Using Hypervideo to support undergraduate students' reflection on work practices: a qualitative study

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Using Hypervideo to support undergraduate students’reflection on work practices: a qualitative study Marco Perini 1* , Alberto A. P. Cattaneo 2 and Giuseppe Tacconi 1 * Correspondence: marco.perini@ univr.it 1 Department of Human Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy Full list of author information is available at the end of the article Abstract According to several exploratory studies, the HyperVideo seems to be particularly useful in highlighting the existing connections between the school-based and the work-based contexts, between authentic work situations and theoretical underpinnings. This tool and its features, in particular, the video annotation, seems to constitute an instrument which facilitates the students’reflection on work-practices. Even though several researchers have already studied the efficacy of HyperVideo, studies concerning the qualitative differences between a reflection process activated with or without its use are still missing. Therefore, the present contribution is focused on the reflective processes activated by two groups of students engaged in a higher education course while they carry out a reflective activity on work practices using the HyperVideo or not. The aim is to investigate wether the HyperVideo can be useful for students to foster the connection between theoretical concepts and work practices. Through multi-step qualitative analysis which combined Thematic Qualitative Text Analysis and Grounded Theory, a sample of reflective reports drafted by a group of students who employed HiperVideo to make a video-interview on a work-practice and to reflect on it (Group A) was compared with a sample of reflective reports drafted by a group who did not use it to complete the same task (Group B). The results emerging from the comparison of the coding frequencies between the two groups show that HyperVideo can support the reflective processes of students, better connecting theory and professional practice. Keywords: Hypervideo, Video annotation, Reflective activities, Crossing boundaries, Educational technologies Introduction Since the turn of the century, the world economy has constantly been in flux because of globalization and the rapid evolution of technology. In order to meet emerging challenges, policymakers have consistently tried to innovate their respective educational systems in order to effectively face and keep up with the demands of the labor market (Paplova, 2009). For example, the European Union (EU) introduced the Lifelong Learning program in 2006, establishing a common framework of key competencies that member States had to aspire to in order to try and close the gap between educational and work contexts (European Council, 2006). Despite the educational reforms led by © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Perini et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2019) 16:29 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0156-z this intervention, the issue is still open. Indeed, the EU recently proposed a renewal effort to address this gap through a new set of recommendations on key competencies for Lifelong Learning (European Commission, 2018). The need to connect educational and work contexts is not new in the field of educational research. A long tradition exists to study how such contexts can interact each other (e.g. Ludvigsen, Lund, Rasmussen, & Säljö, 2011; Stenström & Tynjälä, 2009; Tuomi-Gröhn & Engeström, 2003). Several pedagogical models similarly emphasize the need of a stronger articulation among learning locations and propose ways to realize it: we cite here the expansive learning model (Fuller & Unwin, 2003), the connective model (Griffiths & Guile, 2003; Guile & Griffiths, 2001), the integrative pedadogics model (Tynjälä, 2005,2008,2009), and the hybrid curriculum model (Zitter, Hoeve, & de Bruijn, 2016). The same perspective is also assumed when studying the knowledge inherent in teachers’work experience in order to make it available for in-training teachers (Tacconi, 2011; Tacconi & Gomez, 2010; Tacconi & Hunde, 2017; Mortari, 2010). Advocated across these methods, two theoretical concepts that have a central role in describing potential ways for closing the gap between different learning contexts are boundary crossing, and boundary objects. The concept of “boundary crossing”, introduced by Suchman (1994) and refined by Engeström, Engeström, and Kärkkäinen (1995), denotes how an expert worker or a practitioner may need to combine and negotiate elements belonging to different contexts (e.g. routinely workplace, past learning situations, etc.) when s/he needs to challenge new and/or unfamiliar hybrid situations. An unfamiliar hybrid situation occurs when the characteristic conditions of different contexts occur at the same time with novel combinations. The concept of boundary crossing bases on that of boundary objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989). “Boundary objects […] both inhabit [these] intersecting social worlds […] and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them […] maintainin[ing] a common identity across the sites”(p. 393). The results of a literature review drafted by Akkerman & Bakker, 2011, through which they examined 181 papers to better understand the learning potential of boundaries, reveals reflection to be one of the four potential dialogical learning mechanisms taking place at the boundaries, together with identification, coordination and transformation. In particular, reflection “is about expanding one’s perspectives on the practices”(Akkerman & Bakker, 2011, p. 150). Reflection, technologies and the Efrahrraum model The relevance of reflection for better articulating the distances between different learning contexts has been enhanced also by more recent studies, which are not included in the review cited above (e.g. Perini, 2017; Bronkhorst & Akkerman, 2016; Schwendimann et al., 2015). According to the conclusion of an ethnographic study conducted into the Vocational Education and Training (VET) healthcare context, the “reflective processes take place within a range of settings, contacts and through activities, many of which are initiated and enacted by the [participants] themselves”(Wegener, 2013,p. 471). The reflection process is a recurring element in several experiential learning theories. It assumes different roles, as it can be seen in the following illustrative examples: a) according to the Dewey’s(1933) experiential learning theories, the reflective thought allows to verify the foundations of beliefs, and the validity of the routinely practices, as Perini et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2019) 16:29 Page 2 of 16 well as the knowledge on which they are based; b) the four-stage experiential learning model by Kolb (1984), provides for a reflective observation phase, between the concrete experience and the abstract conceptualization phases; c) according to Schön’s(1987) view on the nature of the reflective practices, reflection allows practitioners to learn from unexpected outcomes and from events that come out of the routinely actions, activating the attention and creating a prerequisite for self-learning which takes place through reflection. These and many other theoretical frameworks (e.g., Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985; Engeström, 1987; Jarvis, 2009; Moon, 1999) define the role of reflection in learning processes, but, just taking a look at the encyclopedic definition attributed to reflection it is possible to understand its role in the learning processes related to work and to the skills development: “Reflection plays an important role in experiential learning, both cognitively and metacognitively. It has been widely discussed in the literature as an important approach for promoting learning and higher order thinking skills, developing professional practices, and facilitating and structuring learning through experiences” (Looi & Wu, 2015,p.610) Technology is often identified in the literature as a means to support reflection and then able to foster the “bridging function”between the working and school context, because technologies “can serve many roles to support work-based learning”(Margaryan, 2008, p. 17). In this framework, the “Efrahrraum”is a pedagogical model (Schwendimann et al., 2015), consisting “of technology-enhanced spaces that facilitate conversations between work and school […] context in iterative loops”(p. 373). In the Erfahrraum, the boundary-crossing between the contexts is allowed by a scaffolded space for reflection on experiences. In fact, the name of the model is the result of the combination of the German terms ‘Erfahrung’(experience) and ‘Raum’(space). Conceived to be compliant with dual vocational education, and then to favor learning across contexts, the model is grounded on experiential learning; it gives technologies a special role to create a specific “space”sustaining a reflective process that allows real experiences to become knowledge (Schwendimann et al., 2015). This model confirms then the role of technologies as boundary objects, given that they “could serve as bridges between the school and the workplace as well as between the actors of these different locations”(Schwendimann et al., 2015, p. 371). Furthermore, it highlights reflection as a technology-scaffolded activity able to turn experiences into knowledge, without restrictions about the types of technology used for implementation. As anticipated, this model, like many of the studies concerning its bridging activity, has been developed in and for the VET context. Vocational education is a privileged location for studying this topic, especially within states that provide a dual-system (e.g. Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark etc.) which allows students (apprentices) to carry out the curricular activities alternating in its different learning contexts: in the VET school (in the classroom) and in the workplace (working for a company) (Cattaneo & Aprea, 2018). The Hypervideo and video annotation According to several exploratory studies conducted within - but not only - the Swiss dual-system, the HyperVideo (HV) seems to be particularly effective in Perini et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2019) 16:29 Page 3 of 16 highlighting connections between classroom and work context, between authentic work situations and theoretical subjects (Cattaneo, Nguyen, Sauli, & Aprea, 2015; Cattaneo & Nguyen, 2016;Cattaneo&Sauli,2017; Cattaneo, van der Meij, Aprea, Sauli, & Zahn, 2018; Sauli, Cattaneo, & van der Meij, 2018). Moreover, as claimed by Cattaneo & Aprea (2018a) and Schwendimann et al. (2015), it seems particularly suitable for implementing the Efrahrraum model. In 2018 Sauli and colleagues published a literature review which aimed at highlighting the concept and use of HV. The authors drawn the characteristics which distinguish the “classic”video and the HV, splitting them into two groups: 1) the fundamental features allow a non-linear video navigation (e.g. through segmentation or visual tables of content), advanced control features and the possibility to link or include additional material to it (e.g. documents, other videos, descriptions etc.); 2) the optional features allow to insert individual or collaborative video annotation and/or generate manual or automated feedback (Sauli et al., 2018). The second features’group in particular “allow reflection about the contents and deeper understanding, which is an important aspect of learning with videos”(Sauli et al., 2018,p.126).Above all, according to several studies summarized by Cattaneo and Boldrini (2016), “Video annotation facilitates individual reflection on practices, thereby supporting ex-post monitoring and evaluating processes, as well as anticipatory ones (Cattaneo, Nguyen, Sauli, & Aprea, 2015,p.41)”. As reported above, the efficacy of video annotation has already been studied by several researchers (e.g. Colasante, Kimpton, & Hallam, 2014; Rich & Hannafin, 2009). However, to the best of our knowledge, studies about the qualitative differences between a reflection process activated with and without the use of video annotation still require investigation. Furthermore, the use of HV should also be examined out of the VET context, in order to foster the connection between different learning location, workplace and school in particular. Research aims and questions It is thought that having more information about the qualitative features of the reflective process activated by the video annotation could support teachers and trainers - especially those in VET - in teaching design, because, in order to obtain an effective learning process support, technologies need to be adapted and contextualized depending on the learning context, as remarked by Hattie’s metanalysis (Hattie, 2009). Therefore, the present study is focused on the reflective processes activated by the students while carrying out a reflective activity on self-made video interviews using the video annotation tool. This study aims to verify whether the use of this innovative teaching tool in a VET-oriented university context can stimulate learning processes that encourage reflection on working practices. So, the research question that guided the present study is the following: Does the use of the video annotation, a feature of the HV, allow the students to activate a qualitatively different reflective practice compared to the reflective practice activated without the support of this technology? Or better yet, how can the HV be useful for VET teachers and training operators to foster a connection between theoretical concepts and work practices? This study represents the first, exploratory, phase of a wider Perini et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2019) 16:29 Page 4 of 16 research project aimed at discovering the potential of video-related technologies in VET-teacher education. Methods In order to answer the proposed question, given its descriptive nature, a Thematic Qualitative Text Analysis (TQTA) was conducted, because “thematic analysisisprimarilyadescriptivestrategythat facilitates the search for patterns of experience within a qualitative data set”(Ayres, 2008, p. 867). Specifically, the analysis procedure for TQTA proposed by Kuckartz (2014)wasemployed.The choice fell upon Kuckartz’s proposal because, unlike the classic version of TQTA (Ayres, 2008), it lends itself to a data-driven approach. The analysis was carried out in two macro-steps: in the first step a codebook was drafted on the basis of the category system that emerged by analyzing a random sample of reflective reports in accordance with the Grounded Theory (GT) approach (Glaser, Strauss, & Strutzel, 1968); in the second step a larger sample of texts was codified through the coding scheme laid out in the codebook. After the analysis process, the coding frequency (in terms of number of words) of the texts belonging to the students who used the annotation tool was compared with those of the students who did not receive any indications regarding video annotation tools for carrying out the assignment. To this end, descriptive statistics, correlational analysis and T-test were employed. The next sections report detail on the data collection and data analysis processes. Context and participants of the study The context in which the present study took place is the bachelor course “Educational Sciences in Organizations”held at the University of Verona, during the academic years 2015/2016 and 2016/2017. Specifically, the study-setting is the module titled “Training didactics”which is scheduled for the first year of the course outlined above. The primary reason for this choice was that this course eventually gave to the students the opportunity to operate in the VET sector. Furthermore, the main objective of the module is to improve the course participants’knowledge and competencies by reducing the gap between the students and professional practices, in order to make them capable of conceptualizing and designing appropriate instructional activities in accordance with the specific learning situations offered by the relevant work practices and the training courses linked to work contexts. Therefore, the training activities foreseen in the module have been chosen and designed in order to develop the students’skills in work-practice analysis, i.e., to achieve a deep understanding of the practices’crucial characteristics through a reflective approach, which in turn directs them in putting into words the new acquired knowledge (Tacconi, 2015). Both in the academic years 2015/2016 and 2016/2017, the final exam for the module was structured in three parts: 1) written exam, 2) oral exam, 3) project work completion. Each part of the examination is evaluated on its own merits by the teacher: the final grade of the module is made up of the sum of the grades pertaining of each section. The third part of the exam gave the students two options (between which they could choose) to be completed by Perini et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2019) 16:29 Page 5 of 16 the end of the semester out of the course timetable. One option asked students a reflective report on a free-choice’book. The other option, which is the subject of the present research, asked the students to a) make a video-interview on a work practice (a professional activity) and, b) draft a reflective report on the content of this video and the thought process put in place during the video making. The students could choose the interviewee (whatever kind of professional), the work practice and, where to shoot the video (usually at the workplace of the interviewee). They also had to get the video equipment autonomously. The assignment described above had different rules of implementation in the two academic years: the students of in the academic year 2015/2016 (Group A)hadtomakethe video-interview and write the reflective report without receiving restrictions or suggestions; the students in the academic year 2016/2017 (Group B)hadto complete the same tasks using the “iVideo”(iVideo, 2018) software, an HV system also integrating video annotation functions. Specifically, the second group had to make the video-interview in the form of an HV and to draft the reflective report by inserting video annotations through the dedicated iVideo feature. The same Group B also participated in a 4-h long training session on the HV and were assisted by a tutor in order to solve any technical problems that could arise with respect to the creation of the HV. On the contrary, as previously mentioned, the students of Group A didn’t receive any dedicated training or support as they did not use the HV software. All the students involved (Group A and Group B) could choose the working method for video production, that is to say, teamwork or individual work. The students who chose to produce the video together with other peers also had to write a part of the reflective report individually. The students of Group A and Group B who chose to make the video-interview and draft the reflective report (the option explained above) to carry out the third part of the exam were involved in the research. All the interviewees signed a standard consent form which explicitly allows for the use of the gathered video-material for research purposes. The department’ethics committee approved the standard consent form. Data collection In academic year 2015/2016 the 74% of students choose to make the videointerview, while in academic year 2016/2017 the 69% chose this option. All the videos produced and the reflective reports drafted by the students of Group A and Table 1 Overview of the collected data Academic Year Technology used Subgroup Students’ Working Method Amount of collected videos Amount of collected reflective reports Amount of selected videos 2015/2016 Gr. A (unspecified) At Team work 38 84 14 2015/2016 Gr. A (unspecified) Ai Individual work 29 29 14 2016/2017 Gr. B (iVideo) Bt Team work 30 69 14 2016/2017 Gr. B (iVideo) Bi Individual work 15 15 14 Perini et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2019) 16:29 Page 6 of 16 Group B were collected and catalogued. The materials of the students who did not comply with both the requests or who did not receive an evaluation on the same were not taken into consideration for the purposes of the study. All of the formats of the text files were checked and, if necessary, converted to ensure compatibility with Nvivo 11 software (Nvivo Pro.11, 2015). The materials gathered with respect to each group have been divided into as many sub-groups, depending on the working methods employed by the students (teamwork or individual work). The following Table 1shows the numbers pertaining to the materials collected for each group. One hundred ninety-seven reflective reports and 112 videos were collected altogether. In addition to the materials submitted by the students, the grades attributed by the teacher to the students were also collected. Only the marks related to the third part of the exam described above were taken into account for the analysis because the other two parts concerned different contents and learning materials. In order to define the corpus of data relevant for the analysis, the reflective reports of each sub-group were ordered from the lowest mark to the highest mark. After that, in every sub-group, 7 reflective reports with the highest grade and the 7 reflective reports with the lowest grade were selected for the analysis, for a total of 56 texts. The length of both the reflective texts (measured in words) and the corresponding videos (measured in seconds) was collected and added to the data set. Step 1 –the codebook’drafting As mentioned above, in order to outlying a codebook based on the students’reflective reports, a sample of reflective texts was randomly taken out of the entire corpus of data. In accordance with the Corbin and Strauss’GT approach for data analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), the selected reports were analyzed by following the open coding and axial coding procedures, which provide for the establishment of a category system based on data. The analysis was conducted pursuant to the following research questions: What are the characteristics of the reflective reports? What are the main topics discussed by the students in their reflective texts? The coding was carried out separately by two coders who generated two different sets of categories and coding. The two coders and a third member of the research team compared the sets of categories in order to obtain a unique and shared coding system through a dialogic process. The obtained coding system –reported in Table 2 –is composed by a hierarchy of categories and sub-categories inductively based on data with 21 coding possibilities. On the basis of the hierarchy reported in Table 2, a guideline document for coders - a codebook - was drafted. The codebook contains the following elements: the coding procedure; the minimum size of the coding units; the category system; the description and explanation of categories and subcategories; examples of pieces of text coded using the procedure. The codebook was tested and tuned up by the research team employing it on a sample of reflective reports which were randomly selected from the sources excluded from the corpus of analysis. Before proceeding with the coding of the sample, the two coders were involved in a intense training on the use of codebook and Perini et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2019) 16:29 Page 7 of 16 Nvivo 11 software (Nvivo Pro.11, 2015): several tests were made to ensure that they understood the meaning of the categories and how to attribute them to the parts of the text. Step 2 –the sample’coding The 56 reflective reports selected for the analysis were distributed to the two coders and were analyzed separately using the Nvivo 11 software (Nvivo Pro.11, 2015) and following the codebook guidelines. Three texts were analyzed by both the coders to check the intercoder agreement. Given the high number of coding options (21), the coefficient of interclass correlation through test F was calculated on the three texts’encodings using SPSS software (IBM SPSS Statistics, 2011). The intercoder agreement was confirmed as the coefficients resulted > 0.6 in all three cases and their mean was 0,801 (SD = 0.1583). After that, thanks to the matrix coding feature of Nvivo 11 software (Nvivo Pro.11, 2015), the coding frequencies of all categories, in terms of word number, have been obtained. The Table 2 The coding system and its categories Hierarchy of categories 1st Hierarchy Level 2nd Hierarchy Level Category Label The Student reports / Describes / Narrates Work-related events A education and / or training-related events B Assignment-related events C reflects on the job or the work (regarding) the interviewee D their work E Work in general F reflects on education and / or training (regarding) regarding the interviewee G their education and training H education and training in general I reflects on submitted assignments reflective-report drafting L videomaking (technical aspects) M interview preparation and conducting N post-production (editing etc.) O cooperating with peers P the assignment in general Q reports on what the interviewee disclosed - through a description - about experiences regarding work and personal life R interpersonal relationships S reports on what the interviewee disclosed - through a reflection - about experiences regarding work and personal life T interpersonal relationships U Cross-cutting categories a the student refers to specific moments in the video or interview V the student refers to the teaching module’s contents Z a Unlike other coding possibilities, cross-sectional categories can be used by programmers on already encoded portions of text Perini et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2019) 16:29 Page 8 of 16 word number was chosen as the unit of measurement because it could well express the space dedicated by the students in the reflective reports to the topics identified through the categories. All the emerged data were organized into a data set which was then analyzed using SPSS software (IBM SPSS Statistics, 2011). The use of quantitative analysis methods reported below does not have the ambition to generalize the results of this explorative study, but to provide a precise and detailed answer to the research question and to highlight also unexpected outcomes, which are not inherent to the research question, but still interesting for the research topic. Results Reflective reports and corresponding video characteristics Descriptive statistics (means (M) and standard deviations (SD)) about the characteristics of reflective reports and corresponding videos split into groups A and B are reported in Table 3. Looking at the differences between the group means, the Group B condition (using HV and video annotation) seems to affect the video duration and reflective report length. The Pearson coefficients confirmed the presence of a correlation both between video length and study group conditions (r(56) = −.377, p< .005) and between the latter and report length (r(56)-.510, p< .001). On the contrary, the correlation between video and report length is not significant (r(56).112, p= .372). The independent-sample T-test and the effect-size coefficient confirmed the trend: there was a significant difference in the video length for Group A and Group B conditions; t(54) = 2.994, p<0.01,d= 0.800 there was a significant difference in the report length for group A and Group B conditions; t(54) = 4.362, p< 0.001,d= 1.166 Table 3 Report and video characteristics split into Group (A and B) and subgroups (At, Bt, Ai, Bi) Sub-group/group N M SD Video Time (in seconds) At 14 779,64 295,189 Ai 14 847,50 326,643 A 28 813,57 307,442 Bt 14 625,14 155,593 Bi 14 595,57 216,685 B 28 610,36 185,714 Reports’length (Words number) At 14 1315,71 311,955 Ai 14 1265,93 425,771 A 28 1290,82 367,127 Bt 14 611,36 384,896 Bi 14 919,29 604,213 B 28 765,32 521,237 Perini et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2019) 16:29 Page 9 of 16 Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2003). Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: Creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation. Journal of Education and Work,16(4), 407–426. Glaser, B., Strauss, A., & Strutzel, E. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing Research,17(4), 364. Griffiths, T., & Guile, D. (2003). A connective model of learning: The implications for work process knowledge. European Educational Research Journal,2(1), 56–73. Guile, D., & Griffiths, T. (2001). Learning through work experience. Journal of Education and Work,14(1), 113–131. Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. Abingdon: Routledge. IBM SPSS Statistics. (2011). iVideo. (2018). http://ivideo.education/ivideo/login.jsp Jarvis, P. (2009). Learning to be a person in society. Oxon: Routledge. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice & using software. London: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288719. Looi, C.-K., & Wu, L. (2015). Reflection and preflection prompts and scaffolding. In S. J. Michael (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology,(pp.610–613). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/ 9781483346397.n253. Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Säljö, R. (Eds.) (2011). Learning across sites. New tools, infrastructures and practices. New York: Routledge. Margaryan, A. (2008). Work-based learning: A blend of pedagogy and technology. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr Müller. Moon, J. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development. London: Kogan Page. Mortari, L. (2010). Dire la pratica. Milano-Torino: Bruno mondadori. Nvivo Pro.11 (2015). Https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products Paplova, M. (2009). Technology and vocational education for sustainable development, (vol. 10). Unesco Unevoc, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5279-8. Perini, M. (2017). Crossing boundaries between classroom and work learning processes through ICT: a systematic review. In Crossing boundaries in VET, (pp. 264–267). Rostock: University of Rostock. Rich, P., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education,60(1), 52–67. Sauli, F., Cattaneo, A., & van der Meij, H. (2018). Hypervideo for educational purposes: A literature review on a multifaceted technological tool. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,27(1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1407357. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwendimann, B. A., Cattaneo, A. A. P., DehlerZufferey,J.,Gurtner,J.-L.,Bétrancourt,M.,&Dillenbourg,P.(2015). The ‘Erfahrraum’: A pedagogical model for designing educational technologies in dual vocational systems. Journal of Vocational Education & Training,67(3), 367–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2015.1061041. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations’and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39 Author(s): Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer source: Social studies of science, Vol. 19, no. 3. Social Studies of Science,19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.2307/285080. Stenström, M.-L., & Tynjälä, P. (Eds.) (2009). Towards integration of work and learning. Strategies for connectivity and transformation. Dordrecht: Springer. Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,2(1–2), 21– 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00749282. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science,12, 257–285. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In The psychology of learning and motivation, (pp. 37–76). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8. Tacconi, G. (2011). La didattica al lavoro. Analisi delle pratiche educative nell’istruzione e formazione professionale. Milano: Franco Angeli. Tacconi, G. (2015). Didattica Della Formazione Syllabus a.a. 2015-2016. http://www.dfpp.univr.it/documenti/OccorrenzaIns/ matdid/matdid879619.pdf. Accessessed 31 July 2018. Tacconi, G., & Hunde, A. B. (2017). Participatory research on teaching practice as basis for teacher education and networking between universities and VET schools. In F. Eicker, H. Gesine, & B. Lennartz (Eds.), Vocational Education and Training in Sub-Saharan Africa. Current Situation and Development. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag. https://doi.org/10.3278/ 6004570w134. Tacconi, G., & Gomez, G. M. (2010). Raccontare la formazione. Analisi delle pratiche nei centri di Formazione Professionale dell’associazione CIOFS/FPPuglia. Taranto: Print Me. Tuomi-Gröhn, T., & Engeström, Y. (Eds.) (2003). Between school and work. New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing. Oxford: Pergamon - Elsevier Science. Tynjälä, P. (2005). Integrative pedagogics—learning in real life situations. In Keynote address in Paper presented at the enhancing physiotherapy competencies in innovative learning environments. Helsinki: European Network of Physiotherapy in Higher Education. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review,3(2), 130–154. Tynjälä, P. (2009). Connectivity and transformation in work-related learning –Theoretical foundations. In M.-L. Stenström, & P. Tynjälä (Eds.), Towards integration of work and learning. Strategies for connectivity and transformation,(pp.11–37). Dordrecht: Springer. Wegener, C. (2013). A situated approach to VET students’reflection processes across boundaries. Journal of Education and Work,27(4), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2012.758358. Zitter, I., Hoeve, A., & de Bruijn, E. (2016). A design perspective on the school-work boundary: A hybrid curriculum model. Vocations and Learning,9(1), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-016-9150-y. Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Perini et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2019) 16:29 Page 16 of 16