Learning in vivo

A template for good practice of work integrated learning (WIL) in programmes

In a research report Martin, Rees, and Edwards (2011a: 6) present a template of key good practices, for each of the six common areas, of in work integrated learning (WIL), outlined and schematically (2011b: 3) as follow:

1. Organisation set-up

1. Placement requirements and support
2. Placement selection and location
3. Risk management issues

2. Student preparation

1. Pre-requisites and theoretical basis
2. Careers interview skills and CV preparation
3. Readiness for practice

3. Supervision

1. On campus academic supervisor and mentor
2. Work place employer
3. Work place university staff

4. Competencies

1. Self-confidence
2. Communication and people skills
3. Teamwork
4. Professional standards

5. Pedagogies

1. Scenario based learning and project work
2. Theory lectures and labs
3. Oral presentations

6. Assessment

1. Learning contract
2. Reflective journal
3. Final report
4. Industry based competency checks
5. Oral presentations

Martin et al. (2011a: 9) state that “there are specific components, which when melded together, define an optimal WIL activity through the tripartite partnership between the employer, the teacher, and the student”, and if “done well, WIL benefits each stakeholder within the tripartite relationship”.

Martin et al. detail (2011a: 12-18, 2011b: 4-5) several aspects concerning organisational set-up, from precursors that influence what is done; to placement selection and location considerations; industry networks as key feature; and risk management issues. They address placement requirements and support; the importance of “developing and maintaining ongoing good relationships with industry” (p. 17) and network support; support required by students while in the field; resources for supporting workplace supervisors (or mentors); as well as administrative and online support needed.

Student preparation is an important aspect, indicate Martin et al. (2011a: 19-21, 2011b: 6-7). It is of foundational importance to ensure students demonstrate both the theoretical knowledge and skills for successful placement experiences; as well as in some instances scaffolding during early work experience. Guidance with CV preparation, interview skills and techniques, and also provision of career and employment services are of significance. Students should be properly prepared in order to be ready for practice experiences. Student resources should provide students with clear expectations.

Martin et al. (2011a: 22-23, 2011b: 8-9) emphasise the importance of formal supervision (and mentoring) with regard to teaching and learning. The learning goals and expectations must be clarified.

Competencies, say Martin et al. (2011a: 24-27, 2011b: 10-11) “are the qualities or extent to which the students develop the necessary ability or knowledge to do something successfully”. The five mentioned competence areas are discussed.

Martin et al. (2011a: 28-31, 2011b: 12-13) outline a number of pedagogies involved, such as (i) mentoring, which requires close supervision and is both time consuming and resource intensive; (ii) oral presentations providing opportunities to reflect on action; (iii) scenario based learning (SBL), which is “based on the concept of situated cognition, which is the idea that knowledge cannot be fully understood independent of its context” and therefore WIL within specific contexts, situations or social frameworks; (iv) the theory taught through lectures and laboratories should be purposefully aligned to the learning outcomes of the programme, and is distinct from experiential learning; (v) and project work, which “is a particular strength of the WIL approach”.

“Informal formative approaches [of assessment] could include the use of technologies such as emails, blogs or other e-journals. More formal [assessment] approaches are the use of a reflective journal and supervisor/mentor, as part of the overall course assessment plan.” say Martin et al. (2011a: 32-36, 2011b: 14-15) and elaborate on a number. The learning contract not only describes the work activities and project focus prepared by the student and negotiated with the host organisation (where after approved by the academic supervisor), but also the bases for assessment. The reflective journal is not meant to merely capture the tasks performed by the student, but also reflections on all the activities throughout the practicum experience. It ought to include revisiting of feelings, re-evaluation of experiences, linking of theory to practice, and planning of future action. “A common feature of the assessment of WIL is the submission of a final report”, say Martin et al. (2011a: 34), which is often orally presented to a panel. It incorporates all formative reflection and summative outcomes of the overall experience; and is either signed off by the workplace supervisor, or in some cases a formal report required. Monitoring of the experiential learning students undergo and industry based competency checks form part of good practice. Some professionally and statutory accredited programmes require specific competency based assessment.

Martin et al. (2011a: 37, 2011b: 16) conclude with a number of further considerations deemed important for resourcing effective WIL programmes.

Martin, A., Rees, M., & Edwards, M. (2011a). Work integrated learning, a template for good practice: supervisors’ reflections. An Ako Aotearoa publication. Electronically accessible from: https://ako.ac.nz/assets/Knowledge-centre/RHPF-c43-Work-Integrated-Learning/RESEARCH-REPORT-Work-Integrated-Learning-A-Template-for-Good-Practice-Supervisors-Reflections.pdf

Martin, A., Rees, M., & Edwards, M. (2011b). Work integrated learning, a template for good practice. Ako Aotearoa. Electronically accessible from: https://ako.ac.nz/assets/Knowledge-centre/RHPF-c43-Work-Integrated-Learning/RESOURCE-Work-Integrated-Learning-A-Template-for-Good-Practice.pdf (booklet)

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

Technology enabled online feedback and assessment to enhance studio-based learning

“Assessment is of prime importance to education and student learning” say Eshun and Osei-Poku (2013: 1), because it supports learning. Rubrics are descriptive scoring and assessment tools; they form the foundation of academic judgements and measures about the performances, achievements, progress, and levels of proficiency; and make explicit how well the learning outcomes were achieved. The use of rubrics further ensures consistency, overcomes arbitrariness, and reduces not only subjectivity, but also administration. Rubrics provide students with specific criteria, and detail both what is expected, and what constitutes a complete response. However, there are potential down sides and pitfalls pertaining the use of rubrics, caution Eshun and Osei-Poku (2013). They recommend the participation of students in the development of rubrics, especially in studio- and project-based learning contexts. Students do appreciate an effective and usable rubric, which contains well-defined assessment criteria; is explicit; specific, and based on the intended learning outcomes.

“Feedback is a crucial component in the change and the potential for change in individual performance”, say Hamond, Himonides and Welch (2020: 34). When current performance is perceived not to match the intended level of performance, learning is enabled. They indicate that for feedback to be effective, meaningful information, self-assessment and self-regulatory skills are required. Feedback fosters learner autonomy. Hamond, et al. (2020) differentiate (a) intrapersonal feedback—which happens inside the individual; from (b) interpersonal feedback—which happens between two or more individuals, or between one individual and one external source, such as technology. Intrapersonal feedback includes internal processes such as conscious–awareness state, metacognitive knowledge, self-regulatory skills, emotional state, and a sense of self. They further differentiate verbal feedback (for example providing information, or asking questions), and non-verbal feedback (for example modelling, imitating, body and head movements, pointing, hand gestures, and behaviours such as smiling, laughing, nodding, shaking and facial expression. Hamond, et al. (2020) also allude to the use of technology-mediated feedback, which may augment intrapersonal feedback.

Hamond, et al. (2020) propose the use of synchronous or asynchronous online video and audio recordings and digital technology systems in distance teaching and learning environments. Such technology system may enable lecturers and students to share performance-related data through the internet (online), and to discuss the visual feedback to augment the teaching and learning experiences. It has the potential to enhance the online learning experiences by exploiting available technologies.

Eshun, E.F. & Osei-Poku, P. (2013). Design students perspectives on assessment rubric in studio-based learning. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 10(1). Available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/8

Hamond, L., Himonides, E. & Welch, G. (2020). The nature of feedback in higher education studio-based piano learning and teaching with the use of digital technology. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 13(1), 33-56. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte_00015_1

Synchronous online laboratory learning

Active laboratory experiment-interaction and problem-solving are considered essential parts of science and engineering education, because they enable direct acquisition of applicable knowledge for use in practical situations. Synchronous experimentation offers immediate feedback, rather than delayed. “Online (Remote) laboratories” report Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 222) “available via internet” are therefore gaining importance. They define Online Engineering “as an interdisciplinary field utilising the areas of engineering, computing and telematics, where specific engineering activities like programming, design, control, observation, measuring, sensing, and maintenance are provided to both remote and local users in a live interactive setting over a distributed, physically dispersed network (for example: internet or intranet)”. They add that “high bandwidth internet connections world-wide and other derivative capabilities in the areas of real-time communication, control, teleconferencing, video streaming and others have made multi-site collaborative work, utilising state-of-the art equipment in remote laboratories across the globe a current reality”.

According to Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 226) there are already a number of remote laboratories in operation and that the range of disciplines being catered for is growing as universities collaborate internationally. The portability and advancement of mobile technology further serve as powerful motivator for growth of online laboratory experiences.

Auer, M.E.; Edwards, A. & Zutin, D.G. 2011. Online laboratories in interactive learning environments, pp. 219-248. In N. Pachler; C. Pimmer & J. Seipold (eds). 2011. Work-Based Mobile Learning— Concepts and Cases. Oxford: Peter Lang.