Learning in vivo

Flexibility value of work-based learning

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

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

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

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

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

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