Learning in vivo

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

Constructivism - Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework

Literature about online distance learning, has been providing insight with regard to virtual learning, (Ruggiero & Boehm, 2016), in that the design draws from the constructivist learning paradigm. Virtual internships are by nature constructivist activities. “Constructivists believe that learning is a process of interpreting, building, and modifying our understanding of reality based upon life’s experiences” say Ruggiero and Boehm (2016: 107), citing Dewey (1966), who “believed that knowledge emerges only from situations in which learners have to draw them out of meaningful experiences”. Virtual internships offer students opportunities to apply subject matter expertise and theoretical knowledge to a work context, thereby creating new knowledge and skills.

One of the multiple contributions made by the field of online learning to the theory of distance learning, especially in relation to constructivism, is the ‘Community of Inquiry’ (CoI) framework, say Ruggiero and Boehm (2016: 107), citing Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2010). The goal with the CoI framework was to provide a conceptual framework with regard to using online communications media. It comprise three related constructs or core elements, namely Social Presence, Cognitive Presence, and Teaching Presence. It is believed that the educational experience for students is determined by how the three core elements interrelate. The three elements, and their areas of overlap, are illustrated by a diagram.

 

Cognitive presence, say Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2010), is operationalized through the four phases of the Practical Inquiry (PI) model, namely the triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution. Social presence is described from a multi-dimensional perspective, including affective expression, group cohesion, and open communication. The three dimensions of social presence are defined with regard to participants identifying with the community, communicating purposefully in a trusting environment, and developing interpersonal relationships. Teaching presence entail a three dimensional design, facilitation and direction nature of learning activities that will ensure students move through the four phases of the PI model. All three core elements overlap with one another dynamically.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 5–9. Accessed electronically from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003

Ruggiero, D., & Boehm, J. 2016. Design and Development of a Learning Design Virtual Internship Program. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(4), 105-120. Accessed electronically from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2385

Key component of experiential education is reflection, not activity

Snow, Wardley, Carter and Maher (2019: 80) state that the term experiential education “is often misunderstood or misapplied through reductionist thinking to any learning that involves activity”; on the contrary, it is defined as “a pedagogical approach that encourages collective and personal critical reflection and development”. They engaged in seeking to answer questions about the feasibility of designing online experiential learning opportunities and how this can contribute to deepening professional practice in Nursing, Education, Business and Community Studies. They remark that “The key component of experiential education documented in the literature is action on the part of the student that promotes learning through reflection” (emphasis added). However, experience itself is not necessarily educative, especially when reflection is omitted. Experiential learning comprises, as per Kolb’s cycle of four stages, namely: concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation (AE). Snow, Wardley, Carter and Maher (2019) report that collaborative activities through online synchronous and asynchronous technologies have been found to support the development of competence. They share lived experiences about four undergraduate-level professional programmes that involve experiential learning to varying degrees.

The first scenario pertains to a part-time blended learning programme from Registered Practical Nurse (RPN) to a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BScN) degree. The RPN to BScN programme comprises theory courses delivered online and clinical (experiential) courses occurring in clinical practice settings. Each clinical module includes an online course site, which houses resources and “serves as an environment where students are required to reflect and think critically on their learning with their clinical instructor and other students”. The reflection principally through writing, with tools such as discussion boards, blogs, and course-specific email. This “blend of clinical learning with carefully designed online writing activities is a powerful combination”. Case studies and problem-based learning activities in the theory modules further serve as a form of experiential learning. The clinical or experiential, on the other hand are “enhanced through online activities and assignments that require critical thinking through reflection”.

The table below summarises the other three scenarios:

Scenario	Reflective Observation	Abstract Conceptualization	Active Experimentation	Concrete Experience
2.    Typical blended learning cycle, teacher education, science	The first lesson of each unit face-to-face, in which the previous experience deconstructed and explored and a new cycle established.	Asynchronous online activities were used to engage with theory related to learning objectives.	Each lesson design was unique to the student and specific community context.	Students did online video presenta-tions of their lessons & received feedback from their classmates.
3.    Typical learning cycle, occupational health & safety	Interactive learning based on content of module	Research paper	Discussion posts, blog entries & case studies	Community-based marketing outreach message
	Simulations and videos posted by professor with questions to address in blogs	Conceptualizing workforce-relevant knowledge related to the group topic	Reflecting, applying knowledge, and evaluating peers	Content presented online; three-tiered monitoring and measurement systems (peers, professor, and community members)
4.    Typical learning cycle, work place-ment courses	Discussion posts and a final reflective essay for each course	Developing a career plan (COMS 2101); information interview (COMS 3101)	Discussion posts, journal summaries, & self/supervisor evaluations	Placements with a community partner (100 hours for COMS 2101, 100 hours for COMS 3101)

It is the experience of the authors that “the practical realities of experiential education in higher education are challenging, and faculty interested in developing experiential learning opportunities for students must negotiate institutional policies, external regulatory bodies, and, at times, even concerns about legitimacy within their departments”.

Snow, K., Wardley, L., Carter, L. & Maher, P. 2019. Lived Experiences of Online and Experiential Learning Programs in Four Undergraduate Professional Programs. Collected Essays on Learning & Teaching: Pedagogical Innovation: Adapting Practice to Evolving Cultures, Section II, Vol. 12, p79-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v12i0.5388

Proposed decision-making chart with regard to work-integrated learning (WIL)

Much has been published about the range of work-integrated learning (WIL) options with regard to learning design within the South African context. However, many appear to cling to workplace learning (WPL), while complaining that there are not sufficient placement opportunities. [I maintain that while the advisory bodies of programmes at tertiary intuitions are not representative of the occupational field, such institutions cannot naively cling to workplace learning, but are obliged to seek alternative WIL options.] The Council on Higher Education (CHE) further stipulated a number of quality criteria pertaining WPL or work-based learning (WBL), which in turn entail availability of certain resource, matters that needed to have been considered at application stage to offer the qualification.

Project-based learning (PjBL), however, does not offer an easy alternative. Academic cannot merely 'convert' the WPL materials and suggest to students to 'find' their own opportunity/place to complete a project approximating the prerequisite WPL. Proper PjBL requires significant support from the occupational field, probably as much as what WPL would have.

Simulated work experiences (SWEs) are not a simple alternative either. The required virtual materials need to exist, or need to be made (requiring adequate budget). The necessary infrastructure, technology, access, networks and data are further issues that could stand in the way of SWEs.

I've put together a Download Proposed decision-making chart with regard to work-integrated learning (WIL) with the aforementioned in mind:

An instructional design model for significant learning

Fink (2005: 2) admits that the basic components are the same as those found in other models of instructional design. However, the distinctive difference of his model is that the “components have been put together in a way that reveals and emphasizes their inter-relatedness”. The guide is self-directed with worksheets to guide the instructional designer through the steps.

Fink (2005: 2) illustrates the relationship of parts as follow:

 

Fink, L.D. 2005. A Self-Directed Guide to Designing Courses for Significant Learning. University of Oklahoma.

How to formulate questions for significant learning

Forward-looking assessment is exactly what is stated, namely to consider situations current students would in future encounter. To consider the knowledge, skills and experiences current students would in such future scenarios need in order to successfully deal with such situations.

Once there is clarity about the future scenarios, questions or problems need to be formulated which when answered or solved would have drawn from the relevant knowledge and skills (learned in academic modules) and given the student the relevant experience of real-life replicas. Fink (2005: 13) says “certain assumptions or constraints can be given”.

Fink, L.D. 2005. A Self-Directed Guide to Designing Courses for Significant Learning. University of Oklahoma.

Workplace learning, step 5 of 7, of the South African decade of the artisan

Demonstration of “real competence in any occupation” entails “whether a person can apply and transfer learning at the workplace or across a variety of workplaces”, states the South African Department of Higher Education and Training. 2014 to 2024 has been declared the DECADE OF THE ARTISAN in South Africa, with an extensive programme to support the notion.

Workplace learning is considered the most critical component of learning in artisan development towards real competence. The 7-Steps of the National Artisan Development are:

• Step 1: Career Guidance and Management
• Step 2: General or Vocational or Fundamental Knowledge Learning
• Step 3: Learner Agreement Registration and Contracting
• Step 4: Occupational Knowledge and Practical Learning
• Step 5: Workplace Learning
• Step 6: Trade Testing and Recognition of Prior Learning
• Step 7: Assurance and Certification

During workplace learning the occupational knowledge and practical learning of step 4 are assimilated and applied in the workplace. Workplace learning exposes students/learners “to real life situations within the workplace including all aspects of the [particular] occupation such as work ethics, safety, responsibilities and quality performance of work required by industry".

Workplace learning is regarded “the most significant and most difficult of the various learning processes” and the support of a “qualified workplace mentor, previously known as the journeyman” is therefore regarded essential. “Workplace mentors are qualified and experienced artisans [or practitioners] in the same trade [occupation/profession as] the artisan learner [or student] is registered for”, which unfortunately—due to scarcity, hampers workplace learning. The proposed solution is “to bring back retired artisans to fulfil the function of a mentor in the workplace”.

The workplace learning process entail “on the job” learning; allowing the student/learner to progressively and sequentially apply what has been acquired in step 4 (above) in a real workplace. During workplace learning, the student/leaner is exposed to the entire scope of the
trade/occupation/profession; in accordance to the curriculum of the occupational trade or other qualification; in order to ensure that once qualified, the person will be fully competent to become a productive worker in the industry/profession and will only need further specific industry training.

Case-oriented versus problem-based and project-organised learning models

The acronym PBL is generally used to indicate both problem-based and project-based learning. Guerra and Kolmos (2011, 3) point out that two very different PBL models, within the PBL philosophy, are in use at the Aalborg University, namely:

• case oriented PBL model in medical education
• problem based and project organised learning in engineering education

Guerra and Kolmos (2011, 4) state that an enquiry process characterises PBL. Formulated problems, based on real and complex situations, drive learning. The process enhances the interest of students and “promotes critical thinking, self-learning skills, lifelong learning, self-achievement, self-regulation, selfefficacy, communication skills and interpersonal skills for students”.

Guerra and Kolmos (2011, 7-9) developed an observation framework based on PBL theory, the spectra of seven PBL curriculum elements also defined as domains, categories of observation for each, and some examples of observation evidences. The table below portrays the framework and the findings (√= presence & √D= present but differences) with regard to commonalities and differences concerning the two models, namely CO = case orientated and PB = problem based and project organised:

With the figure below, Guerra and Kolmos (2011, 13) indicate the “progression from a traditional teaching environment to a pure problem-based learning environment”.

Guerra, A. and Kolmos, A. 2011. Comparing problem based learning models: suggestions for their implementation, 3-16. In J. Davies, E. de Graaff, and A. Kolmos, (Eds.). 2011. PBL across the disciplines: research into best practice. Proceedings from the 3rd International Research Symposium on PBL 28-29 November 2011, Coventry University, UK. Denmark: Aalborg University Press.

Holistic view of essential elements of project-based learning

Gavin (2011, 550) cites Kolmos, de Graaf and Du (2009) and summarises their model which “provides a holistic view of the elements that must be considered” for developing project-based learning (PjBL). The seven elements that ought to be considered are “(i) the objectives and knowledge; (ii) types of problems; (iii) progression, size and duration; (iv) student learning; (v) academic staff facilitation; (vi) space and organisation; (vii) assessment and evaluation”.

Kolmos (2012, 50) remarks that various versions and models of problem based and project based learning are being implemented globally; and as result conceptual understandings are diverse and sometimes confusing. She summarises the conceptual work done by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Chair in PBL in Engineering Education towards defining problem and project based learning.

Kolmos (2012, 51) remarks that there “will always be variations in the models” and that “concrete models will and must be different” because of the “wide range of subjects, cultures and systems” involved. She points out that “there are common learning principles across the original problem-based and problem-oriented and project-organised practices such as problems as the vehicle for learning, interdisciplinary learning and teamwork” (emphasis added and note that Kolmos uses the acronym PBL “for problem based and project based learning and is intended to be synonymous with problem oriented and project”). Learning theories, such as Dewey (1938), Illeris (1976), Kolb (1984) and Schon (1987), inform practices, but “there is no direct link from the learning theories to the educational model level”. Kolmos (2012, 52) indicate that PBL learning principles comprise three approaches (imagine the Mercedes-Benz logo depicting a simple three-pointed star).

• The cognitive learning approach entails learning organised around problems that are resolved through projects—a central principle with regard to motivation (however, it is important to keep in mind that PBL could increase the stress-levels of students, which may diminish motivation). The problem serves as starting-point for the learning processes, often complex problem analysis and problem-solving strategies.
• The contents approach concerns interdisciplinary learning and supports the relationship between theory and practice. The project usually spans traditional subject-related boundaries and methods.
• The social approach is team-based, collaborative learning and collective ownership. The learning process is a social act wherein learning takes place through dialogue, communication and working together on a common project.

Kolmos (2012, 53-54) presents a PBL curriculum model that has been developed based on the PBL learning principles. The PBL curriculum model contains seven “elements were identified on the basis of a theory on relationship models and principles of alignment”. All seven components/elements “must be aligned to a certain degree”. Kolmos (2012, 54) indicates that “each of the elements can be interpreted in a different way”, however, “if there is a change in one element it will effect change in all the other elements as well”.

Gavin, K. 2011. Case study of a project-based learning course in civil engineering design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36, 6, 547–558.

Kolmos, A, de Graff, E. and Du, X., 2009. Diversity of PBL – PBL learning principles and models. In: D. Xu, ed. Research on PBL practice in engineering education, chapter 2. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 9–21

Kolmos, A. 2012. Changing the Curriculum to Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning, 50-61. In K.M. Yusof, K. Mohd, N.A. Azli, A.M. Kosnin, S.K.S. Yusof, and Y.M. Yusof. 2012. Outcome-Based Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Innovative Practices, chapter 3. Hershey PA: IGI Global.

Project-based learning as instructional approach

“Project-based learning is a teaching and learning model (curriculum development and instructional approach) that emphasises student-centred instruction by assigning projects” posit Abdulaala et al (2011, 392). They continue to state that project-based learning (PjBL) allow for “students to work more autonomously to construct their own learning and culminates in realistic, student-generated products”. As instructional approach, PjBL entail organising learning around projects, which are “complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems, that involve students in design, problem solving, decision making or investigative activities; give students the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over extended periods of time; and culminate in realistic products or presentations”.

PjBL is recognised “as an innovative approach that teaches a multitude of strategies critical for success in the twenty-first century” observe Abdulaala et al (2011, 392). PjBL furthermore “permits the integration of non-technical issues necessary for sustainable development in engineering education” they state.

Assessment triangulation is achieved through the use of multiple tools and methods, indicate Abdulaala et al (2011, 398). Direct measures include individual student or team “assignments, a course design notebook, oral presentations, artefact evaluation and a defect removal assignment. Indirect measures include class feedback forms, process checks, entry and exit surveys, outcome survey and a course evaluation questionnaire”. Abdulaala et al (2011, 398) define quality work “as essentially complete and correct work that is documented neatly in a well-organised fashion and submitted on time” and to help students submit quality work, they are “referred to a set of checklists that define what is expected from their assignments”. The assessment range includes “exceeds expectations (E), meets expectations (M), acceptable (AC), needs improvement (NI) or represents no credible effort (NCE)”.

Abdulaala, R.M., Al-Bahib, A.M., Solimanc, A.Y. and Iskanderanid , F.I. (2011). Design and implementation of a project-based active/cooperative engineering design course for freshmen. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36 (4), 391–402.

Cornell system for taking notes of real-experience learning

Deriving learning from experiences does not merely happen. A note-taking system devised at the University of Cornell, by an education professor, Walter Pauk, in the 1950s, could remarkably enhance the learning from experiences. A spiral reporter's notepad (or any of choice) works well. Space of 2-3 cm is left at the top to record the date, setting and circumstances. A line is drawn vertically, about a quarter to a third, from the left, leaving about 4-5 cms at the bottom. The column on the right serves as space to take notes of observations, explanations, facts, descriptions, etc. The column on the left use for key words, questions, etc. The space at the bottom is meant for recording a summary after the experience, for example at the end of the day.

Due to the efficiency of this method it is still being advocated; iPad templates exist for easy note taking; as well as pre-formated Cornell notepaper and guides to create a MS Word template; or PDF-format versions to print for use.

The Dr Walter Pauk Cornell system emphasises the five Rs, namely Record, Reduce, Recite, Reflect and Review.

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.

Role of mental models in simulations

The Latin of simulation (simulō) means to imitate/pretend, which may have a negative connotation in that simulations might be regarded as false/unreal representations. Plato’s conception of mimesis (μίμησις, Greek term for simulation) had been an imperfect copy or fictitious replica of reality. In contrast, Aristotle notion of mimesis had been a “means to know nature through representations which can be valid and acceptable” (Landriscina, 2012). This, Landriscina points out, is an important shift in emphasis “from imitation to representation” where mental models are key to simulations.

In model-based instruction the underlying model assume a significant function, namely the identification of similarities and differences between the model and the phenomenon it represents. The process results in transforming ideas; confuse and approximate; resulting in more precise and rigorous comprehension. This, Landriscina says, also “happens when a student compares his own mental model of a system with that of a simulation”. He illustrates this with Plato’s example from Politics (Statesman) of cognitive role of the models, or paradeigmata (παραδείγματι):

one of the characters of the dialogue refers to the model of the weaver, where the technique of the politician is compared to that of the weaver who weaves fibers of different nature to create a single fabric

Senge (1990, cited by Landriscina) describes mental models as “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures and images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action”. Seel (2003, cited by Landriscina) examined the relation between mental model and education and formulated a teaching and learning theory: Model-Centered Learning and Instruction. Seel differentiated mental-; conceptual-; and design and instructional models:

• Mental model, the internal and subjective model of a system
• Conceptual model, which is objective and shared by a scientific community
• Design and instructional model, used for building the user interface and the learning tasks

To serve as simulation model, the conceptual model must be stated in mathematical terms (rules and equations) in order to be developed as computer programmes. In order to create simulated learning; a mental model of the phenomenon must be formed, studied and use as a basis for prediction, inference, and explanation. Landriscina (2012) cautions by means of Senge’s (1991) words that “simulations with thousands of variables and complex arrays of details can actually distract us [students] from seeing patterns and major interrelationships” and result in misconceptions by students. However, with “black-box simulation models”, for example SimCity® the student interacts with the various scenarios and applications without observing the rules of the game the creators programmed.

Landriscina, F. 2012. Simulation and Learning: The Role of Mental Models. In Seel, N.M. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer Science + Business Media.

Simulation-based learning defined

Learning through simulation may occur in one of two or both ways, namely (a) observation—the simulation serves as illustration of the content to be learned or understood; and (b) direct interaction— learning induced through experience.

Simulation-based learning comprises two parts, namely learning and simulation—the term suggests learning through the use of simulation/s.

• With a simulation one process is imitated by another process (Hartmann, 1996).
• Simulations often focus on the structural aspects of a model rather than the dynamic characteristics, making them relatively static (Hughes, 1999; Grüne-Yanoff & Weirich 2010)
• A simulation is a manifestation of a model, providing a description through a set of intertwined elements (Grüne-Yanoff & Weirich 2010)
• Frasson and Blanchard (2012) concludes after citing the above that simulations entail the action of imitating a model’s dynamics and/or structure with its resulting element; including either static and/or dynamic features.

Frasson and Blanchard (2012) report several features discussed in literature about simulation-based learning opportunities and their classification:

• Realisation—three main groupings of models are differentiated, namely those (a) involving humans; (b) mechanical; and (c) computer enabled.
• Fidelity—the extent to which the model correctly represents—on a continuum from low to high. High fidelity represents more coherently, but do not always provide the best pedagogical opportunities. Low fidelity focus mainly on pedagogically relevant aspects (with fantasy elements possibly added) and as result sometimes more adequate.
• Interactivity—refers to the degree of passive observation versus acting and influence the evolution.
• Immersiveness—is the degree of enabling fidelity and interactivity resulting in accurate real-situational feelings.
• Intelligence—intelligent components often enhances user interaction and allow for various constructive alternatives.

Frasson, C. & Blanchard, E.G. 2012. Simulation-Based Learning. In Seel, N.M. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer Science+Business Media.

WIL “is not as intuitive as it may seem”

The 12 points below originates from a summary and explanation by Annie Murphy Paul about a recent report on the science of training. She points out that there are right ways and wrong ways (myths) regarding how to design, deliver, and implement training. I adapted the 12 points to work-integrated learning (WIL):

1. It’s what happens before and after WIL that matters. Universities should clearly communicate to students what the WIL is about and how it relates to curriculum of the qualification and the day one competencies expected from graduates.
2. The WIL guidelines should clearly specify what a student need-to-be master versus learning where and how to find information rather than be expected to retain all information in memory.
3. WIL would be more effective when it’s presented as an opportunity of which the benefits to students are emphasised.
4. Decay of skills acquired during WIL may be reduced by giving students subsequent opportunities to practice the skills and/or refresher orientation upon employment.
5. Workplace mentors could increase the motivation of students by making clear the link between what is being taught during WIL and how it will be used in the careers of students.
6. The best WIL occurs through the practice in the workplace and feedback by workplace mentors — the effectiveness of WIL can be increase by making the process more active and engaging for students.
7. Mentors should be made aware that unstructured practice by students without clear objectives; without relevant stimulation; and without appropriate feedback can teach students wrong lessons. Students “will get the most out of practice when they are provided with constructive and timely feedback that identifies what they may be doing wrong and how to fix it”.
8. Superficial exposure during WIL leads to poor retention and poor transfer; whereas deep learning promotes retention and transfer.
9. There is value—both strategically and emotionally—in teaching students to cope with errors made. Workplace mentors should guide students to correct mistakes made which will help students to understand the task in greater depth and will help them deal with errors on the job.
10. Technology and contemporary gadgetry would not necessary improve WIL. However, if implemented appropriately it may add to the effectiveness of WIL.
11. Left to their own devices, students “may not be knowledgeable or motivated enough to make wise decisions about how and what to learn”, sound guidance is important.
12. The “psychological fidelity—how accurately it evokes the feelings and the responses the worker will have on the job” of simulations is more important than physical fidelity a student will encounter as worker on the job.

Paul, A.M. 2012. Learning on the job: myth vs science (How do we really learn to do our jobs?). A post published 2 July 2012 on Wray Herbert's blog We're only Human.

Salas, E.; Tannenbaum, S.I.; Kraiger, K. & Smith-Jentsch, K.A. 2012. The Science of Training and Development in Organizations: What Matters in Practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2) 74–101.

Work-integrated learning as method of structured distance learning

The South African Ministry of Higher Education and Training (MHET) published the draft Policy Framework for the Provision of Distance Higher Education in the Government Gazette on 29 May 2012.

Based on the MHET Policy’s glossary (p. 4) definition of distance education work-integrated learning (WIL) can be regarded as a method of structured distance learning:

... a set of teaching and learning strategies (or educational methods) that can be used to overcome spatial and/or temporal separation between educators and students. However, it is not a single mode of delivery. It is a collection of methods for the provision of structured learning. It avoids the need for students to discover the curriculum by attending classes frequently and for long periods. Rather, it aims to create a quality learning environment using an appropriate combination of different media, tutorial support, peer group discussion, and practical sessions (emphasis added).

This is emphasised on page 8 of the draft MHET Policy that states: "Distance education proceeds from the belief that learning can be nurtured without necessarily requiring teachers and learners to be in the same place at the same time, and that the resource based nature of distance education allows for the possibility to achieve economies of scale" (emphasis added).

Page 8 of the draft MHET Policy also points out that distance education 'requires substantial up-front investment in curriculum design and materials development, including attention to issues of structure, pacing and meaningful formative assessment, as well as considerable investment in decentralised student support' (emphasis added), which is also true about WIL. Page 12 of the draft MHET Policy continues to state: 'Online communication allows students and academics to remain separated by space and time (although some forms of communication assume people congregating at a common time), but to sustain an ongoing dialogue. Online asynchronous discussion forums, for example, reflect an instance where the spatial separation between educator and learners is removed by the ‘virtual’ space of the Internet, but where there remains temporal separation' (emphasis added). The facilitation of reflection among students during and after stints of WIL has been emphasised.

Item 4.2.2 (h), pp. 22-23 of the draft MHET Policy giving the example of teacher education should enjoy appropriate attention:

Teacher education is a good example here: it remains in the lowest CESM funding category even though new accreditation requirements require investment in a robust teaching practice placement, mentoring and supervision system. While teaching practice has been funded as a full course at funding level 1, the issue now is to define it as an experiential learning component through the funding review process and thus fund it accordingly. Similar concerns arise regarding any programmes of study that require substantive work-integrated-learning and/or practical components and/or substantial online engagement between teachers and students in synchronous and asynchronous fora. Such requirements militate against the potential of achieving economies of scale.

It needs to be pointed out that the statement above does not mention the role of the teaching community of practice, which is a very important oversight. The collaborative notion in Cooperative and Work-integrated Education is not mentioned in the draft policy. The establishment of a supportive community of practice is crucial with regard to curriculum design, especially if work-integrated learning is decided upon as most appropriate method.

Practitioners, serving as mentors for learners, are the third key players in programmes that include work-integrated learning as preferred method. The up-front investment in for quality work-integrated learning includes appropriate materials development that would structure and pace learning as well as empower workplace mentors to offer meaningful formative assessment. This is where the investment of decentralised student support of quality work-integrated learning should focus. (Page 8 of the draft MHET Policy)

Although improvement of the quality of distance education is mentioned in section 4.3 (p. 23); concern about quality and of “inadequate practical work or exposure to work integrated learning” is highlighted.

Republic of South Africa. 2012. Department of Higher Education and Training. Draft Policy Framework for the Provision of Distance Higher Education in South African Universities. Retrieved online from: http://www.dhet.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ZgZKPb1fM38%3D&tabid=36

Effective user interface for simulated learning

For at least three decades the design principles of user interface has a presence in computer science literature. During the last decade computer systems became increasingly more interactive and code for interface increased accordingly. Interactive user interface developments and graphic user interfaces (GUI) in particular do provide simpler ways for humans to communicate with PCs. Although GUI requires complex programming, several software tools emerged that assist with the implementation of GUI, such as NeXT Interface Builder; WindowsMAKER; TelePICTIVE; and TelePICTIRE (Sidhu, 2010: 36).

Sidhu (2010: 36-38) suggests the following design guidelines for better user interface:

• Simple, clear and standardised screen layout with liberal use of blank space. Functional aspects such as title, help text and buttons should be consistent throughout; with distinctive design that emphasise critical information. Textual information should be easily legible, by using appropriate fonts, typestyles and typesets. The resolution of graphics should eb good quality.
• Make use of easily navigatable multi-windows and menus to enable users to bring relevant windows to the front.
• Make use of menus that indicate the selected option and visited items. Provide keyboard shortcuts (accelerators) and indicators of drastic action if executed, e.g. exiting or quiting without having saved. Use hierarchical (sub) menus with clear indicators.
• Provide selection lists (pop-ups) when hovering with mouse.
• Make use of realistics icons to give visual clues to users.
• Make use of feedback indicators, e.g. progress or time/percentage remaining; and/or graphic indicators, such as bars.
• Provide online help that is context sensitive.
• Error messages should be constructive and offer remedy suggestions.
• Use colour to enhance usefulness, e.g. similar functional background colours; contrast to focus users; and bright colours for caution.
• Mouse input (and other input devices) should be consistent with contemporary software.

Sidhu, M.S. 2010. Technology-assisted problem solving for engineering education: interactive multimedia applications. Hershey: Engineering Science Reference.

User-computer interface for simulations

Interface design concerns the practical information a multimedia-author needs in order to produce usable and well-designed interfaces, states Sidhu (2010: 30). In addition to the outcomes a learning package aims to achieve through, for example, tasks; the developing team need to consider several interacting concerns. Although several user interface standards exists—for example ISO, CEC/CENELEC and BSI—unfortunately some developers do not make use of a common standard. Human Computer Interaction (HCI) is a discipline “concerned with the design, evaluation and implementation of interactive computing systems for human” usage and “user interface is an interface developed to enable HCI”—or differently stated “a communication channel between the user and the functional elements of the computer” (Sidhu, 2010: 31) illustrated by Plass (1998, in Sidhu) as follow:

The illustration comprises two functions. At the bottom right, the user input is allocated (centre) to the application (left). At the top left, the functionality flows (centre) to the user (right). In the case of text-based HCIs only written verbal communication is used, whereas with visual HCIs manipulation of visual objects, verbal and auditory interaction is involved.

Sidhu, M.S. 2010. Technology-assisted problem solving for engineering education: interactive multimedia applications. Hershey: Engineering Science Reference.

Sensory information type and processing preference

In order to optimise learning through simulated experiences, the Felder-Silverman Learning Style Model (FSLSM) is recommended. People exhibit different ways they prefer to learn and by incorporating different learning styles in teaching plans learning is made easier. Graf, Viola, Leo and Kinshuk (2007) observe that FSLSM is often used in the design of technology-enhanced learning. The learning styles models of Kolb (1984) and Honey and Mumford (1982)—in contrast to Felder and Silverman (1988)—classify learners into a few groups. FSLSM describes learning styles in more detail, distinguishing four dimensions depicted below (Sidhu, 2010: 23):

Graf, Viola, Leo and Kinshuk (2007) further points out that FSLSM is based on tendencies. They point out that although learners with a strong preference for certain learning style may experience difficulty if the teaching style does not match their preferred learning style; indeed sometimes behave differently. They further convey that educational researchers in recent years investigated how incorporating learning style models impact technology-enhanced learning and found that FSLSM is highly appropriate for hypermedia courseware. It has been found that when students do an online course that matched their preferred learning style they achieved significantly better results compared to students who took a course that did not match.

The first dimension—sensory/intuitive—Students that prefer learning facts and concrete learning material have a sensing learning style. Such students prefer standard approaches in solving problems; to relate the learned material to the real world; and tend to be more patient with details. They are generally realistic, sensible and practical. Intuitive learners, by contrast, prefer learning abstract learning material, such as the underlying theories and their meanings. Such students tend to be innovative and creative as well as more able to discover possibilities and relationships.

The second dimension—visual/verbal—Students with a visual preference learn and retain best what they have seen, for example pictures, diagrams, and flow-charts. Verbal learners derive more from textual representations, both written and spoken.

The third dimension—active/reflective—addresses different ways of processing information. Some students learn best by actively engaging; trying out and by applying the learning material. They further tend to prefer communicating and by working in groups where they can converse. Other students, in contrast, prefer to reflect and think about learning material. They prefer working alone or possibly in a small group or with a good buddy.

The fourth dimension—sequential/global—is about characterising students according to their understanding. Those students that learn in small incremental steps in linear progression are sequential learners. They prefer following logical step-by-step paths towards solutions and are interested in details. Global learners, however, use holistic thinking processes learning in large leaps. Such students tend to absorb learning material almost randomly, not necessary seeing connections initially but suddenly grasp the whole picture. They are capable to solve complex problems; to find connections between dissimilar areas; and to put things together in novel ways. However, they can seldom explain how they did it. Global learners prefer overviews and broad knowledge.

Sidhu (2010: 23) poses four questions:

1. What type of sensory information is most perceived?
2. What type of information does the student preferentially perceive?
3. How does the student prefer to process information?
4. How does the student characteristically progress towards understanding?

Graf, S.; Viola, S.R.; Leo, T & Kinshuk. 2007. In-Depth Analysis of the Felder-Silverman Learning Style Dimensions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Fall 2007, 40(1). Accessed on Internet 31 May 2012 from: http://wit.at/people/graf/publications/graf_viola_kinshuk_leo_JRTEjournal.pdf

Sidhu, M.S. 2010. Technology-assisted problem solving for engineering education: interactive multimedia applications. Hershey: Engineering Science Reference.