Learning in vivo

Flexibility value of work-based learning

Simon Roodhouse (2010: 26) indicates that “there is an increased interest in workplace learning” and “that those in work are increasingly undertaking work-based learning qualifications” for a number of good reasons:

• People can see a direct relevance between their studies and their role in the workplace’
• Those studying can obtain support from employers.
• Work-based programmes enable individuals to structure their studies around their individual interests and professional development.
• Those studying may negotiate the focus of study, context, timescales and their assessment.
• Such programmes allow for flexible fitting into working and personal lives.
• Studying towards an accredited qualification adds to commitment to professional roles held.
• Seeking career progression and increased earning through programmes.

Roodhouse (2010: 26-27) cites Durrant, Rhodes and Young (2009) that indicate the value of work-based learning for employers, namely:

• Employees execute real work projects resulting in direct benefits for the employer.
• Employees are motivated and focus more specifically on the challenges of the organisation.
• Employees engaged in work-based learning programmes are intimately engaged in organisational processes.
• Tangible and visible investment in the development of employees results in increased loyalty.
• Improved employee retention; advancement potential as result of enhanced capabilities and becoming a sought-after employer.
• Enabling employees on their path of self-actualisation and achieving their full potential.
• Employers can partner with a university in developing programmes that support both the professional development of employees as well as organisation improvement.
• The organisational culture can be changed through work-based learning programmes and projects.
• It is a means towards achieving organisational business plans.
• The university has a stake in employee development.

Roodhouse, S. 2010. Defining and theorizing university work-based learning (21-27). In S Roodhouse & J Mumford. 2010. Understanding work-based learning. Surrey: Gower.

Development of university staff

Seventeen years ago, Duke (1992: 96) observed that academic staff at universities regarded themselves "less as employees than as a kind of college or fraternity of individual scholars and professionals freely associating for the advancement of knowledge and the expression of academic autonomy". He proceeds to indicate that identity and first loyalty of faculty is with their discipline and the international community thereof. Given this collegiate context, staff development had been perceived as almost intrusive; close to offensive and even insulting. However, study leave or sabbatical is still held in high regard as an acceptable form of academic staff development.

However, circumstances changed. State funded higher education institutions can no longer do as they please—now there is accountability to government and the taxpayer. State funding is conditional to the performance of institutions in terms of, for example, throughput. Research funding is coupled to research output, in order to encourage more research. Academic staff is becoming more amenable to acquiring new abilities and enlarging their repertoire of skills.

Duke, C. 1992. The learning university—towards a new paradigm? Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press

Re-current education

Today I stumbled upon the term recurrent education, while searching for literature about academic development as form of in vivo learning. Duke (1992: xiv) explains recurrent education to mean "alternation of education with employment, leisure and other activities throughout the lifespan instead of completing all formal education before entering fully into adult life". He proceeds to indicate that educational resources often favour the young (and the richer) over the older (and poorer) and states that recurrent education "is a policy proposition to support livelong learning and site a 1973 document of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The word recurrent intrigued me. According to Dictionary.com, it means "recurs; occurring or appearing again, especially repeatedly or periodically". There is something amiss—surely there is growth, one never return to where you were?

The word current, according to Dictionary.com, means "prevalent; customary; the most recent". Surely the aim of lifelong learning is to 'equip' people with the prevalent knowledge. I would therefore suggest the improvement of the term by adding a hyphen: re-current education/learning.

Duke, C. 1992. The learning university—towards a new paradigm? Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press

The power of real-life learning for university students

When encouraged to make a paradigm shift to a learning centred university, faculty often revert to provide problem-based learning activities or use applied assignments such as real life examples/ scenarios (Scott, Lisagor & Marachi 2009:17-18). One such an example is the teaching of a physical therapy course for infants. The course was less effective when the lecturer used dolls for demonstrations of particular techniques. One semester, Scott, Lisagor & Marachi (2009:18) reports, "she decided that she would bring real infants into the class for the students to practice the therapy techniques; however, she discovered that she needed to teach her students the reality of working with infants who are heavy (not light like a doll), don't have good head control, and don't sit still and will cry while you attempt to use a particular therapy technique. The learning she observed among the students was markedly more profound with this real-life approach."

Consistent with this, many faculty commented on the importance of using assignments that encourage students to go out into the community, using case studies, or take opportunities for teachable moments (Scott, Lisagor & Marachi 2009:18).

Scott, W; Lisagor, T & Marachi, R. 2009. Learning centred universities: the changing face of higher education. Journal of Faculty Development, 23(1), January 2009.