Learning in vivo

The relationship between job insecurity, work-related learning, and occupational self-efficacy as mediator

Although work-related learning (WRL) in this context pertains to the learning and development of employees, it is postulated that insecurity of job prospects could possibly impact the WRL of students.

“A potentially important factor that may link job insecurity and work-related learning is occupational self-efficacy” say Van Hootegem, Sverke and De Witte (2022: 230). Literature suggests “that job insecurity negatively affects the way in which individuals perceive themselves … and that self-efficacy plays an important role in the extent to which employees engage in learning behaviour”, they indicate.

Van Hootegem et al (2022: 230) “propose that job insecurity may incite a loss spiral, which travels via occupational self-efficacy to work-related learning”. A spiral can be defined as a consecutive winding or coiling curve, in a continuous and gradually tightening (loss) or widening (gain) around a central point on a flat plane, or about an axis to form a cone. Spirals illustrates the conservation of resources (COR) theory in that ‘initial loss/gain begets future loss/gain’.

Job insecurity is a significant stressor in contemporary working life, with detrimental consequences not only for individuals, but also organisations. The construct ‘job insecurity’ relates to both job continuity (quantitative) and content/characteristics (qualitative) of jobs. During turbulent times a decline in acquisition of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) could further endanger an employees’ potential to adapt. The construct ‘learning behaviour’ is conceptualised in two ways, namely process and the outcome. Process pertains to the extent to which employees engage in learning behaviours or activities. Outcome suggests changes in employees’ professional KSAOs and performance of work. Occupational self-efficacy (OSE) is defined as “the competence that a person feels concerning the ability to successfully fulfil the tasks involved in his or her job” (Van Hootegem et al,2022: 232). OSE not only plays a central role in COR theory, but also constitutes an important resource in personal mastery and control over one’s environment.

Van Hootegem, A; Sverke, M; & De Witte, H. (2022). Does occupational self-efficacy mediate the relationships between job insecurity and work-related learning? A latent growth modelling approach. Work and Stress, 36(3), 229–250.

Work-related learning (WRL), defined as learning in and at work

The period of “transition from higher education to work”, in the life of young adults, is significant in that “entrance into a new context brings its own challenges”, say Grosemans, Coertjens, and Kyndt (2020: 20). “Early-career employees are expected to develop new competences and deepen their current competences”, which “can be achieved through work-related learning” (WRL). Literature about “learning relevant to work can be conceptualized in at least two ways”, say Sambrook (2005: 102), namely “learning that occurs at the place of work and learning that is embedded in work processes”—illustrated in Figure 1 below; and therefor “the term work-related learning [WRL] encompasses all forms of learning in and at work”. Other differentiated "learning at work, for work and through work". Grosemans et al. (2020: 20) indicate that work-related learning involves both formal and informal learning activities, as well as both on and off the job learning. “Formal learning activities are those activities that are more strictly organized, often within a fixed and limited time span”, whereas “informal learning activities are typically activities that follow from” carrying out work/assigned tasks. The UK, ‘work-related learning guide’ (DCSF: 6) defines of work-related learning as a “planned activity that uses the context of work to develop knowledge, skills and understanding useful in work, including learning through the experience of work, learning about work and working practices, and learning the skills for work”.

While “work-related learning is demonstrated to be particularly important for graduates embarking on their career, as the entrance to their new job comes along with many challenges that can trigger work-related learning”, “little is known about work-related learning in the case of early-career employees”, say Grosemans et al. (2020: 20), and “the question remains as to how factors in higher education can prepare students for future work-related learning”. Three orientations are perceived as significant “antecedents of work-related learning in the transition from higher education to work”, namely learning-goal orientation, performance-approach orientation, and performance-avoidance orientation observe Grosemans et al. (2020: 20-2). It has been found that students with a high learning-goal orientation are generally focused on developing required competences and performing tasks in order to learn new things; whereas students with a high performance-approach orientation are particularly directed towards demonstrating their competences and/or comparing themselves with other; but that students with a high performance-avoidance orientation endeavour to avoid tasks of which they expect the consequences to be negative. Self-efficacy, i.e., “the ‘belief in one’s own capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments’” and “perseverance in taxing situations”, is regarded as “critical to increase preparedness for the transition to work”

Sambrook (2005: 106-7) further indicates that “a key factor supporting work-related learning is the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs)” because “the Internet (web-based) enables the delivery of computer-based training across time and distance”.

DCSF stand for United Kingdom Government, Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Grosemans, I.; Coertjens, L. & Kyndt, E. (2020). Work-related learning in the transition from higher education to work: The role of the development of self-efficacy and achievement goals. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 19–42.

Sambrook, S. (2005). Factors influencing the context and process of work-related learning: synthesizing findings from two research projects. Human Resource Development International, 8(1), 101 – 119.

United Kingdom Government, Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2009). The Work-Related Learning Guide (Second Edition). https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/10591/7/Work-related_learning_Redacted.pdf

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 learning (WPL) and work-related learning (WRL) are associated with training activities such as continuing professional development (CPD)

Workplace learning (WPL) and work-related learning (WRL) “are more associated with training activities such as continuing professional development (CPD) courses.” Say Gerhardt and Mackenzie-Philps (2018: 409) They remark that “terms are [often] used extensively interchangeably with conflicting conceptualisations” which may results in confusion.

Gerhardt and Mackenzie-Philps (2018: 409) indicate that work integrated learning (WIL) is “a more encompassing term”, meaning including entirely or comprehensively, and differentiate “work-based learning (WBL) is what is learnt by working, by the actual undertaking of work activities”. It “questions the more traditional notion that knowledge is held and transferred by the privileged few through formal situations in pre-determined ways” and “specifically, enables accelerated access through transferable skills, initial professional preparation for the ‘real world’, explicit contextual professional development and the use of problem-based learning” (PBL). In contrast “to workplace learning (WPL) and work-related learning (WRL)”, WBL is furthermore linked “to academic learning and programmes”, they say.

They remark further that “generally, WIL are structured programmes of learning where work skills are practised or experienced in a work-like environment”; and elaborate that “only WBL is attached to an academic programme or course”. They indicate that “WIL will often involve online and blended learning (OBL) modes of delivery” or multimodal learning, because such modes “allows working adults access to learning anywhere at any time”. A positive correlation has been found “a between technology usage and the individual development of skills, knowledge, and productivity, i.e. self-efficacy.” (Gerhardt & Mackenzie-Philps, 2018: 409).

“Online technologies and social media innovations … enable progression as it facilitates access wherever you are”. Furthermore “virtual learning environments (VLEs) or learning management systems” (LMSs) as educational space, enhance learning say Gerhardt and Mackenzie-Philps (2018: 410) because of their popularity “among students as they ‘coordinate many different aspects of your study and can generally be used in flexible ways, when and where you choose’”. The VLE/LMS lend itself to facilitating communication; providing training, teaching material and resources; serving as self-testing and assessment portholes or as mediating tools; and supporting inter/tra-action and collaboration. Social networking sites (SNSs) “can further enhance learning, collaboration and engagement and can include forums, weblogs, social networks, video, images and podcasts”

Gerhardt, T. & Mackenzie-Philps, L. (2018). The challenges and opportunities of ICT in WIL, A case study among priests exploring the correlation and trajectory between effective WIL and ICT pervasiveness. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 8(4), 408-421. DOI 10.1108/HESWBL-07-2017-0045

Different forms, types or modalities of work-integrated learning (WIL)

The Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF) (South African Government, 2014) differentiates five forms work-integrated learning (WIL), and the imbedded WIL template, under section D (p. 8) of the Council on Higher Education (CHE, 2021), Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) offline version of the online ‘Application for programme accreditation and qualification registration’, two more:

1. virtual or simulated learning,
2. work-directed theoretical learning (WDTL),
3. problem-based learning (PBL),
4. project-based learning (PjBL),
5. workplace-based learning (WPBL),
6. practicum placements,
7. service-learning, and so on.

The CHE’s Good Practice Guide (2011) advocates four distinct WIL curricular modalities, namely WDTL, PBL, PjBL and WPBL above. The eight definitions below were composed through consultation of several sources.

Practicum (plural practicums) placements	is a course/programme module, or part thereof, that involves involving activities emphasising the practical/clinical application of theory, knowledge and skills of the qualification curriculum; gaining on-the-job/vocation/professional experience; putting into practice; clinical/practical training; actual working in the area/field of study
Problem-based learning (PBL)	is a radical form of teaching which entail that ‘problems’, rather than academic subjects, as organising structure of the curriculum, with the main objective the acquisition of an extensive, integrated knowledge base. Problem-oriented learning is more commonly used and involves the inclusion of real-world scenarios for problem-based activities, assignments, and projects. Ill-structured problems stimulate the generation of multiple hypotheses or potential solutions. Ill-structured problems further allow students to observe, interview, and review records or documents to obtain needed information.
Project-based learning (PjBL)	involves learning through projects. Projects are either ‘real’ projects located in the world of work; or simulated with input from workplaces. Projects generally involve elements of research and supervision by both a university lecturer and workplace supervisor or mentor. PJBL enables the acquisition of an extensive, integrated knowledge base that students can draw on and apply to the analysis and solution of problems.
Service-learning	generally entails voluntary activities directed at specific community needs, applied learning and engaging in reflection to deepen understanding of what is being taught. It could be credit-bearing, if integrated into the curriculum of an academic programme and assessed as such., It may take place with an agency (usually a non-profit or social service group).
Simulated (or virtual) learning	means the learning and teaching technologies used to create artificial learning environments to enhance or replace a student’s actual experience with the world of work through simulations. For example, live projects, case studies, employer talks, role play, mentoring, and e-simulations.
Work-directed theoretical learning (WDTL)	enables the alignment of theoretical understanding with the practical or practice-based components and enabling students to apply such in the workplace. Presentations by workplace and/or professional practice may be used.
Work-integrated learning (WIL)	is used as an umbrella term to describe curricular, pedagogic and assessment practices, across a range of academic disciplines that integrate formal learning and workplace concerns. The International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL) defines WIL as "an educational approach that uses relevant work-based experiences to allow students to integrate theory with the meaningful practice of work as an intentional component of the curriculum. Defining elements of this educational approach require that students engage in authentic and meaningful work-related tasks, and must involve three stakeholders; the student, the university, and the workplace/community." (www.ijwil.org)
Workplace-based learning (WPBL)	happens when students are placed in work environments for the purposes of learning, which provides students with real life work experiences, in order internalise knowledge, skills and competencies, and gain insights through exposure to work by achieving specific outcomes. Both the HEQSF & CHE (2014) specify criteria for work(place)-based learning.

The Regulations (South African Government, 2018) for WPBL Agreements, lists nine forms of WPBL, requiring selection:

1. Apprenticeship
2. Learnership
3. Internship for the ‘N’ Diploma
4. Candidacy (postgrad for professional)
5. Student internship. Category A (for certificates & diplomas in HEQSF)
6. Student internship: Category B (requirement professional registration)
7. Student internship: Category C (for QCTO qualifications)
8. Student internship (SAQA qualification & vacation work)
9. Graduate internship (got qualification, to gain workplace experience)

Council on Higher Education (2011). Work-Integrated Learning: Good Practice Guide. HE Monitor No. 12, August 2011. Pretoria: IeCommunications. Electronically accessible from https://www.che.ac.za/sites/default/files/publications/Higher_Education_Monitor_12.pdf

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. Electronically accessible from https://www.saide.org.za/documents/CHE_-_Distance_Higher_Education.pdf

Council on Higher Education (2021). Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) offline version of the online ‘Application for programme accreditation and qualification registration’. https://www.che.ac.za/publications/submissions/heqc-offline-application

South African Government. (2014), Department of Higher Education and Training, Government Notice No 819. Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework. Government Gazette No. 38116, 17 October 2014. Electronically accessible from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201410/38116gon819.pdf

South African Government. (2018). Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) workplace based learning programme agreement regulations. Department of Higher Education and Training. Government Gazette No 42037, 16 November 2018. Skills Development Act (Act 97 of 1998). https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201811/42037gon1241.pdf

Regulations for workplace-based learning (WPBL) programme agreements

The Gazetted (RSA, 2018: 43) Regulations define ‘workplace based learning’ as an “educational component of an occupational qualifications that provides students with real life work experiences where they can apply academic and technical skills and increase the prospect of employability”. It further defines ‘workplace based learning programme’ as an “intervention as contemplated in an occupational qualification [through] which a person internalizes knowledge, skills and competencies and gain insights through exposure to work by achieving specific outcomes to enhance employability”.

The Gazetted (RSA, 2018) WPBL agreement, Annexure A (pp 54-65), Part C, section 6 (p. 63), differentiates nine (9) types of workplace-based learning programmes, defined in Part B – Definitions (pp 54-55), namely:

1. Apprenticeship — a period of WPBL culminating in an occupational qualification for a listed trade
2. Learnership — a period of WPBL culminating in an occupational qualification or part qualification
3. Internship for the ‘N’ Diploma — a period of WPBL undertaken as part of the requirement for the ‘N’ Diploma
4. Candidacy — a period of WPBL undertaken by a graduate as part of a requirement for registration as a professional in the required professional designation as stipulated by a professional body
5. Student internship: Category A — a period of WPBL undertaken as part of the requirement for the Diploma, National Diploma, Higher Certificate or Advanced Certificate as a vocational qualification stipulated in the Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF)
6. Student internship: Category B — a period of WPBL undertaken as part of the requirement for a professional qualification
7. Student internship: Category C — a period of WPBL undertaken as part of the requirement for the Occupational Qualifications of the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO)
8. Student internship — a period of WPBL for a person who is enrolled at an education and training institution for a SAQA registered qualification and may include vacation work
9. Graduate internship — a period of WPBL for the purposes allowing a person who has completed a post-school qualification to gain workplace experience or exposure to enhance competence and/or employability. This may include academic staff with existing qualifications that need industrial exposure or experience.

Part C (pp. 55-) of the agreement addresses the terms and conditions:

• Declaration of the parties — learners, employers and providers
• Rights & duties of the learner (pp. 55-56), the employer (pp. 56-57), and provider (pp. 57-58)
• Completion or termination of the agreement (p. 58)
• Learner details (pp. 59-60) and contract of employment (p 63)
• Employer details (pp. 60-61)
• Provider details (p. 62)
• Signatories (pp. 64-65)

The Gazetted Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) – WPBL programme agreement Regulations (RSA, 2018: 40) states that the purpose is to provide for:

• adding to the definition of ‘learning programme’ the terms ‘candidacy’ and ‘internship’, which are recognised forms of work-based learning (WBL);
• “the preparation, submission, registration and management of work-based learning programme agreements, and [for] the management of disputes and certain administrative arrangements”; and
• the repeal of the former 2007 Learnership Regulations

The Regulations, applicable to all workplace-based learning (WPBL) programmes, comprise six (6) chapters, including the following content:

1. Definitions (1) and Application (2)
2. Parties to the agreement (3) and their rights and duties (4)
3. Registration of agreement, including submission of agreement form (5), conditional placement of the learner (6), requirements of registration (7), additional requirements for a group of employers (8), and for a group of providers (9), registration decision by SETA (10), amendment of agreement (11), substitution of party (12), suspension of agreement (13), termination of agreement (14), clarification of learner achievements (15), and completion of agreement (16)
4. Registering learnerships (17), amending registered learnerships (18), and deregistration of learnerships (19)
5. The referral of disputes (20)
6. Administrative provisions such as recordkeeping by SETAs (21), repeal of regulations (22), transitional arrangements (23), and short title and commencement from 1 April 2019 (24)

There is further an annexure B, namely an ‘application to register a learnership’.

Republic of South Africa (RSA). (2018). Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) workplace based learning programme agreement regulations. Department of Higher Education and Training. Government Gazette No 42037, 16 November 2018. Skills Development Act (Act 97 of 1998). Electronically accessible from https://www.dhet.gov.za/gazetteTEST/Workplace%20Based%20learning%20Programme%20Agreement.pdf

Equivalent workplace learning experience through learning agreements

What is meant by the HEQSF, §35 (South African Government, 2014: 17) and CHE criterium 15 (Council on Higher Education, 2014: 104) statements “workplace-based learning must be appropriately structured”; “to ensure an equivalent learning experience across a wider range of contexts”; “learning contracts or agreements are implemented”? Templates are not provided, and details not specified, however, the CHE Focus Area: Programme Accreditation webpage states “accreditation and audit systems form part of an interconnected quality assurance system”. This page indicates that academic programmes are evaluated in accordance with criteria, which stipulate the minimum requirements for programme input, process, output and impact, and review”. The page also lists and hyperlinks several publications, such as the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) ‘Application for programme accreditation and qualification registration’ for download. Section D, pertaining programme or qualification design, in particular question 11 (p. 8) and the imbedded template on work-integrated learning (WIL) is of significance. Question 3 of the template requires an “Explain[ation of] the process for the supervision and monitoring of WIL (in the case of workplace-based learning). Discuss how the institution will ensure parity of learning experiences and assessments across workplace sites.” The workplace-based learning (WPBL) outcomes and assessment criteria (question 4) informs the content. In this regard CHE criterium 15 (referenced above) states that through learning agreements “the student, the higher education institution and the employer can negotiate, approve and assess the objectives and outcomes of the learning process. Various parties, i.e. the institution, students, mentors and employers, adhere to the contract or agreement on their roles and responsibilities”. Bonnet (2009) presents one such example for engineering. The content of the document is in tabular format, including:

• Number and learning item
• A description of the required experience and learning outcome
• The envisaged duration
• Report or learning evidence required
• Signature of verification

Ligon and Ward (2002) offer a step-by-step guide to writing a learning agreement:

• What, namely the learning goals and expected outcomes
• When does the learning have to take place and be completed
• ‘SPIRO’ — Specific; Performance orientated activities, specifying who and the nature of Involvement; Realistically accomplishable; and Observable, based on tangible and measurable outcomes.
• The learning broken up into doable portions

Bonnet, P. (2009). Program documents 1+2, Engineering Practical –1+2, Memorandum of Understanding P‐1+2. In appendix to ‘Development of a competency-based work-integrated learning program to facilitate science, engineering and technology retention in South Africa as a developing country’. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 10(2), 65-74. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/Bonnet_Appendix.pdf

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. Electronically accessible from https://www.saide.org.za/documents/CHE_-_Distance_Higher_Education.pdf

Council on Higher Education (n.d.). Programme Accreditation. Electronically accessible from https://www.che.ac.za/focus-areas/programme-accreditation.

Council on Higher Education (n.d.). Application for programme accreditation and qualification registration. Electronically accessible from https://www.che.ac.za/publications/submissions/heqc-offline-application

Ligon, J. & Ward, J. (2002). The field learning agreement. The new Social Worker, fall, 14-15.

South African Government (2014), Department of Higher Education and Training, Government Notice No 819. Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework. Government Gazette No. 38116, 17 October 2014. Electronically accessible from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201410/38116gon819.pdf

ePortfolio more than a digital ring-binder, lever-arch file, or handbag

“The eportfolio as a 'digital handbag' which uses digital tools to document, store and organise information provides an appropriate alternative to the paper portfolio” say McDermott and Gallagher (2011: 96). Several years ago, during a monitoring visit as industry-based coordinator of workplace-based learning (WPBL), I noticed that the trainee accessing a gym-bag, explaining that he gathers sample documentation from the workplace, and keeps these in order to complete his learning programme assignments and projects. Personally, as many others do, I’ve kept a lever-arch file for my notes and assignments for an online course, for which I had to submit a portfolio of evidence. However, it has been an ‘a-ha moment’ for me realising the role and value of eportfolios as alternative teaching tools.

It is generally recognised that “lengthy paper portfolio had become out-dated as it no longer reflected the needs” of learning environments, say McDermott and Gallagher (2011: 96) and cite the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) describing an eportfolio as “the new generation of the old 3-ring binder”. ePortfolios are “dynamic and flexible tool[s] for collecting and presenting information about students’ learning and development”, and vehicles “for achieving asynchronous and non-geographical opportunities for sharing and providing guidance in the process of reflection which is an essential element in developing learner autonomy”. ePortfolios also offer opportunities to showcase the ‘evidence of learning’ of “students and their work to a variety of audiences such as prospective employers”. Carter (2021: 463) states that “higher education graduates are expected to provide evidence demonstrating a complex skill set as they transition to employment, and ePortfolios are a potential tool with which to do this”.

“Work-integrated learning (WIL) is an umbrella term” says Carter (2021: 463), who describes WIL as “the intentional practice of integrating traditional academic learning with applied learning for and in the workplace, with the intention of the student making connections between and deriving greater meaning from both contexts” and is based on “the underlying principles of constructivist education”. However, there exists tension between practicing or gaining workplace experience and evidencing for assessment or proving employability. This tension (or gap) can be mitigated “by integrating electronic portfolios, or ePortfolios into the curriculum”. McDermott and Gallagher (2011: 96) explains how eportfolios are integrated into a workplace-based learning (WPBL) or a cooperative education (co-op) programme, as forms of WIL. Students are allocated an academic and a work-based supervisor. The first “assures academic rigour and advises on placement choice” and “also supports students with the development of the learning agreement which articulates the learning aims and outcomes the student hopes to achieve in the placement”, while the second “mentors each student in the development of their employability skills during a 150 hour placement”. The summative assessment of students entails a “reflective portfolio based on their co-op experience”. Majola (2023) says an eportfolio is “an electronic collection of evidence that shows the learning journey over time and documents student learning by providing evidence of their knowledge, competencies, and skills”. Carter (2021: 464) says that in addition to eportfolios “as tools for authentic summative assessment” they prove valuable for “formative learning experiences, and rehearsal of demonstration of life-long learning and professional identity”.

Modise (2023) says that “eportfolios are about people, [about their] learning journeys, rather than about technology”. McDermott & Gallagher (2011: 97) say that “in an eportfolio, learning is achieved through‚ continuous building and amending of previous structures as new experiences, actions and knowledge are assimilated and accommodated to involve a process of individual transformation”. They add that through the process (or journey) of engagement with their eportfolios, students learn more about themselves, and that this self-awareness is the gateway to their development of effective reflective skills. ePortfolios are perceived as a significant “instrument in the pedagogy of student-centred learning and student-directed development”. Fragmented pieces academic learning, experiences in the workplace and personal activities are channelled “into a trajectory of their educational and professional development”. Metacognitive skills are developed which “enable students to become active investigators and problem solvers”. Through eportfolios higher order thinking ability is developed, as well as learning at a deeper level and learning autonomy encouraged.

It is evident that “are becoming increasingly popular as a digital collection of artefacts collating the student experience” says Carter (2021: 465) and provides the following definition:

“Digital portfolios are dynamic collections of digital artefacts including work samples, learning resources, records of skills and accomplishments, which may be created by an individual, a group, a community or an organization. Digital portfolios can have multiple purposes, such as demonstrating learning achievements (assessment), recording a learning process (journaling) and demonstrating skills (profiling)…Digital portfolios can serve multiple purposes such as support, documentation and assessment of learning, counselling and career preparation, credential documentation and accreditation. (Buchem, 2016, p. 343-344)”

There are many types of evidence contained in eportfolios, such as documenting of observations, reflections, and research; samples, images and videos; feedback from supervisors, mentors and/or peers. “Artefacts can relate to student demonstration of skills and competencies, assessment, learning journey transformation and reflection, personal and professional identity, learning engagement and employability” says Carter (2021: 465). Additional benefits derived from the use of eportfolios include “acknowledgement is often made of the that can be seen, such as enhancing technological, communication and organizational skills; student awareness of their learning journey and how their understanding has changed over time; identification of strengths and gaps in student understanding; demonstration of theory in practice, and recognition and evidencing of soft skills, personal attributes and other career-readiness traits”, she says.

Carter, S. (2021). ePortfolios as a platform for evidencing employability and building professional identity: A literature review. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(4), 463-474. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_22_4_463_474.pdf.

McDermott, K. & Gallagher, S. (2011). Integration of eportfolios into cooperative education: Lessons learnt. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 12(2), 95-101. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/APJCE_12_2_95_101.pdf.

Modise, M. & Majola, X.M. (2023). Presentations in ‘All matters e-portfolios: The role and value of e-portfolios as an alternative teaching and assessment tools in distance education’, during the UNESCO Chair on ODL 2023 Research Webinar Series, 10 July 2023. Intranet recording set to expire https://mylifeunisaac-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/sibayn_unisa_ac_za/EW5kdegJVMlLuF_Amt-MUGoBigscXm-im8vwhTU4zGLGXg.

Learning contracts, agreements, or plans

‘Field education’ is significant to, among many others, social work education because theoretical learning becomes alive and real through supervised professional practice (or workplace experiences) say Leitmann and Palmer (2013: 26). However, it is essential to develop a ‘learning plan’ to structure a students’ learning on ‘placement’ or ‘practicum’, they indicate. A ‘structured framework’ keeps students focused on meeting the learning objectives and to make appropriate selections, say Ward et al (2001: 92), who indicate that “three-way contracts between workplace supervisor, the teaching institution and the student, have been the basis for work experience programmes in fields as diverse as history, engineering, nursing, physiotherapy, business management and information technology”. However, “because of the difficulties arising out of the legalistic context of the expression ‘learning contract’ many educators prefer to substitute ‘plan’ … [or alternatively] ‘study plans’ or ‘performance agreements’ and ‘self-development plans’ are [other] terms used”. The notions ‘learning contract’ or ‘learning agreement’ is defined as “a formal written agreement between a learner [student] and a member of the teaching staff which details what is to be learnt, the resources and strategies available to assist in learning which will be produced as evidence of learning having occurred and how the product will be assessed”. Such a “learning plan links professional activities to be undertaken with learning outcomes to be achieved along with how these are to be assessed within a specific time frame” say Leitmann and Palmer (2013: 26).

Lamiri et al (2022: 2) cite Knowles (1986), who defined a ‘learning contract’ as a tool (or instrument) that enables a student, lecturer (and workplace) “to establish a preestablished plan … it is a bilateral agreement that serves to indicate, in a precise manner, the objectives, the activities or the means adopted to achieve the commitments of each party”. Knowles qualified a ‘learning contract’ as most effective means to promote self-directed learning, “it improves the learners' [student’s] sense of responsibility and allows the establishment of learner-centred learning objectives”, say Lamiri et al (2022: 2). A ‘learning contract’ is a methodological aid “to help develop the project, a source of motivation, a tool for socialisation, and a tool that has psycho-pedagogical value” and is said to have “a positive impact on students' knowledge acquisition ability, learning satisfaction and academic productivity”. Research on ‘learning contracts’ found that “this pedagogical tool has proven to be effective, especially with regard to the factors that influence and enhance learner motivation, namely (a) confidence, (b) recognition of value, (c) responsibility and (d) satisfaction”. ‘Learning contracts’ furthermore improve “students' learning autonomy and motivation, as well as assisting learners in making a personal and relevant choice of assignments that are relevant to their needs”, especially if “a list of options from which learners can choose” is included. The ‘learning contract’, as instrument “in the process of integrating theory and practice” further has been found to help “students to organise their learning more effectively, and encourages them to develop creativity through knowing and using the most appropriate resources and strategies in the learning process”. However, ‘learning contracts’, if done well, requires individualised time and effort to complete and ‘contract’.

Eardley, Bussey and Brooks-Martin (2011: 198) report that although ‘learning agreements’ (LAs) were piloted early in 2005, LAs went live in 2007 and brought about “a change of learning culture for surgical trainees in” 2011. Learning became transparent with explicit formative feedback. Surgical trainees were required to “demonstrate that their learning has met defined standards of conduct and practice” at frequent appraisals, making use of a ‘learning agreements’ (LA), with their assigned educational supervisor (AES). The LA assists the surgical trainees to identify their educational needs, to plan and to manage, together with their AES, their surgical training. An annual review of competence progression (ARCP) is done by the programme director (PD) who is responsible for the training programme. The ARCP replaced the former record of in-training assessment (RITA) of the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme (ISCP).

The ‘learning agreement’ (LA) is essentially an appraisal tool which specifies what surgical trainees should learn during their clinical placement, “how they should learn it and what evidence they need to show that they have learned it”. LAs summarise the learning objectives already achieved by surgical trainees and provide feedback about their performance. “The ARCP is a formal deanery process that scrutinises each surgical trainee’s suitability to progress to the next stage of training or programme completion.” The sign-off by the assigned educational supervisor (AES) of the ‘learning agreement’ (LA) and the assessment of the surgical trainee’s progress over the duration of the clinical placement is of significant important.

Anderson and Boud (1996), cited Ward et al (2001: 92), identified eight steps, summarised in Fig. 1 (p. 93), towards developing a learning contract. They observed that different styles of contracting portray differing degrees of learner independence.

• Highly independent students would identify their learning need/s, draft the contract, present it to the supervisor for negotiation and approval.
• With inexperienced students the supervisor may initiate and work through each section of the contract with the student.

Image source: https://twitter.com/jiahui1231234/status/1003258749568643072

Eardley, I.; Bussey, M. & Brooks-Martin, J. (2011). The ISCP Systems Group: Enhancements to the Learning Agreement and ARCP. The Royal College of Surgeons of England (Bulletin), 93:6, 198-199. Electronically accessible from https://publishing.rcseng.ac.uk/doi/epdf/10.1308/147363511X575480

Lamiri, A., Lhbibani, A., Qaisar, R., Khoaja, D., Abidi, O.,  Khyati, A., & Bouzoubaa, H. (2022). The Learning Contract and its Impact on Scholarship among Moroccan Nursing Students. The Open Nursing Journal, Volume 16. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.2174/18744346-v16-e2206270

Leitmann, S., & Palmer, M. (2013). (Re)presenting the creative potential of learning plans. The Journal of Practice Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 26-47. Electronically accessible form https://doi.org/10.1921/jpts.v12i2.287

Ward, A., O’Neill, R., Kostrzewski, A., & Dhillon, S. (2001). Using Learning Agreements in a Competency-based Training Programme: Introduction and Evaluation by Preregistration Pharmacists. Pharmacy Education, 1(2), 91-104. Electronically accessible from https://pharmacyeducation.fip.org/pharmacyeducation/article/view/6

Unease about the impact of imposing workplace-based learning contracts

Gaffney‐Rhys and Jones (2010: 711) explored the implementation of contracts to manage associated risks pertaining to universities and students. Their findings could possibly extend to workplace-based learning providers, as third party? They indicate that the legal nature of the relationship between student and university is a complex matter, in that it “is governed by the principles of public law and the private law of contract” (p. 712). Furthermore, as “a public body, the decisions of an HEI [higher education institution] are subject to judicial review. They also indicate that it has been “confirmed that the relationship between a student and his or her HEI is based on a … legally binding contract [that] is formed when an offer made by an HEI, [and] is accepted by the applicant”, or student by registering. They add that “it is not legally necessary to present the contractual terms in a written document”.

The Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF) of the Department of Higher Education and Training (South African Government 2014: 17) states that the incorporation of work-integrated learning (WIL) into the curriculum is characteristic of vocational and professionally-oriented qualifications. Section 34 indicates that “WIL may take various forms including simulated learning, work-directed theoretical learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning and workplace-based learning” and that the selection of appropriate form depends on a number of factors. However, section 35 states: “Where the entire WIL component or any part of it takes the form of workplace-based learning, it is the responsibility of institutions that offer programmes requiring credits for such learning to place students into appropriate workplaces. Such workplace-based learning must be appropriately structured, properly supervised and assessed.” (emphasis added).

The South African Council on Higher Education, as independent statutory body and Quality Council for Higher Education (CHE: n.d.), recognises that “arrangements for work-based learning will likely be more complex in distance provision due to the more distributed nature of students and the geographic footprint of distance programmes which may even extend beyond national borders” (CHE: 2014, Criterion 15, emphases added), but states that “appropriate arrangements will be needed for placement, mentoring and supervision for a more distributed student body to ensure an equivalent learning experience across a wider range of contexts” and reiterates the “coordination of work-based learning must be done effectively, including adequate infrastructure, effective communication, recording of progress made, monitoring and mentoring”. Criterion 15 adds that “learning agreements or contracts implemented through which the student, the higher education institution, the employer (workplace-based learning provider) and mentor negotiate, approve, adhere to agreed roles and responsibilities, and assess the objectives and outcomes of the learning process”. It is however not explicitly stated that a formally legally binding contract is meant. Furthermore, is it reasonable to subject a workplace-based learning provider, which willingly make resources available to, additional contractual obligations?

In addition to the generic statutory requirements above, qualification-specific statutory bodies such as the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), South African Council for Social Service Professions (SACSSP), South African Nursing Council (SANC), and the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC), and vocational bodies may specify additional criteria.

Nevertheless, “the contract to educate requires the HEI to provide adequate teaching and adequate facilities” indicate Gaffney‐Rhys and Jones (2010: 712) and (p. 713) that “the primary obligations of the HEI are to provide adequate teaching and facilities” deducing that the “contract between an HEI and a student is thus a contract for services”, which in accordance to section 35 of the HEQSF includes “the responsibility of institutions that offer programmes requiring credits for such [workplace-based] learning to place students into appropriate workplaces”, bearing in mind that section 34 of the HEQSF does present universities with the option of alternative forms of WIL “including simulated learning, work-directed theoretical learning, problem-based learning, [and] project-based learning”.

As far as the legal status of contracts between the “student, the higher education institution, the employer (workplace-based learning provider) and mentor” (as per criterion 15) appear not, according to Gaffney‐Rhys and Jones (2010: 713) to “create a contractual relationship [between HEI and student] it simply formalises its terms”. If such a contract “contains university regulations and/or repeats information that was included in the prospectus … it is merely drawing the student’s attention to terms that are binding” say Gaffney‐Rhys and Jones (2010: 713). However, “if the HEI wants to impose further conditions on the student … and wants such requirements to be legally binding the document (the name of which can vary) should be sent to applicants [students] with the offer letter in order to expressly incorporate the terms into the student contract”, they caution and indicate that it “might constitute a variation of contract, which requires the student’s consent”. Gaffney‐Rhys and Jones (2010: 714) also indicate that it need to be understood “that the point at which the document is distributed, the contents of the document and the style of the document determine whether it is legally enforceable, rather than the title, as many would assume”. The notion of persuading companies to offer workplace-based learning opportunities and thereafter impose legal requirements might be questionable?

The impact of formal workplace-based learning contracts on the satisfaction of both providers and students possibly need to be investigated?

Council on Higher Education (n.d.) Legislative and policy mandate. Electronically accessible from https://www.che.ac.za/about-us/legislative-and-policy-mandate

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. Electronically accessible from https://www.saide.org.za/documents/CHE_-_Distance_Higher_Education.pdf

Gaffney‐Rhys, R. & Jones, J. (2010). Issues surrounding the introduction of formal student contracts. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(6), 711-725. Electronically accessible form https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902977749.

South African Government (2014), Department of Higher Education and Training, Government Notice No 819. Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework. Government Gazette No. 38116, 17 October 2014. Electronically accessible from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201410/38116gon819.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Micro-placements are short periods of individual or teamwork on highly focused projects

Despite the good results yielded by work-integrated learning (WIL), the implementation is often hampered by significant challenges, indicate Mayombe (2022: 310), who “refers to any learning activity or programme which integrates theory with practice to provide trainees with industry experience”. Challenges relate to both (i) design and (ii) resources, as well as (iii) maintaining relationships with relevant stakeholders, who may have expectations, needs and interests different from educational institutions. WIL “refers to an educational and training approach that integrates academic and workplace practices for the joint benefit of students and workplaces”, it “allows the insertion of relevant real-world learning into the design of the curriculum that produces students who are prepared to enter the labour market and meet demands of employers”. Mayombe (2022: 311) emphasises the importance of stakeholders to commitment to play their roles for effectiveness of WIL programmes, stating that “commitment of the stakeholders is a catalytic of allocating appropriate WIL placement which facilitates opportunities for trainees to work in organisations”. Mayombe (2022: 313) indicates that “it is the responsibility of the WIL custodian to maintain relationships with key stakeholders and obtain their commitment”.

“The work-experience component of work-integrated learning [programmes] can be achieved through” different models, “characterised by flexibility in terms of the length, timing and frequency of the practical component” say Mayombe (2022: 312), for example:

• The alternating model of WIL, which comprises students alternating between months of practical work experience at their sponsoring companies, and the theoretical components at their respective learning institutions
• A mixture of alternating and parallel study, consisting of allowing students to complete the academic component (theoretical element) while at the same time work part-time at the sponsoring company. Often model of WIL entail full-time in-service training at the end of the study programme.
• Often students are required to apply to an employer for placement for a specific period, to get the relevant practical experience, sometimes with different employers or industries.

Bracken, Patton & Lindsay (2022: 481) state that work-integrated learning (WIL) is “an umbrella term for a range of approaches and strategies that integrate theory with the practice of work within a purposefully designed curriculum”, but add that the range of underpinning pedagogical approaches caused multiple terms that are often used interchangeably causing confusion, such as “practice-based learning, professional practice, problem-based-learning, experiential learning, workplace learning, and practice-based education”. The diversity of WIL is further demonstrated by a diverse range of strategies and approaches such as fully immersed in-situ work placements, projects, fieldwork, and simulations. There are further emerging innovative WIL approaches such as micro-placements, hackathons, and incubators. Dean & Campbell (2020: 357) refer to these approaches as beyond workplace-based experiences, that “moved away from requiring extensive time in workplaces to engaging students through short, authentic activities”. Green, Seaman & Smith (2022: 528) align these kinds of short-term placements with the definition of micro-placements offered by Kay et al. (2019: 405), namely “short periods in the workplace ranging from two to 10 days where students work individually or in teams on highly focused projects”, indicating that micro-placements occur in a diverse range of sectors.

The Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce issued the following news release on 24 & 29 April 2021 respectively:

Could your Business Support Edinburgh Napier University with a Micro-Placement?

Edinburgh Napier Business School are exploring introducing a 'Micro-Placement' experience for our 3rd & 4th Year Undergraduate BA (Hons) Accounting and Law students and they are interested to hear from companies who might be interested in hosting a student, over the summer period.

This will be short-term optional, extra-curricular career exploration opportunity designed to provide mutual benefit to both student and employer, with students gaining an insight into an industry related to their field of study and employers a chance to meet with ambitious students. As this is a pilot, they are very open to any suggestions that you might have! If you are interested, or would like to find out more please contact Sharon Homan-James, Employer Engagement Partner, Business School on email [email protected]

Mayombe (2022) uses the term micro-placements 27 times, indicating among other (p. 317) that students sign fixed-term contracts with the host companies, for the duration of the micro-placement. For host companies, micro-placements often serve as strategy for human resources development and recruitment of new employees. The number of academic credits for micro-placements vary based on the type and the outcome. Mentoring during and quality of micro-placements are important considerations. Sometimes micro-placements of students in host companies are converted to formal employment upon graduation. Adequate mentorship and supervision enable students “to become ready for future careers and be attractive to the prospective employers” (p. 324).

Bibliography:

Bracken, L., Patton, N. & Lindsay, E. (2022). Compulsory work-integrated learning: A solution for equity propositioning and future proofing. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 23(4), 481-493. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_23_4_527_542.pdf

Dean, B.A. & Campbell, M. (2020). Reshaping work-integrated learning in a post-COVID-19 world of work. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 356-364. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_4_355_364.pdf

Edinburgh Napier Business School. (2021). Could your Business Support Edinburgh Napier University with a Micro-Placement? Plus Company Updates. Gale General OneFile, https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=usa_itw&id=GALE|A659693622&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon&asid=9270b281

Green, E., Seaman, C.E. & Smith, B. (2022). Exploring localized learning during a short-term health student placement. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 23(4), 527-542. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_23_4_527_542.pdf

Iipinge, S.M., Batholmeus, P.N. & Pop. C. (2020). Using simulations to improve skills needed for work-integrated learning before and during COVID-19 in Namibia. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 531-543. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_5_531_543.pdf

Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., Smith, J. & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). The emerging future: Innovative models of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 401-413. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_20_4_401_413.pdf

Mayombe, C. (2022). Partnership with stakeholders as innovative model of work-integrated learning for unemployed youths. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 12 (2), 309-327. https://0-doi-org.oasis.unisa.ac.za/10.1108/HESWBL-03-2021-0065

Zegwaard, K.E., Pretti, T.J. & Rowe, A.D. (2020). Responding to an international crisis: The adaptability of the practice of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 317-330. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_4_317_330.pdf

Work-integrated learning as means to entrepreneurial learning, and vice versa

The phrase ‘learning-by-doing’ is well known and often accredited to John Dewey, but also Aristotle. By integrated doing (work) into the curriculum (learning) the likelihood of work-ready graduates is enhanced. Therefore, if an aim or expected outcome of a learning programme is entrepreneurial orientation, incorporating such learning opportunities in the curriculum seems necessary.

The converse, providing work-integrated learning (WIL) opportunities through start-ups, incubator initiatives, or entrepreneurial activities, is quite different. The adverb ‘vice-versa’, means ‘in reverse order from the way something has been stated’, is derived from two Latin words vicis change + vertere to turn — literally relations being reversed or the other way around.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic WIL placement challenges, the University of Cincinnati made extensive efforts towards “facilitating student engagement in new forms of WIL” (Alanson et al. 2020: 509). Students were presented with “a suite of nine options: Study abroad, service learning, research, career-related travel, international experience, creative practice, entrepreneurship, leadership, or open source development”. The definitions of two of the mentioned options, taken from Table 1 (p. 510) are presented below.

It is further deemed necessary to point out that “entrepreneurship extends beyond the creation of new businesses”, but that ‘entrepreneurial’ comprises characteristics such as “autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, and competitive aggression” that are often “linked to organizational performance, increased profits, growth, and innovation” (Pretti et al. 2020: 451).

Alanson, E.R., Alanson, E.M., Arthur, B., Burdette, A., Cooper, C. & Sharp, M. (2020). Re-envisioning work-integrated learning during a pandemic: Cincinnati’s experiential explorations program. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 21(5), 505-519. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_5_505_519.pdf.

Pretti, I.J., Parrott, P., Hoskyn, K., Fannon, A-M., Church, D. & Arsenault, C. (2020). The role of work-integrated learning in the development of entrepreneurs. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 451-466. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_4_451_466.pdf

Entrepreneurship, incubators, or start-ups as emerging WIL model

Conventional approaches to work-integrated learning (WIL), such as 3 – 12-month work placements, also called cooperative education, sandwich programmes or practicums, are not only resource intensive, but do place additional demands on industry partners, say Kay, Ferns, Russell, Smith and Winchester-Seeto (2019: 402). Small to medium enterprises (SMEs), namely those with fewer than 200 employees, comprise a significant proportion of the Australian economy, say Kay et al. (2019: 402). However, due to limited resources, staff constraints, and restrictions of funds, it is generally difficult for SMEs to engage in offering WIL opportunities. Kay et al. (2019: 403) observe that a recurring theme in the literature is the challenges universities experience in successfully engaging with SMEs. The “mismatch between the needs of universities and those of SMEs is a key reason for the lack of engagement from SMEs” they remark. Factors such as inflexible university schedules, as well as strict timing, duration of placements, type of student activities, supervision requirements and student support expectations, impact the capacity of SMEs to engage in WIL. There exists a need for willingness to working around these disparities, they indicate.

Universities found themselves competing for placement opportunities, which resulted in trends of “enhanced engagement with community organizations; greater flexibility in the structure of WIL experiences; an increase in on-campus opportunities; a focus on the use of technology to provide equitable WIL experiences in a virtual world; and a rise in third party providers who broker opportunities for students” (Kay et al. 2019: 405). Table 1 (p. 406) summarises the trends identified through a research project, funded by the Australian Technology Network (ATN), as well as innovative practices that emerged because of trends. The research involved three stages. The first stage entailed the review of literature from contemporary peer-reviewed academic literature, grey literature (such as government and industry reports) and conference proceedings with the aim of identifying emerging WIL models. During the second stage the emerging models were explored through ten international, national and local workshops with some 450 WIL practitioners, webinars and WIL communities of practice meetings. The third stage involved in-depth consideration and analysis through 55 semi-structured interviews with WIL practitioners, industry partners and students that directly experienced emerging WIL strategies. The three stages iterative process serve to validate the literature review. The emerging models were clustered into five innovative WIL models, namely (a) micro-placements, (b) online projects or placements, (c) hackathons, competitions and events, (d) WIL incubators and start-ups, and (e) consulting.

Kay et al. (2019: 407) define incubators or start-ups as “a workspace that provides support for startups including mentoring, information, networks, office space and resources for the early-stage development of new business ventures. WIL students can be placed in incubators to support ventures. A start-up is an entrepreneurial venture which is typically a young, small and recently emerged business that aims to create a new product, process or service to meet a need that is not currently being offered elsewhere in the market. The first stages of a start-up are commonly financed and can attract further support once it has proved its potential. Increasingly WIL students are undertaking placements or projects in or for start-up businesses”

The Canadian body ‘Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada’ (CEWIL Canada) webpage ‘Type of WIL: entrepreneurship’ qualifies ‘What is Entrepreneurship?’ that it “allows a student to leverage resources, space, mentorship and/or funding to engage in the early-stage development of business start-ups and/or to advance external ideas that address real-world needs for academic credit”. The webpage imbeds a YouTube video ‘What is entrepreneurial WIL?’ worth watching. The webpage further imbeds “a document that outlines in detail how Entrepreneurial WIL engages students and benefits employers”, which elaborates that “An entrepreneurship Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) experience provides students with an opportunity to start and build their own business. Often, these experiences are supported through school-supported incubators or accelerators. They allow students to leverage resources, space, mentorship, and funding to engage in business startups’ early-stage development and advance external ideas that address real-world problems for academic credit”.

Table 2 (Kay et al. 2019: 407) portrays 15 common features clustered across three key areas, namely stakeholder engagement, design elements, and co-designing with partners.

Table 3 (Kay et al. 2019: 409) represents the alignment of the features outlined in Table 2 with the five emerging models, showing the features that are characteristic of each model. Kay et al. (2019: 208) emphasise that stakeholder engagement is fundamental to all emerging WIL models, and that attention should be given to co-designing with industry, community, students, and alumni. They highlight the importance mutually beneficial and collaborative partnerships.

Table 4 (Kay et al. 2019: 410) gives an overview of the enablers identified through the workshops and interviews with students, host organizations and university staff.

Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada). Type of WIL: Entrepreneurship. https://cewilcanada.ca/CEWIL/CEWIL/Resources/Employer-Community-Partners/Employer-Tool-Kit-Folder/Entrepreneurship.aspx

Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada). (2021). What is entrepreneurial WIL? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQU-wrrt_8c

Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada). (2021). Entrepreneurship for WIL partners. https://cewilcanada.ca/common/Uploaded%20files/Public%20Resources/WIL%20Resources/entrepreneurship__8.5x11.pdf

Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., Smith, J. & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). The emerging future: Innovative models of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 401-413. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_20_4_401_413.pdf

Work-based learning (WBL) is one form of work-integrated learning (WIL)

The South African Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF, 2014: §34, p. 17) states that some qualifications incorporate work-integrated learning (WIL) into the curriculum, and that “WIL may take various forms including simulated learning, work-directed theoretical learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning and workplace-based learning”. Similarly, the Council on Higher Education (CHE, 2014: 34) reference regarding curriculum design, development and delivery for distance education in a digital era CHE (2011: 16-21) specify different curricular modalities namely:

• Work-directed theoretical learning.
• Problem-based learning.
• Project-based learning.
• Workplace learning.

Other CHE (2004) publications, such as the ‘Criteria for Institutional Audits’ and the ‘Criteria for Programme Accreditation’ respectively, specified work-based learning; and indicate that ‘experiential learning’ is a term that has historically been used within the former technikon sector for work-based learning.

Gerhardt and Annon (2023: 225) define the meanings of their use of the terms work-based learning (WBL) and work-integrated learning (WIL) as follow:

• Work-Based Learning (WBL): A distinctive pedagogical practice due to the negotiation of learning which follows the needs of the workplace rather than a professional body or subject discipline with learning occurring principally in the workplace and is concerned with the practice of work (Talbot & Lilley, 2014).
• Work-Integrated Learning (WIL): The intersection and engagement of theoretical and practice learning (Cooper et al., 2010, p. xiii), an umbrella term for a model and process of curricular experiential education that formally and intentionally integrates a student’s academic studies within a workplace or practice setting (CEWIL Canada, 2021).

The Canadian body ‘Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada’ (CEWIL Canada) illustrates WIL as follow — take note of the 2nd (**) side note:

The proponents of experiential learning failed to date to make a convincing academic case for work-based learning, say Gerhardt and Annon (2023: 211), and indicate that UNESCO (2014) considers work-based learning as a subset of experience-based learning. The notion of “learning that occurs through undertaking real work, through the production of real goods and services, whether this work is paid or unpaid” is stated, as well as that work-based learning entails “a partnership between universities and employers, delivering learning that meets the needs of the learners and employers, resulting in an accredited qualification”.

Gerhardt and Annon (2023: 220) concludes “that rather than WIL and WBL being incompatible, that WBL, as a different form of WIL, inhabit the space, the tension across disciplines, and in that space, as experts, produce practical knowledge”. They state “that WBL as a different form of WIL, finds meaning and creates meaning in the liminal zones across disciplines” and that one of WBL’s important outcomes is to “produce work-ready professional citizens, through experiential-transformative-experience-based learning (andragogy - person and personnel)”. WBL is a unique pedagogical field, and this uniqueness creates boundaries.

Gerhardt and Annon (2023: 209) raise the question: “Do different pedagogical approaches (modes) justify the conceptual differences?” They comment that “distinction raises questions about power discourses, ‘boundary’ assumptions, and thus impacting professional identity/status”. They (p. 210) indicate that those responsible for work-integrated learning acquire a dual identity, being both an academic and being practical, a pracademic, an insider/outsider having diverse backgrounds and experience, which results in a bricoleur (a French word describing a handyperson who makes use of available tools to complete a task). They elaborate that bricoleur practitioners have a broadened repertoire and a heterogeneous approach, enabling the understand that “the frontier of knowledge work rests in the liminal zones where disciplines collide” (citing Kincheloe & Berry, 2004, p. 80) and the implosion of disciplinarity, or thinking associated with disciplinarity. Those that inhabit the zones of WIL/WBL practitioners “become experts in mastering this space, sharing similar pedagogical approaches, and avoiding the creation of boundaries” (p. 210).

Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada). What is work-integrated learning (WIL)? https://cewilcanada.ca/CEWIL/CEWIL/About-Us/Work-Integrated-Learning.aspx?hkey=ed772be2-00d0-46cd-a5b8-873000a18b41

Council on Higher Education (2014). Distance Higher Education Programmes in a Digital Era: Good Practice Guide. https://www.saide.org.za/documents/CHE_-_Distance_Higher_Education.pdf

Council on Higher Education (2011). Work-Integrated Learning: Good Practice Guide. HE Monitor No. 12, August 2011. Pretoria: IeCommunications. Electronically accessible from https://www.che.ac.za/sites/default/files/publications/Higher_Education_Monitor_12.pdf

Council on Higher Education (2004). Criteria for Institutional Audits. https://www.che.ac.za/publications/criteria/criteria-institutional-audits

Gerhardt, T, & Annon, P. (2023). Towards conceptual clarity: Pedagogical liminality. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(2), 209-225. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_24_2_209_225.pdf

South African Government (2014), Department of Higher Education and Training, Government Notice No 819. Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework. Government Gazette No. 38116, 17 October 2014. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201410/38116gon819.pdf

Significance of the I in WIL

The noun interrelation [in-ter-ri-ley-shuhn] is defined by Dictionary.com as “reciprocal relation”. It means the “state of things being closely connected to each other and maybe affecting each other”, and “the verb interrelate means to be connected in this way or to cause things to become connected in this way”. The adjective reciprocal originates from the Latin reciproc(us), meaning returning, “given or felt by each toward the other”, expressing a mutual relationship, explains Dictionary.com.

The ‘I’ in work-integrated learning (WIL) pertains to integration of workplace experiences into the learning curriculum. The International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL) defines ‘WIL’ as "an educational approach that uses relevant work-based experiences to allow students to integrate theory with the meaningful practice of work as an intentional component of the curriculum. Defining elements of this educational approach require that students engage in authentic and meaningful work-related tasks, and must involve three stakeholders; the student, the university, and the workplace/community." (emphasis added to highlight the interrelation). Examples of practice given by IJWIL “include off-campus, workplace immersion activities such as work placements, internships, practicum, service learning, and cooperative education (Co-op), and on-campus activities such as work-related projects/competitions, entrepreneurships, student-led enterprise, etc. WIL is related to, but not the same as, the fields of experiential learning, work-based learning, and vocational education and training.”

The Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF) of the Department of Higher Education and Training (South African Government 2014: 17) states that the incorporation of work-integrated learning (WIL) into the curriculum is characteristic of vocational and professionally-oriented qualifications. The HEQSF includes the following higher education qualification descriptors:

• Advanced Certificate programmes (NQF Exit Level 6, p. 28), which typically include a work-integrated learning (WIL) component.
• Diploma programmes (NQF Exit Level 6, p. 29), which typically include an appropriate work-integrated learning (WIL) component; and further states (p. 30): “Candidates who complete the 240-credit Diploma may enter an Advanced Diploma upon successful completion of a work-integrated learning component or a combination of work-integrated learning and coursework equivalent to 120 credits that is approved and accredited by an education provider and/or a professional body and a QC.”
• Master's degree (Professional, NQF Exit Level 9, p. 38): “In some cases, a professional master's degree may be designed in consultation with a professional body or fulfil all or part of the requirements for professional registration or recognition, and may include appropriate forms of work-integrated learning.”

The incorporation of WIL as outlined above requires interrelation and reciprocity. The latter, reflected as the last letter (R) in a mnemonic about the essence of cooperative education, as former Technikon education philosophy: INC-CEL-FAR, standing for IN (industry needs) + CC (continuous consultation) + EL (experiential learning) + FA (faculty abreast) + R (reciprocity) = Cooperative Education.

The HEQSF further, in §34 (p. 17, emphasis added), differentiates various forms of work-integrated learning (WIL), namely:

• simulated learning [also known as simulated work experiences (SWEs)]
• work-directed theoretical learning [WDTL]
• problem-based learning [PBL]
• project-based learning [PjBL]
• workplace-based learning [WPBL] — Three Council on Higher Education publications (CHE: 2004 & 2014) provide criteria with regard to work-based learning (WBL). These criteria do not necessary apply to the other forms of WIL than work-based learning.

In §35 (p. 17, emphasis added) of the HEQSF, it is stated that where the WIL component “takes the form of workplace-based learning, it is the responsibility of institutions that offer programmes requiring credits for such learning to place students into appropriate workplaces” and adds that “such workplace-based learning must be appropriately structured, properly supervised and assessed”. Note that the institution’s role is not limited to ‘placement’ but extends to structured learning, proper supervision (mentoring), and assessment (both formative and summative), which suggest good interrelation (or reciprocity).

The South African Council on Higher Education, as independent statutory body and Quality Council for Higher Education (CHE: n.d.), published (CHE: 2011) a ‘Good Practice Guide’ towards work-integrated learning which deliberated the various modes mentioned above. The CHE recognises that “arrangements for work-based learning will likely be more complex in distance provision due to the more distributed nature of students and the geographic footprint of distance programmes which may even extend beyond national borders” (CHE: 2014, Criterion 15, emphases added), but states that “appropriate arrangements will be needed for placement, mentoring and supervision for a more distributed student body to ensure an equivalent learning experience across a wider range of contexts” and reiterates the “coordination of work-based learning must be done effectively, including adequate infrastructure, effective communication, recording of progress made, monitoring and mentoring”, including the following:

• Learning agreements or contracts implemented through which the student, the higher education institution, the employer (workplace-based learning provider) and mentor negotiate, approve, adhere to agreed roles and responsibilities, and assess the objectives and outcomes of the learning process
• Regular and effective communication taking place and good working relations are maintained between the institution, students, mentors and employers involved
• System (both at the institution and at the place of workplace-based learning) in operation to regularly and systematically monitor and record the progress of each student’s learning experience
• Mentoring system that enables each student to recognise his/her strengths and weaknesses, to develop existing and new abilities, and to gain knowledge of work practices

In addition to these generic statutory requirements, qualification-specific statutory bodies such as the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), South African Council for Social Service Professions (SACSSP), South African Nursing Council (SANC), and the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC), and vocational bodies do specify additional criteria.

CHE (Council on Higher Education)

Council on Higher Education (n.d.) Legislative and policy mandate. Electronically accessible from https://www.che.ac.za/about-us/legislative-and-policy-mandate

Council on Higher Education (2004). Higher Education Quality Committee. Criteria for Programme Accreditation. Electronically accessible from https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/che2020-c5efd.appspot.com/o/website%2Fyxqlkgy7gwo1.pdf?alt=media&token=c1ea5d6e-2e05-463d-9f2b-bbf92d4b402b

Council on Higher Education (2004). Higher Education Quality Committee. Criteria for Institutional Audits. Electronically accessible from https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/che2020-c5efd.appspot.com/o/website%2Fjh3xgy9ub11.pdf?alt=media&token=aa1b8117-5414-4e70-a363-50dc924a7d42

Council on Higher Education (2004). Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC). Criteria for Institutional Audits. https://www.che.ac.za/publications/criteria/criteria-institutional-audits

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. Electronically accessible from https://www.saide.org.za/documents/CHE_-_Distance_Higher_Education.pdf

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL). Home page. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/

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