Learning in vivo

Call for more dialogue between universities and employers

Given the context of the dire need to improve education and to increase job opportunities for youth the, Catherine Wijnberg (2013)—the director and founder of Fetola, urges that the starting point is to collaborate—“to work together”. She specifies two prerequisites:

1. For educational institutions to engage in more dialogue with their ultimate clients, the employers.
2. For graduates to better match the needs of business.

The Accreditation Council for Cooperative Education (ACCE), established in 1998—emphasises employer involvement as an important attribute. Sandra Kerka (1999, p. 3) advocates more than dialogue between, but that partnerships should be grown into supportive relationships where “employer support does not have to be repeatedly obtained and there are clearly understood long-term expectations”. A notion reiterated by Reuss (2001) who declares partnerships are a key component to success. Orrell (2004) differentiates between the typical cottage industry and new managed culture within a community of practice. The latter characterised by partnerships among for example, employers, academia, students, higher education managers, professional bodies and placement agencies or careers offices. She emphasises that continued success is dependent upon recognition of all the involved parties; dependent upon clear agreements between parties; and attainment of explicit mutual benefits for all. She also cautions that if the benefits fail for any one party the overall partnership effectiveness is compromised. Thelme Janse van Rensburg (2012: 25) emphasises networking, and in particular the pursuing of online communication. The metaphor of rhizomatous propagation further serves as inspiration in this regard.

Accreditation Council for Cooperative Education. n.d. College and university program attributes. Retrieved May 6, 2013 from http://www.co-opaccreditation.org/attributes.htm

Janse van Rensburg, T. 2012. Revitalise your business. Professional Beauty, September 2012, 25-28.

Kerka, S. 1999. New directions for cooperative education. Eric Clearinghouse on adult career and vocational education, Columbus, OH. Eric Digest No 209. Retrieved April 25, 2002 from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed434245.html

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

Reuss, P.B. 2001. Students reap the benefits from faculty-employer connection. Journal of Career Planning & Employment, 61(3), 37-39.

Wijnberg, C. 2013. Small business finds Setas wanting [Download Small_business_finds_Setas_wanting_Catherine_Wijnberg_MG_3-9May]. Education column. Mail & Guardian, 3 to 9 May 2013, 36.

Regulations about accreditation of Nursing Education Institutions

The gazetted regulations pertaining to the accreditation and auditing of South African nursing education institutions are worth noting. The Minister of Health, after consultation of the South African Nursing Council (SANC)—the relevant statutory body— made regulations in accordance to §58(1)(g) of the Nursing Act (Act No 33 of 1995).

Of specific interest are the definitions of, among others:

• accreditation, which “means certification of an institution for a specific period, recognising it as a nursing education institution with the capacity to offer a prescribed nursing programme, upon compliance with the Council’s prescribed accreditation requirements, criteria and standards for nursing education and training;” (emphasis added)
• audit, which “means the process of systematic scrutiny of a quality management system carried out by an audit team in order to determine whether the institution meets the Council’s prescribed accreditation requirements, criteria and standards for nursing education and training;”
• governance, which “means the system by which a nursing education institution is directed and controlled. It is concerned with systems, controls, accountabilities and decision-making at the highest level of the nursing education institution;”
• learning site, which “means the accredited physical location where education facilities are available for delivery of education and training of learners;”

The gazetted regulations further includes several other definitions of terminology such as those already mentioned, as well as audit / focus visit; auditor; conditional / full / institutional /programme accreditation; criteria; de-accreditation; institutional portfolio; institutional self-assessment; and standards.

The regulations further deal with issues such as conditions and requirements for accreditation; the accreditation process; the submission of application for accreditation and review; the extension of accreditation scope; the audit visit, decision and issue of certificate; re-accreditation of full and conational accreditation and de-accreditation; fees payable; the appeal process; monitoring; as well as transitional provisions, application of these regulations and repeal.

Nursing Act: Regulations: Accreditation of institutions as nursing education institutions, (G 36234, RG 9926, GoN 173), 8 March 2013

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.

Quality assurance of simulations

The assessment of the quality of simulations, Jones (1995) observes, entails the conceptual judging of three notions:

• Consistency — is the simulation consistent within itself?
• Balance — is it balanced or does it allow for passive observation?
• Plausibility — is the scenario/situation (such-and-such) plausible?

The three concepts tend to fuse in that what may be implausible also tend to be inconsistent and as result lack balance.

Plausibility does not equate to “does the simulation imitate real life?” — Simulations are not meant to be imitations or simplifications of real-life. However, simulations allow for analogies, metaphors and upside-down realities/reversed positions. Plausibility does not restrict roles to being human.

Jones (1995: 62) caution designers about inconsistency as result of ‘author-muddling’. Often designers ‘improve’ simulations after try-out for publication purposes; assuming the final version is better. However, alterations may cause imbalances, which may impact on plausibility.

Jones, K. 1995. Simulations, a handbook for teachers and trainers. 3^rd edition. London: Kogan Page.

Where to start procedures for cooperative and work-integrated education?

At collaboration! CWIE is about cooperative education and about integrating work in education. An educational institution cannot offer CWIE programmes in isolation. Partnerships/collaboration is essential.

Internationally, it is considered essential to work according to unambiguous standard operating procedures (SOPs) to maintain quality. A SOP is a “written procedure prescribed for repetitive use as a practice, in accordance with agreed upon specifications aimed at obtaining a desired outcome”.

Why integrate work experience in a learning programme? The South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) defines a learning programme as “the sequential learning activities, associated with curriculum implementation, leading to the achievement of a particular qualification or part qualification”. The decision to include work experience in a learning programme is a curriculum decision—where curriculum “refers to all of the teaching and learning opportunities that take place in learning institutions including:

• purpose and values of the learning
• learning outcomes
• content, activities, methods, media
• teaching, learning strategies
• forms of assessment
• evaluation of delivery, moderation”

If workplace experience is considered necessary it is included. But who decided? Stakeholder representation in the decision making is essential for determining fitness of purpose. However, unless the perceived relevant workplace experience can be adequately replicated within the teaching delivery, partnerships with sufficient stakeholder hosts are an undeniable necessity.

The starting point for any qualification therefore is adequate stakeholder representation. If during such stakeholder deliberations about the curriculum of the qualification indicate that inclusion workplace learning is regarded necessary, then shared responsibility and stakeholder partnerships become a condition of the learning programme. This is how cooperative work-integrated education become part of the teaching strategy.

It is further important that the educational institution nurture and expand the stakeholder involvement and establish sufficient partnerships to have sufficient hosting opportunities for the credit-bearing curriculum part work experience.

The nature of the work experience; the learning content thereof; how the learning would be acquired; the methods of accumulation of evidence of such learning; and the assessment thereof forms part of the teaching and learning development that flows from the curriculum decision.

The methods of maintaining communication with stakeholders; the identification of students in need of placement; the facilitation of the selection by organisations as to which student/s will be hosted; the preparation of students for such selection; the placement procedures and contracting with host organisations; the monitoring of the required workplace experience and monitoring of the mentoring of the learning; the monitoring of formative assessment and the summative assessment of accomplishment; would all form part of the SOPs.

Quality imperatives versus funding: A case of filial cannibalism in South African Higher Education?

I presented this paper at the 15th Annual International Education Association of South Africa (IEASA) conference on Friday afternoon 2 September 2011. The presentation contains my own views, not those of any institution.

Download Quality imperatives versus funding - A case of filial cannibalism in South African Higher Education? - PowerPoint presentation

Download Quality imperatives versus funding-A case of filial cannibalism in South African Higher Education? - Paper for presentation

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).

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.

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

A systemic enabling environment for successful work-integrated learning

Distance education (DE) and work-integrated learning (WiL) appear to be incompatible to the minds of some higher education (HE) open distance learning (ODL) purists. Yet, WiL is supposed to occur in authentic learning spaces, for example the appropriate work-place.

The Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) of the South African Council for Higher Education (CHE) specifies imperatives, which might be foreign to DE academics that are used to purely theoretical teaching and that do not want to deviate from set resourcing models. However, the imperatives are not much different from those recommended for service learning (as a form of community engagement and outreach). Download Extract_Good_Practice_Guide+Self_Evaluation

One of the nine critical success factors the CHE highlights at module level is reciprocity, which entail a state of mutual exchange. A well coordinated collaborative effort, with clarity of roles and databases, are necessary in order to succeed with regard to the obligation of a higher education institutions (HEIs) to place students that need WiL as part of the qualification/programme registered for. Now reciprocity is a foreign concept for an advocate of academic freedom, which in an era of stake holder accountability got replaced by evidence of adequate consultation before the introduction of or changes to a qualification is approved by the CHE.

The people of the ancient world considered the universe to be constructed from the five elements of Earth, Water, Air, and Fire, and Sky. During the past week a colleague sketched—illustrated below—her vision with regard to a WiL enabling environment, comprising fundamentally five elements with interaction in-between. Another colleague immediately picked up on the systemic nature. While looking on Internet for an illustration of five elements interacting, I came across the traditional Chinese philosophy of five elements; as well as the classical Greek five elements, Hinduism (Tattva), Buddhism (Mahābhūta), Japanese (Godai), Chinese (Wu Xing), Modern and Neo-paganism — fascinating!

We have scheduled a workshop to engage with the five fundamental elements, in order to produce a Procedural Manual on Experiential Learning, is a means towards a systemic enabling environment for successful WiL. Here are some of the triggers already generated.

Student — What is needed in order to enable students to successfully complete their WiL? For example:

• The students in need of WiL placements need to be known
• Unisa need to be know when and where such students are likely to be required to do their WiL
• Students need to know when first registering for a programme/qualification that contains one or more WiL modules that they would be required to complete such and what is involved
• Students need clear guidelines of what learning is required and what learning evidence must be submitted, e.g. portfolio or logbook.
• And?
•  

 Academic — What must lecturers do and/or provide to enable completion of WiL? For example:

• A vocational programme is designed, developed and offered in close collaboration with the fraternity/profession/industry it intends to produce qualified people for—a functional advisory committee with adequate representation of stake holder if critical. Collaboration is the second critical success factor of good practice identified by the CHE.
• The contact details of committed employers, willing to offer our students WiL opportunities, should be accessible on a central database
• The academic designs and develop suitable learning enabling material
• Academics provide guidelines to work-place mentors
• Academic management and lecturers responsible for programmes that entail WiL should continuously expand their networks and recruit employers that are willing to offer our students WiL opportunities
• Lecturers undertake monitoring visits and the summative assessment of the WiL evidence students submit, as well as their mentor assessments
• Where mentors/employers indicate that they are prepared to host other students for WiL, such details should be centrally captured, in order to be available to regional support staff.
• And?
•  

 Regional Support — What is it envisaged, how would regional staff support students regarding WiL? For example:

• Regional staff need access to various data bases:
  • Which students need WiL placements in a particular semester
  • Employers in the area that indicated willingness to take our students for their prerequisite WiL
  • The mentor agreements outlining the role of the workplace mentor (suitable remuneration for mentors need to be addressed)
  • The employer contracts, setting out roles and accountability
• Would identify potential employers in the geographical area concerned and endeavour to recruit such in conjunction with the academics concerned
• Would identify community service need/opportunities that could equate/substitute work-integrated learning and develop such in conjunction with the academics concerned
• Would facilitate preparation of students prior to selection by would be host employers
• And?
•  

Employer — What do employers need and what does the role of employers include regarding the WiL of students? For example:

• Both those of current employed students and those that host students for placements need clarity on the role of the employer, what is expected from the mentor (often the student's workplace supervisor), what the university expects the student to learn and to submit as learning evidence
• Need to be made aware of Sectoral Education & Training Authority (SETA) funding benefits accessible for offering our students workplace experience (SETA terminology) towards obtaining a higher education qualification
• And?
•  

Coordination — What is the expected role of a central unit and what services are expected? For example:

• A comprehensive database of the students involved, who need placements, etc.
• A database of employers that declared willingness to host students for WiL.
• And?

The other seven critical success factors of good practice identified by the CHE are: Needs assessment; Alignment; Student placements; Student orientation; Role clarification; Reflection; and Logistics

Five key dimensions of work-based learning

Clark and Whitelegg developed five key dimensions to classify various types of work-based learning (WBL). The dimentions aim to describe how the WBL type works, who benefits and by how much. The dimensions are:

1. Location - if it is institutional or employer driven/based
2. Employer involvement - the extent to which organisations get involved in the planning and delivering, the greater the involvement the more significant the impact on the curriculum
3. Intensity on contact - duration and nature of contact, form brief once-off to continuous - the more intense the more effective the WBL
4. Compulsory or optional - if WBL is a central part of the qualification and compulsory for all students or a specialist option of a few students - whereas the latter is easier to arrange the former signifies genuine importance
5. Range of skills - the number of outcomes the WBL aims to accomplish indicates the potential impact thereof

Source:

Clark, G. & Whitelegg, J. 1998. Maximising the benefits from work-based learning: the effectiveness of environmental audits. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 22(3), 325-334.

The work-integrated learning context at a glance

This single page synopsis (Download The work-integrated learning context) of the essential imperatives pertaining to work-integrated learning, came about while I was thinking of a way to concisely convey what is required. The single page lists the Department of Education and Higher Education Quality Committee imperatives; refernces to two of my institution's policies (namely Open & Distance Learning, as well as Work-integrated Learning); a diagram illustrating how the parts fit together and an indication of the responsibility. This one pages might be useful to other?

Statutory imperatives of work-integrated learning

Higher Education institutions in South Africa are obliged, in accordance with the South African Higher Education Qualifications Framework (HEQF), Department of Education Government Notice No 928, gazetted (No. 30353) 5 October 2007 as policy in terms of the Higher Education Act, to place students for prerequisite work-integrated learning:
"It is the responsibility of institutions, which offer programmes requiring WIL credits to place students into WIL programmes. Such programmes must be appropriately structured, properly supervised and assessed."

Two publications of the South Africa Council for Higher Education (CHE), Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC), both the (a) Criteria for Institutional Audits and the (b) Criteria for Programme Accreditation specify criteria with regard to work-based learning. These criteria can be summarised as follow:

• 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.

A technical team comprising representatives from the former South African Universities Vice-Chancellors Association (SUVA), the former Committee of Technician Principals (TCP) and the Department of Education (DOE) was formed in August 2003 to undertake an investigation into the state funding of experiential learning at higher education institutions in South Africa. The report (DOE, 2004, par. 20) states that the new dispensation as it relates to funding focuses on delivery, rather than costs incurred. The report presents a synopsis, under six headings (par. 20 - see my Best Practices blog post: http://psychsoma.co.za/learning_in_vivo/2008/08/best-practices.html), of best practice in respect of required institutional services pertaining to experiential learning.

I have made a bullet-point summary of the statutory imperatives mentioned above: Download a_synopsis_of_doeheqc_workintegrated_learning_imperatives.doc For self-evaluation purposes, I transformed the summary into a list of questions:

1. Are students prepared for work-integrated learning (WIL) placements?
2. How is the acquisition of job seeking skills facilitated?
3. How is the development of life skills, e.g. time management, team building and communication, facilitated?
4. How does WIL contribute to the student’s understanding of the specific occupation?
5. Is the curriculum balanced regarding theoretical and practical/applied knowledge?
6. Does WIL form an integral part of the curriculum?
7. Are the learning outcomes documented to guide students and work place mentors?
8. Are there clear directives about how to record and integrate learning experiences?
9. Are the assessment criteria and evaluation timeframes specified?
10. Is the feedback by students and employers structured, recorded and used for the review and improvement of the programme?
11. Is placement of students for WIL regarded as an essential component of the programme and undertaken?
12. Is the institution marketing the notion of co operative education and is it actively securing workstation placement opportunities?
13. Does the institution introduce students to employers with available placement opportunities?
14. Does the institution facilitate the selection of available students by employers?
15. Are there learning contracts/agreements by which to negotiate, approve and assess the objectives and outcomes of WIL?
16. Are the roles and obligations of students, the institution, the mentor and the “employer” clarified through such contracts?
17. Is there regular and efficient communication between the four parties mentioned?
18. Is there a system in place at both the institution and at the workplaces to regularly and systematically record the WIL content and progress of students?
19. Is the mentoring system enabling the student to recognise her/his strengths and weaknesses, developing her/his abilities and gaining knowledge of work practices?
20. Is staff from the institution visiting students in the workplace to ensure that WIL meets the expectations?
21. Do the students, mentors and staff from the institution meeting to discuss progress?
22. Is the progress of student assessed through, for example, logbook entries, presentations, portfolios or artefacts?
23. Are regular and systematic monitoring visits planned and by appointment? (Frequency dependent on factors such as geographical location.)
24. Do both interimand continuous assessment occur throughout WIL?
25. Do academic or external examiners, as well as workplace-based assessors (e.g. mentors and/or supervisors), provide assessment input?
26. Are, for example, logbooks, assignment reports, projects, presentations, portfolios or artefacts used to assess and evaluate the learning of students?
27. Are, for example, marks, credits or records of OBE competence used to reflect the success of learning outcomes?
28. Is there a dedicated database of participating companies?
29. Is there a record of student placements?
30. Is there a system to record the WIL progress of individual students?
31. Is there a record of correspondence, communication and marketing material?

References

South Africa. (2005). Council for Higher Education, Higher Education Quality Committee. Criteria for Accreditation of Programmes offered through Distance Education — Draft 4 February 2005. Pretoria.
South Africa. (2004).Council for Higher Education, Higher Education Quality Committee. Criteria for Institutional Audits. Pretoria: Compress. Electronically available from: http://www.che.ac.za/documents/d000061/CHE_Institutional-Audit-Criteria_June2004.pdf
South Africa. (2007). Department of Education Government Notice No 928, gazetted (No. 30353) 5 October 2007 as policy in terms of the Higher Education Act
South Africa. (2004). Department of Education. Report of a technical team. Investigation into the State funding of experiential learning at Higher Education institutions. Unpublished.

Best practices

A report by a technical team  (29 March 2004, pp. 5-6) of the South African Department of Education about an investigation into  state funding of experiential or work-integrated learning at higher education institutions, included the following best practice of services that ought to be provided, by an institution to students that are undergoing work-integrated learning:

ORIENTATION — WORK PREPAREDNESS AND LIFE SKILLS PROGRAMME: Students receive instruction to prepare them for the world of work. Policy and ground rules clarify roles and the obligations of the students, technikon and industry in the co-operative education partnership. Students acquire job-seeking skills such as CV writing, application procedures, interview and presentation skills. Other life skills such as time management, team building and communication are also introduced.

LEARNING PROGRAMME: Learning criteria and specific outcomes are documented to give guidance to the student and mentors on the work-based training and learning areas for the specific disciplines. Students are guided on how the work learning experiences should be integrated and recorded. Assessment criteria and evaluation timeframes are documented.

PLACEMENT PROCESS: The  [institution] markets and promotes Cooperative Education to commerce, industry and government and secures accredited workstation placement opportunities. Learners are introduced to a range of Companies and have to apply and secure their own placements. [Institutions] may facilitate the application and interview process as required and students are selected by the companies after short-listing and interview processes.

VISITATION AND MONITORING: [Institution] staff visits students to ensure that their learning experience meets the expectations of all parties. The students, mentors and technikon staff meet to discuss progress. Logbook entries, presentations or any other agreed evidence portfolios or artefacts may be used to assess student progress. Visits to students at the workplace are planned timeously and by appointment. Frequency of visits will depend on geographical location, costs and related factors.

ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION: Interim and continuous assessment may occur throughout the experiential learning period. Assessment and evaluation performed by mentors, technikon staff or external examiners. Logbooks, assignment reports, projects, presentations or any other agreed evidence portfolios or artefacts may be used to assess and evaluate student learning. Marks, credits or records of OBE [outcomes based education] competence may be used to reflect student success and learning outcomes. Structured and recorded feedback by students and industry can serve as a quality assurance tool for review and improvement.

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE: Best practice presupposes dedicated administrative infrastructure and resources. This would include a database of participating companies, student's placement and work-record progress, as well as correspondence, communication and marketing material.