Learning in vivo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huddling, stand-up gatherings, and after-action reviews

Reflection on experiences plays a significant role in learning. After Action Reviews (AARs), also called a debriefs or huddles, are considered significant ways to not only learn, but also improve. AARs provide participants with the opportunity to reflect on what was supposed to happen, what really happened, what went well, what did not, and what can be derived (learned) from the mistakes and achievements (Reiter-Palmon et al. 2015). Learning from workplace-based learning (WPBL) and internships can be enhanced by creating AAR spaces, stand-up gatherings or huddling opportunities.

A Huddlecraft (2022) ‘re-tweet’ that appeared in my timeline, on 2 December 2022, caught my eye and prompted further exploration:

“A wave of new Huddles for 2023 🌊

Huddles: purposeful peer groups who come together to learn, create or act, in response to a theme that sets them alight 🔥”

“There is no clear standard definition of a ‘huddle’, but it can be described as short, face-to-face [or virtual] meeting held multiple times a day” say Aase et al. (2021: 2). The ‘World of Work Project’ (2019) explain as follow:

Huddles or stand up meetings are short, sharp, focused, daily team meetings. They involve the whole team and take place around a physical or virtual information center. When done well they improve the performance and engagement of those attending. They can take place face to face, or virtually using a platform like Zoom.

Where integration of teamwork is crucial, such as in interprofessional healthcare, daily huddles, for example, in hospitals, between nurses and physicians, have been nurturing effective performance and reducing adverse events say Aase et al. (2021). Huddles offer the opportunity to reflect on the previous day’s workflow and demands, as well as previewing special requirements and preferences pertaining work/cases scheduled for the day ahead. Huddles could also enable reflection on workplace-based learning (WPBL) and internship experiences, thus enhancing the learning.

“A huddle is an unofficial gathering, or informal meeting, of two or more individuals, convened to discuss substantive issues regarding the work of one or more of the participants”, an encounter of focused interaction, explain Quinn and Bunderson (2016, 387). They add that “huddles may offer learning benefits that formal interaction does not, but the informality of huddles may also pose obstacles to learning that are different from the obstacles that emerge in formal interactions. To capitalize on the learning benefits of huddles, huddle participants need to avoid or overcome those obstacles while still leveraging the unique learning benefits of a huddle”. Huddles are seen as particularly productive events for learning, because of the informality, which free participants from structural limitations and cultural inertia. Huddles “allow expertise (rather than position) to guide who talks” and ideally “address issues when they occur and not when they are scheduled to be discussed” (p. 388). Huddles could similarly be introduced into the learning management system (LMS) to facilitate sharing experiences derived from workplace-based learning modules. Academia responsible for workplace-based learning modules are encouraged to consider the literature extracts below and implement those ideas that appear relevant.

The first step, say Astion (2013), in creating a huddle, is to ensure the relevant participants are involved, including senior management. Frequency and time management are key to keeping a huddle focused. Their huddles were restricted to 15 minutes, with limited time allocation for succinct reporting. A magnetic whiteboard with coloured magnets and possibly brief, clarifying statements with a marker pen reflect the state of operations. The colour-coding provides an immediate overview (or dashboard). Huddles since cascaded to lower operational level, and “are fast becoming an important component of daily management”, say Astion (2013). Academia are encouraged to use their discretion to structure huddles with regard to grouping of students and frequency.

Huddles are differentiated from other types of interactive events regarding the dimensions of task focus and formality. In comparison to social interaction, huddles are high on task-focus but low on formality; ceremonies in contrast are high on formality but low on task focus; and casual talk low on both formality and task focus, but the focus high on task content. Huddles are likely to include dimensions such as problem-solving, information-sharing, and collaboration. Whereas meetings typically include these, meetings in contrast with huddles, are both high on formality and task focus. However, huddles may include aspects of formality such as the Japanese Honda plant huddles (called ‘Y-gaya’) “often called by people in formal authority (a high level of social distance) but could also happen spontaneously, on the site of problems, with people speaking based on the relevant knowledge they had rather than based on their position” (p. 389). Huddles further often include some structure such as turn-taking, syntax, and scheduling. However, the fact that huddles are informal, more spontaneous participation could be expected, including more humour, and invoking less authority.

“Huddles are short 5- to 15-minute briefings designed to give staff opportunities to plan daily tasks and roles, stay informed, review events, and share plans to ensure well-coordinated” work performance, say van Bockxmeer (2022: 256). Huddles may serve as conduit for highlighting “concerns, sharing information, celebrating success, and reinforcing common goals”. Huddles further “encourages reflective practice, reorients groups to unseen biases, and builds new strategic capabilities”. Huddles may concentrate on specific themes and high-relevance topics.

There are some challenges associated with huddles indicate van Bockxmeer (2022: 257), such as the duration, retaining meaning for all participants, and discussions derailing. There is “no single approach that best suits all disciplines, rosters, and teams”. Some situations may call for more frequent huddles, whereas taking ‘detailed discussions offline into smaller focus groups’ could be advantageous.

 “A safety huddle is a meeting held among [district nurses] DNs, allied health professionals, specialist nurses, administrative staff, community matrons and healthcare assistants, also known as the wider MDT” [wider multidisciplinary team] say Gray (2020: 446). “Safety huddles were designed and implemented in community nursing in 2016, to ensure all key harms were addressed daily, whereby patient and staff safety could be ensured … The aim of safety huddles is to improve and document clinical handovers within community nursing teams, using a template to evidence the handovers”. The SBAR tool is a “situational briefing tool used to successfully convey patient information to other health professionals in a more succinct manner”—"the SBAR stands for Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation” indicate Gray (2020: 447). Academia may effectively make use of the SBAR notion to facilitate reflection of experiences derived from workplace-based learning, namely that each student briefly sketches the situation, provide essential background, give own assessment and present own recommendation. A brief discussion of each such presentation could further enhance learning.

Huddles are commonly used for meetings in many fields, say Cao et al. (2022). The format of their daily virtual operational huddle to monitor key quality metrics, is structured on the common elements of a laboratory huddle reported by Astion (2013), plus “a novel electronic communication application that was interfaced with the laboratory information system” (Cao et al., 2022: 379). At the inception of the huddle, notes were made on a whiteboard, which evolved to a formatted Excel spreadsheet.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, academics at the University of Derby Online Learning (UDOL) “started short online gatherings every morning, which are being referred to as ‘morning huddles’” say Kotera et al. (2020: 239). Microsoft Teams (MS Teams) meetings were scheduled daily from 09h00 to 09h15, and a link sent to the academics “in the Inter-Professional portfolio (encompassing nursing, counselling, social work, and environmental studies), as recurring calendar invites with no set agenda”., however, with the primary purpose had been to support each other’s well-being during isolation. Conversations were friendly, with a relaxed tone, and aimed at inclusivity. The MS Teams chat facility supplemented audio (and where feasible video) interaction, to share information and humour. Many joined before 09h00 for casual conversations, and often continue beyond the 15 minutes. The huddles ended when relevant issues were exhausted, with participants offering each other best wishes for the day. Academia may consider using online huddles in a similar way for students to form stand-up gatherings in order to support one another during dispersed workplace-based learning.

After Action Reviews (AARs) were developed in the 1970s by the US Army, used by the military and para-military teams for decades to learn from experiences in the field, and increasingly used in other contexts. Reiter-Palmon et al. (2015: 323) report “that team effectiveness can be enhanced by 20% when teams conduct AARs”, compared to not conducting AARs and debriefs. Furthermore, “that using trained facilitators improved the effectiveness of AARs significantly compared with those conducted without a facilitator”. For AARs to provide effective learning, three aspects are essential, say Reiter-Palmon et al. (2015: 324), namely:

• (i) Allowing for data verification and feedback, which in turn allow for calibration; as well as allowing for task-related information sharing, contributing to correct approach identification
• (ii) The AAR framework should permit team members opportunity to mindfully and critically reflect (error-friendly learning culture); to grasp why things work (successes) or not (mistakes and near misses); and to challenge implicit assumptions
• (iii) Provide a supportive structure for establishing common goals and action plans to prevent similar re-occurrences

Academia may similarly structure, or scaffold, reflection sessions to enhance workplace-based learning. ‘Scaffold’, as noun, means “a temporary structure for holding workers and materials during the erection, repair, or decoration of a building”, or “any raised framework”, and as verb “to furnish with a scaffold or scaffolding”, or “to support by or place on a scaffold” (Dictionary.com). ‘Framework’, as noun, means “a basic structure, plan, or system, as of concepts, values, customs, or rules”. “In education, scaffolding refers to a variety of instructional techniques used to move students progressively toward stronger understanding”, state the Glossary of Education Reform (2015). It serves as descriptive metaphor of providing successive levels of temporary support, which like physical scaffolding, get erected and incrementally removed when it served its purpose. ‘Instructional scaffolding’ means the processes or support provided to “students in order to enhance learning and aid in the mastery of tasks”, by “systematically building on students’ experiences and knowledge as they are learning” (IRIS Center, 2022).

Aase, I., Tjoflåt, I. & Hjorthaug Urstad, K. (2021). Using the ‘huddle’ to enhance interprofessional teamwork among nursing students through a podcast: a qualitative and exploratory pilot study. (BioMed Central Ltd) BMC Nursing, 20 (article #235). Electronically accessible from https://bmcnurs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12912-021-00747-4

Astion, M. (2013). new model for patient safety, daily laboratory huddles—what a great idea! American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC), Clinical Laboratory News. Electronically accessible from https://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/articles/2013/april/psf-huddles

Cao, J., Dowlin, M., West, A., Mutandiro, C., Mpwo, M. & Singh, IR. (2022). A daily operational huddle and a real-time communication application improve efficiency of laboratory processes. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 146(3), 379–385. Electronically accessible from https://meridian.allenpress.com/aplm/article/146/3/379/466484/A-Daily-Operational-Huddle-and-a-Real-Time

Dictionary.com. ‘Scaffold’ https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scaffold and ‘Framework’ https://www.dictionary.com/browse/framework

Glossary of Education Reform. (2015). Scaffolding. Great Schools Partnership. Electronically accessible from https://www.edglossary.org/scaffolding/

Gray, T. (2020). Safety huddle in a community nursing setting British Journal of Community Nursing, 25(9), 446-450. Electronically accessible from https://www.britishjournalofcommunitynursing.com/content/professional/safety-huddle-in-a-community-nursing-setting

Huddlecraft (2022). https://www.huddlecraft.com/ Tweet electronically accessible from https://twitter.com/Huddlecraft/status/1598284708034420736

IRIS Center (2022). What Is Instructional Scaffolding? The IRIS Center Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Electronically accessible from https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/sca/cresource/q1/p01/

Kotera, Y., Green, P., Rhodes, C., Williams, A., Chircop, J., Spink, R., Rebecca Rawson, R., & Okere, U. (2020). Dealing With Isolation Using Online Morning Huddles for University Lecturers During Physical Distancing by COVID-19: Field Notes. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(4), 238-244. Electronically accessible from https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4843/5434

Quinn, R.W. & Bunderson, J.S. (2016). Could We Huddle on This Project? Participant Learning in Newsroom Conversations. Journal of Management, 42(2), 386–418. Electronically accessible from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206313484517

Reiter-Palmon, R., Kennel, V. Allen, J.A. Jones, K.J. & Skinner, A.M. (2015). Naturalistic decision making in after-action review meetings: The implementation of and learning from post-fall huddles. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(2), 322–340. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joop.12084

van Bockxmeer, J. (2022). A reflection on daily huddles in BC primary care teams. British Columbia Medical Journal, 64(6), 256-7. Electronically accessible from https://bcmj.org/articles/reflection-daily-huddles-bc-primary-care-teams

World of Work Project. (2019). Huddles or stand-up meetings: A simple introduction. Electronically accessible from https://worldofwork.io/2019/04/huddles-stand-up-meetings-what-why-and-who/

About iReflect, a mobile app for reflection in work-integrated learning

Reflective practice is of significance regarding learning and assessment of tertiary programmes that includes work-integrated learning (WIL) in the curriculum. Making sense of, learning from experiences, transformative, and deep learning of students are supported by reflective practice. However, the distribution of students in remote areas that lack internet access, present challenges to support and scaffold reflective practice. This prompted the identification of the combination of the need for a mobile app, integrated with an e-portfolio platform, and an institutional learning management system. “A key aim was to develop an app that could be used by students to practice and document reflection for learning, both on and off-line …” say Harvey, Walkerden, Semple, McLachlan, and Lloyd (2019: 57).

An ‘App’ is an abbreviated form of the word ‘application’, clarifies Techtarget (2011). It is a software program that is designed to perform a specific or narrow function directly for the user or, in some cases, for another application programme. Simply put, an app is software that enables specific tasks. Apps play significant part of the technology-driven world we live in, say Indeed (2021). An ‘App’ is a type of software that, in most cases, is installed to run on a smartphone, tablet, computer, or other electronic devices. It is most frequently referred to a mobile application.

Harvey et al. (2019: 56) indicate that “learning through WIL is a complex concept and experience” and that “a myriad of diverse influencing factors need” to be considered about reflection. Whatever reflection tool was to be devised, it needed to align and fit with varied contexts. They conceptualise reflection as the “deliberate and conscientious process that employs a person’s cognitive, emotional and somatic capacities to mindfully contemplate on past, present or future (intended or planned) actions in order to learn, better understand and potentially improve future actions” (p. 57).

Smartphone ownership is prevalent amongst young adults in developed economies, which offer opportunities for, and makes demands on WIL educators. Given that mobile devices are used extensively for messaging, blogging, note taking, and casual photography, it seems an obvious means to support and scaffold reflective practice say Harvey et al. (2019: 58). The primary design choice with regard mobile learning is the use of a web browser or apps. Vodovatova (n.d.) differentiates between a mobile app and a mobile website, saying that “the mobile website is accessed by the user via the Internet (therefore requires being online) and the downloadable application is a separate app installed on the phone and can be accessed both online as well as offline”. She defines:

• A mobile website is a website for the design of which has been scaled and optimized for mobile devices. Typically, it features smaller fonts, fewer page elements, and less white space (compared to traditional desktop versions.)
• The mobile app is a separate program stored locally on your phone that uses the device’s hardware and software features and usually creates a better, more intuitive, and faster user experience.

Harvey et al. (2019: 58) indicate that because apps appear “to be most successful for processes or tasks which are completed regularly”, and because apps could cater for remote offline usage, apps appear to be a good choice to support and scaffold reflection.

Table 4 (Harvey et al., 2019: 65-66) below, portrays user stories derived from research, to serve as a platform to design software that matches learning needs. Each row represents a use of a reflective practitioner to maximise learning, which informed the development of the prototype iReflect app.

Harvey, M., Walkerden, G., Semple, A., McLachlan, K. & Lloyd, K. (2019). What we can learn from the iReflect project: Developing a mobile app for reflection in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 55-69. Accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_20_1_55_69.pdf

Indeed Editorial Team. (2021). What Is an App? Types of Apps and Examples. Published 4 February 2020, and Updated 23 July 2021. Accessible from https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/what-is-an-app

Techtarget Contributor. (2011). Definition of ‘app’. Techtarget Network. Accessible from https://www.techtarget.com/searchmobilecomputing/definition/app

Vodovatova, E. (n.d.) Mobile app vs mobile website: What to choose? Editor, The App Solutions. Accessible from https://theappsolutions.com/blog/development/app-vs-website/

Students deriving learning opportunities by responding to natural disasters

Universities often struggle to secure sufficient workplace learning opportunities. Disasters, however, may offer suitable learning opportunities. This post presents ‘prompt-based journaling’ as means of facilitation of learning.

“Each year, millions of people around the world are affected by natural disasters” say Buschlen, Warner and Goffnett (2015: 33). Often universities recognise both the service learning and development of responsible citizenship opportunities involved for students, through relief community engagements, to among others, implement theoretical concepts learned. Major events such as tornados, hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, earthquakes, fires, heat waves, droughts, epidemics, pandemics, diseases, and volcanic eruptions; all require substantial humanitarian logistics relief in order to alleviate suffering and reintroduce supply. “Climate change and environmental degradation, political instability, and chronic poverty and inequality are significant drivers of forced displacement” of people, say Wessells and Kostelny (2021: 225). There is an “increased global awareness of the need for mental health and psychosocial support amidst disasters” they state, and draw attention to Hippocrates ‘Do No Harm’ principle issues such as “poor coordination, the monetization of aid, excessive targeting of aid, the imposition of Western modes of psychiatric and medicalized support, too little attention to capacity building and sustainability, and the marginalization of collective self-help and indigenous, cultural and social supports”.

Often large numbers of people are subjected to traumatic events before, during, and after disasters, with result that trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) become prevalent. Forcibly displaced people furthermore often face myriad social, cultural, and everyday distresses as result of weakened or shattered social support and controls. Apart from lack of basic necessities such as food, health care, or shelter; there are family separation, ongoing insecurity and lack of protection, inability to engage in cultural or religious practices, sexual exploitation and abuse, trafficking, recruitment into armed forces or groups, etc.

Prompt-based journaling could be used as means of facilitating learning. Buschlen, Warner and Goffnett (2015: 40) recommend that journal prompts are written in advance and given in sealed envelopes to participanting students, taped inside the cover of a blank notebook. They made use of three prompts, each in a separate envelope, with specific instructions when to open, namely before travelling to the disaster site; during the relief work while on site; and 30 days after the experience; where after journals are completed and returned. Because of the emotional and reflective nature of the data, participating students may request the return of their journal after transcription.

Buschlen, Warner and Goffnett (2015: 36) point out that the ‘3 Rs’, reality, reflection, and reciprocity are essential design elements of service learning, where students learn “from a situation while meeting other process or stakeholder needs”. A natural disaster (reality) would provoke students to engage, “and their personal reflections can ultimately transform into permanent knowledge and skill”. Transformational learning is derived because “Reflections on the service experience expand knowledge to achieve deeper learning”.

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

Wessells, M. & Kostelny, K. (2021). Do no harm issues in psychosocial support: Post-tsunami practitioner learning in Sri Lanka. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 12(3), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/aap0000191

Work integrated learning is a bridge for students between academic present and professional future

Work integrated learning (WIL) “is a bridge for the student between the academic present and their professional future”, say Martin, Rees, and Edwards (2011: 7). It “is a structured educational strategy, which aims to merge theoretical knowledge gained in academic studies to workplace experiences”, seeking “to provide graduates with a comprehensive industry skill set desired by potential employers”.

Chilvers, Hay, Maidment, and Tudor (2021: 436) cite Martin et al. (2011) who derived through research, from retrospective feedback and documentation, a template of good WIL practice, comprising six key factors, namely (1) organization set up, (2) student preparation, (3) supervision, (4) competencies, (5) pedagogies, and (6) assessment. Chilvers et al. (2021) explore the alignment of social work field education and work-integrated learning (WIL) pedagogy, and made three improvement contributions with regard to the WIL best practice framework, namely (a) preplacement preparation of both students and the field; (b) professional supervision approaches; and (c) ‘inclusion of service user feedback within student assessment processes’. There is much to be gained from more active dialogue and closer relationship between field education and WIL practices they recommend.

Chilvers et al. (2021: 433) indicate that both “social work education and work-integrated learning share a long history of helping students connect with authentic work-related learning opportunities in the context of engagement and partnership with organizations outside of the educational institution, using onsite mentoring”. Chilvers et al. (2021: 436) use the metaphor of a family tree, with different branches, portraying the origins and lines of theory development, of field education in Social Work, and work-integrated learning (WIL) in several other disciplines. Field education and WIL have clearly developed along different lines of the same family tree, only recently beginning to integrate, they observe. However, there are further several other branches to the tree, such as clinical training in Medicine; internships in Psychology; articles in Law; etc. Knud Illeris (2002) sketch numerous contributors to the learning theoretical field in the form of a triangle, between the three dimensions of content, incentive, and interaction. The three sides respectively represent (a) developmental psychology—this side also depicts institutional learning, (b) activity theory, between cognition and society the learning organisation and practice learning, and (c) socialisation theory illustrated between society and emotion, also reflecting collective learning.

Chilvers et al. (2021: 433) examine the tensions associated with aligning social work and WIL. They explore the pedagogical similarities. They discuss key tools and processes for strengthening the quality of field education in social work pertaining student supervision and assessment. Chilvers et al. (2021: 437) offer the following contributions from field education with regard to WIL:

Preparation of students similar to the requirement set by the Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB)—"the regulatory body, which sets parameters around admission, governance, graduate attributes, staffing, stakeholder collaboration and field education”—that academic institutions must assess the professional suitability of applicants upon enrolment, which is generally repeated prior to each placement. The checks include criminal records, assessment of suitability to work with children and vulnerable adults, character references and health. A portfolio of evidence is accumulated to demonstrate the professional suitability of each graduate. Those students that do not meet the requirements are suitably counselled. In addition to checks, intentional preparation of students prior to placement is deemed an important component to clarify expectations of what might be encountered and to reduce anxiety. This includes clear articulation of the roles and responsibilities, and role playing. Attention is given to matching the fit between student and field educator.

Field educator preparation aims to provide clarity around four domains, namely placement administration; teaching and learning; assessment; and quality (p. 438). Relationships between institutions and field educators are dependent upon reciprocity and understanding of the roles and responsibilities. It is firmly believed that those who facilitate field education require specialist preparation and training

Professional supervision is deemed under-explored and inadequately-theorised in the body of literature pertaining WIL. In contrast, it is regarded a key contributor in social work education where students are supported during placement to engage in knowledge and skill development. Chilvers et al. (2021: 439) indicate that “development occurs through exposure to genuine practice opportunities with service users, by fostering critical reflection, providing feedback, and facilitating a broad range of experiential learning activities in a safe environment”. Students are socialised into a professional group by their field supervisors.

Student assessment with the view of demonstrating to the SWRB (the regulatory body) that core competencies were acquired during field placements. A broad range of forms evidence collection could be considered for WIL, such as direct observation of student practice, team meetings, consultations with agencies, written appraisals, case notes, client assessment reports, email communications, referral letters, and documentation associated with conducting research and policy or procedural development. Other ways of teaching, learning and assessment include “the use of process recordings to provide students with an opportunity for a detailed ‘think aloud’ about a particular interchange with a client or team member” (Chilvers et al. 2021: 441); the writing or presenting of a deconstruction of an event or interaction that happened; and compilation of a digital learning portfolio.

Chilvers, D., Hay, K., Maidment, J., & Tudor, R: Contribution of social work field education to WIL. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(4), 433-444. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_22_4_433_444.pdf

Illeris, K. 2002. The three dimensions of learning. Malabar, Fla: Krieger

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

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)

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

‘The learning portfolio’ as means to scaffold reflection

Reflective learning is a difficult endeavour, found Pereira, Parente and da Silva (2016: 614), who define reflection as “deliberate thinking about oneself as a practitioner with the aim of improving [own] understanding and practices”. Reflection, is important, because it is recognised as “the most powerful driving force for self-monitored, conscious and conscientious learning and doing” (p. 215).

“Language is widely recognized as an inescapable mediating tool for learning” in that it renders tangible and therefore monitorable for the learner, say Pereira, Parente and da Silva (2016: 615), who suggest “guided portfolio writing as a form of scaffolding reflective learning”. However, portfolio writing is not straightforward, but a matter of dispute, because portfolios were originally “essentially developed for performance-based assessment” (p. 217). They emphasise a need for “explicitness of the aims and instructions” of ‘the learning portfolio’ by asking students:

1. “to analytically report one task they considered to be representative of” each learning experience (referred to as ‘preliminary reflections’); and
2. “to write a synthesis of the information they had learned and to plan, analyse and critically report a practical experience”; and finally
3. “to think about the contents and experiences and their usefulness in updating their practical knowledge” by making use of the ‘preliminary reflections’

Pereira, Parente and da Silva (2016: 619) illustrate the portfolio writing process for pre-school teacher scaffolded reflective learning, during in-serive contexts, as in Figure 1. They further emphasise that students should “actively construct, identify and monitor their own learning”.

Pereira, I.S.P., Parente, M.C.C. & da Silva, C.V. (2016). Guided portfolio writing as a scaffold for reflective learning in in-service contexts: a case study. Teacher Development, an international journal of teachers' professional development, 20(5), 614-630. Electronically accessible from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2016.1185029

Relationships between student and supervisor, within studio-based learning, have an effect on student learning

“With each ‘singular emotional episode’ the student learns about the supervisor and themselves” and with “repeated exposure these singular events can develop into ‘emotional stances’, which influence the student’s approach to learning”, say Belluigi (2016: 21) and adds that “such stances may be productive, reproductive or counter-productive depending on how power dynamics, affective concerns and discourses position and manage those involved”. She states (p. 22) that it “is important in education to recognise that teachers’ conceptions of their roles have an impact on student learning”, in that it may either undermine or support. Drawing from her art education research, she portrays constructions of the roles of supervisors and of students respectively, as well as resulting relationships.

Six constructions of the studio-supervisor (p. 23)	Four constructions of the student (p. 29)
The master (p. 23) Master–apprentice mimetic model, originated from the medieval guild workshop; apprentice making the master’s art; now obsolete and inappropriate for contemporary studio	The apprentice (p. 29) Hierarchical, ‘earning your stripes’, becoming a journeyman and then master; marked absence of student voice; in some cases a lack of concern for students’ aspirations
The atelier coach One-to-one ‘studio conversations’, arose from the 19th century Romantic French academy; constructive criticism of the student’s artwork as medium of learning; not sustainable under production and educational pressures	The emotional/intuitive artist-student Romantic artist genius and humanist notions of the artist as the ideal of fulfilled selfhood; believing morally superior and emotionally more sensitive than non-artists, and ‘pitted against a cold and corrupt society’
The reflective practitioner (p. 24) Observation and formative feedback; requires ‘sensitive, trusting and responsive teacher–student relationships; dependency because continually respond adapt to what emerges; reflection-both in and outside-action	The reflexive practitioner (p. 30) Reflexivity is essential to contemporary artmaking; fluidity between formal learning spaces and everyday life, theory and practice; fluidity between formal learning spaces and everyday life, theory and practice
The critical friend Students often intentionally use for alternative interpretations, and to situate themselves in community; model require caring, mutually engaging, partnership openness	The collaborator Postmodernist ‘co-constructivist’ concept ‘artist as collaborator’; interconnected with various different ‘knowledges’, experiences and communities; critical adult learning
The liminal servant (p. 25) Relating to the threshold (or point) beyond; both cognitive and social scaffolding; enthusiastic engagement and openness; empathy; and shared learning management
The analyst (and patient) Similar phenomena with therapy, within trust environment and sense of security, for student to explore widely and freely without constraints; play, awareness, mirroring, and transference; growth-promoting symbiosis

How the inherent differences of the respective roles and models are understood from within the constructions, is of significance and should not be overlooked.

Belluigi, D.Z. (2016). Constructions of Roles in Studio Teaching and Learning. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(1), 21-35. Electronically available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jade.12042

Case-based learning instructional model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perusal of the full online publication is recommended.

Key component of experiential education is reflection, not activity

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

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

The table below summarises the other three scenarios:

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

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

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

What does quality work-integrated learning entail?

A webpage of the International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL) states that although there are similarities, “there is no agreed-upon single definition of work-integrated learning (WIL)” and therefore opted for a broad definition, namely:

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

The International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL) webpage provides the following examples of practices:

work placements, work-terms, internships, practicum, cooperative education (Co-op), fieldwork, work-related projects/competitions, service learning, entrepreneurships, student-led enterprise, applied projects, simulations (including virtual WIL)

The webpage further states that “WIL shares similarities in aims and underpinning theories of learning to the fields of experiential learning, work-based learning, and vocational education and training, however, each of these fields have enough differences to be seen as separate fields” (emphasis of concepts added). The webpage elaborates that it “invites submissions of manuscripts discussing research where students may not be 'placed' within a workplace but, for example, where students undertake a project that is campus-based but for an outside partner (e.g., work-related projects, competitions, entrepreneurships, community projects, virtual WIL, etc).”

At the University of Cincinnati, where cooperative education has been practiced since 1906, it is understood that “WIL is a complex learning framework rooted in constructivism where the learner learns through experiences and through critical reflection on those experiences”; and quality with regard to WIL is defined (emphases added) as:

• Intentional (experiences are structured with trained educators as facilitators)
• Learner-centered and holistic (concerned with learning and growth of the student as a whole)
• Collaborative with the learner’s community or communities (contextualized to include real-world complexities, situated within real world contexts)
• Dependent on the inclusion of rigorous preflexive, reflexive, and reflective pedagogic strategies

The notion ‘preflection’ entails “the act of reflecting on something before it has happened”, which reminds me of the good teaching practice of briefing viewers prior to screening a film/video in order to focus the attention of viewers on the learning points. ‘Preflection’ is a deemed a strategy; a tool designed to enhance and enrich the reflection process; a reflective session prior to the experience.

Reflexive practice is where students consider the implications from what they have learnt as it may apply to the wider context they are within; whereas reflective practice is where students reflect on what they have learnt and what it means to them personally. The contrast can be illustrated as follow:

The aforementioned is in contrast to the South African Council on Higher Education (CHE) quality criterium 15 for work-based learning as contained in https://www.psychsoma.co.za/learning_in_vivo/2020/07/proposed-decision-making-chart-with-regard-to-work-integrated-learning-wil.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Aspects of certain experiential learning equates to adventure education

In searching for literature about the various manifestations and best practices of the broad notion of experiential learning, the notions of experiential education and adventure education emerged. The Journal of Experiential Education (JEE) is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal, which publishes articles in a diverse range of in subject areas including, but not limited to, environmental education, service learning, outdoor adventure programming, therapeutic applications, research and theory, the creative arts, and much more. Related to adventure education is mindful place-based education, which Deringer (2017, p. 334) says is about experiencing “place more deeply through incorporating the practice of mindfulness”. Mindfulness entails non-judgmental focusing of one's awareness on the present moment. 

Pouty (2007, p. 4) defines adventure education “as direct, active, and engaging learning experiences that involve the whole person and have consequences”, and cites (p. 12) the Kraft and Sakofs (1988) definition for experiential education; which in addition to the first sentence includes: “Students make discoveries and experiment with knowledge themselves instead of hearing or reading about the experiences, thus developing new skills, new attitudes, and new theories or ways of thinking.” Pouty (2007, p. 5) points out that only “20 percent of the population can learn well in a setting where reading and writing are the dominant pedagogy and skill sets” and argues further in favour of adventure education as ideal means towards instilling the following essential competencies required by contemporary workplaces:

• Collaborative teamwork (leveraging the skills of multiple others is a necessity to learn and produce)
• Creative problem solving and product development
• Communication with passion and skill to influence others
• A sense of ethics and corporate responsibility for greater community

Panicucci (2007, p. 44) outlines the importance of adhering to the adventure wave, a metaphor for the three essential components illustrated below, namely (a) the briefing—framing thereof or an introduction thereto; (b) the doing—immersing in the actual experience or event, the crest or climax; and (c) debriefing—reflection time after the wave passed.

The benefits of a simulated learning experience can be optimised by directly frontloading during briefing. Gass and Stevens (2007, p. 105) explain that “Frontloading refers to specifically highlighting the learning that is to take place before, or in front of” it happening. The briefing would include clarifying the objectives; motivating what might be derivable from the anticipated experience; indicating what behaviours and actions would enhance or contribute (function) to bigger success; but also what may hinder (dysfunction) accomplishments. Indirect frontloading is more subtle, the making of suggestions, giving of tips, or offering alternatives/options. In some instances direct frontloading could be detrimental in that participants become obsessed with task completion, rather than deriving the learning benefits.

The debriefing part of the adventure wave can be enhanced by funnelling, in which a group is guided through a serious of six stags or filters (Gass & Stevens, 2007: pp. 112-114). Imagine a funnel with the narrow end pointing downward, as illustrated (from p. 113) below. The experience is ‘poured’ into the wide end, and then filtered through a series of six sequenced questions. The six steps are an expanded version of Borton’s (1970) ‘three basic [human] information processing [(HIP)] functions’, namely “experience (Sensing), sense-making (Transforming) and engagement with the world (Acting)” says Rolfe (2014, p. 488). Self-knowledge, Borton (1970, p. 93) argued, “is as difficult to obtain as it is powerful, and usually has been won by relatively few people” and advanced the ‘What’ (increasing awareness), ‘So What’ (evaluating intention), and ‘Now What” (experimenting with new behaviour) as process education model and means to the end of self-knowledge. These debriefing filters, steps or stages could be facilitated either in a face-to-face setting or on-line through a learning management system. The six steps, stages or filters are:

• What? — Filters #0 entails review, and #1 recall and remember
  • Filter #0 refocuses the attention on the subject of interest, clarifying exactly what the topic of the debriefing is
  • Filter #1 entails participants describing what they experienced, recalling the detail and supplementing each other’s recollections/stories
• So What? — Filters #2 affect and effect, and #3 summation
  • Filter #2 addresses emotions and causes; how participants felt and impact of the event on them personally
  • Filter #3 moving of the reflection focus to what has been learned from participation, which ideally should mirror the learning objectives
• Now What? — Filters #4 application, and #5 commitment
  • Filter #4 entails facilitation of learning transfer, or the making of connections to real life applications
  • Filter #5 cements the value derived from participation by facilitating commitment

Borton, T. (1970). Applying the process approach, chapter 8, pp. 93-105. In Reach Touch and Teach: Student Concerns and Process Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Deringer, S.A. (2017). Mindful Place-Based Education: Mapping the Literature. Journal of Experiential Education, Vol. 40(4) 333–348. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825917716694

Gass, M.A. & Stevens, C.A. (2007). Facilitating the adventure process, pp. 101-123. In Pouty, D.; Panicucci, J. & Collinson, R. (Eds). (2007). Adventure education: theory and applications. Campaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Journal of Experiential Education (JEE). Electronically accessible at http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jee

Pouty, D. (2007). Introduction to adventure education, pp. 3-17. In Pouty, D.; Panicucci, J. & Collinson, R. (Eds). (2007). Adventure education: theory and applications. Campaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Pouty, D.; Panicucci, J. & Collinson, R. (Eds). (2007). Adventure education: theory and applications. Campaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Panicucci, J. (2007). Cornerstones of adventure education, pp. 33-48. In Pouty, D.; Panicucci, J. & Collinson, R. (Eds). (2007). Adventure education: theory and applications. Campaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Community engagement grounded in three interrelated elements

 

Swan, Paterson and Bielefeldt (2014, 362) provide a broad definition for community engagement (CE), namely:

CE in engineering education is a form of active, experiential learning where students, instructors, and the community partners work collaboratively on projects that benefit a real community need and provide a rich learning experience for all participants. The CE must be properly planned, implemented, and assessed with expected outcomes, educational and others, in mind. Critical reflection is part of this assessment effort.

This definition serves as umbrella making provision for several kinds of service-based learning activities. However, three interrelated elements are highlighted, namely:

1. The efforts performed must be authentic; could be single or multi-disciplinary; but require conection of service and learning.
2. The service, grounded in the needs of a community, must be appropriately developed by jointly by stakeholders, and intentional. The service deepens the learning and sustains the partnership.
3. The primary goal of the service is learning, but is enhanced by the service. The learning need both to be planned, in accordance to the educational objectives, and to be assessed accordingly. Structured, critical relfection deepens the learning.

Swan, Paterson and Bielefeldt (2014, 366) summarise the outcomes and benefits of community engagement Download Service_learning_benefits

Swan, C.; Paterson, K. and Bielefeldt, A.R. 2014. Community engagement in engineering education as a way to increase inclusiveness, 357-372. In A. Johri and B.M. Olds. 2014. Cambridge handbook of engineering education research. New York: Cambridge Press.

Online enabled workplace degree

Revill et al (2005, 231) published a paper that illustrates distance presents no restriction to collaborative learning and reports on a “learning in the workplace degree based upon an online learning community approach”. “Individualised learning plans, shared electronic portfolios and collaborative reflection on practice” (emphases added) are supplemented with online ‘hotseating’ and the use of workplace advocates. Revill et al (2005, 242) explain ‘hotseating’ as a “special type of discussion with expert witnesses [or specialists], who can be interrogated by” programme participants. Revill et al (2005, 238) state that “workplace advocate is ideally someone within the workplace who is both able to support study and to ensure that the place of work will benefit from the participant’s involvement in the programme”. Revill et al (2005, 231) claim is that the “paper exhibits that it is possible to build an online community for an award-bearing workplace learning degree”, however, they state that “tools and approaches need to be developed to ensure self-directed learning from experience and through reflection can take place in a community of learners”.

Revill et al (2005, 231) point out the “belief that the relationship between those studying for the degree and those offering the degree, is not one of ‘expert’ and ‘student’ exchange, but is aiming to develop a student-centred learning experience where students are valued as” co-practitioners for their contributions.

The underpinning ‘deep learning’ pedagogic principles of the online bachelor’s degree in learning, technology and research, which is directed at participants who have not previously had the opportunity of higher education, include “learning from experience; critical reflection; action enquiry; collaborative discourse in online learning communities; self-directed adult learning” and the use of “learning journals to collect and reflect upon critical incidents at work” (Revill et al 2005, 232, emphases added).

Revill et al (2005, 232) emphasise that “content does not form the basis of this degree” and report on experience “in online communities [that] has proven to be a powerful further stimulus and influence focusing upon collaborative discourse about practice in online communities”. Learning is promoted primarily through brief stimuli that lead into online discussions. Participants are empowered online through the facilitation of construction and structuring to move from specific tasks to the broad. This social action of negotiating meaning, participant choice and self-direction served as basis to plan the degree. The experiences with the first cohort served to establish a pathway for quality assurance requirements. The pathway is in essence a shell of generic modules that is adaptable the meet the contexts, learning needs and job roles of individual participants. The coherence of the curriculum gets negotiated at modular level with the learning facilitator concerned.

Each individual learning plan (ILP) frames the individual participant’s learning requirements for the term, explain Revill et al (2005, 233-4). It is a shared and negotiated web-based document created through a web-based tool. The ‘tool’ caters for individual ‘electronic portfolios’ of learning plans, assignments and commentaries according to the learning outcomes of each participant. Individuals can design their own learning activities, negotiate and modify their learning outcomes to ensure relevance to their own workplace. The intention is to maximise the impact of individual learning on-the-job. Participants further create their own products for assessment purposes, such as “CD-ROMs, web site or slide show presentations, digital films or text-based accounts”.

Revill et al (2005, 234-5) explain the use of the portfolio tool “to capture critical incidents, notes and moments of learning through the use of electronic journals, digital photographs and video clips”. Work-based ‘artefacts’ are meant to represent significant points of learning. Quantity of artefacts and data; such as notes, minutes, plans, methods, interview notes, survey results, observations and other; are encouraged to reflected upon and analyse.

Revill et al (2005, 236) state that “there is a growing body of evidence of the positive personal and professional effects that engaging in action research has on the practitioner”, which is the reason for it being at the heart of the degree. The intent of action research is “to build collaborative enquiries and development in the workplace”. Participants get guidance with the design of their projects, their data collection, analyses and ethics. The final year of the degree revolve around the notion of exhibiting and informing peers and the community of practice about lessons learned. This sharing in turn serves “as a lever of change and a stimulus for more collaborative and negotiated change”.

Reflective writing in the workplace represents the classic double-loop learning state Revill et al (2005, 236). The notion of ‘patchwork writing’ is encouraged, in addition to accumulation of work-based artefacts. Participants are required to document alternative reflective pieces and even encouraged to ”make photo albums, write poetry and design posters illustrating key incidents”, which are often reflected upon by using frameworks suggested in literature.

In addition to the ideal candidates to serve as workplace advocates, Revill et al (2005, 238) explain that the “advocate is not involved with the academic side of the degree work and its assessment but in providing an environment that will maximise” the participant’s learning. The advocate’s role include clarification of joint expectations; negotiation of appropriate learning activities; and enabling the sharing of effective practice, action enquiry and reflective practice. Revill et al (2005, 237) point out that “workplace degrees have a long history of developing mentoring and partnership arrangements”, because of “the importance of a conducive learning environment for work-related learning and emphasises”. It has been found that “more experienced peers offer the best workplace learning support”. Good human capital practices, such as widespread performance management and appraisal systems, imply that it should not be difficult to identify workplace advocates.

Revill, G.; Terrell, I.; Powell, S. and Tindal, I. 2005. Learning in the workplace: a new degree online Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42, 3, 231–245.