Learning in vivo

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

The design and implementation of problem-based internships in business education

A framework, “inspired by pedagogical action research to connect [problem-based learning] PBL international internships with international business”, is proposed by Hermann; Amaral and Bossle (2021: 205). They state (p. 206) that the “supervision structure, derived by the hosting organization, the partner university, and the students’ home university, creating a three-party collaboration with the student at the center of the learning process” is an important, if not essential, component of an internship, as learning device. Furthermore, illuminating that internships are resource-intensive, requiring besides supervision backup from the business school concerned, which “must help the student find a placement, offer networking activities for information sharing, provide recognition in the form of study credits, and fund or promote the activities”.

Over the past three decades, since 1994, international internships have been gaining increasing interest among international business education academics, along with a paradigm shift “toward learner-centered education and the enrichment of educational programs by practical knowledge gained through students’ interaction with actors external to the university”, say Hermann; Amaral and Bossle (2021: 203). Factors that fuelled attention include (a) “internships enhance employment potential” and (b) providing “students with intercultural communication, teamwork skills, and increased experience, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of their CVs after graduation”

Hermann; Amaral and Bossle (2021: 203) report on three areas of research pertaining ‘international internships’, namely (a) the global mind-sets and competences acquired by students who participate in such internships, the preferences of employers for candidates with such experience and personal traits, and how business schools can cultivate such through co-curricular activities; (b) “the role of support structures in the development of international internships” that are critical when students work abroad as part of their internship; and (c) “the pedagogical elements of the internship in international business”, initially the focus had been on problem-solving skills, and later on assessment, as well as “the duration and organizational aspects of internships that suit experience-based study programs”. The current debate and “research is concerned with the effectiveness of internships in enhancing the employability of graduates and thus reducing unemployment” (p. 204), the curriculum, and “how to integrate the internships into existing business and management education”.

Within contemporary research are a number of gaps, say Hermann; Amaral and Bossle (2021: 204), among others the “absence of teaching frameworks that can indicate how to organize international internships through a student-centered perspective while also considering resources and the perspectives of both students and hosting organizations”. They posit that by “connecting problem-based learning (PBL) as a potential pedagogical device to international internship design [it] could address this gap while simultaneously tackling a less-studied area – the relationship between the three building blocks of managerial education”, namely ill-defined problems, real-world character, and reflection. PBL promotes both active learning and a student-centred approach they indicate. “Students are introduced to an ill-structured problem that they must solve in groups, relying on their existing knowledge. As the teams work independently, they engage in self-directed learning. During the final phase of group work, the students present their solutions to each other”.

Hermann; Amaral and Bossle (2021: 209) “adapted the Identify, Think, Do, Evaluate, Modify, Disseminate (ITDEM’D) pedagogical action research methodology” for the methodological framework of their research. The circle in the presentation portrays the conventional action research phases, expanded to their version of six steps. The start entails “the [1] identification of an issue or problem that requires attention” (p. 210, number and emphasis added). Once identified, planning (or [2] thinking how) follows, whereafter action is taken ([3] doing). Systematically and ethically observing with the aim of reflecting and making sense ([4] evaluating) and to improve ([5] modifying future practice), whereafter ultimately [6] dissemination of findings.

The findings of the research emphasised the value and frequency of supervision (and coaching) throughout an internship period, and the opportunity to present work in progress and receive feedback thereon. Furthermore, the differentiation of the roles of host organisation supervisors (mentors) versus academic supervisors is significant. The problem-oriented collaboration dynamics is, among others, another significant finding.

Hermann, R.R.; Amaral, M. & Bossle, M.B. (2021). Integrating Problem-based Learning with International Internships in Business Education. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 32(3-4), 202-2. Electronically accessible from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08975930.2022.2033667

Problem-based learning through community engagement

“Service learning and problem-based learning (PBL) are distinct”, yet related and potentially synergistic paradigms say McDonald and Ogden-Barnes (2013: 281) and indicate that:

• The essence of problem-based learning (PBL), as form of work-integrated learning (WIL) entail exposure of students to ‘real world’ or simulated organisational or operational challenges, and the development of solutions thereto
• Service learning is deemed valuable in developing the social conscious of students, and is actively promoted as an educational strategy for developing stronger links between the educational institution and its community

PBL resorts within the constructivist paradigm, and is aimed at developing the abilities of students “to think, collaborate, and synthesise in the pursuit of solutions, applying personal, interpersonal, professional and academic learning and experiences to a ‘real world’ issue” (McDonald and Ogden-Barnes, 2013: 281). However, there is a distinct difference PBL and problem-solving learning, in that the latter is concentrated “on eliciting answers to questions posed specifically in relation to the discipline curriculum” they indicate. Furthermore, PBL “is characterized by flexibility and diversity in the sense that it can be implemented in a variety of ways in and across different subjects and disciplines in diverse contexts” they point out. The ultimate success of PBL as “learning strategy is the identification, design and communication of the problem itself, a factor which has been revealed to be complex and multi-dimensional” (p. 282).

Service learning, as form of experiential learning, which entail students and community members together attending to community issues of concern. These issues provide context for academically rigorous assignments, connecting community experience with specific teaching and learning goals. Service learning (SL) is labelled by many alternatives, such as “community-engagement, community-pedagogy, community-knowledge exchange and community-based learning” (McDonald and Ogden-Barnes, 2013: 283). The essence of SL involves students volunteering and applying time, intellect, skills and abilities, as part of their curriculum, towards community advancement. SL may be subject or discipline specific or integrate multiple disciplines in pursuing an educational institution’s community engagement vision and goals. The implementation of effective SL or community engagement (CE) initiatives entail significant resource implications, and may result in real-world versus academic-world contradictions, caution McDonald and Ogden-Barnes (2013: 283).

McDonald and Ogden-Barnes (2013: 290) present the following recommendations with regard to the PBL-SL/CE interface:

• Consider [the] resource implications early and dedicate a working group to design, market and project manage the event
• Position the event against the institution’s community engagement agenda to demonstrate relevance and build internal rapport
• Secure senior management ownership/buy in
• Create a distinct brand, theme and set of promotional resources for the event that is relevant and appealing to both students and stakeholders
• Discuss and manage stakeholder expectations in relation to the problem or challenge[s] identified
• Encourage inter-disciplinary participation via inter-school promotion
• Actively communicate the benefits of participation to all parties: students, faculty, stakeholders
• Provide in situ support to help overcome any learning hurdles
• Ensure strong dialogue between students and organizations over the duration of the event to ensure that the team’s thinking and ideas remains on track

McDonald, S. & Ogden-Barnes, S. (2013). Problem-based service learning with a heart: Organizational and student expectations and experiences in a postgraduate not-for-profit workshop event. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(4), 281-293. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/APJCE_14_4_281_293.pdf

A community is required for workplace-based learning (‘it takes a community to offer’)

‘It Takes a Village’ by Jane Cowen-Fletcher (1994) is a colourfully illustrated story that portrays a proverb attributed to West Africa, namely ‘it takes a village to raise a child’.

Yemi's mother asks her to care for her younger brother and the girl is delighted at the prospect of taking on a grown-up task. The three of them set out to the village market [in Benin, West Africa], where Mama will sell mangoes. Yemi soon loses Kokou, but instead of the terrible things she imagines happening to him, the toddler is lovingly cared for by all of the adults he meets-he is fed, given something to drink, played with, and allowed to nap. Yemi discovers that caring neighbours have been watching them both all along.

The proverb ‘it takes a village’ means an entire community of people is needed to interact positively with children for those children to grow up in a safe and healthy environment. The origins of the proverb has been researched, but not pinpointed. It is believed to embody the spirit of several African cultures, for example (Wikipedia):

• In Lunyoro (Bunyoro) there is a proverb that says “Omwana takulila nju emoi,” whose literal translation is “A child does not grow up only in a single home.”
• In Kihaya (Bahaya) there is a saying, “Omwana taba womoi,” which translates as “A child belongs not to one parent or home.”
• Kijita (Wajita) has the proverb, “Omwana ni wa bhone,” meaning regardless of a child's biological parents, its upbringing belongs to the community.
• In Swahili, the proverb “Asiye funzwa na mamae hufunzwa na ulimwengu” means roughly the same: "Whomsoever is not taught by the mother will be taught with the world."

The notion ‘it takes a village’ has subsequently been adopted by several authors, applied to a multitude of scenarios, and other books pubished. The definition of work-integrated learning (WIL) of the Canadian body for Co-operative Education and Work-integrated Learning (CEWIL) cited by Nielsen, Livernoche and Ramji (2022: 139) accurately captures the essence of workplace-based learning (WPBL, as form of WIL). CEWIL defines WIL as “a model and process of curricular experiential education which formally and intentionally integrates a student's academic studies within a workplace or practice setting. WIL experiences include an engaged partnership of at least: an academic institution, a host organization and a student”. The origins of WIL (and cooperative education) emphasised the close collaboration of academic institutions with the relevant community of practice, within the relevant industry that is involved, with regard to the necessary workplace experiences that form part of the curriculum. In addition, workplace mentoring by experienced practitioners, play a significant role in WPBL.

The Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF) of the Department of Higher Education and Training (South African Government, 2014), which indicates that the incorporation of work-integrated learning (WIL) into the curriculum is characteristic of vocational and professionally-oriented qualifications. The HEQSF, §35 (p. 17, emphases added) states 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 add that “such workplace-based learning must be appropriately structured, properly supervised and assessed”.

However, work-integrated learning need not necessary involve actual work. The HEQSF differentiates, in §34 (p. 17), 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: 2004a, 2004b & 2014) provide criteria with regard to work-based learning (WBL)

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 (2014, Criterion 15, emphases added) recognises that ‘it takes a village’, by stating that “appropriate arrangements will be needed for placement, mentoring and supervision” and reiterates the “coordination of work-based learning must be done effectively, including adequate infrastructure, effective communication, recording of progress made, monitoring and mentoring”, plus 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

Nielsen et al. (2022: 139-140) indicate “a range of WIL programs: co-operative education (co-op), internships, entrepreneurships, apprenticeships, service learning, applied research projects, mandatory professional practicum/clinical placement, field placement, and work experience”; and add that “strategic WIL placements in partnership with Indigenous groups also offer opportunities for capacity-building, cultural revitalization, and community development”.

CHE (Council on Higher Education)

Cowen-Fletcher, J. (1994). It Takes a Village. Scholastic Press. [Information about accessible from https://janecowen-fletcher.com/it-takes-a-village]

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 (2004a). 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 (2004b). 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 (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

Nielsen, J., Livernoche, R. & Ramji, K. (2022). The Indigenous Work-integrated Learning Resource Hub: A needs-based approach to addressing barriers and opportunities for Indigenous students. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 23(2), 139-152. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_23_2_139_152.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. Electronically accessible from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201410/38116gon819.pdf

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_takes_a_village

Natural disasters as authentic problem-based learning opportunities for students

Photos and videos of the April 2022 KwaZulu-Natal flooding damage prompted a literature search about ‘natural disasters as potential authentic learning experiences’ through university coordinated community engagement interventions. Occupational field practitioners, the community of practice, could possibly engage pro bono in order to provide expertise, supervision and guidance to students.

Strimel (2014) observe that seldom students are provided with authentic experiences that allow opportunity for solving real-life complex engineering design problems, which have meaning both to them and greater society. Design briefs are used in technology and engineering education to offer hands-on, problem-based learning opportunities to students, but may lack both in authenticity and true real-world problem-solving experiences. Natural disasters, however, happen at the intersection between humans and nature, say Strimel (2014), who adds that the engineering community holds the key to diminishing the threats (or impact) of natural hazards.

When faced with a current real-life issue, such as the flooding damage, students are provided with opportunities to analyse the issue at hand and define a problem based on the situation. They “can then focus on using the engineering design process to solve the problem while developing new knowledge that is essential in designing and creating a quality innovative solution”, say Strimel (2014: 9).

Authenticity is extremely important, because it eliminates students questioning why they are learning stuff. “In an authentic learning experience, students are doing work that is real and has meaning to them” say Strimel (2014: 9). It encapsulates the significant difference between ‘learning about engineering principles’ and ‘learning to be an engineer’. From a constructivist learning theory perspective real-world situations are important parts of a strong educational process, in that it allows students with opportunities to apply knowledge to real situations, and may provide a sense of accomplishment.

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

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

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

1. Organisation set-up

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

2. Student preparation

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

3. Supervision

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

4. Competencies

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

5. Pedagogies

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

6. Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The acronym ‘PBL’ represents a significant range of problem based learning practices

“The label ‘PBL’ covers an amazing diversity of educational practices”, say Ryberg and Nørgaard (2013: V); citing Kolmos and Graaff (2003: 657), who observe the use of the acronym “ranging from problem-oriented lectures to completely open experiential learning environments”; as well as Barrows (1986: 485) who states it “addresses different objectives to varying degrees”; and recommends “any PBL method must be analysed in terms of the type of problem used, the teaching learning sequences, the responsibility given to students for learning and the student assessment method used”.

Barrows (1996: 3) summarises the “factors that motivated the need for curricular change”, the introduction of problem-based learning (PBL) in 1969, and developments that followed. Countless “approaches to problem-based learning”, representing a significant “variety of methods”, resulted in a notion with “far less precision than might be assumed” observes Barrows (1996: 5). Scholkmann (2020) reaffirms that “Variations in PBL implementation need to be seen as the norm rather than the exception, since local PBL practice will always diverge from the ‘original model’”. Despite “the many variations of PBL that have evolved”, Barrows (1996: 5-6) argues that “a core model or basic definition with which others can be compared is needed”, and outlines (paraphrased below) the original method developed for the medical school of McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences:

• Learning is student-centred, in that students must take responsibility for their own learning, identify what they need to know to better understand and manage the problem on which they are working and determining where they will get that information.
• Learning occurs in small student groups of five to nine students randomly assigned with a tutor for each curricular unit, giving students practice in working intensely and effectively with a variety of different people.
• Teachers/lecturers/tutors are group facilitators or guides, asking students the kinds of questions that they should be asking themselves to better understand and manage the problem. Tutors are not content experts and discouraged from falling back on old teaching reflexes and giving the students direct information and guidance
• Problems form the organizing focus and stimulus for learning, presented as a written case, case vignette, standardized (also called simulated) patient, computer simulation, videotape. The problems represent challenges students would face in practice, and provides the relevance and motivation for learning. The problems give students foci for integrating information from basic sciences and various disciplines.
• Problems are vehicles for the development of clinical problem-solving skills (professional practice) presented in a format similar to the real world. Students are permitted ask the patient questions, carry out physical examinations, and order laboratory tests.
• New information is acquired through self-directed learning, in that students are expected to learn from the bodies of knowledge and accumulated expertise by virtue of their own study and research, just as real practitioners do. Students work together, discussing, comparing, reviewing, and debating what they have learned.

Moust et al. (2005: 668) illustrate (Figure 1 below) the problem-based learning (PBL) process “connected with the various underlying learning principles in each phase of students’ learning”. They remark that “PBL can be seen as an example of a learning environment that fosters active, constructive, contextual, cooperative, and goal-directed learning”, and that research “has shown that implementation of these principles has a positive effect on students’ learning processes”.

Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning, 68, 3–13. Jossey-Bass. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804

Kolmos, A., & Graaff, E. D. (2003). Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 2003(19), 657–662.

Moust, J. H. C., Berkel, H. J. M. Van., & Schmidt, H. G. (2005). Signs of erosion: Reflections on three decades of problem-based learning at Maastricht University. Higher Education, 50(4), 665–683. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6371-z

Ryberg, T. & Nørgaard, B. (2013). Introducing Problem Based Learning in Higher Education. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), I-VI. https://journals.aau.dk/index.php/pbl/article/view/274/201

Scholkmann, A. (2020). Why don't we all just do the same? Understanding variation in PBL implementation from the perspective of translation theory. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 14 (2), Special Issue: PBLing the unPBLable. Electronically accessible from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijpbl/article/view/28800/35707

A typology of types of student experiences with problem-based learning

“The majority of the PBL [problem-based learning] literature and teaching presents PBL as a ‘one size fits all’ model”, which does not make provision for differences, remark Buus and Pedersen (2021: 23), who examined ‘why students experience problem-based learning environments differently’. They postulated “that differences in the students’ motivation, identification and understanding of learning shape their experiences of PBL”. They identified “four theoretical types of students: 1) The Job-Focused Practitioner, 2) The Social Collaborator, 3) The Subject-Enthusiast, and 4) The Directionless Explorer”. Buus and Pedersen (2021: 24) explain that “this typology not only considers the differences in students’ motivation, identification and understanding of learning in a PBL environment, but also how these differences are actively shaped in interactions with their learning environment”. ‘Table 2’, from Buus and Pedersen (2021: 27), provides an overview of the identified four types of students, and their respective characteristics. The article unpacks the research findings pertaining all four types, substantiated with qualitative quotes.

Buus and Pedersen (2021: 37) remark that the more diverse the student population the higher the demands on facilitators and coordinators to accomplish the outcomes. They suggest that the four types of students, “with their distinctly different ways of connecting with and experiencing a PBL environment” illustrate “that there is no universal way to enhance motivation and identification among students in PBL environments”. They propose that their typology can serve as tool and help understanding, examining, and decide which actions to take to accommodate differences. They caution, however, that student types are dynamic, not static categories, and may alter in various contexts and change over time.

Buus, K. & Pedersen, L.M. (2021). How differences in motivation and identification shape four types of student experiences with problem-based learning. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 22-45. Electronically accessible from https://journals.aau.dk/index.php/pbl/article/view/6620/5978

The Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education

The Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education (JPBLHE), launched in 2013, is an open access journal in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). JPBLHE is peer reviewed. It is published annually, with additional discretionary special issues. The vision of JPBLHE is to be “a global outlet for scholarship in problem-based learning in higher education”, representing “state of the art research in theory and practice of PBL”, and actively seeking “to promote transformative and progressive university pedagogy”. The “mission of JPBLHE is to publish rigorous research related to problem-based learning in higher education”, engaging “key and emerging scholars in significant discussion of key issues facing PBL”; providing “up-to-date information to scholars and practitioners”; addressing “current gaps in the literature”; and transforming “current learning environments and practices”. The scope and coverage of JPBLHE includes:

• Principles and philosophy of PBL in Higher Education
• The pedagogy of PBL
• PBL and everyday practice
• PBL management and policy-making
• PBL and workplace cultures
• Critical PBL
• PBL, ICT and technology-enhanced learning
• PBL and networked learning
• PBL internships and cooperative education
• PBL and intercultural studies
• Interdisciplinarity and PBL
• PBL, creativity and creative processes

What competences; which experiences; and feasibility?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key determinants in achieving an optimum studio-based learning experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing, problem-solving, interacting, experimenting, and reflecting are significant elements of studio-based learning

The essential elements of studio-based learning entail learning by doing; interacting in a creative and reflective process with other students, lecturers, and external stakeholders; and re-doing with the aim of resolving real-world problems, in an effort to positively contribute to local communities, say Brown, Karle and Kelly (2015: 260-1). Studio-based learning evolved from the socio-cultural constructivism thread of constructivist learning theory. The intent of studio-based learning is to foster learning behaviours towards “discovery, integration, application and sharing of knowledge” (Brown, et al. 2015: 262). The practice of peer reviews, called ‘desk critiques’, facilitates development of problem solving abilities with regard to identification, iterative generation, exploration, assessment, comparison, and selection of best-fit solutions.

The use of studio-based pedagogy is relatively rare at universities, in that it involves smallish student to lecturer ratios, and permanent working spaces. Large registration groups are perceived prohibitive to enacting studio-based pedagogies. However, blended learning practices supported by collaborative technologies may provide the framework for scaling studio-based pedagogy to the pressures for increased provision, say (Brown, et al. 2015: 263). The gold standard key characteristics of studio-based learning, namely small groups, direct interaction, dedicated space, and learning through action, must be retained. The nature of studio-based learning were scaled and accomplished by dividing the students registered into sections and teams in order to enable direct interaction. Google Hangouts, a G+ community, Google Drive, Google Docs, and Blackboard Learn were used to manage the course.

Shraiky and Lamb (2013) report that an exploration of teaching strategies for inter-professional education (IPE) in healthcare, found that studio-based learning (SBL) embodies many features that are integral to effective IPE. Medical and nursing schools are pursuing IPE to facilitate students from two or more professions learn about, from and with each other. It is believed that IPE would transform the way to resolve complex problems through an integrative and more comprehensive approach. Studio-based learning offers a variety of ways to work together and resolve problems.

The studio-based learning notion originated from the École des Beaux-Arts, in Paris (source of image below), in 1648 (Murray, 2016), from the apprentice model, philosophically grounded in the notion that an art ‘master’ would pass artistic abilities and technical skills on. Students were assigned a design problem, which they would work through a rigorous learning-by-doing process. Their final product, known as ‘sketch problem’ was presented to and evaluated by the master.

Studio-based learning since abandoned the master-apprentice model in favour of student-directed frameworks, which emphasize creative problem-solving and experimentation. The lecturer or facilitator would pose either a hypothetical (grounded in likely scenarios) or actual problem as starting point. Students there after undertake in-depth data collection and review relevant literature. Students are encouraged to gather first-hand data through observation and interviews; team-work and sharing of responsibilities emphasised. Active and ongoing feedback is provided through charettes, crits, and pin-ups (Shraiky & Lamb, 2013: 462):

• Charettes are highly interactive workshops that bring stakeholders together to generate ideas to improve the solution. Students may design exercises for participants to try out or react to their proposed solutions, Charettes are fast-paced and dynamic and allow students to hear directly from their key customers.
• Crits (short for critiques) are informal feedback sessions held during each studio meeting. Instructors rotate among the student teams, engage with students about their progress, and offer suggestions, Crits are deeply embedded in the studio culture and provide a casual and non-threatening way for instructors to guide students, offer positive feedback, and catch problems early. External experts and consultants are readily integrated into the crit format and often rotate with instructors
• Crits are integrated with ‘pin-ups’ in which students display their documents and illustrations around the studio. Faculty and students rotate among the pin-ups while each team formally presents drafts of their design solutions.

Formal reviews further take place, which may serve as midterm and formal examinations. Student teams present their completed designs, in a public forum, to a preselected review panel of experts and academics, who identify strengths and areas for improvement. Feedback is typically direct and fast-paced.

There are several shared features in common between studio-based learning and inter-professional education, such as resolving realistic and complex problems. In both, process and product are important. Both are highly interactive and involves extensive exchange of ideas among students and faculty. Both combines problem-based and practice-based learning, and both observation and simulation learning are naturally evolving components

Brown, S.E., Karle, S.T. & Kelly, B. (2015). An evaluation of applying blended practices to employ studio-based learning in a large-enrollment design thinking course. Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(4), 260-280. Available at: https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6154

Murray, C. (2016). A brief history of the École Des Beaux-Arts, First, there was the Academy. In Culture Trip. Electronically accessed from https://theculturetrip.com/europe/france/paris/articles/a-brief-history-of-the-ecole-des-beaux-arts/

Shraiky, J.R. & Lamb, G. (2013). Studio-based learning in interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(6), 461-468. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2013.816273

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foundational WIL as ‘category’

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

Applied WIL as ‘category’

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

Comprehensive WIL as ‘category’

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolving work-integrated learning typologies and frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remote problem-based learning (PBL) as non-placement WIL

Credit to Dean, Yanamandram, Eady, Moroney, O'Donnell, and Glover-Chambers (2020: 2) for the fictional scenario about a subject coordinator.

Devoted academics endeavour to prepare students for careers beyond graduation. Apart from teaching, they nurture strong relationships with industry and stakeholders in the field. They further maintain professional networks and memberships in order to remain abreast with changes in their fields. They often pursue work-integrated learning (WIL), as pedagogical strategy aimed at enabling students to practise and apply their discipline knowledge and build workplace and employability skills while studying. Modes or types of WIL vary. Some use placement forms of WIL, whereby students undertake sustained time in a workplace with an industry partner. Sometimes these stints of work experience are sandwiched into the curriculum, other times as capstone modules during the final year, designed to integrate and apply theoretical knowledge acquired. Another form is problem-based or focussed learning. An industry partner may attend a class and present students with one or more dilemma their organisation is currently facing. Students then work in teams, conducting empirical research, analysing the problem from multiple perspectives, and develop a proposal recommending the best way to address the problem. Towards the end of the academic term, students go on a field trip to the organisation to ask practitioners questions and test their proposed solutions, in order to ensure feasibility and relevance. Teams thereafter present their revised solutions to a panel comprising industry representatives and academic staff.

The Covid-19 pandemic impacted these and other forms of face-to-face teaching. However, innovative academics adapted and switched to online modes. Industry partners would present by means of Zoom, introducing the problem/s and illustrating the scope by means of videos. Students would work remotely in teams, making use of social media. Sessions with in-company practitioners would be enabled through Zoom/Teams, and similarly final presentations. In this way remote problem-based learning (PBL) as non-placement WIL (NPWIL) is accomplished.

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

Workplace-based learning decision flow chart

In a July 2020 post I proposed a decision-making flowchart with regard to work-integrated learning (WIL). With this post my intention is to urge decision-making in the lights of stated imperatives.

The South African Government (2014), Department of Higher Education and Training, gazetted Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF), §35 (p. 17) specifies:

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.

While universities are under obligation (in accordance to HEQSF §35) to place students for such workplace-based learning, §34 (p. 17) of the HEQSF however states that work-integrated learning (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 forms of work-integrated learning depends on the nature and purpose of the qualification type, programme objectives and outcomes, the NQF level at which the WIL component is pegged, institutional capacity to provide WIL opportunities, and the structures and systems that are in place within professional settings and sites of practice to support student learning”.

Should the university have opted for workplace-based learning, then a number of criteria—specified by the Council on Higher Education (2004a+b, 2014)—are applicable to such work-based learning. Summarised as follow:

• Appropriate system for distributed students
• Equivalent learning experiences across range of contexts
• Learning agreements between students, host organisations, and the university
• Learning objective & outcomes clarified
• Specified roles & responsibilities
• Continuous good working relations
• Effective & regular communication
• Systematic & regular recording about the learning of students
• Progress monitoring
• A mentoring system
• Students gaining knowledge of work practices
• Students helped recognising their strengths & weaknesses

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.

Council on Higher Education (2004a). Higher Education Quality Committee. Criteria for Programme Accreditation.

Council on Higher Education (2004b). Higher Education Quality Committee. Criteria for Institutional Audits.

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.

Live project model deemed a form of work-integrated learning

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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