, N.Y. (1 August).

A framework for electronic work-based learning (eWBL)

The electronic work-based learning (eWBL) “framework [below, developed by Perusso and Wagenaar (2023: 1)] comprises five primary phases: design, preparation, onboarding, delivery, and assessment. Each phase contains several sub-phases that offer practical implementation steps to WBL trainers in higher education and industry on how to deliver high-quality eWBL”.

Perusso and Wagenaar (2023: 3) “followed a multiple case study method based on 27 case study reports” derived from an eWBL project. Their data collection and analysis, methods, and resources are detailed in the referenced article. Figure 1 (p. 5) below summarises and illustrates the methodological process they followed.

Phase 1 — Design

This “phase comprises the planning of eWBL at the curricular level” (p. 5) and include decisions such as when (in “which semester WBL takes place”), the scope (duration and how many learning credits), the type (e.g. “of employment contract”), and “the general responsibilities of interns and employers”.

Insights derived from the various case studies include, among other things:

• “disciplines like management and engineering are more adaptable to the online environment than, for instance, hospitality and social care” (p. 5), suggesting that the nature of academic fields should be considered during design
• “virtual internships are well suited to foster competencies associated with the digital world, including digital communication, proactivity, and time management oftentimes at the expense of teamwork, creativity and networking skills” (p. 6), suggesting the learning outcomes should reflect and capitalise on such
• practicalities such as “electricity, IT equipment (laptop, monitor, printer), software, office supplies, high-speed internet, and ergonomic office space” (p. 6) should be taken into consideration

Table 3, p. 6, reflect the “main insights of the design phase”.

Phase 2 — Preparation

This “phase, the preparation phase encompasses the more practical activities that companies and HEIs [higher education institutions] have to perform before the beginning of the ‘work’ phase of the internship. Items that require particular attention include (i) aligning the intern’s skills with remote work, (ii) establishing and implementing online application and recruiting procedures, and (iii) providing training to HE [higher education]  and company staff on the needs of remote work” (p. 6). “Table 4 provides an overview of the main findings from the preparation phase” (p. 7).

Phase 3 — Onboarding

This “phase starts when the intern has secured a placement and is ready to commence working” (p. 7). Onboarding typically includes four activities, namely “(i) introducing the internship aims, (ii) meeting colleagues and stakeholders, (iii) detailing the workflow and (iv) IT and other practical matters”. These are detailed on pp. 7-8, with an overview of key findings presented in Table 5 (p. 9) below.

Phase 4 — Delivery

This phase involves the main work-based learning activities of the internship. There are “three critical areas associated with the delivery stage of eWBL: (i) task briefing, (ii) task monitoring and (iii) networking and socialisation activities” (p. 9). Table 6 (p. 10) portrays the main insights of the delivery phase.

Phase 5 — Assessment

“Assessment in eWBL typically divides into (i) feedback and mentoring and (ii) formal evaluation [say Perusso and Wagenaar (2023: 11)]. The first is a constructive and continuous process that is sometimes referred to as formative assessment, taking place throughout the entire duration of the internship. The second takes place at the end of the programme and has a more summative orientation, ultimately aiming at learning validation and acquisition of credit points.” Table 7, p. 11, summarises the key findings of the assessment phase.

Perusso and Wagenaar (2023: 11-12) point out “that a robust WBL design requires a clear definition of the intended learning outcomes, the assessment methods, the general responsibilities of the interns, the length of employment, contractual and compensation concerns, and potential pathways to long-term employment”.

Perusso, A. and Wagenaar, R. (2023). Electronic work-based learning (eWBL): a framework for trainers in companies and higher education. Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2280193

The ‘e’ in eWIL representing entrepreneurial or embedded (work-integrated learning)

While doing literature searches on electronic work-integrated learning (eWIL), came across:

• Entrepreneurial Work-Integrated Learning (EWIL)
• Supervised Entrepreneurial Work-Integrated Learning (sEWIL)
• Embedding Work Integrated Learning (EWIL)

It used to frustrate me how authors coin terms without apparently considering or recognising existing meanings, often giving total new meanings to concepts in use. The word coin, in this context, means “to make; invent; [or] fabricate” an expression or phrase (Dictionary.com). Coin originates from Latin (cuneus), French (cuigne) and Middle English (coyn(e), coygne)—a stamping die to emboss a piece of metal to be issued by an authority, such as government, for use as money.

Eisenstein (2022: 2) indicates that experiential learning is preferred as pedagogy for entrepreneurship education; that work-integrated learning (WIL) in particular is gaining attention across higher education; and that “nine types have been identified: apprenticeship, Co-operative education, internships, entrepreneurship, service learning, applied research, professional/clinical practicum, field placement, and work experience”. Eisenstein (2022: 1) further indicates that there is “an increasing interest in entrepreneurship education across the disciplines, engineering programs included”, where “entrepreneurship education is delivered through the application of work-integrated learning pedagogy”; with “Supervised Entrepreneurial Work-Integrated Learning (sEWIL) is a particular modality of EWIL”. Eisenstein (2022: 1) explains that “engineering students learn about entrepreneurship through participation in a start-up working environment, where students directly observe and participate in the entrepreneurial working environment”. Tacit entrepreneurial knowledge is acquired through an authentic real-world learning environment and purposeful reflection, says Eisenstein.

Embedded Work Integrated Learning (EWIL) is explained by Doolan, Piggott, Chapman & Rycroft (2019: 91) as a specific model of Work Integrated Learning (WIL) where “students work with industry in small blocks of time at regular intervals throughout semester focussing on reflective learning in authentic work environments”. The structure and purpose of WIL and EWIL differ and “one cannot be substituted for the other”, say Doolan et al (2019: 92). WIL placements are often experienced by students as an intense time of day-to-day practice and obligations with little distance for detailed reflection on own learning. In contrast, “Embedded Work Integrated Learning (EWIL) strategically threads learning and reflection together over time”, which allows for deeper reflection and improvements of practices.

Doolan et al (2019: 93) present a case study of a degree which make use of both WIL and EWIL, “one where students spend a significant block of time working directly with industry partners … and another, where the WIL placement is strategically threaded or explicitly embedded into a subject throughout a semester and into subjects throughout the degree”. The inclusion of Embedded Work Integrated Learning (EWIL) “provides a slower more controlled approach to the practice of critical reflection guiding the practical application of skills”. EWIL is deemed “an effective pedagogical strategy to ensure students develop employability skills”, by Doolan et al (2019: 105), in “that all stakeholders benefit”. Students become more employable, industry gains highly skilled potential workers, and the reputation of universities is enhanced. However, the relationships between tertiary institutions and industry partners are crucial to successful EWIL.

Dictionary.com. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/coin

Doolan, M., Piggott, B., Chapman, S., & Rycroft, P. (2019). The Benefits and Challenges of Embedding Work Integrated Learning: A Case Study in a University Education Degree Program. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n6.6

Eisenstein, A. (2022). Engaging Engineering Students with Engineering Entrepreneurship and the Start-Up Working Environment through Supervised Entrepreneurial Work-Integrated Learning. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA). https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi.15845

Wellbeing of students during online work-integrated learning (eWIL)

Intentional measures and resources to enhance the wellbeing of students, to achieve success, has long been advocated by scholars, say Taylor, Milne, Tam, McGee & Stirling (2023: 261), and has been accentuated by the unprecedented circumstances of COVID-19. The restrictions brought on by the pandemic, accelerated online and remote learning, and highlighted the need for supporting student wellbeing. Briant and Crowther (2020: 619) indicate that more than a decade ago higher education institutions began recognising “the value of virtual internships as valid experiential learning opportunities to acquire professional skills and competencies”. The acronym ‘eWIL’ includes electronic, online, remote and virtual work-integrated learning, and can take many forms, such as remote internships, “virtual reality, asynchronous platforms, on-line role play, blogging, on-line forum, iPortfolios, live chat rooms, virtual simulations, and video conferencing”. The required experience is undertaken remote from a physical workplace, while all communications and engagement occurring electronically.

Online learning is here to stay, say Taylor et al (2023: 261), which is justifying the need for “strategies to support student wellbeing in these contexts”. Student wellbeing during eWIL (online or remote WIL) is deemed especially important in that “students are navigating unfamiliar workplaces online, are exposed to new challenges, and are distanced from supports present in traditional in-person settings” argue Taylor et al (2023: 262). The distancing physically “from support networks and social groups can have a significant impact on a student’s sense of belonging and social connectedness” they remark.

Researchers reported that where students concurrently engage in WIL opportunities during academic study periods, such students have been known to prioritize their WIL tasks over course assignments or personal needs, and heavily taxed their already scarce resources, thus compromising their sense of wellbeing. The increased vulnerability has been known “to negative[ly] affect, sadness, stress and mental health disorders, with anxiety and depression being the most prevalent” indicate Taylor et al (2023: 262). Students furthermore “reported high rates of substance use, poor sleep quality, and emotion dysregulation”, that may “result in significant impairments to mental, social, and emotional functioning, which may reciprocally affect their capacity to be fully invested in their academic learning, and successfully integrate and master their skills in a WIL environment”. These issues highlight the need for enhanced student support.

Taylor et al (2023: 262-3) employed ‘Five Ways to Wellbeing’ as research design, namely:

1. The first way to wellbeing, connect, identifies the importance of creating strong social connections with others achieved through meaningful interactions.
2. Secondly, be active, highlights the influence of physical health and exercise on mental health, including the reduction of anxiety and depression through physical activity.
3. Thirdly, take notice, urges individuals to be present in the moment and focus on positive aspects of a situation to assist with individual reflection and deeper appreciation of experiences.
4. Fourthly, learn, promotes ongoing learning, while identifying its benefits, such as reducing feelings of isolation, and developing social relationships.
5. Lastly, give, promotes volunteering and assisting individuals other than yourself to create feelings of fulfillment and connectedness to one’s community.

Briant, S. & Crowther, P. (2020). Reimagining internships through online experiences: Multi-disciplinary engagement for creative industries students. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 617-628. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_5_617_628.pdf

Taylor, A., Milne, A., Tam, A., McGee, S. & Stirling, A. (2023). Program coordinators' support for student wellbeing in online work-integrated learning (eWIL). International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(2), 261-275. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_24_2_261_275.pdf

Differentiating ‘eWIL’ (electronic work-integrated learning) ‘blended WIL’ and ‘virtual WIL’

Schuster and Glavas (2017: 56) indicate that although not yet formally defined, ‘blended WIL’ refers to the intersection with technology describing work-integrated learning “delivered in online and face-to-face environments”; whereas ‘virtual WIL’ refers to learning provided through virtual realities; and ‘eWIL’ (electronic WIL) “used to more broadly indicate the integration of information communication technology (ICT) within WIL”. They state that “the use of technology has the ability to extend WIL experiences to a greater number of students and may play a key role in less resource-intensive models of WIL” and that “technology may also offer the opportunity to develop more authentic experiences as work increasingly occurs within a digital space rather than at a physical place”, but has enjoyed insignificant attention in contrast to e-learning in the workplace.

“Work integrated learning (WIL) is a strategic priority for universities aiming to enhance graduate employability in an increasingly competitive labor market” say Schuster and Glavas (2017: 55). “Work integrated learning (WIL) combines academic study and formal learning with student exposure to real-world practice settings to better prepare graduates for entry into the workforce” they (p. 56) qualify, and add that there is a “growing demand for work-ready graduates”, which is driving “the need for more extensive incorporation of WIL in higher education curriculum” and therefore “becoming a key strategic priority of universities, industry and government”. They observe that WIL may incorporate “a range of approaches, with diverse and distinct emphases” including “placements, internships, practicums, supervised practice and simulations”, which “are most commonly visible in offline environments; however, technology is increasingly being used to augment WIL experiences”. The aim remains “to integrate theory with workplace practices through authentic, real-world experiences, allowing learners to engage with industry and community partners on authentic activities that are planned for and assessed”.

“Technology has the potential to advance the ways in which WIL is both managed and applied by overcoming the key challenges of accessibility and resourcing”, however “the role that technology can play in WIL has received” little attention, say Schuster and Glavas (2017: 56). They remark that by “employing technology to support and deliver WIL can remove geographical barriers … and allows, for example, rural (regional) and external students to engage in WIL based activities”. Furthermore, virtual placements may enable students to apply acquired “knowledge and skills to complete a real-world project in a team using technology to be virtually, rather than physically, present within the workplace” (p. 57). Potential benefits of technology further include supporting “WIL for larger cohorts of students in an equitable and pedagogically rigorous manner” and for developing 21st century skills “such as: (i) learning and innovation (learning to create together), (ii) digital literacy (information-savvy and media fluency) and (iii) career-based skills (being work-ready and prepared for the real world)”. Furthermore, “eWIL has the capacity to facilitate collaboration between students and industry professionals via online platforms … such as virtual simulations, and also has the potential to develop more sophisticated higher-order thinking skills relative to traditional WIL, such as internships and practicums, where students are not normally involved in critical and consequential decision making or problem solving”. Emphasising the importance of students being “exposed to authentic learning environments that enable them to observe, interact and respond to real work problems in real work settings that best emulate the working environment with its associated complexities”, Schuster and Glavas (2017: 57) indicate “that technological developments have made it possible to create virtual environments that almost exactly mimic work-based settings”.

A key challenge, similar to traditional WIL, indicated by Schuster and Glavas (2017: 57), is the notion of willing partnering and interaction with, reciprocity by, and access to industry organisations in order deliver eWIL. Other challenges for eWIL they indicate “is a lack of support systems”, “technological platform”, “the requirement for quality software” and “extensive staff training in the use of technology”. These challenges, they say, “highlight that, at least initially, the development and implementation of eWIL can be resource-intensive”. Furthermore, students from disadvantage and diverse backgrounds, and those with certain disabilities or those “who may require assistive technologies”, may not directly benefit from eWIL.

Based on a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed articles, by Schuster and Glavas (2017), they developed a typology of eWIL (p. 64) presented below. “The typology includes four categories: Technology-Supported, Technology-Facilitated, Technology-Blended and Technology-Based.” Both ‘Technology-Supported’ and ‘Technology-Facilitated’ represent the use of technology to support WIL processes, however, more extensively in the latter. Similarly, with ‘Technology-Blended’ and ‘Technology-Based’ eWIL’, the latter more extensively, such as entirely virtual or digital. They acknowledge “that theoretically there are likely to be numerous attributes which may influence the implementation of the typology”. The aim of their research was “to identify the preliminary attributes that illustrate diversity in how technology can be applied and further implemented in WIL”.

Schuster, L. & Glavas, C. (2017). Exploring the dimensions of electronic work integrated learning (eWIL). Educational Research Review, 21, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.04.001

The four design principles for electronic work-integrated learning (eWIL)

“Technology extends the accessibility of work integrated learning (WIL) experiences in higher education” say Glavas and Schuster (2020). They also state that “the introduction of technology into work integrated learning (WIL) experiences has the potential to be one of the most important modern advancements in higher education”. “Using technology to deliver WIL experiences can remove geographical barriers … [and] … may increase the accessibility of WIL and its transferability to larger cohorts” they observe.

“Electronic WIL (eWIL) is defined as the ‘use of technology to support the administrative processes or students of WIL and/or deliver entirely online or blended WIL experiences’”, whereas “WIL incorporates a range of approaches that integrate theory with workplace practice” state Schuster and Glavas (2017). They recognise that WIL as ‘an umbrella term’ and that WIL can vary considerably, but emphasise the “partnership among students, educational institutions, and industry”.

Through research, four design principles for eWIL were identified by Glavas and Schuster (2020), namely:

1. provide an authentic eWIL experience (learning activities, assessment and technology)
2. carefully select and integrate technological platforms employed to support or deliver eWIL
3. effective administrative processes to support eWIL
4. promote co-presence and relationship building

Glavas and Schuster (2020) observe that these four design principles for eWIL “provides an important basis for further developing knowledge around designing eWIL programs”.

Glavas, C. & Schuster, L. (2020). Design principles for electronic work integrated learning (eWIL). The Internet and Higher Education, 47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100760

Schuster, L. & Glavas, C. (2017). Exploring the dimensions of electronic work integrated learning (eWIL). Educational Research Review, 21, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.04.001