A Practical Guide For Work-integrated Learning
A Practical Guide forWork-integrated LearningEffective Practices to Enhance the Educational Quality of StructuredWork Experiences Offered through Colleges and Universities
CONTRIBUTING INDIVIDUALSMain WritersAdvisory Committee MembersAshley Stirling, PhD, University of TorontoGretchen Kerr, PhD, University of TorontoJenessa Banwell, MScEllen MacPherson, MScAmanda Heron, BEdMelissa Berger, BACommunity Outreach Coordinator and Manager,UTM Experiential Education OfficeUniversity of Toronto MississaugaDesignEvelyn Csiszar, Evi Designsevi-designs.comTracey Bowen, PhDAssistant Professor – Teaching Stream andInternship CoordinatorInstitute of Communications, Culture,Information & TechnologyUniversity of Toronto MississaugaMaria Cantalini-Williams, PhDAssociate Professor, Schulich School of Education,Brantford CampusNipissing UniversityLisa Chambers, MADirector, Centre for Community PartnershipsUniversity of TorontoRuth Childs, PhDAssociate Professor, Department of Leadership,Higher and Adult EducationOntario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE)University of TorontoRick Ezekiel, MScDirector of Research, Innovation and Evaluation(Student Experience)Western UniversityLori Goff, PhDManager, Program EnhancementMcMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellencein Teaching & Learning (MIIETL)McMaster UniversityRobyne Hanley-Dafoe, MEdEducational DeveloperTrent UniversityPamela Healey, MBADirector, Co-op and Career ServicesConestoga CollegeWilliam R. Holmes, PhDDean, Faculty of ManagementRoyal Roads University Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 20162Duncan MacDuff, MAResearch FacilitatorNiagara CollegeJohn Marris, PhDDirector, Community-Based ResearchTrent Community Research CentreJane McDonald, PhDProfessor, School of Health and Life Sciencesand Community ServicesConestoga CollegeEileen O’Connor, PhDAssociate Professor, School of Human KineticsUniversity of OttawaJulie Peters, PhDVP ResearchAcademica Group Inc.Mary Preece, PhDProvost and Vice President AcademicSheridan CollegeJudene Pretti, MScDirector, Centre for the Advancement ofCo-operative EducationUniversity of WaterlooGeorgia Quartaro, PhDDean, Preparatory and Liberal StudiesGeorge Brown CollegeRod Skinkle, MAPresident & CEOAcademica Group Inc.Jennifer Storer-FoltExperiential Learning Officer,UTM Experiential Education OfficeUniversity of Toronto MississaugaLisa WhalenPresidentEWO (Education at Work Ontario)Richard Wiggers, PhDExecutive Director, Research and ProgramsHigher Education Quality Council of Ontario(HEQCO)
A Practical Guide forWork-integrated LearningEffective Practices to Enhance the Educational Quality of StructuredWork Experiences Offered through Colleges and UniversitiesAn agency of the Government of OntarioUn organisme du gouvernement de l’Ontario
HIGHER EDUCATIONINSTITUTIONS HAVE BECOMEINCREASINGLY FOCUSED ONTHE QUALITY OF TEACHING ANDLEARNING, AND THE PROVISIONOF HIGH-QUALITY EDUCATIONALEXPERIENCES FOR STUDENTS INVARIOUS LEARNING CONTEXTS.WELL-DESIGNED WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING IS OFBENEFIT TO THE STUDENT, THEACADEMIC INSTITUTION, THEHOST INSTITUTION/EMPLOYERAND THE COMMUNITY.THROUGH WORK-INTEGRATEDLEARNING, STUDENTS BRINGNEW IDEAS AND INNOVATION TOINDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT ANDCOMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIESARE RECOGNIZING THEEDUCATIONAL IMPACT OF WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING, ANDIT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLYPOPULAR IN HIGHER EDUCATIONSETTINGS.2
OPPORTUNITIES FOR WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING SPANTHE BREADTH OF DISCIPLINARYAREAS, FROM THE SOCIALSCIENCES AND HUMANITIES TOENVIRONMENTAL, PHYSICAL,HEALTH AND APPLIED SCIENCES,FINE ARTS, BUSINESS ANDVOCATIONAL TRAINING.WHEN DONE CORRECTLY,OPPORTUNITIES FORSTUDENTS TO LEARN OUTSIDETHE CLASSROOM IN A WORKENVIRONMENT AUGMENTSTUDENTS’ ACADEMIC LEARNINGAND DEVELOP WORK-READYGRADUATES.EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIPSBETWEEN THE ACADEMICINSTITUTION AND THEWORKPLACE ENHANCE THEINTEGRATION OF THEORY ANDPRACTICE WITHIN AND BETWEENACADEMIC AND WORKPLACEENVIRONMENTS.WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNINGOPPORTUNITIES FOSTERPERSONAL AND PROFESSIONALGROWTH AND ENRICHSTUDENTS’ HIGHER EDUCATIONEXPERIENCE.3
THIS GUIDE IS INTENDEDTO SERVE AS A RESOURCE TO ENHANCESTUDENT LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENTIN HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGH THESTRUCTURED WORK EXPERIENCEWork-integrated learning is a pedagogical practice whereby studentscome to learn from the integration of experiences in educational andworkplace settings (Billett, 2009).Work-integrated learning has emerged as akey pedagogical strategy to enhance studentlearning and development (Kennedy, Billett,Gherardi & Grealish, 2015).Integrating curricular learning withworkplace experience provides studentswith an opportunity to combine theory andpractice in a real-world work environment,deepening students’ knowledge andunderstanding, and enhancing work-relatedcapabilities (Cooper, Orrell & Bowden, 2010).4Work-integrated learning is becomingincreasingly popular in higher education(Smigiel, Macleod & Stephenson, 2015).Almost half of the postsecondary studentsin Ontario direct-entry programmes willexperience work-integrated learning bygraduation (Sattler & Peters, 2013). Thisdoes not take into account the vast numberof work-integrated learning opportunitiesoffered by second-entry/graduateprogrammes.
WIL TypologyThe term ‘work-integrated learning’ (WIL)is often used interchangeably with workbased learning, practice-based learning,work-related learning, vocational learning,experiential learning, co-operative education,clinical education, internship, practicumand field education, to name but a few(Sattler, 2011). In an attempt to provideclarity around work-integrated learningterminology, several models and typologiesof work-integrated learning have beenproposed (Calway, 2006; Cooper et al., 2010;Furco, 2006; Guile & Griffiths, 2001; Keating,2006; Rowe, Mackaway & Winchester-Seeto,2012; Schuetze & Sweet, 2003). Specificallydescribing the provision of work-integratedlearning in Ontario’s postsecondary sector,Sattler (2011, p. 29) outlines a typology toexplain the different types of work-integratedlearning experiences in colleges anduniversities, including: systematic training,in which the workplace is “the central pieceof the learning” (e.g., apprenticeships);the structured work experience, in whichstudents are familiarized with the world ofwork within a postsecondary educationprogramme (e.g., field experience,professional practice, co-op, internships);and institutional partnerships, which referto “postsecondary education activities[designed] to achieve industry orcommunity goals” (e.g., service learning).WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNINGSystematicTrainingStructured WorkExperienceInstitutionalPartnershipsWorkplace as the centralpiece of learning (e.g.,apprenticeships)Familiarization with theworld of work within apostsecondary educationprogramme (e.g., fieldexperience, professionalpractice, co-op, internships)Postsecondary educationactivities to achieveindustry or communitygoals (e.g., service learning)(Sattler, 2011)5
Key Dimensionsof WILIn addition to models and typologies,key dimensions of work-integrated learningprogramming have been suggested.Cooper, Orwell and Bowden (2010) identifyseven key dimensions, including: purpose,context, the nature of the integration,curriculum issues, learning, institutionalpartnerships, and the support provided tothe student and the workplace. Buildingupon this list, Cantalini-Williams (2015)proposed her “CANWILL” framework fordeveloping effective work-integratedlearning practicums (curriculum,assessment, networking, workplace,integration, learning and logistics), addingassessment and logistics as dimensionsto the delivery of work-integrated tAssessmentLogisticsDIMENSIONS aceCurriculum
THIS GUIDE IS INTENDED TO SERVE AS A RESOURCE TO ENHANCE STUDENT LEARNING ANDDEVELOPMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGH THE STRUCTURED WORK EXPERIENCE.The Focus ofthis GuideThis guide is intended to serve as aresource for faculty, staff, academic leadersand educational developers engaged inwork-integrated learning programmedevelopment, facilitation and/or evaluation.The focus of this guide is on enhancingthe educational quality of work-integratedlearning programmes. Several aspectsof Cooper et al.’s (2010) and CantaliniWilliams’ (2015) dimensions of workintegrated learning, such as purpose,context and institutional partnerships,will be referenced throughout theguide, with student learning as themain dimension of focus. Using Kolb’sexperiential learning cycle, we suggesteffective practices to address each of thelearning modes of experience, reflection,theorization and experimentation within ahigher education work-integrated learningprogramme, in order to optimize studentlearning and development.While the information included in this guidemay apply to several types of work-integratedlearning, including systematic training (e.g.,apprenticeship) and institutional partnerships (e.g., service learning), this guide wasdeveloped with a focus on the structuredwork-integrated learning experience, suchas internships, placements, co-ops, fieldexperiences, professional practice andclinical practicums. Looking at these formsof structured work experience as a whole,their intention is to integrate theory andpractice and provide postsecondary students with a valuable learning experiencein a real-world work environment (Sattler,2011). Accordingly, this guide was writtenwith the intention of providing effectivepractices to enhance the educationalquality of the variety of structuredwork experiences that are offered inpostsecondary programmes.the educational quality of work-integratedlearning programming while addressingeach of Kolb’s four learning modes:purposeful experience (Chapter 2);reflection (Chapter 3); the integration oftheory and practice (Chapter 4); andapplying new ideas (Chapter 5). Chapter 6includes information for work-integratedlearning programme evaluation, includingstrategies to evaluate the effectiveness ofa work-integrated learning programmefor student learning and development.Building on the previous chapters, Chapter 7makes recommendations for broadercurricular integration and meaningfulpartnerships with industry, governmentand community organizations to furtheradvance the pedagogical practice andeducational quality of the structured workexperience in higher education settings.In Chapter 1, an overview is providedof Kolb’s experiential learning theory,outlining the foundation for the remainingchapters. Chapters 2 to 5 provide background information and recommendationsof effective practices for ways to enhance7
8
WHAT’S INCLUDED HERE1THEORETICALLY GROUNDED WIL: APPLICATION OF KOLB’SEXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172PURPOSEFUL EXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .333REFLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .654INTEGRATION OF THEORY AND PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .875EXPERIMENTING WITH NEW IDEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076EVALUATING YOUR WIL PROGRAMME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1237MOVING FORWARD WITH WIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1518CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166APPENDIX: SAMPLE LEARNING EXPERIENCES FOR TEACHING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1749
EXPANDED TABLE OFCONTENTS1THEORETICALLY GROUNDED WIL:APPLICATION OF KOLB’S EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Experiential Education and Experiential Learning Defined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Historical Review of Learning from Experience: The Background to Kolb’s Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20David A. Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22- Tenets of Experiential Learning Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22- Experiential Learning Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23- Four Major Modes of Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24- Basic Learning Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24- Experiential Learning as a Developmental Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Critiques of Experiential Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Critiques of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Other Work-integrated Learning Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Summary of Experiential Learning and Theoretically Grounded WIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302PURPOSEFUL EXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Structured Work Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34- Forms of Structured Work Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35- Design of Work Experience: Project Implementation vs. Work Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36Learning Outcomes, Assessment and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38- Developing Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39- Assessment of Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43- Learning Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51Facilitating a Learning Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54- Learning Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54- Mentorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55- Considerations for Diverse Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58- Managing Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59Summary of Effective Practices for Facilitating Purposive Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6110
3REFLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Defining Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66- Critical Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66- Reflection In-Action and Reflection On-Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66- Single Loop Reflection and Double Loop Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67- Surface Reflection and Deep Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67Antecedents and Conditions for High-quality Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68The D.E.A.L. Model for Critical Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69The Importance of Reflection in WIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71Designing and Teaching Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72- Instructional Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72- Reflection Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74Assessment of Reflection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78Reflection Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83Summary of Effective Practices for Facilitating Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .844INTEGRATION OF THEORY AND PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Integrating Theory and Practice in the WIL Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88- Challenges Integrating Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89- Approaches for Integrating Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89- Recommendations for Enhanced Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91Facilitating the Theory/Practice Nexus through Self-directed Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94- Benefits of Self-directed Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95- Theoretical Framework of Self-directed Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95- Challenges of the Self-directed Learning Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97Facilitating the Theory/Practice Nexus through Teacher-directed Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98- Supporting Students’ Self-directed Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98- Teaching Subject-specific and Transferable Knowledge and Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99- Areas of Preparation for Facilitating the Theory/Practice Nexus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100Erroneous Division of Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101Summary of Effective Practices for Facilitating the Integration of Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1025EXPERIMENTING WITH NEW IDEAS.107Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108- Definition and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108- Developing an Experimentation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11011
Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112Adaptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114Pushing the Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117Summary of Effective Practices for Facilitating Students’ Experimentation with New Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1206EVALUATING YOUR WIL PROGRAMME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123What is Programme Evaluation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124- Importance of Programme Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125- Difference between Evaluation and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126- The Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127WIL Programme Evaluation Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130- Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131- Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132- Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133Paradigms and Models for Evaluating WIL Programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135- Postpositivist: Kirkpatrick Model for Evaluating Training Programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136- Pragmatic: CIPP Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138- Constructivist: Scriven’s Goal-free Approach to Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142- Transformative: Participatory Transformative Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146Summary of Effective Practices in WIL Programme Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1487MOVING FORWARD WITH WIL.151Connecting WIL with the Curriculum of the Academic Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152Building Impactful Partnerships with Worksite Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155Summary of Effective Practices for Moving Forward with WIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1598CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Enhancing the Educational Quality of the Structured Work Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162Six Main Quality Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166APPENDIX: SAMPLE LEARNING EXPERIENCES FOR TEACHING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17412
HOW TO USE THIS GUIDEThis guide is designed so that it can be read from start to finish, or readers can turn directly totopic areas of interest.Each chapter provides a combination ofbackground information on the topic, keydefinitions, opportunities to reflect on pastor present work-integrated learning practice,sample tools and activities, and successstories exemplifying effective practices inwork-integrated learning programming.The intention is for the reader to bringpersonal experience with work-integratedlearning to the reading and interpretationof the material included in this guide, andafter reflecting on previous experiences inlight of the material shared in this guide,readers will be in a good position todevelop an action plan to enhance furtherthe educational quality of their structuredwork-integrated learning programmes.In order for this guide to be most effective,it is recommended that the full content andactivities be reviewed.This guide includes the following components:Key TerminologyKey terminology definedRecommendations and GuidelinesRecommendations, guidelines and tips for effective practiceGive it a Try!Sample tools, assignments, exercises and classroom activitiesReflection QuestionsPersonalized reflection questions/exercisesSuccess StoriesExamples and stories shared by faculty and staff leadingwork-integrated learning programmes at colleges anduniversities in OntarioTHE BENEFITS OF WORKINTEGRATED LEARNINGARE NOT IMPLICITWITHIN THE WORKITSELF, BUT RATHER INTHE INTEGRATION OFTHEORY AND PRACTICE.13
IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE EDUCATIONAL QUALITY OF THE WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNINGEXPERIENCE, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THESE PROGRAMMES BE STRUCTURED DELIBERATELYAND GROUNDED IN EMPIRICAL LEARNING THEORY.When effective, the work-integrated learningexperience offe
University of Toronto Gretchen Kerr, PhD, University of Toronto Jenessa Banwell, MSc Ellen MacPherson, MSc Amanda Heron, BEd. Design. Evelyn Csiszar, Evi Designs. evi-designs.com. Advisory Committee Members. Melissa Berger, BA. Community Outreach Coordinator and Manager, UTM Experiential Education Office University of Toronto Mississauga Tracey .
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största
Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid
LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .
och krav. Maskinerna skriver ut upp till fyra tum breda etiketter med direkt termoteknik och termotransferteknik och är lämpliga för en lång rad användningsområden på vertikala marknader. TD-seriens professionella etikettskrivare för . skrivbordet. Brothers nya avancerade 4-tums etikettskrivare för skrivbordet är effektiva och enkla att
Den kanadensiska språkvetaren Jim Cummins har visat i sin forskning från år 1979 att det kan ta 1 till 3 år för att lära sig ett vardagsspråk och mellan 5 till 7 år för att behärska ett akademiskt språk.4 Han införde två begrepp för att beskriva elevernas språkliga kompetens: BI
**Godkänd av MAN för upp till 120 000 km och Mercedes Benz, Volvo och Renault för upp till 100 000 km i enlighet med deras specifikationer. Faktiskt oljebyte beror på motortyp, körförhållanden, servicehistorik, OBD och bränslekvalitet. Se alltid tillverkarens instruktionsbok. Art.Nr. 159CAC Art.Nr. 159CAA Art.Nr. 159CAB Art.Nr. 217B1B
