Learning in vivo

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

Part of an active disaster management team as learning experience

Because competence in coping with natural and fabricated disasters is of increasing importance, disaster management became an integral part of the curriculum of, for example, nursing education. Often “first responders in the most acute phases of disaster to the long-term aftermath addressing loss, grief and posttraumatic stress disorders” include nurses, say Sickora et al. (2020: 30). Apart from “disaster preparedness theory and frameworks for intervention”, it is deemed essential to provide clinical “experiential learning opportunities”, which “often includes simulation experiences that range from mass casualty to active shooter”. Although less common, for students to become part of an active disaster management team, has been experienced as invaluable with remarks such as “I felt like a real nurse” and “This is the best experience I have had since I decided to become a nurse”. In this regard Strimel (2014) remark that natural disasters happen at the intersection between humans and nature, and having to face a current real-life issue, students are challenged with the issues at hand.

Disaster relief intervention, as experiential learning opportunity, is deemed to serve a dual purpose, namely (a) “meeting the needs of a community in real-time crisis”, and (b) providing “students with boots-on-the-ground disaster relief experiences”, say Sickora et al. (2020: 31). Similar to Buschlen, Warner and Goffnett (2015: 40), Sickora et al. (2020: 31) emphasise preparation of students before, and debriefing after their disaster intervention. Many students made requests to return, because of deeply affirming experiences, share Sickora et al. (2020).

Sickora et al. (2020: 32) caution that “organization is crucial throughout an effective disaster relief intervention and that initial logistics are challenging and time consuming”, as well as that all stakeholders need to be identified, and resources secured. “Coordination and collaboration with indigenous health care providers and other resources, such as charities and nongovernment organizations” are essential. Long-range preplanning is important, as is effective administration to “ensure proper tracking of disaster relief execution, patient medications, nurse and staff log-ins and log-outs, and patient contact information are also key factors in the effort”. “Keeping a cool head and rolling with the punches” while rendering disaster relief is vital. Practicalities, such as, translators make a significant difference. On-site, fellow relief “workers, such as those providing assistance in construction, debris removal, or road repair, are also in need of care for a variety of maladies, ranging from heat exhaustion to insect bites and wound care”, which suggest a need for multi-disciplinary collaboration.

Buschlen, E., Warner, C. & Goffnett, S. (2015). Leadership education and service: Exploring transformational learning following a tornado. Journal of Leadership Education, 14(1), 33-54. https://journalofleadershiped.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/14_1_buschlen.pdf

Sickora, C., Salt, R.J., Page, T.S., Lee, W., Cantu, A.G., Lee, M., Schwab, K.W., Martinez, M.L., Byrd, D. (2020). Evolution of experiential learning opportunities for nursing students after natural disaster. Journal of Nursing Education, 59(1), 30-33. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20191223-07.

Strimel, G. (2014). Authentic education by providing a situation for student-selected problem-based learning. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73 (7), 8-18. Abstract accessible from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1049199

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)

Beyond ‘panic-gogy’ to adoption of innovative WIL pedagogies and practices

The “COVID-19 pandemic has provided a sudden and significant driver for rapid change and adoption of innovative online WIL pedagogies and practices” say Dean and Campbell (2021: 355). They argue for moving beyond the initial ‘panic-gogy’ to quality, innovative, and sustainable non-placement models of WIL. ‘Panic-gogy’ is a tongue-in-cheek term coined for the transitional online pedagogies pursued during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baker (2020: 1) quoted Morris who says “the term being batted about on Twitter … referring to this idea of just grasping at straws, trying to figure out what you could possibly do … suddenly forced to go online and experiencing that kind of panic”. Educators had been seeking pedagogies to bridge the gap, to retain some kind of normality, a pedagogy of resilience, of kindness, very flexible and human-centred.

Dean and Campbell (2021) indicate that the disruptions caused by COVID-19, accelerated many emerging changes with the required rapid move to online and/or distance learning models. The “value of alternative forms of work-integrated learning (WIL), in spaces other than physical workplaces, has been realized“, they observe. After the initial state of ‘panic-gogy’, with rife experimentation, purposeful design of ‘non-placement work-integrated learning’ (NPWIL) now requires attention. Experiences shown that different models and approaches can provide authenticity of work practices.

The ways of working, as well as where work is undertaken, are evolving. “Work is no longer simply completed within the confines of a bounded office and constraints of time periods”, observe Dean and Campbell (2021: 355); with for example, “remote work settings, fluid time constraints and continuous connectivity” becoming common practice. However, there is not consistency across the economy with regard to the changing nature of work. Changes tend to be industry and sector specific, as well as piece-meal, often driven by organisational specific goals.

Dean and Campbell (2021: 357) postulate that “with both the constructs of work and learning evolving rapidly as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic it is an inevitability that WIL, which connects these two worlds, also has to transform”. They remark that over the past two decades WIL models have been steadily experiencing innovation and a range of alternative models of WIL have emerged. Furthermore, as result of the changing world of work graduates needed to develop diverse and transferable skills.

Dean and Campbell (2021: 357) mention WIL models such as micro-placements, hackathons, competitions and events; including models beyond workplace-based experiences or requiring extensive time in workplaces, such as engaging students through short, authentic activities; and partnering with, or creating small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) to develop entrepreneurial skills. They observe that the notion of the building of SMEs spurred the development of start-ups, consultations and incubators. WIL models further are increasingly multi-disciplinary within industry contexts, as well as engaging students from across disciplinary areas through interdisciplinary WIL. The location of WIL is further broadened beyond local contexts, with global mobility. Some WIL models are moving beyond physical constraints, by using technological platforms, online projects, virtual placements and various forms of online simulations.

Challenges such as teaching to large cohorts, resource limitations or scalability, and needing to provide access to all students, emphasise the need for one-to-many WIL models (i.e. replacing the one workplace supervisor or mentor guiding the work of one student or small group of students, “with multiple staff across an organisation working with, guiding and coaching large cohorts of students”), say Dean and Campbell (2021: 357). An increased agile curriculum, which allow for increased variability in student experiences, is required. Hopefully, such shorter, less resource intensive WIL models, would result in increased willingness of industry and also community, to partner with higher education institutions.

The COVID-19 pandemic induced ‘pivot online’ may, ponder Dean and Campbell (2021), be the catalyst to move towards more inclusive WIL approaches, such as opportunities for students in regional and rural settings; bespoke activities or partnership experiences, and/or scaling WIL through novel, collaborative, virtual platforms. Higher Education institutions “need to enquire into the needs of industry and community and explore how we can work together, think outside-the-box, and design authentic experiences for student cohorts” say Dean and Campbell (2021: 358). “Placements are not the only solution to authentic work practice when work practice itself continues to shift and is enabled by technology, they argue (p. 360).

Dean, B.A. & Campbell, M. (2021). Reshaping work-integrated learning in a post-COVID-19 world of work. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 355-364. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_4_355_364.pdf

Baker, K.J. (2020). Panic-gogy: A Conversation With Sean Michael Morris. The National Teaching& Learning Forum, 29(4), 1-3. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.1002/ntlf.30239

What competences; which experiences; and feasibility?

For teaching and learning, the central—“constituting something from which other related things proceed or upon which they depend”—issue, is the expected/stated outcomes (such as knowledge, skills, and attitudes), and/or competencies.

Once the expected outcomes and/or competencies are known, careful consideration must be given to which learning experiences are most likely to accomplish those; and the feasibility of providing such.

Certain learning is best acquired (or accomplished) through contextual experience/s, application, and reflection. A number of conditions are of significance pertaining contextual experiences, such as:

• The degree of authenticity (or genuineness) for learning that is provided
• The degree of fidelity (or proximity) with regard to reality
• The extent of interactivity (and immersivity) made feasible

The extent to which the occupational-field/the profession/the community-of-practice/vocational representatives were involved in determining the learning outcomes; and in particular the expression of willingness to support the teaching, by providing real-life learning opportunities, is a major deciding factor. Without adequate support, and the provision of access to contextual learning experiences, the options are reduced; and workplace-learning placements become a substantial challenge.

Workplace/clinical-field/professional/vocational realities, however, do not always permit actual exposure. This could be due to for example security/confidentiality/safety/sensitivity. In such circumstances, the realities could be simulated in a variety of ways in order to provide alternative experiences with the objective of achieving the stated learning outcomes.

The aforesaid highlight some of the teaching-design considerations, however, there are many other issues to consider, and a range of options and possibilities. Some of the potential modes of teaching include:

• Work-integrated/workplace/work-based learning, clinical training/professional practice/placement
• Project- and problem-based learning, work-based project, and live projects
• Case-based learning, case studies, case methods, life course/experience, and story telling
• Studio-based learning, studio-work, studios, and problem solving
• Service learning, community engagement, and role plays
• Virtual learning environments, virtual reality, and a range of potential simulations
• Non-placement work-integrated learning
• Work-directed theoretical learning, and projects

Manageable approach to Live Case Studies for larger student cohorts

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

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

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

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

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

Case-based learning instructional model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foundational WIL as ‘category’

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

Applied WIL as ‘category’

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

Comprehensive WIL as ‘category’

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolving work-integrated learning typologies and frameworks

As with most things, work-integrated learning (WIL) has undergone growth and development. Dean, Yanamandram, Eady, Moroney, O'Donnell, and Glover-Chambers (2020: 3) indicate that over the last decade WIL has moved away from the narrow conception of ‘work placements’ to a much broader and widening lens. One typology of WIL entailed three models, namely professional programmes, service learning and cooperative education; where students reside in different ‘workplaces’. Another typology delineates different types of WIL experiences, based on ‘on-site’ activities, namely systematic training (e.g., apprenticeships); the structured work experience (e.g., field experience, mandatory professional practice, co-op and internships); and institutional partnerships (e.g., applied projects, service learning)—although all these includes an industry partner, project-based learning (PjBL) is not necessary delivered in single block placement and may run concurrently with study modules. Dean et al. (2020) indicate that boundaries with regard to WIL are often unclear because of complexities of multiple variables and understandings. They convey five innovative models that are growing, given the advancements in technology, globalisation and creativity, including micro-placements, online projects or placements, competitions such as hackathons, incubators or start-ups and consulting. These include and extend placement, suggesting that typology of WIL needs to consider both placement and non-placement types of WIL.

Dean et al. (2020: 3) cite Kaider, Hains-Wesson, and Young (2017), who examined “the degree to which assessment or activity inside a unit (subject) is proximal to the workplace or practitioners and is an authentic piece that resembles professional practice” (emphasis added). Kaider et al. (2017: 158) describe the dimensions of their authenticity-proximity framework as follow:

• Authenticity: learning activities and assessments requiring students to work on problems, processes and projects that they may encounter in their professions and produce artefacts reflecting professional practice.
• Proximity: learning experiences that occur in real workplaces and professional contexts; in online or live complex simulated workplace environments; and those that enable students to interact directly with industry practitioners or community members on work related activities.

The authenticity-proximity framework, reflected in Figure 1 (from Kaider et al., 2017: 158), comprise two axes with a nine cell grid, the vertical axis reflects three levels of authenticity of a learning task in relation to real-world practice and the horizontal axis reflects three levels of proximity to the workplace. Kaider et al. (2017: 158) emphasis that assessments that into the low-authenticity or low-proximity categories are not deemed WIL, as these assessments focus primarily on cognitively-based disciplinary knowledge, often taking the form of essays and examinations.

Kaider et al. (2017) further overlaid the authenticity-proximity framework with exemplars of activities that could take place across three stages of university education, reflected in Table 1 (from Kaider et al., 2017: 159)—prospectively offering a horizontally and vertically scaffolded approach. The three stages, or levels, are:

• Introductory WIL: offered in the first year introduces students to the world of work and the beginning of creating their own professional identity to meet their careers aspirations. The direct interaction with employers is limited at this stage though students may observe practitioners and workplaces.
• Year 2 and 3 WIL [Intermediate WIL]: afford students the opportunity to design and develop a range of artefacts that reflect practice in their professions; undertake processes characteristics of workplaces; and engage directly with industry/sector/community personnel. This may include learning in complex, simulated, workplace environments such as studios, moot courts and practice clinics in which students perform all or most of the functions that they would in a real work situation. Students may also be offered opportunities to interact directly with industry and/or community personnel in a client-consultant type relationship that is common in many professions. Additionally, direct interaction may also take the form of feedback from practitioners on student work; panels; and discussion groups, the essence of which students ideally integrate into summative assessments.
• Placements [Advanced WIL] reflect a long tradition of on-the-job learning and vary in length, time offered, paid or unpaid, intensity and orientation.

Although this typology was designed for categorizing and analysing research data, it became evident to Kaider et al. (2017) that it could also serve as a teaching resource for staff, in that it could generate assessment ideas, as provide guidance in mapping progressively developmental assessment tasks across the programme.

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

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

Stolen Knowledge

‘Stolen knowledge’ is about acquired learning, a pedagogical strategy traced back to Lave and Wenger (1991), a process where ‘newcomers’ become ‘old-timers’ as they move from legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) to full participation. Brown and Duguid (1996) use the notion ‘stolen knowledge’ to describe learning taking place in authentic practice. Learners acquire (steal) implicit knowledge by being present, and by participating in the sociocultural context, characterized by a series of circumstances and interactions. Workplace mentors should engage students in on-demand learning, and make it feasible for students to experience full-blooded practice. A great deal of practice remains implicit in practice itself. Opportunities should made feasible for students (learners) to ‘steal’ the knowledge and abilities (keys) needed for role taking in a community of practice.

Sally Burford, S.; Cooper, L. & Miller, F. (2020). Stolen knowledge: Student knowing in workplace practice. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(2), 163-176. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_2_163_176.pdf

Chen. P. (2012). Field experiences in instructional design and technology: Legitimate participation and stolen knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 5(1), 13-28.

Virtual experiential learning is feasible

If swimming schools can further mastery through virtual swimming school, instead of letting learners slide back; and if township children can continue with violin lessons amid lockdown using WhatsApp; then surely higher and further education can achieve work-integrated learning virtually.

The COVID-19 pandemic may have grounded flights and put the world into lockdown, and the legendary African safari might be on hold; but inventive conservationists introduced virtual safaris in living rooms through cameras mounted to vehicles. Paid-for private tours by means of Zoom video calls will soon start. A zoo introduced drive-through animal viewing affording families the opportunity to ‘visit’ a zoo while in isolation.

Lockdown abruptly halted traditional workplace-based experiential learning. Solutions are explored for especially students that would have graduated at the end of 2020. As the economy is gradually reignited traditional workplace-based experiential learning might still be hampered. Institutions are recommended to virtually engage the relevant communities of practice and professional or vocational bodies, in order to seek opportunities to virtually ‘exhibit’ relevant graduate attributes, problems experienced and critical cross-field outcomes [CCFOs] that need to be attained. Filming need not be professionally done. Students can virtually engage with the virtual exemplars and through structured online learning gain their prerequisite ‘experience’.

If numerous virtual concerts work, if drive-though strip shows are supported, why would virtual experiential learning not be feasible?

What can electronic experiential learning appropriate from the COVID-19 pandemic?

When governments locked down countries, initiatives blossomed. Athletes, for example, started running virtual marathons in their gardens. On Easter Sunday evening Andrea Bocelli made history by presenting the 'Music for Hope' concert from an empty Milan cathedral, peaking at 2.8 million concurrent viewers. The biggest ever classical live stream in YouTube’s history. There were more than 28 million viewings from across the globe took place in the first 24 hours thereafter.

MyBroadband reported a significant increase in South Africa’s Internet usage since the start of the COVID-19 lockdown, peaking over 1.1Tbps on the evening of 25 March during President Cyril Ramaphosa’s announcement of the lockdown. Traffic across NAPAfrica’s exchange points reached a record 1.04Tbps the day after. Vodacom, one of South Africa's mobile phone network operators reported a jump of 40-percent since a nationwide lockdown. Afrihost recorded a 44% increase in data usage, compared to usage in January and February, with video streaming the biggest contributor. Vox recorded a 50% increase in fibre-to-the-home traffic. Elsewhere, for example in Kenya, Safaricom noted a 70% jump in data usage during COVID-19 lockdown.

Many believe that experiential learning cannot be done online. Bates (2014) contested this, saying “experiential learning is [indeed] like most design models: it is independent of the mode of delivery. What matters is how well it is done.” He advocates that there is indeed a range of teaching design models enabling the embedding of real world contexts into learning, namely problem-based learning, case-based learning, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, cooperative (work- or community-based) education, and apprenticeships. Beard, Wilson and McCarter (2007) coined the expression E²-learning with regard to the fusion between experiential-electronic learning (EE-Learning) and e-learning.

While bored and livestreaming, at 01h00, Justin LaBoy, a former professional basketball player and a social media personality, got the idea to recreate a virtual club atmosphere on Instagram for his more than 60,000 followers. He and Justin Dior Combs, an entrepreneur, started the ‘Respectfully Justin Show’. As result of lockdown, bars and strip clubs may not operate, and around much of the world many were forced to close nearly overnight. Thousands of bartenders, bottle service girls and dancers have been left with no income. Many organisations resorted to recreating a digital experience to support members. Magic City, a strip club in Atlanta, started offering ‘virtual lap dances’. Tory Lanez, a rapper, began hosting dance nights, called ‘Quarantine Radio’ for his 7.5 million followers. LaBoy says that exotic dancers immediately requested to be guests on his livestream and his followers loved it. He felt he cannot let them dance for free, and pinned a dancer’s Cash App to the top of the feeds, so that followers could send them money. One dancer, Sasha, who has been featured on the pop-up show said “If it wasn’t for Justin … I don’t know what I would have done or how I would have paid my bills or gotten food in my house”.

Most, if not all, production or work processes, operations, and executions could be filmed and streamed. Students need not necessary be physically present to experience what they need exposure to. If a strip dance or lap dance can be done virtually, why not simulated experiential learning? It need not be costly filming.

https://www.classicfm.com/artists/andrea-bocelli/concert-empty-milan-duomo-cathedral-world-record/

https://www.enca.com/business/vodacom-sees-40-jump-data-usage-people-stay-home

https://www.cnbcafrica.com/news/2020/04/14/kenyas-safaricom-sees-70-jump-in-data-usage-during-covid-19-lockdown/

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/fibre/346757-the-76tb-man-south-africas-biggest-bandwidth-hog-during-the-lockdown.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/style/justin-laboy-instagram-strip-clubs-live.html?algo=bandit-story_desk_filter&fellback=false&imp_id=701449925&imp_id=455391584&action=click&module=editorContent&pgtype=Article&region=CompanionColumn&contentCollection=Trending

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8210749/Virtual-strip-clubs-popping-Instagram-dancers-raking-18-000.html

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

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

A comprehensive framework for assuring the quality of work-integrated learning

Much emphasis is placed on the notion of ‘quality’, on quality assurance measures and initiatives, and on improvement plans (or frameworks), state McRae, Pretti and Church (2019: 1-2). Quality could be described as a desired end-state, a striving for excellence.

There are a number of frameworks of quality standards deemed relevant:

• Smith’s (2012) framework for evaluation of the work-integrated learning (WIL) curriculum proposes six measures of specific domains, namely authenticity, integrated learning support, alignment, supervisor access, and induction (or preparation processes)
• The Council on Higher Education (2014) criteria for the coordination of work-based learning programmes presented by distance higher education institutions.
• The McRae, Pretti and Church (2019) triple-A star (AAA★) framework below, comprising five main sections, namely (1) the foundation, concepts, terminology and five stakeholder groups (students, host organisations/employers, the educators, academic institutions, and governments—in each of the stakeholder groups there are potentially “advocates”, which are bodies representing the interests of and/or supporting the group); (2) the participation aims of each of the stakeholders; (3) the actions by each of the stakeholders that is critical for quality; (4) the expected achievements (or outcomes, impacts, measures, and key performance indicators) for each of the stakeholders; and (5) finally a synthesis of four sections, as well as an outline of a continuous improvement process.

Figure: Triple-A star (AAA★) framework (McRae, Pretti & Church, 2019: 1)

Whereas the Council on Higher Education (2014) reiterates the 2004 accreditation criteria; Smith (2012: 250) presents a new evaluation framework which structurally and conceptually divides the WIL curriculum into six domains or constructs:

1. Authenticity
2. Alignment of teaching and learning activities with integrative learning objectives (Align-TLA)
3. Alignment of assessment with integrative learning objectives (Align-Asst)
4. Integrated Learning Support (across the two university and workplace sites) (ILS)
5. Supervisor Access (Sup. Access)
6. Induction and Preparation Processes (IPP)

The Council on Higher Education (2014) furthermore persists with the use of the term work-based learning (and the coordination thereof), whereas Smith (2012: 250) asserts that authenticity “is at the heart of all workplace-situated learning”. Smith (2012: 247) asserts that work-integrated learning (WIL) entails students spending time “in professional, work or other practice settings relevant to their degrees of study and to their occupational futures”; but points out that “WIL is not the same as work experience or work-based learning, neither of which require students to specifically learn, apply or integrate canonical disciplinary knowledge”. Both physical authenticity (providing students with real work environments) and cognitive authenticity (where students personally engage in, encounter, and participate in meaningful and relevant learning within the specified disciplinary framework) of curricula are deemed important. The authenticity is assessed with regard to what extent the environment would expose students to the real work settings and to which students can observe, interact and respond to that particular context. Projects should be meaningful and consequential. Freestone, Williams, Thompson and Trembath (2007) illustrate the application of a variant of the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), namely the Work Experience Questionnaire (WEQ), as measure of the workplace learning experiences of students. The WEQ had been designed to explore the perceptions of students about their learning environment. The WEQ requires students to respond on a conventional five-point scale, ranging from strong disagreement (1), through to strong agreement/concurrence (5), with the intermediate points not labelled. The dimensions of ‘clear goals’ and ‘support for learning’ have been found to correlate highly with student learning. The WEQ questionnaire consisting of 33 items (questions), with items bundled into scales, namely:

• Clear Goals Scale (3 items)
• Support for Learning Scale (5 items)
• Generic Skills Scale (5 items)
• Menial Tasks Scale (3 items)
• Overall Satisfaction (1 item)
• Ungrouped individual questions (7 items)
• Additional Generic Skills (9 items).

Conceptually, there is a substantial difference between what is deemed quality. Whereas the Council on Higher Education (2014) focusses on various elements of coordination; Smith (2012) focusses on what constitutes good teaching and learning. He (p. 248) argues that WIL “focuses attention on the integration of discipline learning and workplace practice or application”. Smith (2012: 251) advances the “notion of the constructive alignment of learning objectives with teaching and learning activities (TLAs) and assessments”. He alludes to the fact that during WIL placements students are not at their host universities, but at workplaces, and therefore urges curriculum design deliberately integrated support services in the delivery, in order to improve the individual learning by alleviating stress. This up with the management of pedagogical aspects through induction and preparing students, both pedagogically and practically. Smith (2012: 252) recognises that such present an extra burden on academics, which is compounded by the need for maintaining contact “between the academic convenor (or appropriate others – e.g. tutors) and students in situ” (notion of supervisor access).

McRae, Pretti and Church (2019: 7) assert that “WIL is a collaborative endeavour and the perspectives of multiple stakeholders need to be incorporated to ensure the quality of WIL outcomes” and elaborate that “each of these stakeholders has a connection to quality WIL as described by the key aspects identified by P.E.A.R.”:

• P for pedagogy — the curriculum needs to be designed “to allow students and host organizations to make the most of the experience and students need to engage with the curriculum”
• E for experience — “educators need to verify that the opportunity aligns with the educational goals of the course/program, host organizations need to provide opportunities for meaningful and substantial contributions, and WIL students need to fully engage with the host organization to make the experience valuable for both themselves and the organization”
• A for assessment — “designed by the educator with input from the student and host organization”
• R for reflection — the educator must provide prompts “to facilitate reflection on the experience for the student and the host organization ensuring maximum learning gains from the experience”

McRae, Pretti and Church (2019: 4-5) cites the Canadian national association for Co-operative and Work-Integrated Learning (CEWIL) definition of work-integrated learning (WIL), namely “a model and process of curricular experiential education which formally and intentionally integrates a student’s academic studies within a workplace or practice setting. WIL experiences include an engaged partnership of at least: an academic institution, a host organization, and a student. WIL can occur at the course or program level and includes the development of learning outcomes related to employability, personal agency, and life-long learning”. They further differentiate nine different models or forms of curricular WIL that exist in many post-secondary institutional contexts, namely:

• Apprenticeship
• Co-operative Education (co-op alternating and co-op internship models)
• Internship
• Entrepreneurship
• Service Learning
• Applied Research Projects
• Mandatory Professional Practicum/Clinical Placement
• Field Placement
• Work Experience

McRae, Pretti and Church (2019: 17) conclude that a quality framework for work-integrated learning is a critical, because each stakeholder has finite resources that they can be directed towards WIL, and each need to be intentional in how to allocate available resources. Many stakeholders support the positive outcomes of WIL in higher education as well as expansion, however, the outcomes are not guaranteed. Quality must remain in focus. McRae, Pretti and Church (2019: 17) suggest that through articulating the aims; accomplishing the actions; assessing the achievements of the primary stakeholders; and by using the acquired information it is possible to set a continuous improvement process in motion through quality can be assured.

References

Council on Higher Education. 2014. Distance Higher Education Programmes in a Digital Era: Programme Accreditation Criteria (pp 81-107), in Distance Higher Education Programmes in a Digital Era: Good Practice Guide — Criterion 15, p. 104. Electronically accessible from http://www.che.ac.za/sites/default/files/publications/CHE%20-%20Distance%20Higher%20Education.pdf

Freestone, R., Williams, P., Thompson, S. & Trembath, K. 2007. A quantitative approach to assessment of work-based learning outcomes: an urban planning application. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(4), December, 347–361. Electronically accessible from https://tandfonline.com/toc/cher20/26/4?nav=tocList

McRae, N.T., Pretti, J. & Church, D. 2019. Work-Integrated Learning Quality Framework. University of Waterloo, Waterloo Centre for the Advancement of Co-operative Education (WatCACE), Electronically accessible from https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-advancement-co-operative-education/research-publications/wil-quality-framework

Smith, C. 2012. Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: a comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 247–262. Electronically accessible from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07294360.2011.558072

Learning from mistakes — ‘selfless respect for reality’

Failure, says Costica Bradatan, “is like the original sin in the biblical narrative: everyone has it. Regardless of class, caste, race, or gender, we are all born to fail, we practise failure for as long as we live, and pass it on to others” (in Everyone fails, but only the wise find humility, 18 August 2016).

Instead of viewing failure negatively, mistakes “ought to inculcate humility”, Bradatan argues and refers to Iris Murdoch’s definition of humility—regarded by him as one of the best and most economical—simply stating: ‘selfless respect for reality’. As humans, our perspectives became much too grand.

Three phases are recommended by Bradatan:

1. We, as individual humans, need to acknowledge of our cosmic insignificance.
2. Once we embraced our insignificance, we need to firmly ground ourselves.
3. “Having lowered an anchor into the world” through the first two phases we “regained an existential equilibrium” and “we can move on to” learn from our mistakes.

Richard Barker commented and stated that “evolution’s agenda is not merely to propel DNA into the next generation, it’s to propel the best DNA into the next generation” and added “indeed, that’s the only benefit to evolution”. Barker also adds that shame serves to silence. If we’re ashamed about our mistakes then we cannot learn from them. Barker argues that we neem to be “open and honest (about the incident)”, and interrogate mistakes. There is a lot of value derivable in learning from mistakes.

Work-based education/work-integrated learning (WBE/WIL)

South Africa's Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr Bonginkosi Emmanuel Nzimande, signed 27 June 2014 the Policy for provision of distance education in South African universities in the context of an integrated post-school system, which got published 7 July 2014 in the Government Gazette No 37811, as Government Notice No 535.

Whereas the notions workplace learning and work-integrated learning each appears 13 times in the preceding White Paper; the term workplace learning has been replaced by work-based education (WBE); which appears as synonynm to work-integrated learning (WIL) at the end of the glossary of the said policy. 

The glossary defines (emphases added) work-based education/work-integrated learning (WBE/WIL) as:

a component of a learning programme that focuses on the application of theory in an authentic, work-based context. It addresses specific competences identified for the acquisition of a qualification which relate to the development of skills that will make the learner employable and will assist in developing his/her personal skills. Employer and professional bodies are involved in the assessment of experiential learning, together with academic staff. Distance methods may usefully be used in providing a structured WBE/WIL experience within a larger learning programme; the provision of WBE/WIL, and the need for placement, mentoring, support, supervision and assessment present particular challenges for large scale distributed distance education provision and require special attention in the planning, resourcing and monitoring of programmes offered in distance mode.

It appears as if the notions and explanation have been haphazardly thrown together in that work-based education could be considered a sub-discipline of eduction, concerned with methods of work-based learning and the facilitation of learning that is work-based. The definition disregards the notion education and start by stating WBE/WIL is component of a learning programme.

The definition makes provision for the use of distance methods to provide WBE/WIL, but in the same sentence specify placement, mentoring, support, supervision and assessment. What the definition does get right is that planning, resourcing and monitoring require special attention. However, in the South African higher education context the work-integrated learning part/s of manny curriculums do not get state subsidy. Instead, funding is to some extend channeled through the Sectoral Education and Training Authorities (SETAs).

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.

Scenario-based or simulated elearning

Potential benefits (and some caution) concerning simulated scenarios through elearning include:

Motivational value for students/participants	The opportunity it offers students to become fully engaged in real-life issues
Increased learning retention	Taking a fraction of the time of on-the-job training / hands-on experiential learning
Risk exclusion, yet realism	Excellent teaching choice in areas which are dangerous or where real-life engagement is not feasible
Readily available	Flexibility with regard to accessibility
Could be most cost effective	But, upfront costs may be daunting

Source: Benefits of scenario-based learning by Desiging Digitally Inc.

The June 2014 talk topic of the Weill Cornell Medical College CPD series, also highlights several benefits involved in simulation-based teaching. However, the article cautions that simulations can be expensive and resource intensive, suggesting a need for evidence to support the use of this learning modality and to sustain access to funding. The article presents the Kern’s six-step approach to curriculum design for simulations, as well theoretical underpinnings of experiential and mastery learning.

Constructivism teaching approach, inquiry- and project-based learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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