EDUCATION FOR
PRACTICE TOPICS:
6
WPL and Technology:
Innovations
By Teresa Swirski and Andreas Kuswara
Reference for this occasional paper:
Swirski, T., & Kuswara, A. (2013). WPL and Technology: Innovations
(Occasional Paper 6). Sydney: The Education For Practice Institute,
Charles Sturt University.
ISSN 2201-8395 (Online)
© EFPI
Contact details:
The Education For Practice Institute
Charles Sturt University – Sydney
Locked Bag 450
Silverwater NSW 2128, Australia
http://www.csu.edu.au/division/landt/efp/
[email protected]
The contributions of staff from The
Education For Practice Institute (EFPI) in
providing feedback on this paper is
acknowledged.
Introduction
Charles Sturt University’s mission is stated as being “committed
to achieving excellence in education for the professions and to
maintaining national leadership in flexible and distance education.
Industry relevant courses and workplace learning support CSU's
learning and teaching objectives” (CSU Website, 2012). To contribute
towards these goals of excellence and leadership, this occasional
paper highlights contemporary technological innovations which can
be utilised to enhance and supplement student learning within real
workplace settings. The rationale for highlighting technological
innovations stems from the significant impact of technology within
contemporary higher education (Johnson et al., 2011), as well as
future work skills (Davies et al., 2011). As competition between
universities continues to expand, how universities design workplace
learning (WPL) requires increasingly novel ideas and creative
approaches. Furthermore, the advent of (Massive Open Online
Courses (MOOCs) foreshadows even greater pressure upon the
format and processes of higher education delivery. New ways of
designing WPL are required to enhance the student learning
experience, support Charles Sturt University’s learning and teaching
objectives, as well as inform higher education practices more broadly.
WPL “allows students to learn through direct implementation of their
professional roles in real workplace settings. Workplaces may
encompass on-campus and off-campus facilities. Commonly such
learning involves supervision to provide safeguards and ensure duty
of care towards clients and students” (CSU Academic Senate, AS
10/43, 2010).
Innovations in Workplace Learning (WPL)
As Orrell (2011) states in the Good Practice Report, “the creativity
of new WIL programs is welcomed and may be a catalyst for change”
(p. 6). What is suggested as fostering this novelty is the emergence of
WPL innovations – and how this can add value according to particular
disciplinary, professional or institutional contexts. Exploring the full
range of innovations in WPL is beyond the scope of this occasional
paper. Selecting technological innovation as the prime focus of this
paper is based upon two key reasons: the significant impact which
technological innovations are having upon higher education teaching
and learning (Johnson et al., 2011), as well as future work skills
(Davies et al., 2011).
Technological innovations are often promoted as being high cost,
fast roll-out, risky and of large magnitude; this stereotype can hinder
the ‘take-up’ of technology in WPL communities of practice.
Alternatively, the concept of ‘slow innovation in higher education’
(Swirski & Simpson, 2012) frames how authentic change relies upon a
mindful consideration of context, drivers, enablers and well-being.
The ‘possibility’ of an innovation therefore needs to be mindful of
whether ‘participation’ is being enhanced. Similarly, ‘hidden
innovations’ (NESTA, 2009) are innovations which may not be
articulated as ‘innovative’ but nonetheless are changes which are
having a major impact upon practices.
It is important to note that academics’ capacities to enable
change in WPL may be constrained by a variety of factors – such as
prior experiences, resourcing and approaches to teaching and
learning. Hunt (2009) highlights how “some resistance to WIL
curriculum innovation may arise from a lack of skills amongst
academics”. The purpose of this occasional paper is threefold: to
describe current major technological innovations (the social web,
simulation, virtual worlds, mobility and augmentation), why they can
be of value to WPL, how they can be integrated within WPL.
Technological Innovations
1) Social web
What is it? The social web is a family of web-based tools that were
built around user participation. The collaborative interaction which is
inherent to the social web is evident in the general use of online
learning and teaching (OLT) systems, bulletin boards, blogs, wikis and
mash-ups in higher education. An example of its practical application
is how the learning of a business student can be enhanced within a
real workplace setting by integrating reflective writing assessments
(using blogs) or group projects (utilising wikis).
Why use it? The social web has a number of positive implications for
the design and implementation of WPL; when integrated meaningfully
it has the capacity to foster dialogue, scaffold cognitive and emotional
support, as well as sustain learning engagement and reflection.
Integrating the social web within WPL can potentially enhance
students’ participation and learning in real workplace settings. The
social web provides a space for interaction which, if scaffolded
effectively, can foster rich dialogue and meaningful discussions
amongst core WPL stakeholders (peer-to-peer, student-educator,
student-supervisor etc). Having a clear purpose of using technology to
foster the preparation of students for professional practice enables it
meaningful integration.
One work skill for the future, ‘social intelligence’ is defined as the
“ability to connect to others in a deep and direct way, to sense and
stimulate reactions and desired interactions” (Davies et al., 2011, p.
8). The student’s ability to discriminate and filter information is
afforded through the use of these social web technologies (such as
blogs, wikis, mash-ups). This is further illustrated in McNamara and
Brown’s (2009) report of the use of online discussions to facilitate
collaborative learning in WIL. Within the context of WPL, this provides
a variety of avenues along which students can access, analyse and
explore information in relation to their WPL experience. Hemmi et al.
(2009) articulate how “Social media continues therefore to ask us to
engage with a new research agenda, to continue to work creatively
with new pedagogies appropriate to these novel digital spaces, and to
engage with some far-reaching challenges relating to the literacies
and assessment practices we bring to bear when we take education
online” (p. 29).
How do I integrate it within WPL? A useful starting point for
introducing the social web is the ‘reflective blog’. With its focus upon
individual and collaborative expression, blogs are “particularly apt for
discussion, for sharing of experiences, and the expression of individual
beliefs and attitudes” (Dohn, 2010, p. 144). Blogs can be used to
express one’s thoughts via scaffolding learning and assessment,
particularly in WPL (Beatson & Larkin, 2010). The experience of
students is critical in workplace learning; subsequently, a useful
method of assessment is reflective writing, which usually asks
students to produce reflective diaries, journals, logs or ePortfolios
(Roberts, 2009). Reflective writing is used as a learning activity in
which students were directed to actively and critically think about
their experiences and learn from them (Thorpe, 2004); such an
approach can lead to the creation of assessable items (e.g. final report
and presentation).
2) Simulation
What is it? Simulation is where students learn about professional
practices within hypothetical situations. Computer-based simulations
can involve gaming, training, modelling (Lean et al., 2006), or a
combination of these. Simulation-based courses rely primarily on
students assuming roles in a profession and performing related which
are normally performed by a professional. The technological cluster of
‘simulation’ is already common in a number of disciplines, such as the
health sciences, and is particularly useful for interprofessional
scenarios. For example, one simulation can be designed (using
gaming, training or modelling) which provides complex and authentic
scenarios to solve from the perspectives of physiotherapy,
occupational therapy and nursing students.
Why use it? Within a well-designed simulation, students can gain
insights and understanding of their practices in a safe and structured
environment. Such simulations can foster the skill of ‘sense-making’;
this is the “ability to determine the deeper meaning of significance of
what is being expressed” (Davies et al., 2011, p. 8). This ‘sensemaking’ which takes place in a simulated environment can then be
transferred to a face-to-face environment and inform their future
practice. ‘Novel and adaptive thinking’ involves “proficiency at
thinking and coming up with solutions and responses beyond that
which is rote or rule-based” (p. 9). Simulation environments enable
2
interactions which foster this type of thinking; for example, situations
can be structured which require students to think creatively – which
they can then draw upon and apply in future workplace settings. Such
situations might not be readily accessible in face-to-face WPL.
There are various reasons others cited to adopt simulation,
including lack of available time-slots within the traditional structured
program that can accommodate meaningful and worthy work
placement components; scarcity and distance of the placement
vendors; restrictions imposed by study visa, language and culture
particularly for overseas students; and ethical risk (Forrest, et al.,
2005; McNamara, et al., 2009; Nuninger & Châtelet, 2011). The
variety of simulations available – computer and non-computer-based
– can inform future developments towards enhancing and
supplementing WPL.
How do I integrate it within WPL? An example of simulation is the
MSc in Geo-information Technology & Cartography at the University
of Glasgow (Forrest, et al., 2005). During the simulation, students
were placed in a Geographic Information System (GIS) consulting
company and work towards completing a case which involves
problems solving using GIS. Students engaged with data from
multiple online sources and various fictional stakeholders played by
one or more academic staff were all conducted electronically through
email and the company’s website. Such an arrangement was inspired
by the way a small business in the industry would be likely to
operate. The academics could also trigger an “unexpected” real-lifelike turn of events which require students to solve. Such simulations
have the potential to last from days to months within the structure of
a degree program. Another example is the Virtual Law Placement at
the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Law School
(McNamara, et al., 2009), which adopted a hybrid mix of technology
solutions (i.e. Blackboard, video, Skype, discussion forums, ePortfolio,
online chat, email and SharePoint, with traditional face-to-face
meetings). In this simulation, students worked in a team on realworld cases guided by a specialist expert representing the various
work opportunities within the field of study (e.g. private law firms,
law reform agencies, social justice, non-government organisations).
Whether simulation is common or rare in a discipline, there
needs to be a continual process of critical reflection about the
purpose and benefits of such technologies being integrated into the
learning process. For example, Lean et al. (2006) highlight the need to
“assist academics with an interest in such approaches to make more
informed judgements as to their suitability within a given learning
context, the possible risks that might be involved and how these can
be minimized” (p. 239). In particular reference to high-fidelity
mannequin simulators, Rodgers (2007) posits a warning which is of
relevance to all prospective simulations in higher education “as
simulation technology advances, users must be cautious to use the
technology as part of a coordinated curriculum that emphasises
learning outcomes and not just the use of technology” (p. 109).
Integrated thoughtfully, the affordances of simulations provide
exciting prospects to supplement and enhance the preparation of
students for professional practice.
3) Virtual worlds
What is it? Virtual worlds are a sub-set of simulation in regards to the
specific way it attempts to simulate the whole spatial environment
(with particular constraints applied and integrated for realistic
interaction). Dalgarno and Lee (2010) highlight five learning
affordances of 3D virtual learning environments: enhanced spatial
knowledge representations; impractical or impossible experiential
learning
tasks;
increased
motivation
and
engagement;
contextualisation of learning; and richer collaborative learning. For
example, teacher education students can be supported to reflect
upon a range of ethical dilemmas in a virtual world workplace setting;
this can inform their capabilities to respond appropriately when
similar situations arise within real workplace settings.
Why use it? Virtual worlds can develop students’ understandings of
their past, concurrent or future real workplace settings; they also
provide a structured environment which can foster learning
engagement. Ogilvie and Douglas (2007) have reported on how a
virtual placement can aid reflection in WIL. Such virtual worlds can
provide supplementary experiences which are not available, or
feasible, in face-to-face mode. A skill identified by Davies et al. (2011)
for the future workforce was that of ‘virtual collaboration’; this
involves the “ability to work productively, drive engagement, and
demonstrate presence as a member of a virtual team” (p. 12). Virtual
worlds provide just such a space for this collaboration to be fostered
which would have strong benefits for WPL, both within specific
professions and also for interprofessional learning. Another vital skill
identified for the future workforce was ‘cross-cultural competency’;
described as the “ability to operate in different cultural settings”
(Davies et al., 2011, p. 9). WPL is expanding through the provision of
international placements, and there are distinct issues arising from
this in regards to access and equity. Virtual worlds have significant
potential to provide an easily accessible environment which can foster
cross-cultural competency for future professionals. It is not suggested
that virtual worlds replace real workplace settings; however, if they
are well-designed and implemented they can certainly supplement
and enhance current and future WPL experiences.
How do I integrate it within WPL? An example of integrating virtual
worlds is how The Imperial College London’s Dept of Bio-surgery and
Surgical Technologies uses Second Life to create an immersive clinical
training environment (Linden, 2009). This is used to conduct a
scenario-based simulation to train and help healthcare professionals
get familiar with the procedures in using medical devices. In their
simulation, the student takes a role of a nurse who performs daily
1
duties. Students control their “avatar” , which resembles a human
being in the virtual world. They are not alone, there are other avatars
each with their own role to play; they can be the patient, fellow
medical staff colleagues, or supervising doctors. These other avatars
can either be performed by actors, fellow students, and teaching
academics or, in some instances, they can also be a program (called
“bot”) controlled by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Another example is the
Australian Learning Teaching Council project, ‘VirtualPrex’; this is an
innovative example of the use of 3D virtual worlds to support the real
life professional experience of pre-service teachers (Gregory et al.,
2011).
When integrating new technologies in WPL, there is a need to
critically reflect upon the interrelationship between innovations,
learning, as well as student and staff capabilities. Dalgarno et al.
(2010) highlight the importance of critically reflecting and discussing
the use of virtual worlds in higher education “... there is a need to
make time for awareness-raising, dialogue and professional
development on what strategies, approaches, techniques and tools
work best for achieving the desired learning outcomes, and to aid
teaching staff in gaining the confidence and competence to integrate
these successfully into their learning designs and teaching practices”
(p. 277).
4) Mobility and Augmentation
What is it? Innovations in mobile technology allow students to
document, express and explore their real workplace settings through a
variety of mobile technology features. These features include video
streaming, geo-tagging, micro-blogging, text notifications, direct
image and video blogging, mobile codes, enhancing student podcasts
and social networking (Cochrane and Bateman, 2010). Supported by
these mobile technologies, augmentation is an associated
technological innovation. Augmentation is an affordance which can
“add information and meaning to a real object or place ... it takes a
real object or space as a foundation and incorporates technologies
that add contextual data to deepen a person’s understanding of the
subject” (Educause, 2005). For example, environmental science
students can use the information and resources on their Smartphone
(created by their university or an independent provider) to apply
geographical, historical or professional data to their real workplace
1
“avatar” come from a Sanskrit word for “appearance” or “manifestation”
3
setting. The technological innovations of mobility and augmentation
have become ubiquitous within informal learning (e.g. apps, greater
access to information, advice, expert knowledge); however they are
still relatively underutilised within the WPL context.
Why use it? The mobility of technologies, learners and learning (ElHussein & Cronje, 2010) is rapidly advancing within the higher
education environment, and has been identified as a major influence
upon future educational delivery. For instance, the affordances of
mobile technologies are quickly developing; an increasing number of
WPL students are going to diverse WPL settings; and learning and
teaching is undergoing rapid innovation. There exists great potential
for the use of mobile technologies to be integrated more closely with
the diversity of movement and contemporary settings of WPL. The
expanded ‘mobility of learners’ is where “learning with mobile is a
learner-centric activity because it is both mobile and nomadic, and
not pedagogically teacher-centric as in the case of traditional lectures
and hardware installed in one particular location under the aegis of
the university’s structures” (p. 18). The ‘mobility of learning’ draws
upon the work of Sharples et al. (2007) who illustrate the
convergence between new learning and new technologies. These
mobility trends are undeniably impacting the new era of higher
education, which in turn will also influence WPL practices.
How do I integrate it within WPL? The implementation of mobility
and augmentation can supplement and enhance WPL with varying
emphases upon experience, location and vision.
Augmentation of experience: Augmentation of experience involves
the use of mobile technology to enhance and supplement practical
learning experiences. For example, Clay (2011) concluded that the
combination of digital learning contents and handheld mobile
devices, has afforded their students flexibility of learning pace (which
included spatial flexibility of where they could conduct their
learning). The offerings of this flexibility, in turn, have enhanced
students acquisition of the performance skills required. The use of
technologies in this particular project has allowed learners to
augment their traditional workplace learning experience with
relevant digital content which is delivered in “short-bursts” to avoid
distraction.
Augmentation of location: Augmentation of location focuses upon
how the use of mobile technology can enhance and supplement
learning which is specific to a location. An example is a project from
University of Wisconsin-Madison called ARIS (Augmented Reality and
Interactive Storytelling) where an authoring tool was developed that
developed an interactive story which augmented the physical
location (Gagnon, 2010). The narrative and interaction were accessed
through a mobile device, as the user moved from one location to the
next. What interaction can be done, what virtual characters ‘met’,
what virtual artefacts can be collected can all be tied to the location
and the narrative. The project produced a tool that can be used to
design collaborative learning and augmented location experience.
Augmentation of vision: Augmentation of vision involves the use of
mobile technology to enhance and supplement learning with digital
content cued by visual information. This augmentation is the most
cutting-edge technological innovation being applied to real workplace
settings. Columbia University’s Computer Graphics & User Interfaces
Lab has developed an Augmented Reality for Maintenance and Repair
(ARMAR) (Henderson & Feiner, 2007). ARMAR is a device that is
mounted on the technician’s head, completely covering their eyes
like a goggle. The device then superimposes relevant information on
what the technician would normally see without it. The device is able
to identify the location of valves, screws, and other detail parts of the
machines through the use of various sensors; thus able to give
detailed relevant information to the technician and guide them step
by step through the procedure of conducting relevant repairs.
If integrated meaningfully, the technological innovations of
mobility and augmentation can enhance the student experience in
real workplace settings. The initiative, resources and time required to
set up such innovations requires new ways of thinking about the
future of WPL and conversations about how technology can
supplement and enhance practices. Cochrane and Bateman (2010)
maintain “pedagogical integration of m-learning into a course or
curriculum requires a paradigm shift on behalf of the lecturers
involved, and this takes significant time” (p. 11).
Conclusion
How can technological innovations contribute to the “creativity of
new WIL programs” (Orrell, 2011, p. 6)? The social web, simulation
and virtual worlds have become increasingly common in many areas
of higher education; however, their application and analysis specific to
WPL are still in the preliminary phases. The benefits of these
technological innovations, as well as some examples of how they are
and can be used, highlight avenues for future application within WPL.
Furthermore, the affordances of mobility and augmentation which can
supplement real experiences, locations and vision is another
technological frontier for higher education illustrated within this
paper. Increasing awareness of these innovations, the potential
benefits, as well as examples of their use has the potential to foster
innovations in the preparation and practices of students in real
workplace settings.
References
Beatson, A. T., & Larkin, I. K. (2010). Developing reflective practitioners online: The business of blogs in
work integrated learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on Work Related Learning :
"University-Industry Collaboration for Real Life Education" 2010 World Association of Collaborative
Education (WACE) Conference, Hong Kong. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/39405/
Charles Sturt University (CSU). (2012). About CSU. Retrieved from http://www.csu.edu.au/about
Clay, C. A. (2011). Exploring the use of mobile technologies for the acquisition of clinical skills. Nurse
Education Today, 31(6), 582-586. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2010.10.011
Cochrane, T., & Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile Web
2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 1-14.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/cochrane.pdf
Davies, A., Fidler, D., & Gorbis, M. (2011). Future Work Skills 2020. Institute for the Future for Apollo
Research Institute. Retrieved 3 August, 2012 from
http://apolloresearchinstitute.com/sites/default/files/future_work_skills_2020_full_research_report_
final_1.pdf
Dohn, N. B. (2010). Teaching with wikis and blogs: potentials and pitfalls. Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Networked Learning. Edited by: Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. Hodgson, V.,
Hones, C., de Laat, M., McConnell, D. & Ryberg, T.
Education For Practice Institute (EFPI). (2012). About EFPI. Retrieved from
http://www.csu.edu.au/division/landt/efp/about.html
Educause (2005). 7 things you should know about Augmented Reality. Educause Learning Initiative
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7007.pdf
El-Hussein, M. O. M., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education landscape.
Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 12-21.
Forrest, D., Cornelius, S., & Elcock, A. (2005 ). Experiences with a Virtual Placement. Paper presented at
the FIG Working Week 2005 and GSDI-8: From Pharaohs to Geoinformatics, 16-21 April, Cairo, Egypt.
Gagnon, D. J. (2010). ARIS: An open source platform for developing mobile learning experiences. Master of
Science, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA. Retrieved from
http://arisgames.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ARIS-Gagnon-MS-Project.pdf
Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Landt, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in
higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 19-30.
Henderson, S. J., & Feiner, S. K. (2007). Augmented reality for maintenance and repair. DTIC Document.
Hunt, L. (2009). Sustainable innovation in Work Integrated Learning. Communique, 3(2). Australian
Learning and Teaching Council.
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin,
Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Lean, J., Moizer, J., Towler, M. & Abbey, C. (2006). Simulations and games: Use and barriers in higher
education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(3), 227- 242.
Linden, C. (2009). The Future of Healthcare. Retrieved from
http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Working-Inworld-General/The-Future-of-Healthcare-3questions-for-Dave-Taylor-of-Imperial/ba-p/643361
McNamara, J., Cockburn, T. L., & Shirley, M. J. (2009). Creating and enabling opportunities for increased
student participation in experience based learning in professional practice. Paper presented at the
Experience Based Learning Association Inaugural Conference, University of Technology Sydney,
Sydney. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29491/
McNamara, J., & Brown, C. (2009). Assessment of online discussion in work-integrated learning. CampusWide Information Systems, 26(5), 413-423.
Nuninger, W., & Châtelet, J. M. (2011). Work-Integrated Learning for Engineers in Coordination with
Industries. In P. Keleher, A. Patil & R. E. Harreveld (Eds.), Work-Integrated Learning in Engineering,
Built Environment and Technology: Diversity of Practice in Practice (pp. 85-109): IGI Global.
Orrell, J. (2011). Good Practice Report: Work-integrated Learning. Strawberry Hills, Australia: Australian
Learning and Teaching Council.
Rodgers, D. L. (2007). High-fidelity patient simulation: A descriptive white paper report. Healthcare
simulation strategies.
http://sim-strategies.com/downloads/Simulation%20White%20Paper2.pdf
Roberts, A. (2009). Encouraging reflective practice in periods of professional workplace experience: The
development of a conceptual model. Reflective Practice, 10(5), 633-644.
doi:10.1080/14623940903290703
Sharples, M., Taylor, J. & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. The Sage Handbook
of E-Learning Research. London, UK: Sage.Smith, M., Brooks, S., Lichtenberg, A., McIlveen, P., Torjul, P.
and Tyler, J. (2009) Career development learning: maximising the contribution of work-integrated
learning to the student experience: Australian Learning & Teaching Council Final project report. Project
Report. University of Wollongong, Careers Central, Academic Services Division, Wollongong, Australia.
Swirski, T., & Simpson, M. (2011). Re-imagining WIL through slow innovation in higher education. AsiaPacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2012, 13(4), 239-253.
Thorpe, K. (2004). Reflective learning journals: From concept to practice. Reflective Practice, 5(3), 327343. doi:10.1080/1462394042000270655
4