Bridging Knowledge and Action in the Workplace: An Evaluation on Internship Learning Outcomes of Child Development Associate Degree Program Students

The efficiency of the education systems fundamentally depends on the quality of teaching and learning in classrooms, workshops, laboratories, and other educational spaces. Perfect teachers, well-designed courses, and proper facilities, provision of necessary resources are required for an excellent education, but not enough. This study aims to evaluate child development associate degree program students in their learning during their summer internships the scope of Raelin’s Work-Based Learning Model. The individual level of this model takes place two types of learning (theory and practice) and four types of individual learning (conceptualization, experimentation, experience, and reflection) that arise from a matrix of two forms of knowledge (explicit and implicit). This research was designed as a case study, one of the qualitative research methods. Depending on the tradition of qualitative research, observation, semi-structured interview, and document review strategies were used to increase the reliability of this study. In the analysis of the qualitative data, the descriptive analysis technique was used to define and interpret the data in line with the predetermined themes. The findings obtained in this study revealed that although the students made various observations and practices during their internships, it has been identified that these studies did not include the learning types in the context of the model.


Introduction
The efficiency of the education systems fundamentally depends on the quality of teaching and learning in classrooms, workshops, laboratories, and other educational spaces. Perfect teachers, well-designed courses, and proper facilities and provision of necessary resources are required for an excellent education, but not enough (Lucas, Spencer, & Claxton, 2012). The real answer to reach desired outcomes on vocational education is associated with strengthening the theoretical knowledge that students learn in vocational school with practice and helping them to understand how responsibilities in workplaces that they will be a part of after graduation, the organization, relationships, and process function. In vocational education and teaching programs, theoretical education provided in vocational institutions and practical education provided in workplaces offer different types of opportunities for learning and they are complementary (Aarkrog, 2005). Internships are the practical, and also the most important, part of the education process that enable to implement the teaching activities that cannot be performed within the higher education system (Kosan, 2015;Sarcletti, 2009, p. 17).
In this context, the Council of Higher Education (CoHE) issued a regulation (2002) regarding the basis and procedures on education, practice and internships provided for vocational school students within the Vocational and Technical Education Zones. According to the regulation, internships are required to be conducted by students to be graduated from vocational schools. The regulation also states that students who are enrolled to study programs should conduct their internships during months over the course of mid-term or summer break minimum for 30 days (240 working hours) and maximum for 60 days (480 working hours) according to the type of the program. The general tendency regarding the internship duration and time is conducting an internship for at least 30 days and during the summer months. Furthermore, an instructor that will be selected by the Internship and Training Practice Committee of Vocational Schools is assigned to supervise the interns at least once in the workplace during the internship period. The Internship and Training Practice Committee is responsible for evaluating the internship practices. In the evaluation process, the Internship and Training Practice Committee considers the training record books or file, the employer report, and the report from the visiting instructor and to make an evaluation.
The present study aims to assess the summer internship studies of the Child Development Associate Degree Program. The review of the Turkish literature shows that there is a limited number of studies on summer internships in the scope of the programs provided by Vocational Schools and The Vocational School of Health Services. However, there are no particular studies on learning outcomes of summer internships conducted by students of the Child Development Associate Degree Program.
This study aims to evaluate the learning of students of the Child Development Associate Degree Program during their summer internships in the context of the "Work-Based Learning Model" of Raelin (2008). Answers to the following question are sought in line with this general purpose: According to the individual level of the Work-Based Learning Model, what are the learning experiences of intern students during their summer internships?

Workplace Learning
In a broad sense, workplace learning is a part of the old apprenticeship tradition, which has a long history (Bailey, Hughes, & Moore, 2004;Kaarby & Lindboe, 2016). In a narrow sense, it is associated with modern time institutionalized education (Kaarby & Lindboe, 2016). The literature shows that academics have defined the workplace learning concept in different ways. Mostly, it is described as a connection between work and learning in human development (Zhao & Ko, 2018). From an institutional perspective, Cairns (2011) argued that the concept of workplace learning is associated with the three terms as follows: work, space, and learning. In this context, work is related to individuals' participation process to the activities to complete tasks and achieve expected results (Cairns, 2011). Concerning work and learning, space refers to the physical and psychological places where individuals work, think and learn (Hutchison, 2004;Zhao & Ko, 2018). Particularly, the workplace, as a learning space, includes a variety of concepts and environments with various physical and psychological aspects that individuals aim to learn and establish social interactions (Cairns, 2011). The term learning refers to a set of activities that can be associated with the work of an individual. Integrating work, space and learning within a single structure is more complicated than it seems (Zhao & Ko, 2018). Billett (1994) defined workplace learning as a way of acquiring knowledge and skills through activities where students can directly participate in activities under the guidance of a skilled advisor (Zhao & Ko, 2018).
Within vocational education programs, various models with different perspectives are developed in the fields of theoretical studies in vocational institutions and practical education in workplaces. The connective model developed by Guile and Griffiths (2001) highlights the importance of close cooperation in creating an ideal path for organizing workplace learning between vocational schools and workplaces for vocational education students (Mikkonen, Pylväs, Rintala, Nokelainen, & Postareff, 2017). During this cooperation, students need opportunities to re-contextualize their theoretical and practical knowledge to create new knowledge and practices (Griffiths & Guile, 2003;Mikkonen et al., 2017). In the context of workplace learning, sociocultural theories consider learning as a process of a personal and social participation process that is shaped by social, organizational, and other contextual factors (Hager, 2013;Mikkonen et al., 2017). The Tynjälä (2013) 3-P (Presage, Process, Product) workplace learning model accepts the sociocultural environment as a context that described the opportunities and limitations of workplace learning. According to this model, the learning phenomena consist of three key components. The prior component addresses the learner factor both as the organization of the institution and the job of work, and the context that includes the partnerships and the connected networks of this organization. Tynjälä (2013) notes that prior factors do not have a direct impact on the learning process; however, when there are considered from the constructivist learning perspective, these factors make an impact through the comments of the learners. The process component includes learning activates realized through participation, cooperation, and interaction, and the process component includes various learning outcomes (Tynjälä, 2013). Workplace learning is generally defined as 'non-formal learning' due to the lack of clear pedagogic instructions (Eraut, 2004). However, given that it integrates theory and practice, recognizing all types of learning experiences as intentional learning experiences and providing guidance to learners are considered as requirements to increase the productivity of this process (Billett, 2002).

Work-Based Learning: Bridging Knowledge and Action in the Workplace
In this field, Raelin (2008) provides a work-based learning model. Raelin (2008) assumed that the two dimensions should be integrated into work-based learning as the first step. These dimensions are (1) theory and Since collective work-based learning emphasizes organizational learning more, this study is based on the individual work-based learning phase of the model.

Work-Based Learning at the Individual Level
This model includes four learning styles, including conceptualization, experimentation, experience, and reflection at the individual level.

Conceptualization
The fundamental theory makes a significant contribution to the management of the practice. The theory does not only question the assumptions underlying practice but also it provides practitioners with a common language and wide powers of analysis as a way of enlightening and describing action (Thorpe, 1988;Raelin, 2008). Theory can reveal the problems that are undiscovered or left fallow due to a lack of recognizable solutions. The theory allows practitioners to explicitly reflect upon and actively experiment with their practice interventions. According to Raelin (2008), theory can help practitioners learn how to perceive standard problems in a new light. Furthermore, conceptualization gives practitioners resources to tackle new and different problems in different contexts by introducing them to new principles. "Conceptualization can also provide a basis for subsequent reflection on and reappraisal of actions" (Raelin, 2008, p. 93).

Experimentation
Dewey warns educators that simple "doing" or activity is not enough to produce learning; rather, doing should become trying, an experiment within the real world to find out what it is like (Dewey, 1916;Raelin, 2008). Students need a context to try out their conceptual knowledge (Raelin, 2008). Indeed, reliance on conceptualization alone may even limit the problem-solving process, given that most new or real problems are not yet sufficiently coherent to be organized in line with theory (Polanyi, 1996;Raelin, 2008). Argyris and Schon (1974) describe this inconsistency as a difference between one's "espoused theory" and one's "theory-in-use" (Argyris & Schon, 1974;Raelin, 2008). It is important that students have the opportunity to engage in experiments to align these two theories (Raelin, 2008). Because there is a tendency during the practice to modify or vary from our espoused theories even unconsciously as we employ our theories-in-use, it is important that students have the opportunity to do experiments to bring these to align the espoused theory and theory-in-use. Experiments help to make our espoused theories tacit, applicable to the situation at hand, and more natural to ourselves (Raelin, 2008).

Experience
Learning often occurs through experience. Learners first need to go through a particular experience and then, upon reflecting upon that experience, induce learning from it (Long, 1990;Raelin, 2008). Learning from experience is important to new practitioners because once they apply theoretical criteria or use advanced analytic techniques, they confront a set of unexpected probabilities regarding organizational life. Experience strengthens the tacit knowledge acquired through experimentation. It can also be considered as a nonconscious intellectual activity. Practitioners who depend on the nonconscious acquisition of knowledge can often not the only process more quickly than their more "thoughtful" colleagues but can handle more sophisticated data, such as multidimensional and interactive relations between variables (Lewicki, Hill, & Czyzewska, 1992;Raelin, 2008). Learning acquired through experience is often referred to as implicit learning by cognitive psychologists, meaning the acquisition of complex knowledge that takes place without the learner's awareness that learning is actualizing (Hayes & Broadbent, 1993;Raelin, 2008). Implicit learning is recognized as the foundation for tacit knowledge and can be used to solve problems and to make rational decisions about new stimulus circumstances (Reber, 1989). Knowledge acquired during implicit learning is unsuitable to verbal report, while explicit learning that proceeds with the learners' awareness of what is being learned is verbally reportable. It can be presumed that implicit learning constitutes the base for conscious operations. When we consider our actions as tacit, it may be the most accessible point (Raelin, 2008;Reber, 1989). This is the time when individuals sense the correct action or response but are incapable of explaining the reason for their behaviour. In some cases, in the middle of the practice or in the sharing process, maintaining the activity flow, and in this way, developing and improving occurs extemporarily (Gold, Thorpe, Woodall, & Sadler-Smith, 2007;Raelin, 2008). The following step of reflection (reflecting upon experiences) allows bringing intuitive actions to the surface (Raelin, 2008).

Reflection
According to Raelin (2008), reflection is putting the ability to expose and make explicit to oneself what an individual has planned, and is associated with the reconstruction of meaning. Particularly, it privileges the jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 9, No. 3;2020 process of analysis leading to an understanding of experiences that may have been disregarded in practice. Although it is presented as an individualistic learning type, it gains importance at the collective level. Unfortunately, although most practitioners may be very skilled, they are still not capable of developing a cohesive theory and explanation of their work (Viljoen, Holt, & Petzall, 1990;Raelin, 2008). Therefore, they face difficulties in explaining the reasons and consequences of workplace practices to themselves or others. On the other hand, when reflective practitioners perform in a certain way, they become more sensitive to the values that are being expressed, the inconsistencies that occur between what is said and what is done, and the structure of the forces below the surface, and outcomes of the actions. Rather than following the recommended methods, they question whether new approaches lead to better solutions. Reflective practitioners are also critical thinkers who have the intellectual discipline to prevent confusion regarding perspective and reality. They probe whether a socially approved decision is ethically justified and whether a suggested action is ultimately consistent with the very values that they espouse. They investigate whether a socially approved decision is ethically reasonable and whether the action they recommended is consistent with their values (Argyris & Shon, 1993;Raelin, 1993;Raelin, 2008). Cognitive psychologists believe that reflection contributes to learning as much as experience to the extent learners become active observers. Indeed, people often learn behaviour by observing others before performing the behaviour themselves (Bandura, 1986;Raelin, 2008). According to social learning theory, individuals incline to anticipate actions and their following consequences. Therefore, before trying out new or changed behaviours, they first put attention to others and develop mental models or cognitive maps to guide their trials (Bandura,1997;Raelin, 2008). Mezirow (1991) highlights three forms of reflection (Mezirow, 1991;Raelin, 2008). Content reflection is based on what we perceive, think, feel, or act upon. Originally considered within Dewey's notion of "critical inquiry" (1933), reflection on content refers to a review of the ideas we have consciously applied in strategizing and implementing each phase of the problem-solving process. On the other hand, process reflection is an examination of address problem solving with a view about the procedures and assumptions that are in use. Premise reflection constitutes the final step of questioning the presumptions to handle the problem, to begin with. According to developmental psychologists, such as Broughton (1977), premise reflection, or "theoretical self-consciousness" can only be used by adults (Broughton, 1977;Raelin, 2008). Only adults are capable of recognizing paradigmatic assumptions that occur in thoughts. Furthermore, adults should engage, to arouse their reflective consciousness to learn at this level.
Mezirow describes this learning transformative; in other words, learning can take us into new meanings (Mezirow, 1981;Raelin, 2008). Transformative learning can help to review and adjust any misinterpreted meanings arising out of uncritical half-truths grounded in conventional wisdom or power relationships. Given that higher-level reflection may not always happen naturally, educational opportunities must be provided within the workplace to encourage critical reflection on current meaning perspectives.

Child Development Associate Degree Programs in Turkey
In Although there is a wide range of employment opportunities, students registered to Child Development Associate Degree Programs conduct their internships at private education institutions and hospitals.

Preschool Education Institutions (Kindergarten/Nursery) Context
According to the Preschool Education Program announced by the Ministry of Education (2013), teachers are required to be acquainted with children, plan, implement and evaluate educational activities, organize educational environments, provide education materials and establish communication with families. However, the true nature of the job includes certain daily routines, such as eating, playing, resting and performing activities. Children spend almost 8−9 hours of the day in these institutions. Thus, the daily program can be described as a combination of daily routine practices and pedagogic activities. Teachers are not only responsible for pedagogic activities but also of helping students in their daily routines, such as breakfast, eating, cleaning, and also provide care (helping children to meet their needs, such as toilet needs and changing clothes). Therefore, classrooms also have an assistant staff to cook, serve food and clean the school. The assistant staff supports teachers during the caregiving process. These individuals that children have close contact with, including administrators and teachers, have different levels of education. Administrators and teachers include graduates of bachelor and associate degree programs. On the other hand, assistant stuff generally consists of graduates in basic education programs. Therefore, these institutions consist of a combination of employees with different educational backgrounds.

Research Design
The present study used a qualitative research method to better understand the experiences and ideas of the participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;Merriam, 1998). The reason why a case study is chosen as a qualitative research method is that it allows an in-depth review of a case or a fact using the "how and why" questions that distinguish it from other studies (Yin, 2014).
During this research, the triangulation strategy proposed by the researcher is used to improve the reliability of this study (Creswell, 2013;Lincoln & Guba, 1985;Merriam, 1998). The triangulation strategy involves the use of multiple data sources in one study to form an understanding, and combining data from various sources increases data reliability and strengthens the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;Yin, 2014). The triangulation is used in this study, not for verification or validation purposes, but to ensure that this research is richer, more concrete, more comprehensive and better developed (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008, p. 1). During the research, data were obtained using document review, observation, and interview.

Research Participants
The working group of the research is 2nd-grade students of the Child Development Associate Degree Program of a foundation university in Istanbul. The purposive sampling method is used for the selection of participants (Patton, 1990), and participants who volunteered to participate in this study and were believed that rich data would be obtained were chosen. 10 students were expected to participate in this case study (Creswell, 2018;Yin, 2014). The number was planned to increase if the expected saturation is not achieved (Cresswell, 2012), but this research was completed with 10 students as the expected saturation occurred. The department that 70% of the students graduated from high school is the Child Development Department. Two students graduated from Religious Vocational High School and one student from Anatolian High School. All students who participated in this study are women and were referred to in the study like S1 and S2Students who participated in this study took the courses during 1st grade that are shown in Table 1. and training practices during the first three weeks of their internships; and they were asked to prepare activities under the guidance of the teacher and participate in the practices in person during the remaining three weeks.

Research Tools and Procedures
The case of the recent study is the learning of students of Child Development Associate Degree Program in their summer internships, which was studied through the information they gave on education practices and experiences, the observations made during school visits, and the internship record books filled by the students and teachers. In this context, students were visited at the workplaces where they were having their internships; their internship record books were examined, and face-to-face interviews with the students were held.
This study consisted of two phases. In the first phase, each of the pre-school education institutions where the students had their internships in the summer of 2015, at the end of the 2014−2015 academic year, was visited once and short-term observations were made in the schools. During observations, a "Observation Form" was used as a method for recording notes in the field (Creswell, 2018). The researcher prepared the statements in a semi-structured observation form used during the observation in light of the literature. As a non-participant observer, the researcher remotely observed the working group and recorded data that were not directly related to the activities and people in the classroom by following the semi-structured observation form, which the researcher prepared for self-guidance (Bernard, 2011;Creswell, 2018). In addition, this study examined the internship record books and the evaluations of the practice teacher in the internship record books. Lincoln and Guba (1985) have identified a document as "any written or recorded material" not prepared by the researcher or for evaluation purposes. In addition, the data collection process includes semi-structured interviews with students. The primary data collection tool for this work was a face-to-face semi-structured interview form. The face-to-face interview phase of the research was conducted during the Fall Semester of 2015−2016 Academic Year after the summer internships of the students.
Semi-structured interviews enabled researchers to "respond to the situation at hand" (Merriam, 1998, p. 74) and to integrate additional questions into the interview to gain further understanding when it was deemed necessary. During the interviews, the focus was on the learnings and experience of the students during their internships. The researcher conducted the interviews and each interview lasted 20−30 minutes. The researcher used a voice recorder to prevent data loss during the interviews. The answers to the interview questions were recorded and then transcribed.

Data Analysis
In the analysis of the qualitative data, the data were depicted and interpreted according to predetermined themes using the descriptive analysis technique (Yildirim & Simsek, 2011). Data obtained were analyzed and evaluated jel.ccsenet.org Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 9, No. 3;2020 under the conceptualization, experimenting, experience and reflection dimensions of the Work-Based Learning Model of Raelin. Direct quotations from observations and interviews were presented.

Results
Students were generally offered to work under two headings for their education during their internships.
Observation and, if found appropriate by the teacher, participation in the teacher-led practices prepared by the teacher during the first 15 business days out of 30 business days, and preparing and conducting activity plans during the second 15 business days. This section contained the views of students in the Child Development Associate Degree Program about their learnings during their mandatory internship training under both headings based on the work-based learning approach of Raelin, and the findings on observations and document reviews that the researcher conducted.
The theories that students learned during their on-campus learning are related to the practices they have conducted in schools and closely linked to the experiences they have gained from the practice field. The theory provides students with many tools to understand what is going on during their observations and practices, plan their activities, analyze and reflect on children's behavior.
In the deductive learning approach, after giving theoretical information, examples or practices were provided. (Gavriel, 2015). This is the learning approach applied mostly on campuses. In the inductive learning approach, theories and generalized concepts are adopted by making inferences from real practical situations (Gavriel, 2015). That is, the student faces a different teaching style than he/she encounters on campus after a problem or practices (Prince & Felder, 2006). The first is based on explicit information, while the second is based on implicit information. Therefore, the collaboration between the intern students and practice teachers who guide them in schools is critical.
Practice teachers are expected to ensure that practices are associated with theories, the concepts in the abstract theories that students learn on campus are visible in practices, the students gain awareness about this concept, and that the same concept can be defined by everyone in the field with the same meaning, that is, conceptualization. It is expected from the practicing teachers (classroom teachers) that the examples are related to the theories, the concepts in the abstract theories that the students learn on campus are visible in the practices, the students gain awareness about this concept and the same concept can be defined by everyone in the field. In this context, for the conceptualization of the information forms in the model to be realized during the internship practices in schools, they should reach consensus in terms of applying a certain concept or by observing or experimenting with practices. To share the experiences related to the conceptualization terms in the model, the students were asked about their experiences regarding how they shared the activity plan to be implemented by the practicing teacher before the observations targeted at the first stage of the planned internship studies.
To conceptualize explicit knowledge, students were expected to gain awareness of how the theories and concepts they learnt on campus were reflected in practices. At this stage, the practicing teacher was expected to share the achievements and indicators included in the activity, teaching methods, strategies and techniques, the materials to be used, the grouping strategies that would be used to manage the teaching, the activity evaluation strategies, and the reasons for all these, by sharing them with the theories and concepts. For this purpose, before your observations, the following question was asked, what kind of information did the practicing teacher give about the application of the activity, and which theories or concepts did she talk about?
In the answers received from the question that was posed to the interviewed students, there was no finding about a conceptualization made using the deductive or inductive method. All the students who participated in this study stated that they did not have such an experience. The following were some of the statements from interviews that were conducted with students.
All of the students participating in this research stated that they did not have such an experience: "We did not talk with my teacher about the activities I observed; in fact, we haven't actually talked about the theories at all, […]" (S9).
"No, we didn't do anything about the theories we learned at the university during the internship" (S1).
"When I observed and participated in the activities, there was no discussion about the activity neither at the end or before the activity, […]" (S7).
Following this question, the students were asked: "What did you talk about with the practicing teacher after he/she completed practices, what did he/she share about the activities he/she carried out with you, what kind of questions you asked, what were you curious about?" At this stage, students were expected to draw from the practices they observe (inductive learning) and to link what they observed in practice with what they learnt on campus. As expected from the teacher, starting from the preparation of the activity plan to the students after the observation, what they saw during the application and evaluation and why they did so, for example, to provide the student to think (reflect) and reveal the implicit knowledge by proceeding step by step with questions, such as why he/she used those materials, why he/she chose that learning-teaching method, why he/she worked with a large group or a small group, and what else he/she could do to achieve the same achievements and indicators. In addition, it was another expected work from the practicing teachers to talk and discuss with the students what these concepts in practice mean and what theories they derived from when they encountered different concepts that they probably did not learn on campus. In this thinking and discussion process, they will also reach concept integrity. All the students stated that after the activities they observed, they never talked to the practicing teachers about the practices. Below are some statements of the students about this topic.
"We did not speak to my teacher after I observed finished conducting her activity", "[…] No, we did not evaluate the activity.", " […] No, I did not ask her anything" (S3).
"We did not talk with my teacher about the activities I observed; in fact, we haven't actually talked about the theories at all". "…No, I did not ask any question", "Do you think I have to ask a question?" (S9).
After that, the students were asked to share their experiences with the practicing teachers during the preparation of the activity plans they would implement in the classroom-preparing and implementing the activity plan expected in the second half of their internship. For this purpose, students were asked: "Would you share your experiences with your practicing teachers at the stage of preparing your activity plans?" Students expressed that, during the formation of activity plans that they had to prepare before the activity, their practice that teacher did not give them any information, that there was not any discussion about the concepts and theories. The following are some of the data extracts from interviews that have been conducted with students.
"My teacher gave me the learning outcome and indicators only by age group, didn't tell me about other topics," (S8).
"I was never informed before or after the practices I conducted; I always asked questions and received short answers" (S10).
"My teacher didn't provide me with anything about the development features or monthly and daily plans related to the age group I was responsible for. There was no debriefing involved. He/She told me to obtain the learning outcome and indicators from the Internet. He/She only gave the type of activity" (S10).
"I asked the teacher what type of activity he/she wanted me to prepare for which concept, learning outcome, and my teacher gave me a topic and told me that I could prepare the activity I wanted. For example, about animals.
[…] No, she did not give me a certain learning outcome and an indication.
[…] We did not talk about the teaching method I would use." (S3).
"I ask my teacher about what kind of activity I should prepare and what development areas of children the activity I prepare should support. My teacher told me that I could conduct the activity I want in the development area of my preference. I determine the learning outcome and indicator for the activity", " […] No, we were not discussing the type of activity and the way I would use it in my training", " […] No, we were also not talking about the materials I prepared before the activity" (S4).
According to Raelin (2008), various theories and conceptual information that students have learned on campus should be experimented in a relevant context. According to him, any unconsciously adopted theory is likely to change during practice. It is important that students have the opportunity to experiment to eliminate the discrepancy between the adopted theory (learned on campus) and the applied theory (use of theory in practice) and to ensure the balance between theory and practice. The research findings show that students did various experiments in schools. All the students expressed that they prepared activity plans and conducted their plans for those during their internships process. Raelin (2008) emphasizes that various theories and conceptual information that students learn on campus should be experimented in the relevant context. According to Raelin, any theory unconsciously adopted is likely to change during practice. Students must have the opportunity to try to eliminate the discrepancy between the adopted theory (learned on campus) and applied theory (use of theory in practice) and to balance the theory and practice. The research findings reveal that students make various experiments in schools. All the students stated that they prepared activity plans during their internships process and that they implemented these activity plans during their internships. It was also observed that during the examination of the internship registry notebook, the students performed the activities, and this situation was approved by the practicing teacher.
As can be seen from the below statements, intern students have the opportunity to experiment in schools. However, neither before nor after their experimenting, it was determined that the students and the practicing teacher did not cooperate on what, why and how to try or what skill to develop, and the experiments were not carried out for a specific purpose or to develop a certain skill.
"After conducting my activity plan, my teacher said that i.e. my activity was in line with the development characteristics of children and said, "it is an activity that will attract children's attention, […]" (S10).
"The teacher helped me manage the children while I was conducting an activity, […]" (S3).
The experiments of the intern students are the activities that are included in the internship program given to the students. Students are expected to clarify anything they plan, implement, observe or achieve during their planning and implementation, and restructuring the meaning. Besides, students are also likely to face many unexpected possibilities. They may also acquire complex information without realizing what they have learned in these processes. In order for this implicit knowledge to become clear they need to think (reflection) on their experiences. In order for reflection to occur, it is expected that after the experience of the students, the practicing teacher will talk with the intern student about their experiences and reveal what they learned unconsciously during the experience. Therefore, the students were asked the question, " The statements of the other intern students participating in this research revealed that after the activities of the students, the practicing teachers talked about the experiences that the students gained from the practices, but they did not discuss, the reflection was not realized and they did not receive any feedback.
"I was never informed before or after the practices I conducted; I always asked questions and received short answers" (S1).
"After the activity, the teacher only tells me whether the activity was appropriate or not. Other than that, he/she does not provide any feedback" (S8).
"After conducting the activity I prepared, we did not talk about my experiences and my teacher does not give me any feedback" (S5).
"After I conduct my activity plan, my teacher does not give me any feedback. I don't think my practice teacher is listening to me very well while I am conducting my activity plan because he/she is interested in his/her phone" (S2).
"The teacher helped me manage the children while I was conducting an activity,", "…No, we did not talk about how to manage the group after the activity ended" (S3).
Internship registry notebook were examined in the document review section of this study within the context of Raelin's work-based learning model. In these records, it was observed that the students only wrote the name of the activities they observed or implemented, and the practicing teachers approved this with their signatures. The results of this review showed that neither inductive learning nor deductive learning could create a link between explicit knowledge and practice, and between implicit knowledge and theories, and between theory and practice.
School visits were other stages of the study. Both intern students and practicing teachers know that the students will be visited at least once during summer internships by a trainer responsible for monitoring internships at the higher education school. The plans for these visits were not shared with the intern students or the practicing teachers before the visits, so they were not aware of the day and time the visit would take place. The trainer, who is assigned by the college to visit these students in their schools, is also one of the trainers who teaches these students on campus and is responsible for conducting the summer internship course. These visits took place during the observation and implementation stages of the internship practices carried out by the students in two stages. The visits took place with the period when 4 of the 10 intern students participating in the research were in the observation phase and six students were in the implementation phase. The researcher spent 2−4 hours in each school and made the observations. The data obtained from the observations also support the data obtained from the semi-structured interviews with the students, revealing that the types of information required for the learning styles in the model are not used to support the learning of the students by using neither inductive nor deductive methods.
In addition, in conversations with practicing teachers during school visits, it was observed that practicing teachers tend to explain their academic relations with them such as "he/she helps me a lot" and "they have very good relationships with children" rather than talking about the learning of intern students in schools.

Discussion
In the present study, it is aimed to evaluate the learning of students of Vocational School of Health Services child development associate degree program during their summer internships in the context of "Work-Based Learning Model" of Raelin (2008). In the individual learning phase of this model, there are two forms of learning (theory and practice) and four types of individual learning (conceptualization, experimenting, experience and reflection) resulting from a matrix of the two forms of information (explicit and implicit). The effectiveness of learning in the work-based learning model originates from the scope of aspects the student is exposed to. Just as learning through theoretical narration is not sufficient, participation in implicit practices is not sufficient to learn without making the mental model of the person accessible (Bandura, 1997;Raelin, 2008). According to Raelin (2008), the effectiveness of work-based learning is about giving each of the four types of learning selective attention. This study explored whether these types of learning take place during the summer internships of the students. One of the most important limitations of this research is that the learning types at the individual level of this model are observed only in the context of the practices performed by the intern students, by observing the teaching activities in which the practice the teacher takes place. Another limitation is that the collective learning phase of the model is not included in this study. Like all workplaces, the school is a workplace consisting of teachers, administrators and other employees, and like all workplaces, schools are complex structures with their unique functions and relationships. As it is a network of visible and invisible relationships, each school has its own written and unwritten rules as well as a unique organizational culture. These characteristics of schools were ignored in this study.
The findings showed that while students conducted various observations and practices during their internships, these practices did not include the types of learning included in the model and that the learning mentioned in the context of the model did not take place. This research was not conducted with practice teachers. However, once the observations in schools, reviews of internship record books and findings from interviews with students, in particular, have been evaluated in general, it is possible to infer that practice teachers do not know how to contribute to the learning of the intern students. Another deduction that can be made from the interviews is that intern students are not familiar with learning practices based on these types of learning.
In accordance with these results reported above, it seems necessary for the students of Child Development Associate Degree Program to learn these types of learning during their campus training before they begin their internships, know which types of learning they will encounter during their internships at schools in terms of preparing them for professional learning so that their summer internships, which they are required to complete as a legal obligation, can be really effective. Students starting their internships with such preliminary preparation will ask their practice teachers more questions and conduct more accurate and satisfying practices. In such a case, however, practice teachers will also need to be familiar with these types of learning and receive training on what practices they need to conduct and have conducted to achieve such learning.
A review of the literature does not bring up any study on the work-based learning model in Turkey. It is appropriate to conduct a pilot practice primarily to measure the effectiveness of the model and to agree on the results achieved to enable the work-based learning model to be implemented.