Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ries20
Irish Educational Studies
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ries20
School-based Simulated Internships to support
dialogic collaboration and authentic links with the
world of work: a design-based research study
A. Twiner, L. Major & R. Wegerif
To cite this article: A. Twiner, L. Major & R. Wegerif (2022) School-based Simulated Internships to
support dialogic collaboration and authentic links with the world of work: a design-based research
study, Irish Educational Studies, 41:1, 51-69, DOI: 10.1080/03323315.2021.2022515
To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.2022515
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 22 Feb 2022.
Submit your article to this journal 
Article views: 482
View related articles 
View Crossmark data
School-based Simulated Internships to support dialogic
collaboration and authentic links with the world of work: a
design-based research study
A. Twinera, L. Major b and R. Wegerif c
aHughes Hall, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; bManchester Institute of Education, University of
Manchester, Manchester, UK; cFaculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
ABSTRACT
Employers often complain that students leave school unequipped
with the real-world skills needed, including problem-solving,
teamwork and effective communication. Conversely, school-based
education often suffers from limited perceived authenticity
leading to low student engagement. Work experience is one
solution, but it is labour-intensive and inequitably available. To
address these challenges we undertook design-based research to
explore a new relationship between enterprise and education:
potentially scalable, curricular-integrated, simulated role-play
experiences of the world of work. We developed a programme
aligned to the English Key Stage 3 Computing and Design and
Technology curricula (students aged 11–14). Student groups
designed, modelled or built local solutions to global challenges,
presented via videos from engineers in two international
telecommunications companies. 326 students participated, led by
eight teachers in four schools in areas of England traditionally
associated with low social mobility. Findings identify structures,
resources and approaches that authentically link to the world of
work, whilst supporting students’ effective communication and
shared group outcomes. We demonstrate proof of concept for an
innovative education model made possible by the digital age.
Using simulated real-world role-play scenarios, education across
subjects could be made more authentic and many more students
could experience working with leading-edge companies.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 28 November 2021
Accepted 20 December 2021
KEYWORDS
Design-based research;
collaboration; educational
dialogue; educational
technology; education-
enterprise links; schools
1. Introduction
1.1 Shifting sands of education
Amongst other things, education must address the skills students need for success in a
rapidly-changing world of work (Strimel et al. 2020; Wagner 2010). This has influenced
calls for new learning approaches that support the development of ‘future’ skills – includ-
ing communication and collaborative problem-solving (Greiff, Niepel, and Wüstenberg
2015). To enable students’ genuine engagement, learning experiences should be
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in anymedium, provided the original work is properly cited.
CONTACT A. Twiner ajt213@hughes.cam.ac.uk
IRISH EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
2022, VOL. 41, NO. 1, 51–69
https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.2022515
authentic – based on real-world challenges – to problematise meaningful solutions
(Nicholls 2018). Facilitating collaboration between education and enterprise offers one
means toward supporting young people to develop these skills. As Chalkiadaki (2018)
contended however:
Countries invest in education on the expectation that it will contribute to their long-term
economic well-being and sustainability. The problem, nowadays, is that although impera-
tives in the world of work have changed, education has not. (2)
Indeed the world changed substantially over the period of our project, with the
COVID-19 pandemic challenging much of what we know about school-based learning
and workplace practices. Teaching and learning practices changed dramatically over
this time (Winter et al. 2021), but a danger is that as we ease back into physical gatherings
and loosening restrictions, education will revert to previous models and become further
isolated from the wider world. Initiated before COVID-19 but with increased relevance
now, supporting the capacity for meaningful and manageable change in educational
practice is a gap our Simulated Internships programme addresses.
Strimel et al. (2020; drawing on Lee 2017) argued that alongside a ‘skills gap’ between
those entering the workforce, there exists a ‘perception gap’ – with students unaware of
the array of job roles in many sectors. Broadly, the argument is that students may not
pursue engineering because they do not know what engineers do, or have a narrow per-
ception of what some engineers do. Widening these perceptions through enterprise-edu-
cation links could engage interest and encourage purposeful skill development. To
facilitate work-based skills and perceptions, students also need support in developing a
capacity for teamwork (Mercer 1995), thus focusing on how we use talk to work together
effectively is important.
There is substantial research evidence highlighting the importance of paying attention
to how we use talk to communicate effectively, how teachers and students build oppor-
tunities for dialogue, and the impact of this on students’ learning (e.g. Howe et al. 2019;
Mercer, Wegerif, and Dawes 1999). We also know from research however, that without
explicit and repeated focus on developing such dialogic skills, classroom talk rarely devel-
ops into co-constructed dialogue: as speakers engage with different perspectives, invite
and critically consider others’ views (Mercer 1995; Warwick et al. 2020). Closing this
gap is embedded in our Simulated Internships programme.
1.2 Linking education and the world of work – Simulated Internships
Many charities and businesses are keen to establish links with education but their
capacity to engage learners in schools is limited. Influenced by the work of Shaffer and
colleagues (see Shaffer 2017), Simulated Internships offer a ‘proof of concept’ for a
new approach that has potential to change how secondary school students relate to the
world of work. Working collaboratively with teachers, and using digital technology to
link two ‘real world’ global enterprises with schools [BT and Huawei], we developed
and tested an innovative model of ‘Simulated Internships’ (SI).
SIs have roots in several theoretical perspectives, for instance, drawing on a sociocul-
tural view of learning as a social process, mediated by a range of cultural tools (Mercer,
Hennessy, and Warwick 2019). Following this tradition, we recognise all learning
52 A. TWINER ET AL.
experiences are situated – and so not reducible to isolated cognitive functions (Vygotsky
1962). Similarly, the beneficial influence of play and gamed-based learning is well recog-
nised (Mayer and Mastik 2007). We argue these role-play-based contexts and situated,
simulated scenarios can afford valuable insights and skill development – aligned to cur-
ricular targets and workplace practices.
We therefore define SIs as role-playing workplace practices, taking on the ‘mantle of
the expert’ (Heathcote and Herbert 1985), responding to authentic workplace challenges.
Partnership with industry colleagues informed resource development throughout the
programme (including video induction and challenge setting, authentic evaluation cri-
teria and worksheets to support various processes). During the present version of the
programme such experts are not ‘on hand’ as groups engage with their challenges.
Instead, co-present teachers are subject experts, and broker SI experiences for their stu-
dents. Students are encouraged to use their initiative, group members and teacher as
resources in overcoming challenges.
Substantial work by Shaffer and colleagues on virtual internships has identified posi-
tive outcomes. For instance, Chesler et al. (2013) reported female undergraduates who
participated in a virtual internship within their course became more motivated to
pursue an engineering degree than those on traditional engineering courses. Arastoopour
et al. (2016) found students on such a course more successfully developed the identity
and habits of mind of professional engineers. So what if we could do something
earlier, for students who may not see the value of studying beyond compulsory edu-
cation, or the link between school studies and workplace contexts? What if such a pro-
gramme embedded development of key workplace skills, such as effective
communication and groupworking, alongside consideration of workplace contexts and
challenges? And what if an approach was less resource-intensive, offering digitally-
mediated rather than on-site experiences of workplaces and employer encounters?
This is what Simulated Internships enable: developing lower-secondary aged (11–14
years) learners’ ‘future’ skills of dialogue and groupwork, during a Challenge-Based
Learning programme (drawing on Apple 2010) linked authentically to the world of
work through embedded digital resources offered by real-world engineers. Working
with Design and Technology (D&T) and Computing teachers in ‘Education Opportunity
Areas’ in England (where social mobility is traditionally known to be low), the pro-
gramme was designed to take around 10 in-class hours over a half-term period (6–7
weeks), through five ‘stages’ with tasks structured to support teaching and student
engagement (see Appendix 1 for programme outline). The programme involved small
groups of students working collaboratively to define and research local responses to
global challenges (climate change or digital divides), engage in dialogue to design,
model or build a solution and present their findings.
1.3 Research questions
Informed by the above review, we address the following questions:
(1) How can Simulated Internships embed authentic links to the world of work?
(2) How can Simulated Internships be structured and facilitated to support students’
effective communication and groupworking, and shared group outcomes?
IRISH EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 53
2. Method
2.1 Design-based research
Educational Design-Based Research (DBR) is a practice-centred approach involving col-
laboration between teachers and researchers (Bakker 2019). DBR puts theories of learn-
ing into designs for learning, that are iteratively implemented and evaluated to enable
theories to be tested and developed. Involving participating teachers as teacher-research-
ers, students, industry partners, and the project advisory board was critical to this, rein-
forcing the project’s collaborative and dialogic ethos. Through building successful
Simulated Internships we developed an understanding of not only what works, but
more importantly, how and why it works (Anderson and Shattuck 2012). This enables
us to make robust recommendations for future practice including the potential develop-
ment of a scalable approach.
2.2 Participants and DBR process
We worked closely with various stakeholders to design SI experiences aligned to the
English Computing and D&T KS3 curriculum, and to evaluate their impact with a
view to developing further versions for different curricular areas. Students from four sec-
ondary schools participated during the 2019/20 and 2020/21 academic years. Class sizes
ranged from 14 to 30, depending on subject and students’ needs. Schools were located in
different urban and rural contexts, covering mainstream state schools and schools sup-
porting students with additional learning needs. The intention of working with
schools in different contexts was not to offer ‘generalisable’ findings – though we
hoped to identify aspects with wider relevance – but to generate and rigorously investi-
gate examples of successful implementation and points for improvement.
Overall, 326 students and eight teachers participated. Four schools were involved in
Phase 1 Iteration 1, with teachers and students physically in school (October 2019 to
January 2020). Three schools started Iteration 2 in school, though this was disrupted
by COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020. One school participated in Phase 2 in 2020/
21 with two cohorts: one before (September to December 2020) and one during
(January to March 2021) the third UK lockdown. As no external visitors were allowed
in school during Phase 2, and students accessed learning in school and at home at
different points, minimal data collection was possible. Data collected in these ‘lead
research schools’ includes video-recorded classroom-based lesson observations, audio-
recorded post-programme interviews with teachers, student focus groups, and teacher
workshops, and student retrospective pre–post surveys (see Table 1 and Figure 1).
Table 1. Participants and data collection across Phases and Iterations.
Phase 1, Iteration 1 Phase 1, Iteration 2 Phase 2
School 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Teachers 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 0 0 2 0 0
Lesson observations 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
Teacher interview 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
Student focus groups 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Students 26 66 12 14 22 54 12 0 0 120 0 0
Surveys 21 37 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note: N.B. some teachers were involved in multiple Iterations, with eight different teachers involved overall.
54 A. TWINER ET AL.
2.3 Ethics
Approaches to consent, privacy and data storage were underpinned by University ethical
approval and safeguarding procedures, including BERA’s (2018) ethical guidelines for
educational research. This was critical given increased pressures on teachers and students
to continue meaningful education, whilst navigating a global pandemic.
2.4 Discourse analysis of lesson observation data
Video-recorded lesson data were explored systematically through discourse analysis,
initially coding short sections for features of interest. Features were identified through
discussion between the three authors, and instances coded by the lead author. Features
included:
. group, whole class or individual work;
. using digital technology;
. student and/or teacher talk;
. using or referencing ground rules for talk;
. links to the world of work.
This coding strategy offered an overview of lesson interactions and actors, content and
mediation, for detailed qualitative exploration. Extracts were selected by the lead author
for transcription, in discussion with co-authors, aligned to specific research questions.
Extracts presented in section 3 are followed by analytic commentary (drawing on
Mercer 2004), to make salient features of dialogic interaction alongside other resources
that promote or hinder dialogic and challenge-based learning, and authentic insights into
the world of work, as well as identifying points for programme revision.
2.5 Thematic analysis of interview and focus group data
We used thematic analysis to explore interview and focus group data, drawing on Braun
and Clarke (2006). Whilst not using a pre-set coding system, our analysis was aligned to
Figure 1. Design-based research (DBR) process.
IRISH EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 55
our theoretical concerns and research questions. Following iterative reading and coding
by the lead author, 28 codes were identified, and grouped into themes. At this point, two
codes were considered more appropriately as sub-codes, and one reclassified as a theme.
This resulted in seven themes (see Figure 2, blue boxes), 25 codes (green boxes) and two
sub-codes (orange boxes), as indicated in the thematic map.
Whilst this processing of reflective data was relatively inductive, based on what tea-
chers and students said, we acknowledge participants’ comments were in response to
questions we asked. We appreciate the interpretive nature of our reflexive thematic
analysis: in outlining the process others could follow a similar approach, but would
most likely reach different conclusions regarding salient meanings within the data. We
argue however that through immersion by the lead author in the contexts, observations,
interviews, focus groups and surveys with the different classes and schools, we bring an
enhanced and more holistic sense of participants’ voices and perspectives to our analysis.
Through transparent presentation of exemplifying data extracts, we seek to re-present
these perspectives, and highlight their collective significance for ongoing research, devel-
opment and practice.
2.6 Statistical analysis of survey data
After their SI programme, students were asked to complete a retrospective pre–post
survey, responding to eight statements and three open questions. They were asked to
think back to how they felt about each issue before their internship (on a scale of 1–
5), and after – representing a perception of change. The eight statements were
(1) What I learn and do in Computing/Design & Technology will be important for me in
the future.
(2) I enjoy working in a group.
(3) I think group work is important.
(4) I can reflect on what I’ve done well, and think about how I can improve my work.
(5) I feel confident to present my ideas to others.
(6) I can think about problems in different ways.
Figure 2. Thematic map of interview and focus group data.
56 A. TWINER ET AL.
(7) I know some of the skills people need in the workplace.
(8) I think I have some of the skills I will need in the workplace.
Likert scale data were ordinal, whereby any test of significance is non-parametric.
Respondents answered pre and post questions, whereby samples are related, making
the appropriate test of significance the related samples Wilcoxon signed rank test.
3. Analysis
The analysis section is structured according to the research questions, with evidence from
the above data sources and analyses.
3.1 How can Simulated Internships embed authentic links to the world of work?
From the lesson data, evidence was identified via coding for ‘links to the world of work’.
The extract below was selected to exemplify how this focus could be embedded in class-
room interaction, discussing the importance of design. The extract also exemplifies the
need for effective collaboration and what that can look like (linking also to coding for
‘group work’, ‘student talk’ and ‘discussion of ground rules’), toward mediated consider-
ation of products that are ‘commercially successful’ and ‘profitable’.
3.1.1 Lesson extract 1
There were 14 Year 7 students aged 11–12 in the class, using the D&T version of the pro-
gramme, where students defined and designed local solutions to the global challenge of
climate change. The lesson occurred about half-way into their internship. The focal
group were one boy and two girls, seated on two sides of a table around printed resources.
The group had discussed ideas for a product logo to represent their solution, before the
teacher joined them.
[T=teacher; where names are used these are pseudonyms]
(1) T: Right, have we managed to solve our… ?
(2) Beth: No
(3) T: Ok.
(4) Adam: Can you help us?
(5) T: Can I help? Right, what is the issue?
(6) Beth: He just thinks he is amazing and he (rocks) it.
(7) T: Ok. So what’s important, and it’s very important in the design, is – remember
what we spoke about before – how you have to consider other people’s opinions
because this product – is it just you who’s going to buy the product?
(8) Adam: I don’t know.
(9) T: Probably not, otherwise it’s not going to be commercially successful is it? Because
you’re going to sell it to hundreds of thousands or millions of people for it to be a
profitable product.
(10) Beth: But you’ve got to think ours are both great ideas, so putting them together
creates one amazing great idea.
IRISH EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 57
(11) T: So, if we just take one person’s opinion, it’s potentially only going to appeal to
one person, whereas if you take many people’s opinions, it’s then going to have
more chance of appealing to a wider range of people. So that’s why it’s really impor-
tant we don’t just sort of close ourselves down and think “well I’m going to choose
my idea because it’s my idea.”
(School 4, Phase 1, Iteration 1, lesson observation 2)
In the above extract we notice a number of things in relation to our research question.
Firstly, Adam asks the teacher for help. In school conversations this is not unusual. As dis-
cussion unfolds the teacher spontaneously links the task to parallel design processes in the
world of work. He draws explicit attention to previous discussions to ‘consider other
people’s opinions’ and not ‘close ourselves down’. Within this brief extract the teacher
is a mediator – between education and the world of work, and between students trying
to collaborate effectively.What the teacher does not do, is make decisions for the students:
potentially seeking instead to support students’ ownership of the collaborative process and
design, and making explicit the need in industry to consider different opinions. The stu-
dents respond to this, evident as Beth identifies the potential value of combining ideas:
‘ours are both great ideas, so putting them together creates one amazing idea’. This high-
lights focus on collaboration rather than competition, but does not engage with how two
distinct ideas can be combined into a coherent proposal.
From the interview and focus group data, evidence to respond to RQ1 largely came
from the themes ‘value of authentic simulation of the world of work’, and ‘need for
embedded and explicit pedagogic intentions’. Referring to processes simulated in the
programme, and practices valued in industry developed through the SI, the teacher of
the above class commented:
Working together is essential in the workplace… and any company that is involved in
engineering or design, it’s very rare that one person is just responsible for everything.…
you share ideas, you bounce off each other, and from what I saw from the idea generation
with the students, what they came out with was very different to what I’m used to seeing
when they only ever work as individuals. It was far more creative, far more varied. Normally
you would expect a lot of the same thing, across the group, whereas the class all had different
ideas which was nice to see. (Teacher, School 4, post-Iteration 1 interview)
Two particular points are of note here related to RQ1: the teacher’s reflection on the
link between students’ engagement with the programme and collaborative working in
industry, and the variety of groups’ outcomes in response to the same challenge. The
teacher reflected that the relative freedom within SI lessons – illustrated briefly in the
exchange above – was turned into an authentic, workplace-paralleled opportunity to
engage, create and own group designs and ideas.
In two student focus groups at a different school, comments reflected the balance of
structure and freedom within the programme, division of work amongst group
members, continuing project work across lessons, and how such elements offered auth-
entic insights into workplace practices:
I think like we learnt to – because obviously you didn’t give us a structure, we had to struc-
ture our ideas out and like plan when we were going to do things. Because we knew when the
deadline was. (School 1, focus group 1)
58 A. TWINER ET AL.
Luke: in normal lessons we mainly just do like focus on one thing for maybe one lesson, then
move on. But with doing like a whole project on it…
Heather: You don’t really realise how many different jobs there are to make something like
we did (School 1, focus group 2)
The contrast Luke makes between ‘normal’ lessons and the ‘whole project’ encom-
passing the SI group challenge is intriguing. The students linked this, and dealing with
the apparent lack of structure, to what they learned from their SI experience, along-
side insights gained – things they ‘don’t really realise’ – of authentic workplace
practices.
The importance of collaboration within the programme was reiterated by a teacher
after Phase Two with the first cohort in School 2. This cohort experienced their SI
amidst COVID restrictions with some students in school and some accessing remotely
via Teams at home, unlike the teacher and students above who participated in pre-
COVID classrooms. The teacher recollected conversations with her students:
we came to this discussion like, “why did we have to do group work?”. I was like, “… tell me
a job where there is no group work. You’re going to have to collaborate with someone at
some point.” And that was something that I think stuck with them, because none of
them could find a job. (Teacher, School 2, post-Phase 2 interview)
Thus we see how teachers saw, and embedded for students, the workplace relevance of
programme collaboration on a sustained challenge. This highlights the critical role of the
teacher engaging with underlying programme principles, and promoting these through
lessons and activities, regardless of physical and digital context. Whilst the instantiation
of the programme therefore had to adapt to local circumstances, this demonstrates the
core programme’s flexibility to be delivered in different physical and digital contexts.
In fact this was a telling difference within the above teacher’s Post-Phase 2 interview:
reflecting on how the programme was run differently between two cohorts who experi-
enced SIs in class (socially distanced), and those who experienced it fully online from
home during COVID lockdown.
Teacher: [in cohort 2, during lockdown] We’re doing it on MS Teams as well. So basically
following through the slides with them.… obviously a lot different from how it’s meant to
be…No group work obviously.
…
Interviewer: Do you think there’s a way… it could be supported, in terms of group work
online?
Teacher: [pause] Erm. I didn’t think about that… Because obviously,… it’s like a comple-
tely different unit. Because you’ve moved from everything that would have been done as a
group, and picked up those skills, as a group in terms of learning and creating something
together, which is what you would do in the real world, in work. But then… you’ve
taken all of that out, and it’s just become an academic subject. (Teacher, School 2, post-
Phase 2 interview)
We do not add this comparison to criticise the teacher and school – the challenges
forced upon education would have been unimaginable a year earlier, and we applaud
the teacher and school for offering innovative opportunities to students during uncertain
IRISH EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 59
times. This reflection however underlines the different experience and real-world value of
the programme, when students work independently compared to when supported to
work collaboratively. This identifies a need to offer guidance on how SIs could be sup-
ported in different online and offline contexts, to capitalise on the potential benefits of
digital tools in mediating pedagogically-grounded digital education futures. It also
makes visible a benefit of the DBR approach, highlighting what could be improved.
Due to COVID-19 restricting our access to the school, we were unaware the collaborative
element had been considered untenable until the post-programme interview. Thus our
learning of the need to offer pedagogic support around online collaboration will
inform ongoing work, but came too late for this cohort.
3.1.2 Survey data
81 students completed surveys rating their level of agreement with eight statements –
considering how they felt about the issue before, and after their SI experience. Responses
were combined across the four institutions and two programme foci (Computing and
D&T) from Phase 1, Iteration 1, and tested for statistically-significant change between
pre and post. Responses plotted an average increase pre-to-post for all eight statements,
but not all were statistically significant. Considering our efforts to embed authentic links
to the world of work, addressed in RQ1, aggregated responses to two particular state-
ments are encouraging:
I know some of the skills people need in the workplace (z =−5.475, p = 0.000)
I think I have some of the skills I will need in the workplace (z =−4.795, p = 0.000)
These strong findings correspond with comments raised above through qualitative
analysis, about seeing the wider value of engaging in the programme, and the awareness
and skills students developed through this experience.
3.2 How can Simulated Internships be structured and facilitated to support
students’ effective communication and groupworking, and shared group
outcomes?
In this section we use the data to evidence how explicit attention to communication and
groupwork was embedded within the programme, student and teacher response to this,
and project outcomes.
From the interview and focus group data, responses to RQ2 can be evidenced through
the theme ‘need for embedded and explicit pedagogic intentions’. We know from existing
research that effective communication and groupworking rarely happen unless explicitly
encouraged – thus we focused on how to nurture such practices. For instance, one
student reflected in the post-programme focus group:
I think it’s better with a group because you’ve got multiple ideas to contribute to like one
thing. (School 1, focus group)
Contrastingly, in unfolding lesson interaction at the same school, another student
offered a different view of collaboration:
I guess we should have four questions and each person focuses on one (Student, School 1,
Phase 1, Iteration 2, lesson observation 2)
60 A. TWINER ET AL.
In the latter, we could interpret that students are working as a group, but not really
collaborating. Thus an understanding of how to encourage effective communication
and groupworking was not always shared, and cannot be assumed simply by putting stu-
dents in groups. A critical pedagogic intention of the programme was setting and moni-
toring ‘ground rules for talk’. The rationale was outlined in the ‘teacher resource pack’,
with explicit tasks throughout the programme. A teacher from School 3 commented in
his post-programme interview on how placing the creation of these ground rules in stu-
dents’ hands helped their acceptance:
it [setting ground rules for talk] is probably new to them… So I think that was good that
they took ownership of that, and the response from them was brilliant. (Teacher, School
3, post-Iteration 1 interview)
The teacher’s comments underline that encouraging student ownership of ground
rules, structuring effective communication and groupworking, was a valuable element
of SIs. Some instantiation of this collaborative engagement with each other’s ideas was
evident in lessons, exemplified in the extract below, from the same school (supporting
students with additional learning needs).
3.2.1 Lesson extract 2
This Year 8 class at School 3 were exploring the D&T version of SIs. The lesson was over
half-way through the programme. Students in this group (three females) were working on
a local solution of start-stop technologies for cars to reduce energy wastage. Interaction in
the extract was solely between two students, with no nearby teacher presence or input:
(1) Kate: I’ve changed it to more of a sticker, so it sticks onto the actual engine and the
exhaust pipe
(2) Lian: Yeah, would it be able to come off though?
(3) Kate: Yeah
(4) Lian: cos if you went to sell your car or something
(5) Kate: Yeah, so, you know how you have like, stickers where they stick onto stuff, and
they have like a little tab that you can pull off?
(6) Lian: Yeah
(7) Kate: Yeah, it will have one of them
(8) Lian: OK
(9) Kate: OK, so I’m messing around with different designs
(two students, School 3, Phase 1, Iteration 1, lesson observation 2)
We draw analytic attention to how the communicative space between the two students
is maintained by asking questions, grounding thoughts in recognisable scenarios, to
develop shared understanding around an idea. The three students were working on sep-
arate project aspects, whereby such conversations were vital to ensure a shared approach,
whilst still enabling Kate to be ‘messing around with different designs’. This reinforces
the importance of time and space for students to work as a group, unmediated by tea-
chers, and to explore where they can take ideas. Working through this challenging
dynamic was reinforced as valuable for students and relevant to the world of work, by
the teacher at School 4:
IRISH EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 61
I think it comes down to compromise…And everybody has their idea which they treasure,
… because it’s their idea and therefore they think it’s the best. Getting them to take on board
other people’s ideas is probably quite a big jump for them in terms of maturity.…whilst
they may not be there yet, something like this project works towards that and helps them
have those difficult discussions and come to those difficult compromises without arguing
or falling out - hopefully. So yeah, I think there’s a lot of almost kind of social skills involved
in that, which you wouldn’t normally get in an everyday lesson because that scenario doesn’t
often present itself in anything other than sharing ideas in group work. (Teacher, School 4,
post-Iteration 1 interview)
‘Difficult discussions’, ‘compromises’ and avoiding ‘arguing or falling out’ were not
illustrated in the previous lesson extract, but there were certainly moments of this
during programme lessons – potentially in the moments before the teacher’s intervention
in lesson extract 1 above. Interestingly, paralleling the student’s comment earlier in the
paper, the teacher contrasts what happens ‘normally in an everyday lesson’with the SI pro-
gramme. The importance in our programme therefore is raised of structuring activities
that equip students with dialogic tools to work through difficult conversations – preparing
for such scenarios in the workplace – toward negotiating group decisions and solutions.
Lesson extract 3 has been selected to exemplify how effective discussion can be
achieved, building ideas amongst peers, whilst also illustrating how group ownership
of ideas can be problematic resulting in sometimes superficial ownership of ground rules.
3.2.2 Lesson extract 3
The extract is from the same group and lesson as extract 1. It re-presents a student-only
group discussion – discussing what their product, as well as their logo, should look like.
One student invites the teacher to join them, but for very different reasons than in extract 1:
(1) Beth: If you have green and red, it could like indicate with different lights.
(2) Jade: No it could go red when it’s charging and then go green when it’s full.
(3) Adam: No. For this big sign we want it green because green would be our, green for
fully charged and turned on.
(4) Beth: Yeah, you would be like an (apple green) plus…
(5) Adam: And then that’s eco, it goes with everything. It helps to save energy.
(6) Jade: It’s such a good idea.
(7) Adam: I know.
(8) Jade: Green because it’s like…
(9) Adam: Green because eco, and then green because it’s fully charged and turned on.
(10) Beth: It’s saving energy so it’s good. [to Teacher] Sir, we’ve got a really good idea.
(11) T: [joins group] Go on then.
(12) Beth: [to Adam] You say it because it’s your idea.
(13) Adam: Green because, green would be our main colour, because a green equals fully
charged on our indicator light, and so green saving energy, and green would be for
the eco-friendly and green for the earth.
(School 4, Phase 1, Iteration 1, lesson observation 2)
At the start of the extract there is perceived disagreement amongst group members,
with turns 2 and 3 starting ‘no’. Within the following two turns however, rationale are
62 A. TWINER ET AL.
given for colour choices and the perceived disagreement fades, with contributors
affirming their approval, and by Beth sharing their excitement with the teacher in row
10 ‘Sir we’ve got a really good idea’. Interestingly to the teacher Beth references the
idea ‘we’ve got’, but as the teacher joins the group she steps back in the dialogic space
and indicates to Adam, ‘you say it because it’s your idea’. Adam, however, identifies
that ‘green would be our main colour’, potentially, or perhaps inadvertently, allocating
ownership back in the collaborative space. The complex dynamics of effective communi-
cation and groupwork around idea generation and ownership are exposed, with acknowl-
edgement of efforts but consolidation of group identity important.
Student groups devised various solutions through their SIs, aligned to different local
challenges. Solutions addressing the Computing challenge of digital divides, included
keyboard configurations to support access for visually-impaired people, and interfaces
for mobile phones to learn user preferences. Solutions for the D&T climate change chal-
lenge include domestic ‘master switches’ to reduce energy consumption, solar-powered,
wirelessly-charged buses, and consumer-awareness-oriented solutions that shut off
devices once a daily threshold has been reached.
3.2.3 Survey data
Considering students’ reflections on the programme features addressed in RQ2, statisti-
cally significant positive change in two statements from the pre–post survey statements
are promising:
I feel confident to present my ideas to others (z =−4.787, p = 0.000)
I think group work is important (z =−3.404, p = 0.001)
These findings are measurements of difference, pre to post: not a measurement of
actual confidence for instance. Therefore someone with a pre-rating of 3 and post-
rating of 5, would have the same difference value as someone with a pre-rating of 1
and post-rating of 3. What we can conclude is that whatever their starting and ending
evaluations, over the course of their SI the students – on average – reported greater confi-
dence to present ideas to others, and saw greater importance in groupwork.
4. Discussion and conclusions
COVID restrictions hampered efforts for iterative development and evaluation, and
scaling of the approach. Flexibility to accommodate what was possible with schools
during lockdown and self-isolation had to take priority – our approach had to be
responsive.
Even before COVID, flexibility with school timetabling can be difficult to align with
resource revision between Iterations and Phases. What we offered needed to be both
an ambitious innovation, and a sufficiently-coherent programme to support learning
objectives with students who rightly expect well-thought-out educational experiences.
Aligned to this is a wider consideration of the ethical dimension of revising resources
– who experiences the ‘improved’ programme, and who gets the version in development?
This was perhaps underpinned by comments that teachers piloted the programme with
‘good’ groups (or students they knew would give it a go). The version developed and
IRISH EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 63
implemented in Phase 1, Iteration 1 was based on research evidence and experience, but
it was nevertheless a programme in development.
Potential methodological issues and limitations must also be considered. These relate,
for instance, to the discourse analysis of lesson observation data and thematic analysis of
interview and focus group data. Methodologically, there are many ways we could have
analysed the data. We acknowledge our analysis is largely interpretive, grounded in
sociocultural and dialogic theory. Others would likely approach the data in different
ways, with different focal lenses. We therefore sought transparency of reporting, selecting
data extracts to exemplify analytic claims. We outlined our different data sources and
analytic process, and rationale for including both qualitative and quantitative elements
to offer different angles on research questions. We included data from student and tea-
chers, from the mid-flow nature of lesson interaction as well as the more reflective spaces
of interviews and focus groups.
We acknowledge that in its present form factors such as affect, embodiment and gaze
do not play a central part of the analysis (although they may still be accounted for during
inductive elements). Such factors were not a focus of our work but might be for others
with relevant expertise or different foci. It is also important to problematise the verbatim
(orthographic) approach to transcription adopted. While less demanding to undertake
(Hepburn and Bolden 2017), purely verbatim transcription can result in the omission
of potentially important information such as intonation and stress, or body movement
and use of different tools and technologies – the breadth versus depth choices of tran-
scription detail and coverage are always decisions that require thoughtful consideration
(Twiner et al. 2021). The use of standard orthography, rather than phonetic represen-
tation of sounds, might also influence a researcher’s understanding of verbal behaviour;
it can also force a literal interpretation on utterances that otherwise may be simply objects
of phonological manipulation (Ochs 1979). Such issues mean it is important for research-
ers to critically reflect on their transcription decisions prior to undertaking the research,
given the implications these might have for participants and findings (Oliver, Serovich,
and Mason 2005).
A range of mitigating actions are incorporated into the methodological approach
reported to ensure methodological rigour. For instance, issues in coding classroom
talk must be acknowledged (e.g. the use of pre-determined categories or target items lim-
iting analytical sensitivity; Mercer 2010). Other limitations relate to the interpretation of
research findings, particularly for the more inductive aspects of the analysis. Such issues
were mitigated through discussion amongst the authors, and seeking contrasting
examples. Other issues that commonly occur in video-based research – such as a
‘camera effect’ causing some participants to modify their behaviour for a short time at
least –must be considered (Blikstad-Balas 2017) and were similarly addressed by liaising
with teachers about the optimal (least intrusive) location for cameras and clearly explain-
ing to learners how recorded data would be used prior to collecting data.
A number of limitations to the research are evident, arising particularly from the rela-
tively small scale of the study and involvement of a small number of schools. The latter
data in particular, where observation and obtaining data from students was not possible,
could also be criticised in terms of a reliance on one source of data that came in the form
of retrospective self-report.
64 A. TWINER ET AL.
Our analysis indicates the programme had some positive impacts. Students created
unique responses to challenges that reflected their interests. They took charge of their
learning, beginning to work well together to co-ordinate activities and outcomes – a
pattern of interaction we know has benefits for learning (Howe et al. 2019). Over the
course of their SIs, students saw greater value in groupwork and increased confidence
to share ideas with others, gained meaningful insights into workplace practices, chal-
lenges and contexts, and increased understanding of skills needed in the workplace,
and their sense of having some of these skills. A key response to the skills and perception
gap identified earlier (Strimel et al. 2020): students who participated were proud of their
achievement and believed they could make a difference. Through engagement with the
approach, resources and pedagogical foundations, participating teachers were empow-
ered to be mediators and brokers of experience, whilst maintaining their role as
subject experts. They were also validated, through authentic industry-voiced digital
resources without need for site visits and risk assessment forms, in highlighting the rel-
evance of curricular tasks to students’ futures, and in offering these opportunities to all
students regardless of location, finances or access.
Revisiting our research questions, SIs can embed authentic links to the world of work,
and be structured to support students’ effective communication, groupwork and shared
outcomes, through the following research-evidenced design principles:
. explicit attention to ground rules for talk, and engaging with each other’s ideas
(Mercer, Wegerif, and Dawes 1999);
. positioning teachers as mediator and broker of experiences;
. positioning students as owners of group challenges and outcomes, experiencing the
importance of groupwork to workplace practices (e.g. Chesler et al. 2013);
. considering user needs and impacts, and stretching their skillset to appreciate and
accommodate these requirements;
. immersion through a mantle of the expert, role-play approach, in concepts, consider-
ations and processes relevant to the world of work (drawing on Heathcote and Herbert
1985);
. providing space and time for students to explore their task (drawing onWegerif 2007),
and work through challenges toward shared ownership of ideas and outcomes;
. identifying the need to support collaborative working in various digital and physical
contexts.
For teachers, we suggest that Simulated Internships offer an innovative programme
integrating evidence-based resources with authentic work-based challenges and evalu-
ation criteria from real-world enterprises. The programme was intentionally designed
to meet curriculum criteria – allowing teachers time to explore it with students. In a
time-poor curriculum, this was critical to programme feasibility.
For learners, preliminary analysis indicates that SIs offer structured opportunities to
take ownership of their learning, working on real-world challenges in ways that are rel-
evant now and for the future. The programme offers strategies and contexts to develop
‘future’ skills relating to dialogue and groupwork. Crucially SIs offer work experience
opportunities and insights to students at scale, and earlier in education trajectories
than more traditional models.
IRISH EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 65
For education, Simulated Internships provide a rigorous, evidence-based programme
structured with tasks that raise students’ aspirations and awareness of options beyond
school. The digital model enables this provision without need for site visits, risk assess-
ment, consent forms or funding for school trips, and at scale. Moving forward, we know
online collaboration can be resourced if students are accessing remotely – a highly likely
scenario as we envisage digital education futures. Various tools exist, and guidance could
be included on effective pedagogic use of digital tools.
For employers wishing to shape future education practices, generating SIs and insightful
digital resources aligned to their workplace priorities could offer scope to equip tomorrow’s
workforce with necessary skills and understanding. We acknowledge considerations, in
terms of employer investment to create resources, and concerns over what they may
‘expect’ in return from participating students and schools – of which school gatekeepers
may be cautious. We argue however that such SI partnership-at-a-distance can offer a safe-
guarded means for students to explore workplace scenarios, requiring minimal ongoing
time or financial investment from industry. Through this model students gain insights
through structured activities couched in workplace challenges, employers raise the
profile of their organisation, but without direct contact between students and employers.
For researchers, we offer a transparent account of how we adapted our DBR frame-
work due to unforeseen and long-lasting challenges brought about by COVID-19. We
underscored the importance of teacher support, empowering practitioners to facilitate
students’ effective communication and collaboration, evidencing why this is relevant
to students’ current and future options. We consolidated our intentions to work in part-
nership with teachers and industry colleagues, supporting rich Simulated Internship
experiences in a range of digital and social contexts. We therefore conclude that SIs
offer an innovative model of education, projecting scenarios in which anyone can experi-
ence solving real-world challenges with cutting-edge companies.
Acknowledgements
We are hugely grateful to the schools, teachers and students who worked with us to refine the project
model and resources. We also thank our industry colleagues at BT and Huawei who funded this
work, supported project development, engaged critically, and recorded stimulating videos to increase
programme authenticity. Thanks too to the project advisors who offered valuable feedback.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was funded by [BT] and [Huawei]. The reported work took place when all three authors
were based at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.
Notes on contributors
Dr. A. Twiner is a Research Associate at Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge. Her research
interests focus on meaning making, the different ways in which teachers and learners seek to
66 A. TWINER ET AL.
support this, and the different ways researchers can explore such interactions. Such focus includes
attention to the educational use of technology, and educational dialogue - including talk and other
modes of communication.
Dr. L. Major is Senior Lecturer in Digital Education at the University of Manchester. His research
focuses on digital technology’s role in the future of education, in particular, how this can enable
new models of education, address educational disadvantage, and support dialogue and
communication.
Professor R. Wegerif is Professor of Education in the Faculty of Education, University of Cam-
bridge. He has substantial research expertise regarding the benefits of a dialogic and collaborative
approach to teaching and learning, and to the use of digital technologies in disrupting models of
education. He is Director of the Digital Education Futures Initiative, based at Hughes Hall, Uni-
versity of Cambridge.
ORCID
L. Major http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7658-1417
R. Wegerif http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2278-2245
References
Anderson, T., and J. Shattuck. 2012. “Design-based Research: A Decade of Progress in Education
Research?” Educational Researcher 41 (1): 16–25.
Apple Inc. 2010. Challenge-based learning. A classroom guide.
Arastoopour, G., D. W. Shaffer, Z. Swiecki, A. R. Ruis, and N. C. Chesler. 2016. “Teaching and
Assessing Engineering Design Thinking with Virtual Internships and Epistemic Network
Analysis.” International Journal of Engineering Education 32 (2): 1492–1501.
Bakker, A. 2019. Design Research in Education: A Practical Guide for Early Career Researchers.
Oxon: Routledge.
Blikstad-Balas, M. 2017. “Key Challenges of Using Video When Investigating Social Practices in
Education: Contextualization, Magnification, and Representation.” International Journal of
Research & Method in Education 40 (5): 511–523.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
British Educational Research Association. 2018. Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, (4th
ed). London: BERA.
Chalkiadaki, A. 2018. “A Systematic Literature Review of 21st Century Skills and Competencies in
Primary Education.” International Journal of Instruction 11 (3): 1–16.
Chesler, N. C., G. Arastoopour, C. M. D’Angelo, E. A. Bagley, and D.W. Shaffer. 2013. “Design of a
Professional Practice Simulator for Educating andMotivating First-Year Engineering Students.”
Advances in Engineering Education 3 (3): 1–30.
Greiff, S., C. Niepel, and S. Wüstenberg. 2015. “21st Century Skills: International Advancements
and Recent Developments.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 18: 1–3.
Heathcote, D., and P. Herbert. 1985. “A Drama of Learning: Mantle of the Expert.” Theory Into
Practice 24 (3): 173–180.
Hepburn, A., and G. Bolden. 2017. “Getting Started with Transcription.” In Transcribing for Social
Research, 13–20. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/
9781473920460.
Howe, C., S. Hennessy, N. Mercer, M. Vrikki, and L. Wheatley. 2019. “Teacher–Student Dialogue
During Classroom Teaching: Does it Really Impact on Student Outcomes?” Journal of the
Learning Sciences 28 (4-5): 462–512..
Lee, K. H. 2017. A Perceptions Gap, Not a Skills Gap, May Be Manufacturing’s Biggest Problem
when Looking for New Hires. Medill News Service. Accessed 9 June 2021. http://dc.medill.
IRISH EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 67
northwestern.edu/blog/2017/08/23/a-perception-gap-not-a-skills-gap-may-be-manufacturin
gs-biggest-problem-when-looking-for-new-hires/#sthash.XcL9rHs2.v0UCtJ1 g.dpbs.
Mayer, I., and H. Mastik. 2007. Organizing and learning through gaming and simulation.
Proceedings of ISAGA. Delft: Eburon.
Mercer, N. 1995. The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk Amongst Teachers and Learners.
Multilingual matters.
Mercer, N. 2004. “Sociocultural Discourse Analysis: Analysing Classroom Talk as a Social Mode of
Thinking.” Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (2): 137–168.
Mercer, N. 2010. “The Analysis of Classroom Talk: Methods and Methodologies.” British Journal
of Educational Psychology 80 (1): 1–14.
Mercer, N., S. Hennessy, and P. Warwick. 2019. “Dialogue, Thinking Together and Digital
Technology in the Classroom: Some Educational Implications of a Continuing Line of
Inquiry.” International Journal of Educational Research 97: 187–199.
Mercer, N., R. Wegerif, and L. Dawes. 1999. “Children’s Talk and the Development of Reasoning
in the Classroom.” British Educational Research Journal 25 (1): 95–111.
Nicholls, B. 2018. “Challenge Based Learning: A Real-World Approach for Secondary Students to
Solve Complex Problems Using Geoscience Knowledge and Skills.” Terrae Didat 14 (4): 369–
372.
Ochs, E. 1979. “Transcription as Theory.” In Developmental Pragmatics, edited by E. Ochs, and B.
B. Schiefflin, 43–72. New York: Academic.
Oliver, D. G., J. M. Serovich, and T. L. Mason. 2005. “Constraints and Opportunities with
Interview Iranscription: Towards Reflection in Qualitative Research.” Social Forces; A
Scientific Medium of Social Study and Interpretation 84 (2): 1273–1289..
Shaffer, D. W. 2017. Quantitative Ethnography. Madison: Cathcart Press.
Strimel, G. J., L. Krause, L. Bosman, S. Serban, and S. Harrell. 2020. “The Next Generation for
Manufacturing Competitiveness?: Investigating the Influence of Industry-Driven Outreach
on Children Career Perceptions.” Journal for STEM Education Research 3: 232–258.
Twiner, A., K. Littleton, D. Whitelock, and C. Coffin. 2021. “Combining Sociocultural Discourse
Analysis and Multimodal Analysis to Explore Teachers’ and Pupils’ Meaning Making.”
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 30: 2–13.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and Language (A. Kozulin, Trans. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wagner, T. 2010. The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even our Best Schools Don’t Teach the new
Survival Skills our Children Need–and What We Can Do About it. New York: Basic Books.
Warwick, P., V. Cook, M. Vrikki, L. Major, and I. Rasmussen. 2020. “Realising ‘Dialogic
Intentions’ When Working with a Microblogging Tool in Secondary School Classrooms.”
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24: 100376.
Wegerif, R. 2007.Dialogic, Education and Technology: Expanding the Space of Learning. New York:
Springer.
Winter, E., A. Costello, M. O’Brien, and G. Hickey. 2021. “Teachers’ use of Technology and the
Impact of COVID-19.” Irish Educational Studies 40 (2): 235–246.
Appendix 1. Programme outline.
Stage Stage Aim Intended Outcomes Core Stage Tasks Links
1 To use challenges from the
world of work to frame a
challenge-based learning
project – the aim of Stage
1 is for groups to take
ownership of the ground
rules for talk, have
All groups establish
whole class ground
rules; agree and
record group
challenges.
Most groups
understand relation
S1.T1. Watch BT/Huawei
‘welcome’ video.
S1.T2. Discuss and
establish ground rules
for talk.
S1.T3. Watch and
discuss ‘challenge’ video
Link to the world of
work and curriculum:
Explore a genuine
workplace challenge.
Link to C2C: Establish
what ground rules for
talk are useful and
(Continued )
68 A. TWINER ET AL.
Continued.
Stage Stage Aim Intended Outcomes Core Stage Tasks Links
narrowed down from the
big idea, and agreed on a
challenge to pursue.
of local challenge to
global issue.
Some groups
consider research
strategy.
presented by BT/
Huawei; Choose the ‘big
idea’; Agree the group
challenge.
S1.T4. Introduce student
logbook.
productive, for group
interaction and for
meeting Task
requirements.
2 To ground a response to
the challenge in research
evidence and user
perspectives, with
consideration of
appropriate methods,
timescale, available tools
and access.
All groups
brainstorm ideas,
plan and gather
evidence in
response to the
challenge.
Most groups
conduct research
outside the
classroom.
Some groups
conduct interviews
or surveys.
S2.T1. Brainstorm ideas
and encourage a
creative approach to the
challenge.
S2.T2. Research the
challenge.
Link to the world of
work and curriculum:
Consider user
perspectives and needs;
Research the challenge.
Link to C2C: Brainstorm
ideas; Stay mindful of
ground rules; Divide
research tasks amongst
group members.
3 To understand user and/or
expert perspectives on
the challenge; Decide on
a potential solution on
the basis of this
understanding.
All groups discuss
different
possibilities, and
agree on ideas for a
group solution.
Most groups
ground their ideas
in research
evidence.
Some groups
explore multiple
ideas before
agreeing on one.
S3.T1. Watch and discuss
BT/Huawei ‘creativity’ or
‘collaboration’ video.
S3.T2. Discuss themes in
the data – what does
this mean for building a
solution?
S3.T3. Brainstorm and
consider alternative
solutions; Select one
solution to pursue, using
authentic industry
criteria.
Link to the world of
work and curriculum:
Use evidence to think of
innovative solutions to a
challenge, based on
real-world evaluative
criteria.
Link to C2C: Discuss
themes from data, share
suggestions and explore
alternatives.
4 To use the understanding
from previous Stages to
design, model or build a
solution that is
innovative, sustainable
and user-focused, and to
evaluate this against
authentic workplace
criteria.
All groups
implement, discuss
reasons and
evaluate a solution
(design, model or
build).
Most groups
indicate how they
could improve their
solution.
Some groups
amend their
solution based on
evaluation.
S4.T1. Implement a
solution.
S4.T2. Evaluate the
solution.
Link to the world of
work and curriculum:
Use authentic workplace
criteria to implement
and evaluate the group
solution.
Link to C2C: Share and
discuss reasons and
actions for how to
implement their
solution, and for scoring
it on the evaluation
criteria.
5 To present the group’s
process and implemented
solution, and give a
rationale for its
evaluation against
workplace criteria.
All groups prepare
how to present the
group solution, and
present it.
Most groups have
a design, model or
product to present.
Some groups
present how they
would amend their
solution based on
evaluation.
S5.T1. Prepare the
presentation.
S5.T2. Present the
group solution and
evaluation.
S5.T3. Reflect on their
development through
the project work.
Link to the world of
work and curriculum:
Use different media to
present solution and
evaluation; Align group
work with real-world
workplace criteria.
Link to C2C: Work as a
group to prepare and
present their solution.
IRISH EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 69