Learning in vivo

Work integrated research higher degree (WIRHD) studies

“Doctoral education is transforming” say Ohlson and Bernhard (2023: 523). The “traditional doctoral training and research mode is facing some challenges in meeting the industry needs in this fasting changing economy” indicate Chen et al (2008: 129). They point out that “there is greater pressure for research to be linked to applied usage, be aligned with private-sector or government objectives and to have shared intellectual property arrangements”. Treptow (2013: 83) reiterates this saying “current international trends reveal that doctoral education is increasingly expected to satisfy workplace demands”. There is furthermore an “expanding job market for PhD holders entering entirely new fields” say Chen et al (2008: 129), and “pressure on doctoral training to be more flexible and aimed at a wider array of jobs than the traditional academic profession”. Project doctoral programmes furthermore evolved, having “greater emphasis on research conducted and directed within the workplace” and both professional and project doctoral candidates tend to “research topics that are closely associated with the context of their workplace” that “bring together the academy and the workplace with an emphasis on professional practice” (p. 130). Because of these reasons the Work Integrated Research Higher Degree (WIRHD) has emerged “and is intended to be a significant piece of original research which makes a new contribution to science and the discipline”. Chen et al (2008: 133), as well as Stewart and Chen (2009: 162), present a graphical illustration (Figure 1 below) of the integrative framework comprising the unique components of the WIHRD contexts.

The solid-line circle represents the powerful supervisor-student relationship which should enjoy prominence; however the research involves both the academic and industry contexts, therefore the second dotted-line circle, portraying the industry supervisor. WIRHD “is nested within three-tiers of department/discipline, University/Organisation and social/supra-societal contexts”. The establishment of a project-based partnership arrangement between the university and the industry is deemed necessary to enhance communication and co-operation. Furthermore, a structured approach to enable the student and the supervisors to specify the objectives; to outline the duties and roles of both students and supervisors; and to set “the principles and structures for performance monitoring, information exchange and dispute resolution”. Ohlson and Bernhard (2023: 523) studied “the perspectives of industrial PhD students, academia, and industry … with work-integrated learning as a theoretical lens to identify benefits, challenges, and prerequisites for how to structure and manage such a collaboration”.

In the South African context, section 34 of the Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF, 2014: 17) states that “Some qualifications will be designed to integrate theory and practice through the incorporation of work-integrated learning (WIL) into the curriculum … and may be incorporated into programmes at all levels of the HEQSF” (emphasis added). The higher education qualification descriptor (p. 38) for a Master's Degree (Professional, NQF Exit Level 9) states that “in some cases, a professional Master's degree may be designed in consultation with a professional body or fulfil all or part of the requirements for professional registration or recognition, and may include appropriate forms of work-integrated learning” (emphasis added). The descriptor for a Doctoral Degree (p. 40) states that “the designator of Philosophy is typically used for general doctoral degrees by thesis. However, other designators may be used to denote the area of study or the name of the discipline” and for Professional Doctoral degrees (p. 41) the qualification type may be followed by a designator that indicates the area of study or name of the discipline, for example, Doctor of Business Administration (DBA); Doctor of Commerce (DCom); Doctor of Education (DEd); Doctor of Engineering (DEng); Doctor of Law (LLD); Doctor of Nursing (DNursing); Doctor of Pharmacy (DPharm); Doctor of Psychology (DPsych); and Doctor of Social Work (DSW). Furthermore, that the PhD title should not be used; however, the qualification may include appropriate forms of work-integrated learning; the research component should comprise at least 60%; demonstrate a high level of research capability; and the application of theoretical knowledge to highly complex problems.

“Traditional doctoral research training is structured around a master and apprentice transmission model, relying predominantly on primary supervisors for candidate research training” say O'Connor (2023: 567) and indicate that “in this model, professional development of candidates typically centers on discipline-specific knowledge and research techniques”. “A new landscape for various models for doctoral education is emerging” say Ohlson and Bernhard (2023: 523) and add that “university-industry collaboration is a widespread phenomenon for education and innovation in response to societal challenges”. “There is a world-wide increase of alternative forms of doctoral education based on collaboration between academia and work-life such as the professional doctorate” they reiterate (p. 524). The “alternative doctoral training models aim to broaden PhD candidate training”, say O'Connor (2023: 567). “The concept of [work-integrated learning] WIL has developed over time and is today an umbrella term covering education, collaboration, and research” (p. 525). An “approach for university-industry collaboration is work-integrated learning (WIL)”, with an industrial PhD focus, where “industrial PhD students embody the collaborative interplay between education and work influencing organizational learning” (p. 524). However, there is potential “tension between the tasks, time, and cognitive load required to develop qualified researchers as discipline stewards” indicate O'Connor (2023: 568). The design and delivery need to occur in a careful, considered and evidence-based manner he states, and advocates “four emergent design principles for alternative doctoral training models” (p. 569), namely:

• An increased range/breadth of content experts that are providing training to PhD candidates
• The scope of WIL activities and content delivery should be broader than commercialisation
• Adequately scaffold the WIL activities of PhD candidates, keeping in mind their specific needs and be observant of changing needs at different stages of their research candidature
• Purposefully co-designed WIL activities, because simply placing research students in an industry environment would not necessarily translate into powerful learning experiences

O'Connor (2023: 568) also state that PhD candidates should be attracted from any research discipline for whom the additional training is beneficial; but to avoid candidates where prior employment and experience do not match the research programme. He further cautions about potential disengagement due to ineffectual content or WIL activities; as well as “stress due to inadequate communication or management of candidate and supervisor needs”. He recommends minimisation of cognitive overload and workload associated with additional training, but without compromising effectiveness, because “doctoral candidates already experience a variety of stressors inherent to their PhD studies”. He indicates that “alternative doctoral training programs require resources, support systems, qualified personnel, peer networks, and content”.

The focus of knowledge creation by universities gradually shifted because industry recognised the value of creating knowledge indicate Bernhard and Olsson (2023). “University–industry interactions in doctoral education are of importance for mutual life-long learning by integrating workplace learning and research redeveloping work practices related to new concepts, technologies and organizational principles” (p. 507) they add. Industrial PhD students “are spanning boundaries between university and industry generating continuous opportunities for validation and testing of empirical results and models in industry” state Bernhard and Olsson (2020: 147). As key stakeholders industrial PhD students “embody the informing flows between practice and university and between practice and research”, enabling the “short-lag dissemination of research results”, “may enable increased research quality”, and strengthen legitimacy.

Stewart and Chen (2009: 167) remark that the work integrated research higher degree (WIRHD) emerged in an informal manner “for contemporary research students to develop both high-level professional capabilities in a real industry environment as well as strong research skills, which create knowledge through original research of academic rigour”. WIRHD further ensures relevance of engineering doctorates.

Ajjawi, R. & Kent, F. (2022). Understanding Realist Reviews for Medical Education. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, June. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00334.1

Bernhard, I. & Olsson, A.K. (2020). University-industry collaboration in higher education: exploring the informing flows framework in industrial PhD education. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 23, 147-163. https://doi.org/10.28945/4672

Bernhard, I. & Olsson, A.K. (2023). One foot in academia and one in work-life – the case of Swedish industrial PhD students. Journal of Workplace Learning, 35(6). 506-523. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-11-2022-0157

Chen, L., Stewart, R.A., Willis, R. & Britton, T. (2008). Work integrated research higher degree studies: experiences, benefits, barriers and coping strategies. In: Mann, Llewellyn (Editor); Thompson, Adam (Editor); Howard, Prue (Editor). 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Yeppoon: To Industry and Beyond; Proceedings of the. Barton, A.C.T.: Institution of Engineers, Australia, 2008: [129]-[134].

O'Connor, M.D., Denejkina, A. & Arvanitakis, J. (2023). Preparing doctoral candidates for employment: Delivering research and employability skills training in the PhD via work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(1), 19-42. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_24_1_19_42.pdf

O'Connor, M.D. (2023). Design principles for work-integrated learning-based, alternative doctoral training programs informed by PhD candidate feedback. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(4), 567-582. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_24_4_567_582.pdf

Olsson, A.K. & Bernhard, I. (2023). Transforming doctoral education: Exploring industrial PhD collaboration in Sweden. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(4), 523-536. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_24_4_523_536.pdf

Taylor, N. & Maxwell, T.W. (2004). Enhancing the relevance of a professional doctorate: The case of the Doctor of Education Degree at the University of New England. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 5(1), 60-69. https://www.ijwil.org/files/APJCE_05_1_60_69.pdf

Treptow, R. (2013). The South African PhD: Insights from employer interviews. Perspectives in Education, 31(2), 83-91,142.

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

Stewart, R.A. & Chen, L. (2009). Developing a framework for work integrated research higher degree studies in an Australian engineering context, European Journal of Engineering Education, 34:2, 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790902833325

Valencia-Forrester, F. (2019) Internships and the PhD: Is this the future direction of work-integrated learning in Australia? International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 389-400. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_20_4_389_400.pdf

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/

‘Career education is considered one of many quality indicators of WIL’

“Career education is considered one of many quality indicators of WIL … providing both occupational and work-readiness preparation”, say Young, Hermon, Cardilini and Binek (2022: 445). “It is part of an important strategy to embed work-integrated learning (WIL) into undergraduate degree programs within Australian universities to enhance employability outcomes”, they say and remark that “there is clear evidence that employability enhancements are most effective if course-wide employability-related learning outcomes are valued, planned for, and delivered”.

Young et al. (2022: 445) report in a third of three articles about “investigating the renewal of a foundational work-integrated learning (WIL) subject”. They report on their action-research project approach, “how shifts in thinking and practice arose”. In the case study they describe how “the methodological approach to the project was fundamental to the curriculum review and renewal for a single subject (one of the intended outcomes of the project) and unexpectedly, a formal re-thinking of embedded WIL approaches to undergraduate programs”. They demonstrate changes associated with three inquiry domains, namely (p. 446):

• Domain 1, the ‘what domain’, explored what needed to be re-designed, in particular, the pedagogical rationale and approach for revising an existing WIL unit to focus on career education curriculum preparation
• Domain 2, the ‘experience domain’ examined student self-perceptions of shifting employability understandings, and then how the notion of ‘learning gains’ led to a strategic push relating to the scaffolding of career education curricula across the Faculty
• Domain 3, the ‘how domain’, is investigated here for the way in which changes relate not only to subject matter enhancement, but also to professional capacity building, and surfacing of wider-reaching programmatic considerations to WIL

Important to note that they found that “WIL affects whole-of-program and even Faculty-wide culture shifts to scaffolded WIL approaches” — “a vertical and horizontal scaffolding of Faculty-wide WIL curriculum enhancement began” and “the project outcomes demonstrate how a vision for a core STEM-centric foundation career education subject led to broader educational reform relating to student employability”.

Young, K., Hermon, K., Cardilini, A. & Binek, C. (2022). Action-research approach: Building capacity and enhancing work-integrated learning curricula. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 23(4), 445-461. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_23_4_445_461.pdf

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/

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)

‘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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolving work-integrated learning typologies and frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scaffolding, with the intent to ensure the quality of work-integrated learning

Scaffolding, in education, refers to an assortment of teaching strategies (or instructional techniques) employed to progressively enable students in the learning process. The term (or notion) ‘scaffolding’ itself, serves as descriptive metaphor of the “successive levels of temporary support that help students reach higher levels of comprehension and skill acquisition” (Glossary of Educational Reform, 2015). Similar to physical scaffolding, supportive teaching strategies are either implemented or removed as circumstances require.

Differentiation, in contrast to scaffolding, refers to adaptations made to accommodate individuals with diverse learning needs, such as students with disabilities. Scaffolding and differentiation, although distinct, have similar teaching goals, namely learning progression, and might be blended together.

The opposite of scaffolding work-integrated learning (WIL) would be to expect students to find their own relevant place of experiential learning; to negotiate their own learning experiences; to seek their own mentoring; and to submit a specified portfolio of evidence; for assessment. Scaffolding with the intent to ensuring the quality of WIL may include:

• The university (or teaching institution) has relevant WIL ‘study’ guides, experiential learning provider (ELP) guidelines, and mentor guidelines in place
  • Students are prepared for (briefed/readiness) their prerequisite WIL through provided 'study' guides
• The university (or teaching institution) having access to sufficient accredited experiential learning providers in order to facilitate to placement of students for prerequisite WIL
• Facilitation of the placement of students, including contracting of the learning, and the appointment of a suitably qualified mentor for each student
  • In the event of students with disabilities, the placements would include reasonable accommodation cognisant of the nature of disability
• Follow-up monitoring of the learning progression of each student, and regular communication with the experiential learning providers concerned
  • Appropriate intervention/s if such is deemed necessary, for example corrective action
• Assessment of each student’s attainment of specified learning outcomes by both the experiential learning provider and academic staff concerned
• Revision of the curriculum of the academic programme, which might include either or both academic subject/s and/or the WIL part/s, when perceived necessary

Scaffolding. 2015. The Glossary of Education Reform for journalists, parents and community members. Electronically accessible from https://www.edglossary.org/scaffolding/

Live Projects and Scaffolded WIL

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

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

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

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

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

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