Figure 9: WSH learners’ sense-making experience in blended learning
The two WSH courses (Construction and Maritime) shared a few commonalities in the curriculum design and pedagogical practices. Firstly, both of the courses developed their curriculum in collaboration with industry authorities to meet their requirements for the job roles. The industry updated their requirements regularly and kept the training provider informed so that the training provider could incorporate these updates into their curriculum. For example, the WSH course in Construction followed the guidelines from the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), updating their curriculum content on erecting scaffolding to align with the changes made to the guidelines, and ensuring that the content to inform workplace practices was relevant. Since the training provider is also a scaffolding service provider, they regularly conducted in-house training for their own workers to meet the project specifications requested by the companies. Such in-house training was continuous and updated in order to prepare their own workers to meet the different requests by the different companies. The other WSH course in Maritime also developed the curriculum in close collaboration with Maritime Port Authority (MPA) and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to make sure the content is the most relevant and up-to-date. Additionally, MPA sent representatives to participate in the assessment processes to make sure that the learners were qualified. The close partnership between training providers and industry partners enabled the learners in these courses to experience a seamless sense-making, as the learners were able to link the theory and relevant practice easily. Therefore, they felt more confident in taking actions to apply what they have learned, as shared in Chapter Three. Secondly, both of the courses integrated classroom and workplace learning by having the learners move back and forth across the different learning environments. Between such alternating sessions, the adult educators’ and workplace supervisors gave feedback to each other frequently on the learners’ progress and performance. For example, in the Construction course, the learners were assigned to a junior workplace supervisor, who was an ex-trainee of the same training provider, to guide them during their early days of working. After observing the strengths and weaknesses of performance of the learners, the workplace supervisor gave
46
