Learning in vivo

A taxonomy of undergraduate work-integrated learning practices

The constructed taxonomy (Figure 1 below) is derived from examples and suggestions obtained from four stakeholder groups, say Neall, Cooney and Oppert (2022: 518). The taxonomy maps a range of practices in accordance two axes (or principles for effectiveness); namely vertically ‘task authenticity’ (how closely a task resembles professional level challenges) and horizontally ‘proximity to industry’ (how closely the context resembles a professional environment). The mapped practices may “be conducted virtually, practically and on an individual or group level depending on the resources available”. The four main stakeholder groups include (a) psychology graduates, (b) industry leaders, (c) higher education work-integrated learning staff, and (d) psychology accreditation council staff. The aim of the research had been to better support undergraduate psychology students to successfully enter into meaningful employment.

A cohort of Australian psychology graduates were struggling to make successful transitions to field-specific employment. Although there exists a growing demand for mental health/psychological support, there is also a deficit of appropriately trained professionals. These psychology graduates are a unique allied health cohort in that the undergraduate programme includes understanding of human physical and emotional behaviour and cognition. Graduates may enter a wide range of industry sectors, such as promotion of health, marketing, human resources, coaching, policy making, and community services. However, graduates often struggle to gain meaningful employment. Neall, Cooney and Oppert (2022: 509) believe that a “systematic integration of authentic WIL [work-integrated learning] into undergraduate psychology degrees may offset this lack of industry exposure”. They indicate that WIL has proven to develop of a range of professional and personal outcomes, including increased employability and work readiness through theory-to-practice application and professional skill development, among others.

Work-integrated learning (WIL) encapsulates a wide range of practice-based and experiential learning models and modes, such as work-based learning, project-based work, service learning, volunteering, internships, clinical placements, simulations, fieldwork, and practicums. The quality of WIL is dependent on robust industry partnerships, adequate preparation, active and authentic engagement, sound supervision, feedback, debriefing of students in order to improve work readiness in students.

Neall, A.M., Cooney, O. & Oppert, M.L. (2022). Enhancing employment outcomes for psychology graduates: Developing a taxonomy of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 23(4), 509-525. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_23_4_509_525.pdf

What competences; which experiences; and feasibility?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does quality work-integrated learning entail?

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

an educational approach that uses relevant work-based experiences to allow students to integrate theory with the meaningful practice of work as an intentional component of the curriculum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project based learning (PJBL) as per the SA Council on Higher Education

The CHE’s Good Practice Guide (2011, 4) on WIL advocates the “fostering [of] university learning that is less didactic and more situated, participative, and ‘real world’ oriented”. The integration of theory and practice may occur through a varied range of approaches, such as formal or informal work placements, “action-learning, apprenticeships, cooperative education, experiential learning, inquiry learning, inter-professional learning, practicum placements, problem-based learning, project-based learning, scenario learning, service-learning, team-based learning, virtual or simulated WIL learning, work-based learning, work experience, workplace learning” (emphasis added). An underlying commonality—not restricted to placements—is the alignment of academic and workplace practices for the mutual benefit of students and workplaces.

The CHE’s Good Practice Guide (2011, 18) qualifies that “project-based learning (PJBL) involves learning through projects”. These projects could either be ‘real’ or simulated. ‘Real’ projects are undertaken in a workplace and generally involve “elements of research and the supervision by both a university teacher and workplace supervisor or mentor”. Projects “are a means of engaging students in complex, work-related issues, through which they develop and transfer skills and knowledge”. It is important to point out that “projects do not always lend themselves to ‘coverage’ of all outcomes in a curriculum. This means selecting those topics that reflect the most important ideas and concepts in the curriculum and incorporating those topics into projects.”

The application of project-based learning is discussed at the various HEQF levels, namely:

For level 5, the one-year certificate (2011, 23), it is not recommended because “literature recommends that PJBL components be approximately one semester in duration”.

For level 6, the two-year advanced certificate (2011, 24), only short focussed projects.

For level 7, the three-year diploma/Bachelor’s degree (2011, 24), “A focused project, such as a service learning project, would be appropriate at the third year level, provided that there are adequate resources for such a project – in particular a transport budget, time allocation, and formal agreements with community partners and service providers” (emphasis added).

For level 8, the four-year professional Bachelor’s degree (2011, 25), the same condition regarding adequate resources is expressed, however “formal agreements with workplaces, the provision of mentors/coaches” is mentioned. Further stated that “PJBL is recommended in the third and fourth year” because “PJBL can contribute significantly to student learning”, “when the students are more able to learn from complex situations, have near-professional level skills, and are thus able to contribute to problem solving or innovation in a workplace in a meaningful way.”

For level 9, the Master’s degree (2011, 25), the theses are generally of an applied nature, meaning PJBL research “in which an intervention or product is designed, implemented, studied, and evaluated” could be ideal.

For level 10, the Doctoral degree (2011, 25), the same applies as for level 9 but “with particular emphasis on the contribution to knowledge”.

The engagement of students in PJBL teaches such “students complex processes and procedures such as planning, managing and communicating”. However, the CHE’s Good Practice Guide (2011, 36) cautions about the alignment of this pedagogical approach that the accomplishment “requires time for both teachers and students to master the strategies necessary for successful PJBL”. The reason is that “project work involves many different types of projects within the framework of a single subject it can be demanding on staff resources”.

The CHE’s Good Practice Guide (2011, 43) regards project-based learning as ‘high stakes’ assessment, because it often counts proportionately more marks than theoretical modules. Historically students kept “logbooks or build portfolios to show their experience and the skills development”. However, “these paper-based forms of assessment are” considered “inadequate in terms of demonstrating students’ mastery of complex practice”. The CHE’s Good Practice Guide (2011, 43-44) presents an example of video-diaries used rather than paper-based assessment. It further (p. 48) points out that “clarity on the assessment process in project work is probably more important than with traditional programmes because of the demands it makes on academic staff.”

The CHE’s Good Practice Guide (2011, 54-55) point out that project-based learning “has considerable potential for advanced student learning and for solving ‘real life’ problems in workplaces.” However, it also cautions that “there are extensive resources [needed] for initiating, building and maintaining community-based partnerships in the CHE guide on Service-learning in the curriculum (2006)” for enabling students to “assist a community in need, using knowledge and skills gained in their course of study”. Similarly, is the “support of university teachers” necessary to “address a real workplace problems”. The CHE’s Good Practice Guide (2011, 54-55) differentiates the roles of the internal/academic partners and the external/professional partners with regard to project-based learning. The lecturer “takes on the role of a professional consultant”; “usually plays a significant role in addressing the workplace problem or need” and “should model professional conduct”. The “students will take on a professional identity, which is an important aspect of their development as they learn to deal with clients in a professional manner”. The “workplace partners play a major role” in identifying “a particular need or area of work that requires development and, in collaboration with the academic partners, define and shape the work so that there is a match between workplace requirements and the academic programme”.

The academia/lecturers’ role	The workplace professionals role
Assume a professional identity,   and explain issues in professionalism Act as consultants Supervise the students engaged   in the project Ensure that the students meet   regularly with their ‘clients’ Monitor the progress of the   project Assess the final product or   process, in collaboration with the professional partner	Invite students to solve an   authentic workplace problem Provide students with sufficient   orientation to the workplace and the particular problem Arrange adequate time for   students to consult with workplace supervisors or mentors Assist with the assessment of   the final product or process, in collaboration with the academic partner

The CHE’s Good Practice Guide (2011, 61) points out that the management of project-based learning requires “considerable planning, as well as relationship building with workplace partners.” It recommends formalising the partnerships with workplaces by entering into a memorandum of Understanding which clarifies the respective roles and responsibilities of academia, the workplace partners and of students, but also address health and safety issues.

The workplace may be involved with the selection of students, their orientation to the workplace in general as well as to the specific project, etc. It is important that full records are kept, including workplace and contact person details, student lists (which projects they are involved with, contact details, etc.). Data capturing and management of the database of students and workplace would probably be done by administrative staff, but should be overseen by the academic manager or university teacher who has the main responsibility for the project. PJBL involves liaising with workplaces; this might include attending meetings between students and their ‘clients’ (although this could be delegated to tutors or mentors). Students’ progress on their projects should be monitored, regular feedback given, and their work should be formally assessed, usually in collaboration with workplace partners.

The CHE’s Good Practice Guide (2011, 61) admits that “creating and managing authentic opportunities for projects in a real work context is a time consuming task and opportunities for student work placements might be limited in particular fields.” It therefore state that project-based learning is often simulated “at the university in order to enable students to experience some aspects of the workplace within an educational framework.”

Republic of South Africa. Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2011. Work-Integrated Learning: Good Practice Guide. Higher Education Monitor 12, August 2011. Pretora: IeCommunications. http://cctprojects.co.za/wbeproject/documents/WIL/Higher_Education_Monitor_12.pdf or http://digitalknowledge.cput.ac.za/handle/11189/5205

What are experiences that combine work experiences with formal education called?

This question is posed and a range of 11 alternative names outlined, as well as six types of delivery programmes, by Gardener and Barkus (2014).

The range of alternative names developed include:

1. Work-integrated learning (WIL)
2. Work-based learning
3. Cooperative and work-integrated education (CWIE)
4. Vocational education and training
5. Career and technical education (CTE)
6. Work placement
7. Project-based learning
8. Experiential education
9. Experiential learning
10. Professional development
11. Community/civic engagement

Range of programmes designed to deliver work-education experiences:

1. Cooperative education
2. Internships
3. Externships
4. Apprenticeships
5. Practicum
6. Service learning

Strange that clinical training is not mentioned?

Gardner, P. & Bartkus, K.R. 2014. What's in a name? A reference guide to work-education experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 37-54.

Three main categories of curriculum-related work experience

Work experience can take a variety of forms, say Little et al (2001) and identified three main categories (Work Experience Group, 2002: 23), namely:

1. Organised work experience as part of a programme of study
2. Organised work experience external to a programme of study
3. Ad hoc work experience external to a programme of study.

Work experience could be embedded in the curriculum; for example, experience (perhaps project-linked) that is assessed and accredited; or part-time vacation, term-time paid, and voluntary work that students are increasingly undertaking.

Little, B., Moon, S., Pierce, D., Harvey, L. & Marlow-Hayne, N. 2001. Nature and extent of undergraduates’ work experience. Centre for Higher Education Research and Information. Electronically accessed 9 November 2013 from http://asetonline.org/PDFs/Nature%20and%20Extent%20of%20Work%20Experience.pdf

Work Experience Group. 2002. Report to the Department for Education and Skills. Nottingham: DfES Publications. Electronically accessed 9 November 2013 from http://www.asetonline.org/documents/WRLR.pdf

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.

Drafting experiential education procedures for a university

Those who have been involved in a policy and/or procedure creation process at a university will know it is not an easy task. Substantial literature reviews (which I blogged about during the recent past) that informed a first draft had been undertaken. This draft (Download Procedural Manual on Experiential Learning) has been distributed by e-mail to key role players within the university for critique and comment. The commentary received has been incorporated and a second draft made institutionally available on Intranet and called for commentary through the university's daily e-news mail (Download 2nd Draft of Procedural Manual on Experiential Learning).

At this point a meeting with a senior educational-support line manager resulted in further review and supplementation. A third draft -- Download 3rd Draft of Procedural Manual on Experiential Learning has been produced, which served as discussion document with several key stakeholders. Following thorough consultation and incorporation of input, contributions, commentary, critique and recommended structural changes the process has since arrived at a sixth draft -- Download 6th draft towards a Procedural Manual on Experiential Learning. The sixth draft got formally tabled at a committee within the structure and accepted in principle - subject to a few changes. This new version (Download Procedural Manual on Experiential Learning DRAFT 2-1 - apologies for the hyperlinks to Intranet pages that readers would not have access to) is now the official 2nd draft, for which a powerpoint presentation (Download Procedural Manual on Experiential Learning) had been prepared in order to present it at a next level internal committee.

Ultimately a Procedural Manual for Experiential Learning had been presented to Senate 13 June 2012 and approved, whereafter it was placed on Intranet with the University Council approved Policy for Experiential Learning.

Semester in-industry learning industry affiliates model

The semester-in-industry model is, according to Edwards (2007) a characteristic of the Australian undergraduate engineering work-integrated learning industry affiliates program. Engineers Australia, the Australian engineering accrediting body, advocates that a key differentiating element of a professional engineering degree from an applied science degree is exposure through work-practice. The industry affiliates program entail students work on a joint industry-university supervised project during the first semester of the final year. Edwards (2007) summarizes the roles and responsibilities of the three partners to the industry affiliates program as follow:

• The industry partner provides the resources for the project; technical supervision for the student; and a suitable workplace for the student similar to that provided for commencing engineers. Industry partners are not expected to pay students.
• The aim is to integrate the student into the professional culture of organization. The student manages the project and adheres to the dress and attendance standards of the industry partner.
• The university selects suitable projects (in consultation with industry partners); help match students to projects; and provides academic supervision of students by visiting student in industry placement to ensure the meeting of requirements.

 The schedule of a typical industry affiliates program model is as follow (Edwards 2007):

October (of year before)	Briefing of students and preparation of CVs
November	List of project topics released and student apply
December to January	Students interviewed and selected for projects
February	Pre-industry workshops; agreements signed between industry partner and student; and student prepares project milestones
February to June	Industry experience by executing an assigned project and regular monitoring of project plan by industry and university
June	Exhibition of projects and submission of thesis

Work-integrated Learning (WiL) is a term used by many Australian universities and internationally to refer to activities that integrate the work (or industry) experience with formal studies. Edwards (2007) points out that it can take multiple forms, such as periods of work experience, internships, site visits, industry based projects, case studies using industry experience, having industry experts provide guest lectures, etc.

Edwards, D. 2007. Integrating Work Integrated Learning. Presented at the International Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007, September 3 – 7, Coimbra, Portugal. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http://www.ineer.org/Events/ICEE2007/papers/226.pdf   

Learning in Work and the Community (LiWC)

Learning in the Workplace and Community (LiWC) is, according to Victoria University, "an umbrella term that encompasses the many models and integrated approaches to teaching, learning and assessment that involve learning in and through the workplace and community. These LiWC models and approaches may include but are not limited to, projects in a workplace, practical, co-operative and clinical placements, fieldwork, simulated learning environments, apprenticeships, traineeships or internships and enterprise initiatives."

Learning through work facilitated online

Sara Bosley and David Young (2006: 357) remark that "LtW is designed for people who are in work and wish to study part-time for a full HE award or credit towards one". Their paper considers the two-way, one-to-one online dialogue between student and tutor. They mention the following five-category method of content analysis:

1. Participative - this category consider the number of messages and exchange of statements
2. Social - these are unrelated statements to the formal content, but necessary greetings and include expressions of feelings
3. Interactive - these are chained messages with regard to the contributions of other
4. Cognitive - this category comprise those knowledge related online learning processes such as asking questions, drawing inferences and presenting hypotheses
5. Meta-cognitive - these are skills and knowledge pertaining to the learning process itself

Bosley and Young (356) further present four online tutor roles, namely:

• Pedagogical - this roles involves questioning and feedback or advice
• Managerial - such as the coordination of assignments
• Social - spicing with humour, offering empathy and meta-cognition interactions
• Technical - this role entail user assistance

In addition to these online tutor roles Bosley and Young mention the importance of motivation, the facilitating of group interaction and encouraging online participation. They observe that there are five stages through which an online group need to progress in order to achieve a high-level of learning:

1. central are access and motivation of learners
2. socialisation online
3. information
4. knowledge construction
5. development

Fostering of a culture of enquiry is a important aspect of e-teaching. Little and Whitelock (in Bosley & Young) mention technical, administrative, organisational, supportive, encouraging and community-building roles.

Bosley and Young also highlight two key components of LtW, namely individual leaning contracting (ILC) and work-based projects.

Source

Bosley, S. & Young, D. 2006. Online learning dialogues in learning through work. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(6), 355-366