Work Integrated Learning

Assessment of student learning is a crucial part of quality work-integrated learning (WIL), yet presents some significant challenges for WIL practitioners. Assessment of WIL differs to assessment in classroom based courses because of the complexities of assessing the more holistic nature of learning in WIL, as well as (in many cases) managing the involvement of an external partner in the assessment process. This paper investigates academic workload implications of WIL assessment for staff at an Australian university. Over two years 34 WIL courses were surveyed, with 30 staff interviewed over a wider three-year period. Analysis of survey data reveals assessment of student learning is the largest single contributor to academic workload in WIL courses, with qualitative data providing some insight into the reasons for this. This paper reports findings from the study, noting implications and recommendations for practice, policy and future research. Universities both within Australia and internationally are scaling up their work-integrated learning (WIL) initiatives with a view to promoting employability, work readiness and citizenship outcomes for their graduates (Smith, Ferns, & Russell, 2014; Smigiel, Macleod, & Stephenson, 2015; Sachs & Clark, 2017). The scaling up of WIL has prompted discussion around the development and sustainability of such programs, given anecdotal evidence of the significant workload implications of this form of student learning for university staff. WIL is not specifically accounted for in many academic workload models (Emslie, 2011) and there is a scarcity of research explicitly investigating workload associated with WIL design and delivery (Clark, Rowe, Cantori, Bilgin, & Mukuria, 2016). The few available studies tend to focus on the workload implications of particular types of WIL. For example, Bulot and Johnson (2006) investigated delivery of service learning courses, estimating that workload commitments could require up to 10 extra hours a week (4.5 hours/week on average). More recently, Acton, Chipman, Lunden, and Schmitz (2015) investigated faculty workload associated with simulations in surgical education. Sixty percent of surgical program directors reported a slight increase, and 33% reported a significant increase to the average faculty member's workload, following the introduction of simulation requirements. While these studies shed light on the workload implications of some particular forms of WIL, they are not necessarily representative of the great diversity of delivery and assessment modes in WIL. WIL can encompass a range of experience and practice based activities including internships, teacher practicums, project work, simulations, international/clinical placements, and mentoring, each of which can entail very different approaches to curriculum design, teaching, assessment, student preparation and support. In light of the evidence gap, there is a need to better understand the impact of various models and/or modes of WIL delivery on academic workloads. In response to the above issues and lack of publicly available information (in both literature and practice) on the workload implications of WIL, a study was initiated at an Australian

This book positions the ePortfolio (eP) as a mode of innovative practice that benefits pedagogical thinking and action. In the current chapter we investigate educators’ roles as facilitators in the process of eP development. Specifically, we write from our experience with final-year writing students whose simultaneous eP development, industry placement, career-focussed workshops and online blog provided unique opportunities for both them and us to explore their imminent transition into the workforce. In this project we saw students negotiate their identities within what became a blended learning community of practice (CoP). As members of this community we found ourselves as facilitators and guides rather than teachers. Reflections, blog posts and ePortfolios formed a dataset from which we were later able to analyse this process from a pedagogical and scholarly perspective.
Within the chapter we share findings from the project and describe the characteristics that we believe led to a mediated environment in which students developed self and career identities through their eP thinking. Our key findings were two-fold. First, the ability to “experience” multiple workplaces through their online interactions with peers led students to develop a broader preview of possible future selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986) and to develop their ePortfolios in line with these possibilities. Second, the group process and modelling of CoP behaviours fostered complex reflective thinking skills in individual students.

Faced with the emergence of event management education in Australia, the increasing number of graduates applying for event industry jobs and their often high expectations of the industry (Grafton 2004), it is vitally important that students in these courses gain practical experience of the industry in the form of experiental learning. Drawing on the case of one university, Victoria University, which offers a range of event management degrees, this paper adopts an extended analysis to examine the trends in work integrated learning (WIL) opportunities over a two and a half year period. It identifies these opportunities by role, industry sector and length of employment (short or long term). The paper takes the further step of comparing this data to current job opportunities in the events industry in order to assess whether experiental learning opportunities made available to students are indicative of the type of industry work they may choose to undertake upon the completion of their degrees. Discrepancies between the two areas are discussed with implications for the design and content of event management degrees, specifically the experiental learning component.

The WIL Project was undertaken in 2010 to develop a new Work Integrated Learning (WIL) Policy using the staged University Policy Development Cycle. This cyclerepresents an adaptation of the stepped policy development process depicted in the AustralianPolicy Cycle (Althaus, Bridgman and Davis, 2007). This paper examines the processundertaken to examine two key research questions – What is the University of Tasmania’sposition regarding WIL; and How should these guiding principles be reflected in formalpolicy documentation? The project involved a number of elements, including a WIL ProjectManager, a WIL Working Party, a literature review, data collection, benchmarking as policylearning (Lundvall and Tomlinson, 2002; Paasi, 2005), WIL Discussion Forums, and anextensive series of interviews. The project dovetailed with the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT) WIL Provocations Symposium. Consultations anddeliberations involved collegial governance structures. This paper reveals the diversity inwork-related curriculum offerings and disciplinary approaches at Australian universities, andsuggests that establishing clear definitions is an important step towards developing minimumacademic standards or obligations. This paper reports tensions between University-wideumbrella policy provisions and requirements by local academic sections for a high degree of specificity. This paper suggests that the process of asking complex academic policy questionsis self-perpetuating, as more questions are raised which demand policy responses. Finally, indeveloping a uniquely University of Tasmania approach to work integrated learning, theproject confirmed the importance of ongoing dialogue and collegial governance to guide learning and teaching policy development.

Many tertiary institutions use group project courses as capstones for their engineering, software engineering, computer science and informatics degree programs. These courses give students the opportunity to put together the jigsaw that is their
learning from the apparently disparate pieces they have collected throughout their degree program and to gain some experience dealing with team issues. Benefits to students from participating in such courses are well documented. Not so well documented, however, are the benefits flowing to industry from participating in such programs. This paper describes the benefits one local company has derived from its participation in our third and fourth year software engineering group project course. We also draw conclusions about the model that has enabled benefits to flow to all involved – students, industrial partner and educational institution.

Purpose
– This article explores stakeholder relationships in a marketing internship program to increase understanding of key stakeholder actions and expectations and to present a framework for program design and administration.
Method/Design and Sample
– Building on a literature review of work that surrounds internships and stakeholder theory, this paper utilizes a qualitative grounded theory approach to conduct an exploratory stakeholder analysis of key stakeholders to understand relationships in the design and delivery of a marketing internship program.
Results
– This study introduces a framework that aims to facilitate a more thorough and inclusive marketing internship program and suggests a more complete delivery approach through continued involvement of key stakeholders. Primary internship stakeholders include students, employers, and university faculty and administration. Secondary internship stakeholders that have a relevant association with a marketing internship program include parents, alumni, industry groups, and accrediting agencies.
Value to Marketing Educators
– This paper expands the application of stakeholder analysis to marketing education and establishes a framework for facilitating an inclusive marketing internship program. Results provide a greater understanding of primary internship stakeholders and offer a number of implications for marketing educators.

This chapter makes an argument for the place of Work-Integrated
Learning (WIL) in tertiary language studies, with specific reference to the Spanish and German programs at the University of Melbourne. Incorporating WIL into our curricula has enabled us to connect students with local communities and cultural institutions, as well as provide them with work-relevant skills, in particular intercultural competence. Providing students with opportunities to develop work-relevant skills has seen us focus our energies not just on the more advanced-level language
subjects where students are clearly suited to placements and internships, but also on beginner- and intermediate-level language subjects. An advantage of this whole-of-curriculum approach is that students understand the contemporary relevance of language study from the outset of their degree. Language study is often seen as something that adds value to another core degree and, as we incorporate WIL into our curriculum, it is our hope that we are able to articulate more clearly the value of language study to our diverse cohort of students.

Nurse education in Australia has undergone a substantial transformation in the course of its
professional history. The use of experiential teaching and learning approaches in both pre and post
registration courses has escalated dramatically and resulted in the extensive use of hospital based
clinical experiences for student learning. The role of the clinical facilitator is used to provide stimulation
to the affective and cognitive domains of student professional development and additionally is often
used as a vehicle for student assessment.
While most tertiary nursing schools utilise hospital clinical experiences widely, few studies have
examined whether clinical facilitators have the necessary tools to effectively support and assess
students in the clinical environment. Although employed for their clinical expertise and understanding
of specific clinical contexts, facilitators are expected to have an understanding of experiential learning,
how it informs the undergraduate curriculum and be able to support the development of neophyte
nurses as they learn to apply theoretical concepts to the increasingly complex realm of patient care.
Additionally, clinical facilitators are often employed on a casual basis and as a consequence of the
casualisation of the facilitator workforce, universities are continually recruiting new clinical facilitators
to these positions.
This paper will explore a trial of facilitator education offered to clinical facilitators at the Queensland
University of Technology, School of Nursing campus in Brisbane, Australia. It will report on the use of
a series of student/facilitator “vignettes” created specifically for the purpose of facilitator education and
how these interactions have been embedded within a wider educational package to support facilitators
in their development as facilitators rather than teachers of nursing education. Finally, it will discuss the
implications of facilitator preparedness on their ability to support and assess nursing students as they
engage in the important transition from neophyte to registered nurse.

This review, conducted on behalf of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), aims to identify what can be learned about effective approaches to the development and delivery of employer-sponsored, work-integrated higher education (HE) programmes. The term 'work-integrated' is used both as a broader term than 'work-based', and to emphasise connectedness of learning as opposed to academic and workplace learning taking place in parallel but independently of each other. The review seeks to inform practice regarding degrees that include workplace learning and are sponsored by an employer, and particularly the development of degree apprenticeships. Its focus is on programmes that lead to an undergraduate or postgraduate higher education qualification and contain a substantial period of work-integrated learning that contributes to the accredited outcomes of the programme. It excludes programmes with short work placements, and it is not specifically designed to inform practice related to the provision of foundation degrees or level 4 or 5 apprenticeships, although much of the discussion will be relevant to them as well as, in part, to shorter collaborative programmes.
The main focus of the review is on the factors that influence the quality and success (for students and for employers) of programmes. This includes how provision relates to entry and progression routes to higher-level occupations and professions; factors that influence successful employer engagement and collaboration; how programmes are structured and organised; and approaches to programme delivery, assessment and quality assurance. The review does not seek to identify a single model or approach, but aims to identify factors that are relevant and appropriate to the context and sector within which programmes are set.

At the heart of this project has been the desire to enhance the way in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural content is embedded in higher education arts curricula. It comes at a time when higher education institutions are facing growing pressure to make curriculum content more representative of and responsive to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture. In response, many Australian universities have established formal initiatives to embed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and intercultural competency across the curriculum. This has taken the form of policies and reconciliation action plans, community engagement initiatives, networks and councils of Elders. Despite the proliferation of such initiatives, the incorporation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives into higher education curricula and cultures remains a challenging political, social and practical task. This project has sought to address this challenging task by positioning arts based service learning (ABSL) as a strategy through which Australian higher education institutions can promote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural content for students in ways that also directly support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

As the number of students engaging in higher education increases, so too does their diversity. Additionally, there is growing pressure on universities to be er prepare graduates for the varied paths they will pursue beyond study. In responding to these conditions it is important to develop pedagogical approaches that are both inclusive and engaging. One adaptation needed is in relation to the practice and documentation of reflection for learning. Reflection is widely practiced across higher education, and is favoured by the Work- Integrated Learning  eld for the ways it helps students make sense of their learning.  e ongoing reliance on journals for practising and documenting reflection has several bene ts; however, a diverse student body, engaging with diverse learning experiences, is likely to bene t from being offered diverse,  flexible ways of engaging with reflective practice. Informed by student and practitioner reflective data gathered at an Australian university, this conceptual paper accepts the challenge to “disrupt” (deFreitas 2007) the text and “move beyond the diary” (Harvey et al. 2012) to present an argument for the value and role of alternative modes of reflection, spanning arts-based, embodied, mindful and technological approaches. Underpinning this advocacy of diverse mediums for reflection are the principles of inclusivity and universal design.

Work integrated learning (WIL) courses can be more time consuming and resource intensive to design, teach, administer and support than traditional classroom based courses, as they generally require different approaches to curricula and pedagogy, as well as additional administrative and pastoral responsibilities. Workload and resourcing issues are reported as key challenges to the implementation of WIL, but to date most of the reported evidence on WIL workload is anecdotal. To address this gap in the literature and inform institutional practice, a two-year study was initiated to collect empirical data on the type and amount of work involved in the provision of WIL courses within an Australian university. This paper reports qualitative findings from the first year of the study. An analysis of interview responses from eight academic staff identified three key differences between WIL and classroom based courses: i) the continuous nature of staff workload in WIL; ii) the demands of individual case management of students and partners; and iii) increased administrative responsibilities. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.