Learning in vivo

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

Holistic view of essential elements of project-based learning

Gavin (2011, 550) cites Kolmos, de Graaf and Du (2009) and summarises their model which “provides a holistic view of the elements that must be considered” for developing project-based learning (PjBL). The seven elements that ought to be considered are “(i) the objectives and knowledge; (ii) types of problems; (iii) progression, size and duration; (iv) student learning; (v) academic staff facilitation; (vi) space and organisation; (vii) assessment and evaluation”.

Kolmos (2012, 50) remarks that various versions and models of problem based and project based learning are being implemented globally; and as result conceptual understandings are diverse and sometimes confusing. She summarises the conceptual work done by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Chair in PBL in Engineering Education towards defining problem and project based learning.

Kolmos (2012, 51) remarks that there “will always be variations in the models” and that “concrete models will and must be different” because of the “wide range of subjects, cultures and systems” involved. She points out that “there are common learning principles across the original problem-based and problem-oriented and project-organised practices such as problems as the vehicle for learning, interdisciplinary learning and teamwork” (emphasis added and note that Kolmos uses the acronym PBL “for problem based and project based learning and is intended to be synonymous with problem oriented and project”). Learning theories, such as Dewey (1938), Illeris (1976), Kolb (1984) and Schon (1987), inform practices, but “there is no direct link from the learning theories to the educational model level”. Kolmos (2012, 52) indicate that PBL learning principles comprise three approaches (imagine the Mercedes-Benz logo depicting a simple three-pointed star).

• The cognitive learning approach entails learning organised around problems that are resolved through projects—a central principle with regard to motivation (however, it is important to keep in mind that PBL could increase the stress-levels of students, which may diminish motivation). The problem serves as starting-point for the learning processes, often complex problem analysis and problem-solving strategies.
• The contents approach concerns interdisciplinary learning and supports the relationship between theory and practice. The project usually spans traditional subject-related boundaries and methods.
• The social approach is team-based, collaborative learning and collective ownership. The learning process is a social act wherein learning takes place through dialogue, communication and working together on a common project.

Kolmos (2012, 53-54) presents a PBL curriculum model that has been developed based on the PBL learning principles. The PBL curriculum model contains seven “elements were identified on the basis of a theory on relationship models and principles of alignment”. All seven components/elements “must be aligned to a certain degree”. Kolmos (2012, 54) indicates that “each of the elements can be interpreted in a different way”, however, “if there is a change in one element it will effect change in all the other elements as well”.

Gavin, K. 2011. Case study of a project-based learning course in civil engineering design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36, 6, 547–558.

Kolmos, A, de Graff, E. and Du, X., 2009. Diversity of PBL – PBL learning principles and models. In: D. Xu, ed. Research on PBL practice in engineering education, chapter 2. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 9–21

Kolmos, A. 2012. Changing the Curriculum to Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning, 50-61. In K.M. Yusof, K. Mohd, N.A. Azli, A.M. Kosnin, S.K.S. Yusof, and Y.M. Yusof. 2012. Outcome-Based Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Innovative Practices, chapter 3. Hershey PA: IGI Global.

Mind, Brain and Education Science applied to Project-based Learning (PjBL)

Krauss and Boss (2013, 14) consider project-based learning (PjBL) from the perspective of the inquiring human-mind and state that in PjBL “curiosity is the engine for learning” and add that “students who are accustomed to project-based learning aren’t afraid to ask questions—and keep asking until they arrive at answers that make sense to them”.

Krauss and Boss (2013, 15) cite Tokuhama-Espinosa (2010), who published a ground-breaking work on the new trans-disciplinary academic field ‘Mind, Brain, and Education Science’ that has grown out of the intersection of neuroscience, education, and psychology. Krauss and Boss (2013, 15) report that “Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa synthesises more than 4,500 studies from this emerging field to offer five key concepts shown in the left column of Table 2.1” below. Krauss and Boss (2013) state that these five concepts are relevant to PjBL.

Krauss, J. and Boss, S.  2013. Thinking through project-based learning, guiding deeper inquiry. Thausand Oaks, Ca: Corwin (Sage).

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. 2010. Mind, brain, and education science: a comprehensive guide to the new brain-based teaching. New York, NY: W.W. Norton

Constructivism teaching approach, inquiry- and project-based learning

It appears as if Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003) use project- (PjBL) and problem-based learning (PBL) interchangeably. They present the findings of a qualitative study about the perceptions and attitudes of students about a PjBL course introduced in mechanical engineering. Teams of students were required to carry out mini-projects involving design and construction of predefined devices. The data collection methods include semi-structured interviews, observations and analyses of students’ reports.

The objectives of this PjBL course are “to provide a clear overview of the different fields in mechanical engineering, to introduce the essence of engineering work and the processes of design and development of new technological products, to increase students’ awareness of the importance and necessity of analysis for finding optimal solutions for engineering problems, … and familiarize them [students] with the different aspects of mechanical engineering expertise” (Frank, Lavy and Elata 2003, 273).

This course is taught through mini-projects. “Many elements of PBL [meaning PjBL] are derived from principles of inquiry-based learning, which in turn, were derived from the constructivist teaching approach” state Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 273).

Constructivism as theory entail that humans are active learners who construct knowledge based on their experiences and their efforts to derive meaning from such experiences. In this course students were required, through trial and error, to form and modify their concepts of engineering. Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 274) mention three modes of constructivism, namely radical, contextual and social. The third mode applies to this PjBL course in that students construct their understanding as result of doing, contemplating and interacting with other students in the social contexts of teams. Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 274) name five characteristics of social constructivism, namely “active engagement, use and application of knowledge, multiple representations, use of learning communities, and authentic tasks”.

The teaching environment of this PjBL course is enquiry-based learning, which entail “applying the principles of scientific research to teaching”, state Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 275). Students are required to create knowledge, in contrast to the lecturer being ‘purveyor of knowledge’ or ‘provider of facts’. Each mini-project, as enquiry-based learning unit, comprise six stages, namely “defining the problem [or need], proposing hypothesis [or consider alternative solutions], doing the project/experiment [selecting the best solution and building the artefact], analysing the data [or measure the artefact’s performance], interpreting [or explaining] the results, and drawing conclusions”.

The means of instruction of this PjBL course is project-based learning through teams. It engages students in exploring meaningful engineering issues or problems. PjBL would probably increase the motivation of participating students, as well as providing a sense of satisfaction. PjBL contributes to developing long-term learning skills. Students gain “deep, integrated understanding of content and process” remark Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 276). Teamwork promotes collaboration to solve problems. Working together with other from varied backgrounds, is an important real-work skill. PjBL promotes independent learning and acceptance of responsibility. PjBL further develops data collection and presentation skills.

Frank, M.; Lavy, I. and Elata, D. 2003. Implementing the project-based learning approach in an academic engineering course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 273–288.

The science of training applied to work-integrated learning

The field of training is not rooted in a specific discipline; the research and published articles span a range of backgrounds and perspectives including (but not limited to) education/pedagogy, industrial/organisational psychology, cognitive science, systems management and engineering (Salas, Tannebaum, Kraiger & Smith-Jentsch 2012). They corroborate my personal view that over the past three decades the research and theory of training (as science) made great advancements; “generated empirically driven principles”; with “better, deeper, and more integrated theoretical models prescribing when and how training works”; and “made significant contributions to practice” (p. 77). Salas, Tannebaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch (2012: 74) present the results of a series of meta-analyses they did about published research, which clearly substantiate their assertion that “properly designed training works”.

The work-integrated learning part/s, of cooperative and work-integrated educational programmes, does not just happen; is not spontaneous—as might be assumed; but require specific attention to the design, delivery and implementation in order to ensure effectiveness. Much can be gained from applying the theoretical drivers synthesised by Salas, Tannebaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch (2012) to work-integrated learning. They emphasise “training as a system” (p. 78) and how before, during and after impact on the effectiveness thereof; regardless if it is experiential learning, work-based learning, project-based learning, clinical training or work-experience learning. They summarise (table 2, p. 80) the evidence-based recommendations and best practices for maximising effectiveness. Among others, the importance of undertaking a training needs analysis (TNA) is pointed out. Work-integrated learning, as integral part of the curriculum lends itself more readily to customisation and/or adaptation to changes.

Another before-aspect Salas, Tannebaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch (2012) emphasise is the learning climate. How conducive is each student’s workplace for the required learning to occur? Some aspects of the checklist (table 2, p. 85) of steps to take before training apply.

Many of the issues Salas, Tannebaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch (2012) present as part of during, should be addressed before work-integrated learning commences. The student takes to the workplace learning environment past experiences and personal characteristics that impacts learning, for example:

• Self-efficacy or what the student personally believes about own ability to influence learning outcomes.
• Goal orientation or the mental framework underlying the behaviour of the student in the learning environment. Two contrasting orientations, namely mastery versus performance, result in different approaches and ideally require different learning tools.
• Motivation to learn matters much and can be enhanced by clarification of the purpose of the work-integrated learning, as well as the role the workplace mentor plays.

The second during-aspect, namely instructional strategies and principles, should also be addressed before work-integrated learning commences, as part of the design. Salas, Tannebaum, Kraiger and Smith-Jentsch (2012) clarify instructional strategies as “tools, methods, and content that are combined and integrated to create the delivery approach” (p. 85). Work-integrated learning need proper planning, organisation and structure. Students need to understand the objectives, purpose and the intended outcomes. The scope of the work-integrated learning must to relate to the workplace and the overall curriculum of the qualification. Workplace mentors should provide a relatively safe (to make mistakes) learning environment for students and provide feedback to students on their work and learning. Four aspects of good learning are presented (p. 86) namely, (a) the concepts, facts and information mostly acquired in academic modules; (b) observation in the workplace of the demonstration of the desired performance, cognition and attitudes; (c) own opportunities to try-out and practice; and (d) feedback and remediation where necessary by the workplace mentor. Ideally work-integrated learning should instil in students the ability “to cope with errors strategically and on an emotional level” (p. 86). Self-regulation is another important item in the checklist (table 4, p. 89) of steps to take with regard to during work-integrated learning.

The primary issues pertaining to after work-integrated learning are transfer of the learning acquired, and the evaluation of the work-integrated learning. The importance of debriefing as powerful means for reinforcement of learning; and of reflection on the learning acquired. Table 5, p. 92, provide a checklist of typical steps to take after work-integrated learning.

The article further elaborates about the implications for business leaders and for policy makers. Tables 6 and 7, p. 94 and p. 95 respectively, present key questions business leaders should ask and key questions policy makers should consider. Because evidence suggests that training works, it is argued that training should be viewed as an investment in human capital. Passive investment (e.g. approval of budgets for training) is contrasted to active investment, by being well informed about the training research and science in order to make informed investment decisions. Active investment further implies asking challenging questions, based on knowledge of what impacts training effectiveness, with the view of optimising return of investment.

The article is conclude with pointers about what the future hold for the science of training.

Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Kraiger, K. & Smith-Jentsch, K.A. 2012. The science of training and development in organisations: what matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74-101, June 2012.

Workplace-based mobile-enabled learning is gaining importance

“Work-based mobile learning is increasingly becoming one of the most important means of providing knowledge, skills and competencies to the workforce” reports Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 219). They point out that whereas traditionally on-the-job training had been prevalent, increased access to Internet and enhanced wireless communication resulted in individuals training themselves in any location of their choice.

The rudimentary model of the master-crafts-person teaching one of more apprentices worked well for many centuries. Fast-paced progress; reduced learning time and more complexity with regard to knowledge, skills and competency; resulted in a need for more rapid learning and continuous adaptation to changes.

Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 229) caution those designing and implementing work-based mobile learning to consider adult learning theories such as:

• The experiential learning theory of Charles Rogers (1969) focussing on significant learning only when people actually do things. Cognitive learning according to Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) often represents knowledge of encyclopaedia nature; which become irrelevant if not complemented by affective and psychomotor dimensions. Laird’s (1985) sensory stimulation theory advocates that increased incorporation of the senses in instruction consolidates learning. Sight and sound enhances learning; as does kinaesthetic/tactile or learning-by-doing that involves actual manipulation of objects. Action learning and action research stems from these foundations.
• Adult learners bring past experiences—both positive and negative—into the new learning situation; which suggests that the learning contexts must be non-threatening. Whereas young learners can be coerced by grades; adults adapt to cope with life’s changing demands. Often work-based learning opportunities are pursued in order to take advantage of developmental, advancement or promotional opportunities. Learning therefore takes place because of its relevance to immediate needs.
• Stephen Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis (Krashen, 1987) postulates that when a person is threatened or the what is learned conflicts to the person’s existing views; then the learning would not be as fruitful as when the learning reduces perceived threats or complements existing thinking.
• Malcolm Knowles promoted andragogy as adult learning theory in the 1970ties and gained a substantial following; but not without resistance. Zemke (1984) emphasise four important aspects of andragogy, namely: (a) adults learn best if they perceive immediate value; (b) when included in the organisation more learning takes place and learners are more satisfied; (c) actually doing things (kinaesthetic learning) consolidates theory by pooling the senses; (d) and previous experiences are used to relate current learning to.
• The Characteristics of Adults as Learners (CAL) model of Patricia Cross (1981) takes into consideration both personal (such as physical—eye sight, hearing, reaction time; stage of life; experiences; cognitive development—degree of independence, decision-making, vocabulary and reasoning abilities; as well as psychological, social and cultural variables) and situational characteristics (for example, voluntary versus obligatory learning; full or part-time engagement; etc.).

Four aspects to take into consideration when designing mobile work-based learning (p. 233):

1. Explain why specific matters (for example commands, functions, and operations) are being taught.
2. Make instructions task-orientated and contextualise learning activities within performance requirements.
3. Keep in mind the potential wide variety of learner backgrounds and make provision in instructions for various levels and types of previous experience.
4. Make use of the self-directedness of adults and enable learners to discover things for themselves; but provide guidance and corrective assistance where necessary.

Auer, M.E.; Edwards, A & Zutin, D.G. 2011. Online laboratories in interactive mobile learning environments, pp. 119-248. In N Pachler, C Pimmer & J Seipold (Eds). 2011. Work-based Mobile Learning — concepts and cases. Oxford: Peter Lang.

WIL “is not as intuitive as it may seem”

The 12 points below originates from a summary and explanation by Annie Murphy Paul about a recent report on the science of training. She points out that there are right ways and wrong ways (myths) regarding how to design, deliver, and implement training. I adapted the 12 points to work-integrated learning (WIL):

1. It’s what happens before and after WIL that matters. Universities should clearly communicate to students what the WIL is about and how it relates to curriculum of the qualification and the day one competencies expected from graduates.
2. The WIL guidelines should clearly specify what a student need-to-be master versus learning where and how to find information rather than be expected to retain all information in memory.
3. WIL would be more effective when it’s presented as an opportunity of which the benefits to students are emphasised.
4. Decay of skills acquired during WIL may be reduced by giving students subsequent opportunities to practice the skills and/or refresher orientation upon employment.
5. Workplace mentors could increase the motivation of students by making clear the link between what is being taught during WIL and how it will be used in the careers of students.
6. The best WIL occurs through the practice in the workplace and feedback by workplace mentors — the effectiveness of WIL can be increase by making the process more active and engaging for students.
7. Mentors should be made aware that unstructured practice by students without clear objectives; without relevant stimulation; and without appropriate feedback can teach students wrong lessons. Students “will get the most out of practice when they are provided with constructive and timely feedback that identifies what they may be doing wrong and how to fix it”.
8. Superficial exposure during WIL leads to poor retention and poor transfer; whereas deep learning promotes retention and transfer.
9. There is value—both strategically and emotionally—in teaching students to cope with errors made. Workplace mentors should guide students to correct mistakes made which will help students to understand the task in greater depth and will help them deal with errors on the job.
10. Technology and contemporary gadgetry would not necessary improve WIL. However, if implemented appropriately it may add to the effectiveness of WIL.
11. Left to their own devices, students “may not be knowledgeable or motivated enough to make wise decisions about how and what to learn”, sound guidance is important.
12. The “psychological fidelity—how accurately it evokes the feelings and the responses the worker will have on the job” of simulations is more important than physical fidelity a student will encounter as worker on the job.

Paul, A.M. 2012. Learning on the job: myth vs science (How do we really learn to do our jobs?). A post published 2 July 2012 on Wray Herbert's blog We're only Human.

Salas, E.; Tannenbaum, S.I.; Kraiger, K. & Smith-Jentsch, K.A. 2012. The Science of Training and Development in Organizations: What Matters in Practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2) 74–101.

Are computer games constructive tools to foster learning?

Konstantin Mitgutsch (2012: 572) shares “insights into the experience-based process of learning and its recursive motion, structures, and patterns”—“the recursive process of experiencing unknown situations and of restructuring former experiences”. He starts (p. 571) by asking the blog title question and by indicating it “reaches back to the roots of the institutionalization of education in general”. He continues to indicate that “ludologists, educators, psychologists, anthropologists, and philosophers” in the 18^th and 19^th centuries recognised and promoted the potential of playing. He adds that “players achieve an enormous amount of information through playing digital games”.

Digital games have been capturing academic interest since the early 1980s. Initially the dominant focus of research had been on risks and environmental effects. In contrast the focus of contemporary research shifted to the “positive and beneficial aspects of playing”—“A frequently applied term used to describe learning in games is digital game-based learning (DGBL)” (Mitgutsch, 2012: 572-3). He quotes the Federation of American Scientists (2006: 3) believes that “computer games are a constructive tool to foster learning”:

The success of complex video games demonstrates games can teach higher-order thinking skills such as strategic thinking, interpretative analysis, problem solving, plan formulation and execution, and adaptation to rapid change.

Although the PC-games industry develop and sell games that foster learning, it must be kept in mind that the focus is on profits and market preferences, rather than on an educational rationale. Mitgutsch (2012: 574-5) summarises literature that focus on reasons why computer games engage learners as well as several aspects that support the learning process.

Learning “is often reduced to an act of acquiring” while it is often overlooked “that every learning process starts with a particular experience of something”—people cannot necessary “choose to make a particular experience like” ordering from a catalogue; instead experience happens (Mitgutsch, 2012: 575). John Dewey in 1916 pointed out that learning from experience entails making backward and forward connections between what is done/tried and what is gained as result—it is not a linear act of acquiring; but rather “a circular process of suffering, doing, experimenting, transferring, and playing”. Games offer exploratory territories and therefore serve as powerful learning enablers.

Mitgutsch, K. 2012. Learning through play – a delicate matter: experience-based recursive learning in computer games, Chapter 36, pp. 571 - 584. [Retrieved 25 June 2012 from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h2534141vvm55m32/fulltext.pdf] in J. Fromme & A. Unger (eds). 2012. Computer Games and New Media Cultures—A Handbook of Digital Games Studies. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media. Retrieved 25 June 2012 from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-94-007-2776-2/#section=1083651&page=1

Attributes and learning-styles of students affect their learning

Sidhu (2010: 16) identifies the following attributes that may hinder or improve learning:

• Basic background knowledge of the subject matter / discipline / field of study
• Prior academic performance impacts on a student’s performance
• Degree of exposure to contemporary educational technologies — the use of computer-based learning is enabled if students already acquired PC usage skills
• The impact of the learning styles of students have been extensively researched

Depicted below are Kolb’s as well as Honey and Mumfords learning style models, some of the most well known models:

http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm

http://www.nonformality.org/2006/04/excuse-misuse-or-abuse/

Kolb’s experiential learning styles are in black, Honey and Mumford’s in red.

http://pmj.bmj.com/content/83/982/518.full

http://rphrm.curtin.edu.au/2000/issue2/outcomes.html

Sidhu, M.S. 2010. Technology-assisted problem solving for engineering education: interactive multimedia applications. Hershey: Engineering Science Reference.

Instructional design for simulation

Literally, instructional design means “a set of events that facilitate learning” (instructional) and “a creative model” (design)—it includes a number of systematic processes to plan and create situations and/or events that would enhance the learning of individuals. Underlying instructional design are learning theory paradigms, based on various schools of thought, for example behaviourist—representing those believing that learning results in changed behaviour; cognitive—the proponents who believe adding of new concepts and ideas result in learning; and constructivist—those that believe that “learners construct knowledge for themselves” (Sidhu, 2010: 12-14).

There are hundreds of instructional design models. However, Reigeluth (1999, cited by Sidhu, 2010: 14) indicates that four major characteristics are common to instructional design, namely:

• “Design orientation,
• Identification of methods of instruction and situations,
• Methods of instruction that can be broken into more detail components methods, and
• Choice of Probalistic Methods”

Design theory is important because it renders “a vision of instruction early in the design process”—an ends of “how learners would be different as result of” the learning. The ultimate user plays a significant role, advocates Banathy (1991, cited by Sidhu, 2010: 14) who calls for a “much greater use of the notion of user-design”. Theory further provides guidance to instructional design at three levels according to Reigeluth (1999, cited by Sidhu, 2010: 14 and emphasis added):

• “Methods that best facilitate learning under different situations,
• Learning tool features that best allow an array of alternative methods to be made available to learners, [and]
• Systems features that best allow an instructional design team to design quality learning tools.”

Sidhu (2010: 14-15) prefers the ADDIE Model of design: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation.

Sidhu, M.S. 2010. Technology-assisted problem solving for engineering education: interactive multimedia applications. Hershey: Engineering Science Reference.

It is important that learning on work experience placement is understood

Eames and Cates (2011: 41) point out that there is a scarcity of research concerning cooperative and work-integrated education about “the educational outcomes from, and processes in, work placements”; as well as “understanding about learning in the work placement”. They argue (p. 42) that “understanding how learning occurs” during work-integrated learning placements would help legitimise workplace experience as legitimate aspect of cooperative programmes as educative. There is way too much emphasis on employer ratings and student papers concerning their work-integrated learning placements “in order to award credit”. Too little effort is devoted to “finding out what the students are really learning” from workplace experiences—“credit is not simply given for work experience” but should be given for the “learning [that is] resulting from work experience”. Eames and Cates (2011: 42) therefore consider it important that learning on “work experience [placement] is understood” in order “that appropriate curricula, pedagogy, and assessment can be designed and implemented”.

Eames and Cates (2011: 41) remark that research and development has mainly been pragmatically applied-descriptive and evaluative—what constitutes the successful operation; the outcomes of work placements; career clarification for students; enabling recruitment of candidates perceived suitable; collaboration with work-integrated learning hosts; completion of study-related projects; and attraction of students to programmes.

Eames, C. & Cates, C. 2011. Theories of learning in cooperative and work-integrated education (pp. 41-52). In R.K. Coll & K.E. Zegwaard (Eds.). International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education (2^nd ed.). World Association for Cooperative Education Inc.

Download EamesC+CatesC_Theories_of_learning_in_cooperative+work-integrated_Education

http://www.waceinc.org/handbook_orderform.html

Post-simulation reflection

Margaret Gredler (1992: 141 – 159) emphasises the role of post-simulation activities and the planning thereof. She asserts that simulations are experiential in nature in that participants “step into the assigned roles, accept the responsibilities and constraints and work through the problems and difficulties that arise in the execution of the roles”. To overcome the reality of can’t see the woods for the trees (because of active involvement in the simulation); bring the learning forth; and to maximise the learning; reflection about the simulation is essential.

Gredler (1992) discusses two experiential learning models, namely Kurt Lewin’s (a Gestalt theorist) group-dynamics model and Jean Piaget’s (a Swiss psychologist) cognitive development model.

Jaques (1985, referenced in Gredler) describes the adaptation of Lewin’s ideas in a five-part experiential learning cycle, which upon completion feeds into another cycle.

Piaget postulates that cognitive structures happens through two processes; namely by means of assimilation of new information into the existing to enrich; and by accommodating which can occur in two different ways. The one way of accommodation is modification in order to integrate new information; the other way is through reconstruction to a higher level of thinking.

Post-simulation reflection need to form part of and conclude the simulation. In a distance learning context, this could be achieved through online discussion.

Gredler, M. 1992. Designing and evaluating games and simulations, a process approach. London: Kogan Page.

Jaques, D. 1985. Debriefing, debriefing, 55 – 66. In M van Ments and K Hearndon (eds). Effective use of games and simulations. Loughborough: SAGSET, Loughborough Institute of Technology.

Get education into simulations rather than the opposite

The same probably applies to simulations, namely: “Rather than striving to get games into education, educators should be investigating ways to get education into games.” (Royle, 2008).

Although gamers often claim that playing is educational; gamers concede (laughingly) that much of this learning has little relevance to ordinary life. Teacherised commercial games that embed, add or link educational/curriculum content are questioned. A new genre is emerging characterised by gamelike learning instead of purely entertaining based on the pedagogy of problem-based learning. The real learning does not happen in game; instead players must solve problems to progress through the game; they can only solve a given problem by accumulating the necessary tools and experience in lower levels of the game.

Storytelling is a further potent learning tool, because they enable listeners to make connections between what is said and their own experience—this helps create meaning and can trigger people into action.

Royle, K. 2008. Game-Based Learning: A Different Perspective. Innovate, 4(4), April/May 2008. Retrieved electronically 23 October 2011 from: http://innovateonline.info/pdf/vol4_issue4/Game-Based_Learning-__A_Different_Perspective.pdf

SA Council on Higher Education mixed messages about WIL?

Since 2005 the HEQC published 12 resources as part of its quality of teaching and learning prioritisation. The 12^th HE Monitor, namely Work-integrated learning: good practice guide (August 2011), is intended to assist with regard to programme and curriculum development in the light of adaptation of the HEQF (October 2007). The guide also serves to prompt with regard to the purpose and role of work-integrated learning as means to ensure that graduate are better prepared for the world in which they will work and live. The guide contains 33 international and local case studies to illustrate the theoretical basis.

The term work-integrated learning (WIL) is qualified in the introduction and background chapter as umbrella term for “curricular, pedagogic and assessment practices, across a range of academic disciplines that integrate formal learning and workplace concerns” (CHE, 2011: 4). It is further pointed out that there are many different practices along a continuum; that WIL has always been a distinguishing feature of professional education albeit identified by other terms; and that WIL in a variety of forms is an important part of technical, vocational and professional higher education.

Chapter 2 starts off by differentiating between three interrelated fields, namely the academic field, the educational filed and the professional practice. The building of knowledge, transfer thereof and crossing of knowledge boundaries is briefly explained, as well as the recontextualising of both academic and workplace knowledges.

The third chapter focuses on curriculum design and development for WIL. In addition to recontextualising of both knowledge domains the alignment of workplace and academic interests is touched on. The importance of alignment of outcomes, WIL activities and assessment; as well as design strategies that focus on integration of theory and practice are pointed out. Four curricular modalities are introduced as a WIL typology, namely:

• Work-directed theoretical learning (WDTL)
• Problem-based learning (PBL)
• Project-based learning (PJBL)
• Workplace learning (WPL)

The implications of WIL at the six HEQF levels are addressed in the light of the four modalities above. The discussion is in stark contrast to the gazetted HEQF which emphasises typically inclusion of simulated work experience (SWE) or WIL as part of the Higher and Advanced Certificates and the Diploma. Instead the CHE guide advocates WDTL for the higher or one-year certificate, because of the short duration (p. 23). Similarly for the two-year advanced certificate, because of the short duration, PBL (pp. 23-4). For the diploma, bachelor degree, advanced diploma and postgraduate diploma short placements (WPL) are recommended; and for the professional bachelor, master’s and doctorate PJBL (pp. 24-6).

WDTL generally does not require any special accreditation requirements as it is associated with subsidy systems. However, PBL, PJBL and WPL require special consideration because these modalities require additional funding for the resources that are necessary. The difficulty of linking WPL to credit points and notional hours of learning (p. 28), because of learning in the workplace differing substantially, is emphasised. The third chapter is concluded with discussion of recognition of prior learning (RPL) in a WIL curriculum.

Chapter 4 start off with a central concern about teaching for transfer and in particular the application of academic knowledge. The academic and workplace collaboration with regard to the four modalities are addressed.

Chapter 5 addresses assessment of and for WIL. The principles of appropriateness, farness, transparency, formative and summative, validity, authenticity and consistency are presented. The importance of both formative (assessment for learning) and summative are highlighted; followed by development of assessment tasks; assessment criteria; and the assessment of the four modalities.

In chapter 6 the importance of partnerships for WIL are introduced and then partnership for the four modalities elaborated on. Managing partnerships with regard to initiating, implementing, maintaining, reflection on and evaluation of are addressed.

The final chapter (7) is devoted to the management of WIL. Managing at institutional level as well as departmental level with regard to the four modalities are discussed. The chapter is concluded with managing the financial, staff and physical resources.

After the guide’s references a glossary of terms (pp. 71-78) and the acronyms used follow. Each of the 38 terms are described in various depth and for most additional information hyperlinked.

The criteria pertaining to WIL or rather work-based learning (WBL) espoused in the HEQC’s criteria for institutional audits (2004a) and programme accreditation (2004b) are not specifically referred to, namely:

• Effective management and coordination, with responsibilities and lines of accountability clearly allocated.
• Adequate infrastructure provided.
• Learning contracts or agreements, clarifying the objectives and outcomes of the learning process, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the institution, students, mentors and employers involved.
• Regular and effective communication between the various parties involved.
• Regular and systematic recording and monitoring of progress of the student’s learning experience.
• Mentoring that enables the student to recognise strengths and weaknesses; to develop existing and new abilities; and to gain knowledge of work practices.
• Academic as well as workplace based assessment.

Council on Higher Education (CHE), Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC). 2004a. Criteria for Institutional Audits. Pretoria: Compress. Electronically available from: http://www.che.ac.za/documents/d000061/CHE_Institutional-Audit-Criteria_June2004.pdf

Council on Higher Education (CHE), Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC). 2004b. Criteria for Programme Accreditation. Pretoria. Electronically available from: http://www.che.ac.za/documents/d000084/CHE_accreditation_criteria_Nov2004.pdf

Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2011. Work-integrated learning: good practice guide. HE Monitor No 12. Pretoria. Electronically accessed 5 September 2011 from: http://www.che.ac.za/documents/d000217/Higher_Education_Monitor_12.pdf

South Africa. 2007. Higher Education Qualifications Framework. Department of Education Government Notice No 928, gazetted (No. 30353) 5 October 2007. http://www.che.ac.za/documents/d000148/Higher_Education_Qualifications_Framework_Oct2007.pdf

Cottage industry culture vs managed in a community of practice

Effective work-integrated learning is defined by Orrell (2004) as programs distinguished by partnerships among diverse groupings, namely employers, academia, students, higher education managers, professional bodies and placement agencies or careers offices. Continued success is dependent upon recognition of all the involved parties, clear agreements between parties and attainment of explicit mutual benefits. It has been found that if the benefit fails for a party the overall partnership effectiveness comes to an end. It has further been find that if employers (host organizations) are involved from the initial design of a program and are committed to student learning, such programs are most effective, states Orrell (2004).

Cooper, Orrell and Bowden (2010: 21-24) and Orrell (2004) differentiates between the old culture — Cottage Industry and the new culture — a balance of a managed approach negotiated and advised by an informed and valued community of practice.

• The Cottage Industry era is typified largely by voluntary, atomistic and learnt ‘on the job’ work placement coordinators. These individuals largely operated in isolation and their dedication costly to their personal academic career advancement. The ethos of work-integrated learning programs and the relationships between the university and the host organizations of students were typified a value-adding and students regarded as workers or observers.
• The new managed culture within a community of practice aspires to more holistic engagement, is more authentic and students legitimized as learners. Partnerships with host organizations are intentionally fostered and systematically supported by institutional policies. Placement coordinators ensure educational quality. Work-integrated learning is institutionally supported and effective practice articulated.

Cooper, L., Orrell, J & Bowden, M. (2010).Work Integrated Learning: A Guide to Effective Practice. London: Routledge.

Orrell, J. 2004. Work-integrated learning programmes: Management and educational quality. In the proceedings of t he Australian Universities Quality Forum 2004. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from https://tls.vu.edu.au/vucollege/LiWC/resources/Orrell.pdf

Work-integrated learning process model

Co-authors, Estelle van Rensburg and Riana Rheeder, are of opinion that the model sketched below extends well beyond curriculum design and learning development. The model indeed reflects a comprehensive work-integrated learning process; including planning of a programme, design, development, implementation, management and quality assurance.

 

Phase A: The gathering of data for the design/revision of a programme and for future placements of students for prerequisite work-integrated learning (WiL)

The data gathering involves a comprehensive context analysis of all factors that may influence the programme, which among others include the appropriate statutory, professional and/or vocational bodies. A clear statement of the desired knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSA) of graduates is the aim of the needs analysis and/or survey of the authentic industry needs. The following are taken into consideration:

• The statutory context, e.g. legislation and regulations
• Policies
• Observation of appropriate protocol and level/s of liaison
• Day 1 competencies expected by industry from graduates
• Benchmarking against international and local best practices and standards
• Identification of potential hosts employers of students that need to complete WiL

Phase B: Programme design, including work-integrated learning module/s design (or redesign)

1.         Programme design:

• Project plan for the programme as a whole
• Contextual analysis—SKAs / Day 1 competencies / overarching core ideas / main themes
• Curriculum information—outcomes, assessment criteria, etc.
• Coherent programme structure—"design down"
• Identify which part/s only or best learned through real-life work experience or service learning?
• General assessment; learning & teaching; and quality assurance approach
• Templates of standard documents used at the educational institution / in country

2.         Module Design:

• Project plan for each module of the programme
• Contextual analysis—Day 1 module competency, etc.
• Curriculum information—outcomes, assessment criteria, module form, etc.
• Module assessment; learning & teaching (including mentoring); quality assurance (including monitoring).
• Industry/workplace mentors (assessment & training of mentors)
• Develop formal agreements—including commitment from mentors (and training)
• Detailed assessment plan (e.g. portfolio of evidence requirements/logbook); learning & teaching resources (WiL guidelines for students, mentor materials/guidelines).
• Posing the appropriate questions that would unlock learning from experience
• Developing resources
• Develop manuals for industry assessors

 Phase C: Pre-registration and registration

The emphasis of this phase is on alerting students upfront about compulsory WiL; the nature thereof; enabling the recognition of prior learning (RPL) where appropriate or feasible; and identification of students in need of placements for WiL.

Phase D: Securing placements of students for compulsory WiL and finalising arrangements with hosting employers

This phase needs proper structure and a database listing host organisations and the available placement opportunities. Identification of host employers and the building of partnerships should be driven by the academic department.

Phase E: Implementing the WiL module/s — learning and assessment in the workplace

Successful implementation comprises several elements:

• Criteria to be complied with in order to be a mentor, e.g. appropriate registration with professional/statutory body.
• Formalised mentorship agreement, including incentives (e.g. CPD points for mentoring new entrants) and/or remuneration.
• Training of mentors on, among others, assessment through video conferencing, online or workshops.
• An assigned mentor (workplace supervisor) and orientation of students (house rules / code of conduct).
• Cost implications of preventative inoculations (e.g. aspects of animal health WiL) and potential liabilities.
• Professional guidance (spectrum of soft skills); mentor training and mentor guidelines.
• Mentor involvement in assessments and student’s presentation of completed project and/or portfolio of evidence.
• Proper IT and administrative support in College for tracking of students.
• WiL coordinator per department.
• Allocation of students to lecturers.
• Monitoring of students and employers.
• Conditions and criteria with regard to RPL.

 Phase F: Quality assurance of WiL in the programme

The sixth phase feeds back into the first phase, enabling continuous revision and improvement.

Van Rensburg, E., Rheeder, R. & Groenewald, T. 2011.

Five stages of an internship

The Sweitzer & King (2004) developmental stages of an internship reminds to some extend about the Elisabeth Kübler-Ross (1969) five stages of grief model for death and bereavement counselling, personal change and trauma. The developmental stages of an internship are:

1. Anticipation
2. Disillusionment
3. Confrontation
4. Competence
5. Culmination

Sweitzer, H.F. & King, M.A. 2004. The successful internship—transformation and empowerment in experiential learning, 2^nd edition. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole—Thompson Learning

Raw learning materials and learning tools

Sweitzer & King (2004:4-5) differentiates between classroom and internship learning with regard to two dimensions. I am adapting their description to distance education:

	Distance theoretical learning	Internship learning
The raw learning materials	Study guides, reading, tutorial letters, exercises, on-line discussions & tutorial sessions	Intellectual, physical and human experimental interactions—full of feelings and struggles. These emotions are not just a backdrop to the real-work experience, but every bit as real and important. Mastery of psyco-motor skills may also apply.
The learning tools	Memorise, analyse, synthesise and evaluate.	Experience must be processed and organised; reflective dialogue with self and others is a primary tool for learning; and relationships are the medium of internship.

Please note that Sweitzer & King (2004:3) use the internship to refer to a range terms of that entail an academic credit for experiences, for example field work/experience, cooperative/field education and practicum (terms they indicate no consensus exists on about the meaning).

Sweitzer & King (2004:6-7) further clarify the following terms (Download Sweitzer+King-terms):

• Placement or site—refers to the place where the student is working (gaining experience).
• Intern—refers to the student or volunteer who is working.
• Supervisor—person assigned by the placement site to mentor the student.
• Instructor—the academic staff member that oversees the student's placement.
• Coworker—refers to other people working at the placement.

Sweitzer, H.F. & King, M.A. 2004. The successful internship—transformation and empowerment in experiential learning, 2^nd edition. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole—Thompson Learning.

Commentary e-mailed by a peer:

"Thomas, my comments:

Perhaps consideration be given to differentiate between and internship and experiential learning/work integrated learning. Internship specifically refers to students after a qualification has been achieved, whilst experiential learning/WIL is while the student is busy with its qualification.

The principle of experiential learning applies to both however there might be a difference. I do recognize a difference since the one is part of a qualification and the students is perhaps less mature than a graduate (intern) who is more mature and is a graduate. Time is an important factor. Maturity in terms of cognitive, emotional, social skills  etc

Wrt internship, I would recommend the integration of the theories of learning which will explain many of the emotional, social and cognitive processes of the learner, in terms of EL/WIL which can be related to an intern as well.

Wrt Terminology:  

I prefer using a workstation instead of a placement site,

Instructor I am a bit uncomfortable with, I would rather use a term like a supervisor or mentor.

Hope this was of value Thomas!

Marius"