Learning in vivo

A framework for electronic work-based learning (eWBL)

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

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

Phase 1 — Design

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

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

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

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

Phase 2 — Preparation

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

Phase 3 — Onboarding

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

Phase 4 — Delivery

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

Phase 5 — Assessment

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

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

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

A three-prong approach: teaching and learning, student support or institutional advancement?

What determines the location of work-integrated learning functionaries? The age-old maxim ‘strategy determines structure’, or what is on the forefront of the minds of decision-makers, applies. What is ‘the position of most prominence’, which argument is the strongest, or who holds the most power? One of three possible locations within executive portfolios are found, say Nofemela (2023):

• Work-integrated learning is deemed as part of the curriculum and therefore located within teaching and learning.
• Securing placements for workplace-based learning (WPBL) is seen as institutional advancement, engagement, and partnerships, requiring marketing expertise.
• Supporting students in identifying job opportunities, producing CVs and cover letters, preparing for job interviews, networking professionally, developing career portfolios and online profiles, etc. requires specialist counselling and career expertise.

‘A guide to effective practice of WIL’ (2010), suggests the embracing of a new institutional paradigm, namely “work integrated learning as a higher education enterprise” (p. 23), in contrast to the cottage industry (old paradigm) of “located at the specific programme level within disciplines and academic departments” (p. 21), where it remains largely invisible and under-resourced. It is said that there is a “deep misunderstanding of what is required to establish and maintain effective work integrated learning programmes” (p. 22). There is a considerable amount of work involved in locating placement opportunities, “preparing and negotiating learning environments within workplaces” (which require relevant expertise), as well as “briefing and debriefing students before and after”, and in mentoring, “supervising, supporting, and assessing learning outcomes” (p. 22).

The new paradigm suggests a change in “locus of leadership” and “an important element in institutional and national agenda” (p. 23). It further suggests integration with and incorporation of “other goals such as gaining a competitive edge in the market of student enrolment and forging authentic, comprehensive industry and community partnerships”.

Coll & Eames (2000: 9-10) identify three models for the location of WIL placement coordinators, the role of the persons collaboration between the university and industry regarding WPBL—which entails much more than mere ‘placement jockey’. The models, or three-prong approach, includes:

• Decentralised, as part of an academic department and functions totally within it
• Centralised, functioning as single unit responsible for all the students across subject disciplines
• Combined centralised-decentralised (integrated), where coordinators are housed within their academic departments, but overseen centrally

“These models represent a continuum of degree of interaction between the coordinator and the student, the employer and the faculty”, say Coll and Eames (2000: 10), and the roles of placement coordinators varies significantly in accordance with the model. Roles may range from simply administrative, to substantially administrative in nature, to joint teaching and placement coordinating.

Coll and Eames (2000: 10) advocate for the third type model, where “coordinators hold joint appointments and are at least partly within faculty”. “In this model coordinators are subject specialists and have strong links with students, faculty, and deep knowledge of the business of the employer”. Continued support from industry is a significant success factor, and the securing quality placement opportunities often problematic. If employers (placement providers) “have a successful placement experience each time” the likelihood of repeat placements increases significantly. An optimum match of each student with her/his provider, is arguably a key factor. “Because coordinators also are subject specialists, they are able to relate effectively with industry professionals during site visits”; better equipped to assess the suitability of a site and accredit such for sound WPBL; “able to gain a good appreciation of an employer's needs”; and furthermore, able to act as conduits for collaborative research because they know the interests and abilities of faculty colleagues. Collaborative research potentially further strengthen links between the university and placement providers, resulting in additional tangible benefits from involvement. Nofemela (2023) indicates advantages versus disadvantages regarding considering which model to implement.

Five Australian universities explored a distributed leadership approach with regarding WIL (Patrick et al., 2014). “WIL leadership refers to the activities that surround the development, promotion, organisation, management and delivery of” WIL, the report qualifies (p. 4). The leadership of WIL takes place both within higher education institutions and at locations in industry and/or community where WPBL takes place, as well as by statutory, professional, or vocational bodies. WIL leaders are therefore practitioners who may teach, or host, support, employ or utilise, and engage with WIL students. Roles may either be formal or informal; and WIL leaders are drawn from various levels within institutions and organisations. To ensure quality student learning, the curriculum relies on shared oversight and guidance pertaining the learning experiences of students (p. 5). Five key domains of capabilities required by WIL leaders, illustrated in Figure 1 (p. 19), were identified across the spectrum.

WIL leadership is characterised in terms of ten dimensions: “discipline contexts, policy, resourcing, organisational culture, organisational structure and systems, external engagement, staff capability, pedagogy and curriculum, access and equity, and research and scholarship” (p. 6), with two aspects identified as being crucial (p. 18):

• Staff capability, particularly in the areas of learning design, embedding employability skills within the curriculum and creating meaningful opportunities for all, was identified as a key professional skill set of WIL leaders.
• Research and scholarship around WIL supported the need of WIL leaders to innovate and use innovation in an evidenced-based application of WIL concepts.

Harnessing a groundswell of interest, and nurturing of a ‘WIL community of practice’ to create momentum, is further advocated (p. 22)

Coll, R.K. & Eames, C. (2000). The role of the placement coordinator: An alternative model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 1(1), 9-14. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/APJCE_01_1_9_14.pdf

Cooper, L., Orrell, J. & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning, A guide to effective practice. London: Routledge.

Nofemela, F.R. (2023). How to establish a Co-op/WIL office. Southern African Society for Cooperative Education (SASCE) live training webinar held 5 September 2023.

Patrick, C.; Fallon, W.; Campbell, M.; Devinish, I.; Kay, J.; Lawson, J.; Russell, L.; Tayebjee, F. & Cretchley, P. (2014). Leading WIL: a distributed leadership approach to enhance work integrated learning. Sydney, New South Wales: Office for Learning and Teaching. Electronically accessible from: https://ltr.edu.au/resources/LE11_2084_Patrick_Report_2014.pdf

Workplace mentors to model resilience and adaptability in dealing with the fluid state of 21st century reality

Globally, resilience and adaptability are sought to deal with the fluid state of 21^st Century reality, say Usher (2019: 113), who indicate that “Learning as a finite suite of knowledge and skills at university to prepare for a static career is now anathema, with industry demanding constant new insight and innovation to meet the needs of an ever-changing global society”.

The word ‘anathema’ originated in 16^th Century via Church Latin from Greek from anatithenai, meaning dedicated (to evil) or something accursed (Dictionary.com). ‘Anathema’ means a person or thing detested, loathed, accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction. Also ‘a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication’, or ‘any imprecation of divine punishment’.

The ability of graduates to use their acquired knowledge and effectively develop their selves within their chosen field “depends on the extent to which they have internalized learning as a set of values and dispositions; that is, the extent to which they developed a learning identity of their own” say Usher (2019: 114).

The noun ‘disposition’ refers to ‘the predominant or prevailing tendency of one's spirits; natural mental and emotional outlook or mood; characteristic attitude’ (Dictionary.com). It pertains to a person's usual temperament, or frame of mind, inclination, or tendency, or state of mind regarding something. Legally it means the final settlement of a matter. Usher (2019: 114) correlates effective teaching and the student’s “conscious learning identity, positive learning attitudes and dispositions”.

The significance of effective cooperative work-integrated education (CWIE) largely rests with the modelled practice of the workplace supervisor (or mentor) as powerful and explicit learning tool for the intern, say Usher (2019: 114) and suggests that “action is needed to sustainably develop supervisors as positive role models or providers of quality explicit instruction for practicum students wishing to enter the profession”. However, the extent of such collaborative development is dependent upon the extent the workplace organisations provide space and enable the supervisor to engage purposefully in the required complex learning relationship.

“The workplace has rightly been identified as providing a rich and rewarding source of learning for students” say Usher (2019: 115). However, “critically reflective dialogue as a medium for ongoing and developmental feedback” is deemed needed as “integral part of effective workplace learning or work-integrated learning”. Furthermore, is involvement from all stakeholders of significance.

Usher, A.S. (2019). Modeling resilient and adaptable work-integrated learning practice: The importance of learning dispositions in initial teacher education. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(2), 113-126. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_20_2_113_126.pdf

Work-based working in tandem with long-arm or off-site supervisors

A tandem is generally known as a bicycle for two riders, with two sets of pedals and two saddles, one arranged behind the other. The word originates from Latin, meaning at length or finally.

For quality assurance purposes, it is a requirement of practice learning in Social Work, “that students must be taught and assessed by a qualified social worker” (Henderson, 210: 491). However, “many agencies are unable to comply with these requirements and so withdraw from the pool of available placements, thus reducing the quantity” of opportunities. To overcome the challenge, the off-site model of practice learning has been developed. “This model traditionally involves both a work-based supervisor, who may not be a social worker and is not qualified in practice teaching, and an ‘off-site’ practice teacher, who is a qualified social worker” says Henderson (210: 491, emphasis added). Willing agencies, especially small voluntary agencies with human resource or infrastructure constraints; and those with multi-disciplinary teams; which do not have a pool of available on-site social workers, or practice teachers, utilise the ‘off-site’ model. A tandem bicycle may serve a metaphor for the model.

Varied nomenclature (or terminology) leads to confusion. New or different terminology is often as result of changes in roles and practices; but also as result of new concepts introduced, or new perspectives. In the literature on practice teaching and learning in Social Work, a range of terminology exists, indicate Henderson (210: 490). Examples of terminologies used for work-based supervisors include on-site supervisor, link supervisor, work-based assessor, practice teacher, and practice assessor. Furthermore, “different terms [are] used for practice teachers who are not situated in the placement [but] are ‘long-arm’ and ‘off-site’”, such as off-site practice teacher. Henderson (210: 491) conveys that the Kingston “university practice learning handbook defines the role of the work-based supervisor as ‘the student’s main support within the placement—who should be responsible for the day to day supervision and accountable for the student’s practice’. The role of the off-site practice teacher is to ‘plan practice learning with the student to meet the learning outcomes, provide teaching and take overall responsibility for the assessment’. There is an expectation that both parties will liaise regularly and hold three-way meetings at the beginning, middle and end of the placement.” (emphasis added).

Henderson (210: 493) remarks that some literature evidence suggests that work-based supervisors are perceived as the neglected or ‘unsung’ partners in practice learning. “Some supervisors have commented on having less status, recognition, financial reward and power than off-site practice teachers” she says. Some supervisors observe that the power imbalance is perpetuated through communication essentially with the off-site practice teacher, which result in some work-based supervisors disengaging. The Kingston university handbook does provide guidelines about the roles and responsibilities, and specify that the work-based supervisor should be contributing to the final assessment report and give feedback on the student’s performance. However, roles are not entire clear about the writing of the final report of students.

Henderson, K.J. (2010). Work-based Supervisors: The Neglected Partners in Practice Learning. Social Work Education, 29(5), 490-502. Electronically accessible from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02615470903156352

An Indigenous community-based work-integrated learning model

Access to community-based learning for Indigenous students is presented by Cameron and Rexe (2022) as both feasible and successful. They portray a Canadian case study, derived from an Indigenous storytelling approach of witnessing, and introduce an Indigenous work-integrated learning conceptual model. The model is based on a perspective of the medicine wheel, with the student at the centre, surrounded by the community, training providers, funders, and industry as four quadrants. The model facilitates learning that is grounded in culture and Indigenous ways of knowing, doing, and being. The model is based on the medicine wheel because of one of the author’s sense making of the components of success.

The medicine wheel is essentially a circular symbol, broken into four quadrants of different colours, most often yellow, red, black, and white, explain Tribal Trade (n.d.). Cameron and Rexe (2022) point out that there are a variety and diversity of medicine wheel teachings and representations inspired by the stories, values, and beliefs of different nations. As metaphor, the medicine wheel emphasizes interconnectedness and interrelatedness of all things. Tribal Trade (n.d.). Indicate that various attributes assigned to the four quadrants and may, for example, include the four directions, the four states of being, the four sacred medicines, the four seasons, the four elements, the four stages of life.

Indigenous community-based work-integrated learning (WIL) model, figure 1 below, depicts how the student in the focal point, thus merging Western and Indigenous ways of being and doing. A key ingredient of the Canadian Indigenous community and economic development “is fostering economic self-sufficiency and socio-economic equality” and “inclusive of Indigenous culture and community” (p. 204). A priority is the increased access to post-secondary education and training in skilled trades. Indigenous peoples were as a result of colonization subjected to systemic barriers of access to various forms of post-secondary education, participation therein and attainment. Financial constraints and geographic non-proximity exacerbate the situation. Increased attention to culturally responsive teaching practices, inclusion of Indigenous knowledges, the use of Indigenous pedagogy, and land- or community-based education are furthermore of significance. Community-based opportunities do reduce barriers, meet the needs of Indigenous learners, and provide access at rural and remote areas, enabling individuals to learn within their community. It is said that quality community-based training is made feasible through intentional community engagement. Of significant importance is the development of relationships that are reciprocal, reflect mutual respect, where authority is shared, and goals, objectives and outcomes co-created (p. 205).

A significant finding conveyed by Cameron and Rexe (2022: 205-6) is that both employers and training providers that “provide both ‘pastoral’ (meaning guidance, social, and counseling support) and academic support” are more likely to accomplish increased completion rates. The use of ethnographic methods, Lave and Wenger’s legitimate peripheral participation, as well as Billett’s situated learning are further, among others, mentioned.

The authors conclude that the medicine wheel can be used as a teaching tool in programme design and for supporting student success. It is believed that the use would result in strong high-quality community-based partnerships. Reading of the source article is strongly recommended.

Cameron, M. & Rexe, D. (2022). Community-based access to apprenticeship: An Indigenous work-integrated learning model. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 23(2), 203-218. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_23_2_203_218.pdf.

Tribal Trade. (n.d.) The indigenous medicine wheel, native medicine wheel explained. Electronically accessible from https://us.tribaltradeco.com/blogs/medicine-wheel/medicine-wheel-teachings-native-medicine-wheel-system-explained

What is the medicine wheel? (2020). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7nb4rJ_N14

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

Key determinants in achieving an optimum studio-based learning experience

“Studio-based learning (SBL) is a teaching and learning methodology that combines different learning pedagogies such as social constructivist, problem-based, and active learning to mimic real-world working experience.” say Kumar, Silva and Prelath (2020: 611). As result of the successes in providing a real-world industry experience through studio-based learning, the application has been extended as pedagogical approach to many fields, such as engineering, programming, communication, entrepreneurship and non-arts programs.

Technological advancements changed the way we live and learn. “The 21st century has seen the move to an era in which information, innovation, creativity and imagination are important attributes”, which “are seen to be the backbone of the new economic world” say Fung (2015: 71). Entrepreneurial and creative industries are triggers for economic development and therefore of increasing importance, indicate Fung (2015: 72), because such “provides job opportunities, creates wealth, produces consumer goods and services for local and overseas markets, and enables growth in overall consumption”. Studio-based learning is deemed a means to stimulate creativity and entrepreneurship development.

The essence of studio-based learning lies in providing students the opportunity to actively apply their knowledge by developing “projects through an iterative cycle that involves problem-solving, collaboration, and autonomous learning”, say Kumar, et al. (2020: 612). An authentic learning experience is enabled through critical review of projects, while going through the iterative cycle, by fellow team members, peers, instructors/lecturers, and potentially industry professionals, and real clients. This provides students with a glimpse to real workplace issues and motivation to resolve problems critically. Problems are deemed essential, because students are prepared to face obstacles by learning and adapting. Kumar, et al. (2020: 613) identify six fundamentals steps to implement studio-based learning:

1. Identifying projects that can be executed through different methods
2. Project implementation individually or through teamwork
3. Project presentation
4. Constructive feedback from peers or mentors (critique session) which may be done face-to-face or online
5. Alteration for resubmission or presentation
6. Repeat of steps 1 to 5

Fung (2015: 73-74) group the studio-based learning process into parts, illustrated in Figure 1 (p. 74):

1. The project brief, which is set out by the teachers according to the skills required to be learnt by students at different stages of their study. Often the project brief is the stimulus for creative ideas, strategies and a holistic view of the planning for creative outcomes, and should be interesting, motivating, realistic, mindful, clearly defined, and giving freedom of design deliverables.
2. Features of studio-based learning, including the studio, participants (teachers and students) and critique.
3. Learning process by students, via learning-by-doing and problem-solving skills; these involve the reiteration of ideas during the critique from teacher to student until the maturity of the idea and/or the approach of the deadline.
4. Learning outcomes, which include the presentation and determination of final ideas and portfolio respectively.

Fung (2015: 74) emphasises the role of the lecturer (teachers) and students, as important informants; but focusses on the project brief, features of studio-based learning, learning process and learning outcomes act as the framework, as illustrated in Figure 2. She undertook research to identify the key contributing factors to optimise studio-based learning practice. Five key determinants were identified that are influencing optimum studio-based learning, namely the behaviour of the teacher, management of expectations, exposure to industry, the design of the project brief, and the communication channels (pp. 82-83). Fung (2015: 90) superimposed these to her studio-based learning model, thereby indicating that “teachers’ behaviours, expectation management and industry exposure are interconnected in affecting students’ motivation to learn”. Furthermore communication channels and project brief designs are deemed important determinants towards optimisation of the studio-based learning process.

Fung, M.S.K. (2015). Studio-based learning experiences in vocational design education in Hong Kong. International Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, 7(2), 71-96. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.219519164808585

Kumar, J.A., Silva, P.A. & Prelath, R. (2020). Implementing studio‑based learning for design education: a study on the perception and challenges of Malaysian undergraduates. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 611–631. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10798-020-09566-1.pdf

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

Remote critique as a means towards formative assessment in NPWIL

‘Preliminary crit’ (or desk critique in face-to-face settings) is “a form of intermediate formative assessment that takes place in the studio-based learning environment” say Pradel, Sun, Oro and Nan (2015). Tuccio (n.d.) regard the ‘crit’, meant to assist students as one of the most important aspects of studio-based learning. Critique sessions, of 20 to 30 minutes each, take place at regular intervals throughout a course, as active one-on-one/panel, between student and one or more lecturers/tutors, who provide formative feedback. The student’s work in progress is reviewed and discussed informally. Proposals are made, different viewpoints offered, problems discussed and alternatives deliberated. Reflection on own work is facilitated, where after the student critically assimilates the commentary and make discretionary revisions. The tutor/lecturer “acts as a master demonstrating the appropriate behaviour, values, design strategies, and thought processes” (Pradel, et al. 2015) that professionals exhibit, as well as the language used in the community of practice. ‘Crit’ serves as a means of “bridging students into professional practice”, and is deemed a key benefit of studio-based learning pedagogy.

LeBrasseur (2021: 18) found that “students seek a more immersive and integrated digital experience in their education”. He explored the use of digital tablets with coordinated audio/video application in capturing the dynamic exchange during ‘digital review session’ (DRS) in order “to facilitate memory retention, vocabulary comprehension, clarification of design requirements, and documentation of the next steps to project outcomes” (p. 17). Students submitted submit a digital version of their work prior to the remote critique session. Crits were done by means of a digital tablet and audio-visual application, where after uploaded to ShowMe’s cloud (www.showme.com):

Discussion, critique comments, and responses are recorded and synchronized to the digital drawing’s evolving graphic feedback on the instructor’s tablet. A unique component of this DRS is the synchronicity—similar to a movie—wherein image markup and audio commentary are revealed together. This simulates an actual studio desk critique and has the potential to be revisited at a later time: the recording can be paused, images enlarged, and parts replayed numerous times to clarify ideas and concepts. Furthermore, the DRS method allows students to work from many locations—not just at their studio table—and does not require the frequent printing of drawings. (LeBrasseur, 2021: 20)

LeBrasseur, R. (2021). Digital Review Sessions: Student Perceptions of Digital Tablets in Design Studio Review and Desk Critique. Landscape Journal, 39(2), 17-30.

Pradel, P., Sun, X., Oro, B. & Nan, W. (2015). A preliminary comparison of desk and panel crit settings in the design studio. In the International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, 3 & 4 September 2015, Loughborough University, Design School, Loughborough, UK (EPDE2015/246).

Tuccio, C. (n.d.). 3 ways to prepare for a desk critique & get the most out of it. Draftscapes. Electronically accessed from https://draftscapes.com/3-ways-to-prepare-for-a-desk-critique-get-the-most-out-of-it/

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

A conceptual framework for a self-regulated internship model

Roy and Sykes (2017: 7-13) adapted the Zopiatis & Constanti’s (2012) conceptual framework, image immediately below, into a tabular-format, starting with the planning stage, and extended it for the virtual environment.

Zopiatis & Constanti’s (2012)

The Roy and Sykes (2017) conceptual framework for a self-regulated internship model, comprising four-tables, is summarised in the four quadrant table below.

1. Plan ·         Curriculum design, internship specific learning objectives, learning materials ·         Undertaking of mutual commitment signed ·         Role clarification, clear job description, mentoring/supervision, oversight/coor-dination and on-boarding ·         Host organisation policies and procedures ·         Quality assurance measures, standards and evaluation ·         Pre-internship seminar

2. Engage — The virtual Internship ·         Experience diary, activity logging, recording, reflective journaling and tracking ·         On site orientation, training, supervision ·         Assessment, by means of rubrics, of work and progress ·         Discussions and sharing through LMS ·         Feedback to guide the learning experience and intervention

4. Reflect and Reflect ·         Formal reflection, e.g. e-portfolio ·         Evaluation, rubric submission online by supervisor ·         Self-assessment by students ·         Reflective discussion ·         Building a virtual wall of wisdom ·         Stakeholder survey to improve programme

3. Assimilate ·         Interaction with the learning experience ·         Guidance to students through LMS ·         Connection of theory to practice by LMS ·         Online simulations and role-play opportunities ·         Dedicated discussion boards with guided questions ·         Collaboration, cooperation and communication ·         Review of curriculum by stakeholders

The Roy and Sykes (2017: 10) framework includes a fifth table, namely the “student’s self-regulated component of the hospitality internship learning process”, which among others entail each student’s responsibility to secure one or more opportunities with host organisation for a (paid or unpaid)4 to 6-week internship, by requesting a chance to do a project. This may entail volunteering at a professional association conference; working part-time for free; or some innovative idea. Roy and Sykes (2017) further encourage conducting Internet searches for internships; perusing industry journals; attending career fairs; and establish and maintaining relationships with career services. They urge the demonstration of undeniable work ethic, drive, motivation, initiative, and commitment by students. The self-regulated model, they submit, encourages students to negotiate, build self-confidence, utilise critical thinking and develop personal goal setting. Roy and Sykes (2017) argue that within the virtual (or distance) education environment students are already self-regulated (SRL) or self-directed (SDL). While the theoretical backgrounds of SRL and SDL may differ, it results in the student ultimately being responsible for much of the learning process. With SRL, the task is set by the lecturer, whereas with SDL tasks are initiated by the student. With self-regulated learning within the distance environment, the student would be responsible for finding an organisation at which to conduct the activities, which constitutes the self-direction.

Roy and Sykes (2017) report (p. 2) that in “recent years, the literature is increasingly more focused on online internships and their value to students in different disciplines” and cite several authors. They found that the “general consensus is that learning the ins and outs of an industry virtually, using contemporary internship methods, strengthens the students’ expertise and better prepares them for future workplace environments”. They observe that literature reflects that students gain significant benefits from real-life experience irrespective if “an internship, an externship, community project, or field experience”. It is reported that employers say that the completion of a supervised and evaluated internship, or community-based project, would ensure that college graduates possess the needed knowledge and skills. Connecting students from a virtual academic programme with employer organisations, however, is challenging, which prompted Roy and Sykes (2017) to develop “a self-regulated internship model applicable to an online hospitality curriculum”.

Roy, J. & Sykes, D. 2017. A review of internship opportunities in online learning: building a new conceptual framework for a self-regulated internship in hospitality. International Journal of E‑Learning & Distance Education, 32(1). Electronically accessible from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1027

Zopiatis A. & Constanti, P. 2012. Managing hospitality internship practices: A conceptual framework. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 24(1), 44-51. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2012.10696661

Live project model deemed a form of work-integrated learning

Tezcan, Durakovic, Smith, Lloyd, and D'arcy (2020: 522) reason that whilst the live project model is often used as a means to offering workplace practice-learning to architecture students, it should indeed be regarded as a form of work-integrated learning (WIL). Use of live projects are reported, among others, at business schools and information technology. Guar (2017) reveal that top business schools in India use live projects to make MBA students job ready, as live projects offer opportunities to apply theoretical management knowledge in a “real-world scenarios and work within real constraints of resources, people factors and other organizational constraints”. A live project is a real-time management education game changer, and the “the major takeaways of live projects are learning to be a team player, engaging with colleagues in a productive manner, rubbing shoulders with the bosses, understanding and aligning with the cultural values of the entity, among others”. Sarmang Software, a fast-growing open source software solution and software training provider firm, differentiates between dummy projects and live projects. Accountability is a key factor of the latter and learning entails:

• to work on deadlines
• to survive work pressures
• to test actual results
• to face and resolve real-time issues to work efficiently
• to handle important data

 

Chirag Solutions, a technology, outsourcing and consulting company, corroborate the aforementioned and states that a “live project is the phase when you finally implement most of the things that you have learnt during your software training”.

Chandler (2013) argues that the classic ‘studio taught’ project is a naïve simplification. He advocates for the dynamic conditions of a live project. Four people responded to the query on Quora ‘What is the advantage of LIVE project?’ praising the benefits.

Chandler, A. (2013) So Why Do a Live Project? Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 8(1), 58-72, DOI: 10.11120/jebe.2013.00005

Chirag Solutions. (n.d.) Live project training and its benefits. Electronically accessible from https://www.chiragsolutions.com/live-project-training-and-its-benefits/

Gaur, V. 2017. How do live projects in B-schools enhance job prospects? Careers 360. Electronically accessible from https://bschool.careers360.com/articles/how-do-live-projects-in-b-schools-enhance-job-prospects

Sarmang Software. (n.d.) Dummy project vs live project. Electronically accessible from https://www.sarmang.com/training/dummy_project_vs_live_project.php

Tezcan, N.; Durakovic, I.; Smith, C.; Lloyd, E. & D'arcy, S. 2020. Scaffolded, simulated work-integrated learning in design education: Beyond the live project. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 521-529. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_5_521_529.pdf

Quora. What is the advantage of LIVE project? Electronically accessible from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-advantage-of-LIVE-project

Live Projects and Scaffolded WIL

“A live project comprises the negotiation of a brief, timescale, budget and product between an educational organisation and an external collaborator for their mutual benefit. The project must be structured to ensure that students gain learning that is relevant to their educational development.” say Anderson and Priest (2020). They elaborate, that they ‘tried to make this definition representative of the common factors’, as well as ‘to be as inclusive as possible’, of scope (wealth, variations, and diverse motivations for) of live project practice that they have observed. Live Projects are “pedagogic means to extend the institutional confines of the design studio”, and may also be referred to as ‘Design Build Projects’, ‘Live Build Projects’, ‘Real Projects’ and ‘Service Learning’. Similarly, the University of Sheffield School of Architecture (2020) state that ”Live Projects set real constraints, responding to budget, brief and time. In each project students and clients work together to define the project and develop a brief”.

Tezcan, Durakovic, Smith, Lloyd, and D'arcy (2020: 522) report on re-framing the scholarly discussions about the ‘design studio’, and the nuances of design studio teaching strategies and pedagogy. They observe that “the live project model is commonly adopted by universities globally as a means of offering architecture students the opportunity for workplace practice-learning”, and argue “live projects form an embedded, scaffolded core subject in design studio education, rather than discreet, standalone offerings”. They indicate that work-integrated learning (WIL) “is an umbrella term for the integration of academic theory with workplace application”, and state that scaffolded WIL “involves a sequence of WIL experiences that structure core disciplinary subjects within a program curriculum”. Scaffolding is not merely a rickety structure, but a well-designed curriculum to move students toward career readiness and professional practice. The live project model resembles both the workplace and professional practice; and “it promotes deep, transformational and authentic learning” (Tezcan et al., 2020: 524).

Tezcan et al. (2020), however, do express concern about (among others) the financial constraints pertaining live projects, in particular the potential accumulation of costs incurred by both students and universities, which may result in depletion of resources. Adaptation of the South African sector education and training authority (SETA) funding disbursement is recommended. Pursuing of live projects for reconstruction and development should further be pursued.

About Live Projects. 2020 The University of Sheffield School of Architecture. Electronically accessible from http://www.liveprojects.org/about/2/

Anderson, J & Priest, C. 2020. About (web page), Live Projects Network. Electronically accessible from https://liveprojectsnetwork.org/about/

Tezcan, N.; Durakovic, I.; Smith, C.; Lloyd, E. & D'arcy, S. 2020. Scaffolded, simulated work-integrated learning in design education: Beyond the live project. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 521-529. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_5_521_529.pdf

How work-integrated learning could possibly mitigate some anticipated challenges with respect to the future of work

“The future of work and how to best prepare for it is one of the biggest challenges currently facing governments, employers, educators, and policy makers” say Tara Stevens, Judene Pretti, Norah McRae, from the University of Waterloo. They synthesised 32 contemporary reports and produced an online document which identified six major future of work trends. The further made recommendations about how work-integrated learning could help mitigate some of the anticipated challenges with respect to the future of work.

1. ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY—the threats of increased technology, artificial intelligence and automation call for a talent pipeline with appropriate human and technical skill development. Work-integrated learning could contribute to bridging the gap between graduate attributes and industry requirements. Students could reverse mentor workplaces with regard to digital skills and new technologies.
2. DEVELOPING SKILL AGILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY—increasingly needs for complementary skills, agility and ‘hybrid roles’ are evident, which could be developed through work-integrated learning.
3. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADAPTATION TO THE FUTURE OF WORK—increasingly employees experience pressures to remain abreast and continue to update their skills through lifelong learning. Work-integrated learning is believed to not only lay a foundation, but also serve as model for mid-career upskilling and/or re-skilling.
4. FOSTERING CULTURES OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION—needs for more culturally, racial and demographically diverse and heterogeneous employees are experienced. The reflective and reflexive nature of good work-integrated learning practice may contribute increased self-awareness, uncovering of biases, and enhance cultural awareness.
5. THE GIG ECONOMY AND PRECARIOUS WORK—with a increase in gig work, less social protection and financial stability are experienced. Stints of work-integrated learning may provide first hand experiences and awareness of the implications of precarious work and the associated realities and challenges.
6. EMPLOYEE VS. ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES—widening gaps between organisational and personal values are observed. Work-integrated learning could aid students in gaining clarity on own values, as well as an awareness of what talents organisations need. This in turn would contribute to more purposeful engagement after graduation. Organisations in turn could benefit from participating in work-integrated learning provision by more efficient job design, talent attraction and post-graduate conversion and retention.

Perusal of the full online publication is recommended.

Online ‘process-oriented guided inquiry learning’ (Cyber-POGIL)

During the coronavirus pandemic, in the absence of a vaccine, formative assessment of virtual experiential learning is deemed a necessity. A scholarly literature review undertaken by Purkayastha et al. (2019) found 112 articles published between 2010 and 2018 about process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL), with a steady growth in interest over the period, however only a few pertaining to online teaching. They distilled the critical components deemed necessary for implementing POGIL in an online setting, and coined it Cyber POGIL, which has a dual nature, namely supportive and monitoring.

Purkayastha et al. (2019: 80) remark that using “early assessment to check if the learner understands things correctly is an age-old tradition in the practice of teaching, later conceptualized as formative assessment”; that formative assessment has often been called ‘high-impact instructional practice’; and perceived “as the single most effective intervention to increase student learning”. However, formative or early assessment, in online and blending learning, “is challenging due to the differences in space-time between the teacher and the learner” (p. 81).

Purkayastha et al. (2019: 79) “developed a student team learning monitor (STLM module) in an electronic health record system to measure student engagement and actualize the social constructivist approach of Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL)”. They employed various online engagement techniques to engage students, such as project-based learning, active learning, experiential learning and inquiry learning for virtual laboratory experiences. However, lack of skills among students and low engagement continued to present problems. In order to address the challenges and to provide formative assessment, they “designed a novel monitoring tool called Student Team-Based Learning Monitor (STLM)” (p. 80).

Purkayastha et al. (2019: 81) report a shift; in particularly science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education; towards student-centred teaching and learning techniques over recent decades. Process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) is deemed one such instructional approach. POGIL-specific teaching has three broadly defining characteristics, namely:

1. Learning materials are self-managed and the lecturer serves as a facilitator of learning, rather than as a source of information
2. Knowledge is constructed among learners by exploration, refining and integrating shared concepts
3. Embedded in learning structure and content is at least one targeted process skill

POGIL inherits its core principles from guided inquiry, observe Purkayastha et al. (2019: 82); it depends on a learning cycle of exploration, concept invention and application; and the development of POGIL informed by:

1. Students generally do not learn from teaching by telling
2. However, when “part of an interactive community [students] are more likely to be successful”
3. “Students enjoy themselves more and develop greater ownership over the material when they are given an opportunity to construct their own understanding”, because knowledge is personal

Purkayastha et al. (2019) They provided didactic content through an online learning management system (LMS); divided the students into small groups; and assigned two roles to each student, namely an iTrainee and a rTrainee (pp. 86-87):

• The “inquiring student” called the iTrainee is asked to create a set of tasks based on the concept that will be discovered based on the background information provided in the lecture material and instructions from the instructor. The iTrainee is not aware of the most efficient way to perform the task but tries to perform the task on their own, based on the concepts explained in the lecture slides.
• After performing the task, the iTrainee requests the other students of their group (rTrainees) to perform the same task. In creating this request, the iTrainee does not describe how the task was performed. Instead, the iTrainee defines a question that will be answered by performing the task.

After completion of the given task, the rTrainees and iTrainee will be able to compare their work with other members of the group. The iTrainee will also similarly have to play the role of a rTrainee when other members of his/her group make inquiries and propose new tasks to the group. [They] found that with each attempt as a rTrainee, there is improved student learning of the concept, followed by knowledge reconstruction that occurs by observing the comparison of the tasks performed by different students.

Purkayastha et al. (2019) illustrates the POGIL pedagogy with exemplars of three iterations of the four-step management method for continuous improvement, namely Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA).

Purkayastha, S., Surapaneni, A.K., Maity, P, Rajapuri, A.S. & Gichoya, W.G. (2019). Critical components of formative assessment in process-oriented guided inquiry learning for online labs. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 17(2), 79-92. Electronically accessible from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1220140.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

Marketing a critical element of Cooperative and Work-integrated Education

What brings; and the glue that holds; the essential ingredients of cooperative and work-integrated learning (CWIE) together, is ‘marketing’. Kevin Wheeler, the CEO and founder of Global Learning Resources and the Future of Talent Institute, and is co-director of the Australasian Talent Conference in Australia, makes the point: ‘Recruitment is marketing’. He tells a short story and concludes that recruitment has a lot to learn from it and from marketing. I submit that CWIE should pay attention:

Once upon a time we sold products much as we “sell” jobs and organizations today. Merchants waited for a potential buyer to show up. The buyer was supposed to know what he wanted and asked for it. Most of the merchandise was kept in drawers or under the counter. A customer had to ask for something specifically and the merchant showed him only one particular item. There was no engagement, no selling, and no touting the benefits of the product.

But department stores such as Macy’s changed all this by displaying items openly and running ads targeted, in particular, to women. It offered well-known socialites the newest fashions and relied on gossip and word of mouth to attract new referral customers. Window displays created dream worlds and played to emotions. They encouraged salespeople to engage with the customers, build relationships, and even try on clothes or demonstrate the product.

My colleagues keep telling me that it unreasonable that the Department of Higher Education and Training policy—the HE Qualification Sub-Framework, §35—holds universities responsible for placing students for credit-bearing workplace learning. Wheeler states that “talent scarcities remain and the primary differentiator between companies often is only their brand, public image, and emotional appeal” and that “talent attraction has never been more difficult” (emphasis added).

Based on the “useful strategies, methods, and ideas” that Wheeler gives, I would like my colleagues to take note:

First and second impressions count—read what Wheeler state about SAP versus Google

What are the views and perspectives of stakeholders in the relevant occupational fields about the academic departments that are teaching qualifications which include work-integrated learning?

What does the Internet presence of those academic departments portray?

Networking for CWIE partners entail marketing

To create differentiation and improve [stakeholder] engagement, [academia] must actively pursue a marketing function.

Good stakeholder attraction and networking starts with design.

Apple is a great example [says Wheeler] of a company with a powerful brand carefully built around. Everything Apple does evokes quality, elitism, beauty, and perfection. From its retail stores to its simplest product, people describe Apple as elegant and sleek, and relate that to the highest of quality. This spreads to Apple’s recruitment brand, which also focuses on being elite, smooth, and innovative. The company’s recruitment site is beautiful and elegantly designed. It attracts you by its photography, videos, and wording.

Based on Wheeler, herewith some ideas:

• Let graduates, key players in the occupational field and students talk about the qualification; the benefits of CWIE participation; and stories from the workplace. Develop a series of short videos, photo stories, or audio stories—there can be a viral effect as people watch [a] video and forward it on to friends who would be a great fit.
• Use the media that are most popular with the target group.
• Use social media to communicate [achievements], and comment on news items, discuss [developments in the field] or service offerings, and provide information to potential [stakeholders]. Many [university departments] have Facebook or LinkedIn pages, but they need to be regularly updated and promoted to be effective.
• Make use of links in communiques.
• Provide tools that [enable] potential [stakeholders] to screen themselves [and the benefits they could derive as potential partner and assess] themselves for culture fit.

Real-time and Continuous Data are required for build the most useful websites and social media tools. Examine data such as the number of hits, retweets, likes, and clicks for patterns and actions. Learn what is working best in engaging the right prospects. Data also can be an engagement tool.

Engagement is about serving up content that interest [prospects] and that gives them something valuable. Social media and engagement are about understanding people, how they react, and what they want. And this is why analytics is core to how [networking academics] understand what attracts and how to best communicate.

Think of [CWIE networking] as a journey. For some it will be the first time they have heard of [the university], others will know some but not a lot, and for others [the university] may be an old story. But no matter, there should be compelling content that enlightens, engages, and keeps [prospective partners] involved.