The Routledge International Handbook of Work-Integrated Learning [3 ed.] 0367741768, 9780367741761

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of tables
List of figures
List of boxes
Acknowledgments
Preface
Foreword
Notes on contributors
Editors
Authors
Part I: History, definition, and theoretical background of work-integrated learning
Chapter 1: Contemporary challenges and diverse practices of work-integrated learning in higher education
Introduction
Theory and research-informed practice of work-integrated learning
History of practice and expanding of work-integrated learning
Theory-informed practice
Benefits for stakeholders
Models of work-integrated learning practice
Developing and managing work-integrated learning
Supporting equitable and student-focused work-integrated learning
Preparing for WIL and assessment of learning
Conclusion
References
Chapter 2: Work-integrated learning: A US history with lessons learned
Introduction
The roots of work-integrated learning
Variations in work-integrated learning
Cooperative education in the USA
A definition and description of cooperative education
Cooperative education: First 50 years (1906–1956)
Cooperative education: Road to the modern era (1956–1965)
Federal funding years (1965–1996)
Cooperative education: Aftermath of federal and program expansion (1996–2021)
Learning from more than a century of cooperative education
The future of cooperative education
Internships
Profiling internships
Evolution of internships in the modern era
Professional organizations
The influence of social and technological change
Service-learning
A history of service-learning
The impact of service-learning
Lessons learned
Conclusion
References
Chapter 3: Defining work-integrated learning
Introduction
History of the term ‘work-integrated learning’
Definitions of work-integrated learning within the literature
Exploring the defining elements of work-integrated learning
Integrating theory and practice
Intentional within the curriculum
Authenticity of the learning context
Meaningful practice of work-focused tasks
Related to study, career direction, and citizenship
External partner involvement
Establishing a definition of work-integrated learning
What is not work-integrated learning
Preparation for, and reflection on, work-integrated learning
Field trips
Case studies
Shadowing
Simulations without an external stakeholder
Extracurricular work experience
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
Notes
References
Chapter 4: Applying educational thinking in work-integrated learning
Introduction
Understanding educational theory for work-integrated learning
The complexities of learning in the swamp
Evolution of educational thinking and learning
Behaviorism
Constructivism
Metacognition and conceptual change
Theories of learning in work-integrated learning
Teacher education
Engineering education
Disaggregating and abstracting tasks and educational theory
Educational thinking for work-integrated learning
Problem-based learning
Deep versus surface processing
Cognitive strategies
Self-regulated learning
Reflection on action
Reflection in action and noticing
Conclusion and implications
Acknowledgments
Notes
References
Chapter 5: Organizational theory: Leveraging its explanatory potential for work-integrated learning
The complex business of organizations
Organizational scholarship: the eating of a theoretical elephant
Definitions of organizational socialization
How socialization is enacted
Socialization does matter
WIL students: a very particular category of newcomer
Conceptualizing and modeling work-integrated learning socialization
No intern is an island
Students as proactive socialization agents
Retention: the hero outcome of successful organizational socialization
Conclusion
Future research
References
Part II: Benefits for stakeholders
Chapter 6: Benefits of work-integrated learning for students
Introduction
The employability context
Theoretical framework
Benefits of work-integrated learning
Discussion of benefits
Graduate capitals lens
Caveats to documented benefits
Work-integrated learning and employment
Conclusion
References
Chapter 7: Benefits of work-integrated learning for host organizations
Introduction
Motivations for organizations to participate in work-integrated learning
Benefits for host organizations
Increased work capacity and economic impact
Workplace culture
Recruitment advantages
Staff development
Altruistic and social responsibilities
Connections with educational institutions
Challenges for host organizations
Appropriate resources
Student recruitment
Student attitudes and learning requirements
Communication
Financial and legal
Wellbeing, equity, access, and inclusion
Implications for practice and future research
Virtual and remote work-integrated learning
Sustainability of work-integrated learning partnerships
Future research
Conclusion
References
Chapter 8: Benefits of work-integrated learning for educational institutions
Introduction
Four benefits of work-integrated learning for external stakeholders
Benefit 1: Improved reputation of graduate employability by stakeholders
Benefit 2: Enhanced student experience from active engagement leading to learning maturity, self-authorship, and career clarification
Benefit 3: Partnerships with industry for engaged research and innovation
Benefit 4: Productive corporate and community engagement
Conclusions
Notes
References
Part III: Models of work-integrated learning
Chapter 9: The practice of cooperative education
Introduction
History of cooperative education
The original cooperative system of education
The first 50 years of cooperative education
Global expansion of cooperative education
Definitions and common structural elements of cooperative education
Co-op as defined by common structural elements
International models of cooperative education
Outcomes of participation in cooperative education
Benefits of multiple experiences
Benefits of paid employment
Challenges with the model of cooperative education
Faculty support and academic legitimacy
Sourcing paid employment opportunities
Integration with the curriculum
Case study: work-integrated learning at the University of Waterloo
Program operations
Securing paid employment opportunities
Multiple, alternating work experiences
Supporting student learning and facilitating integration
Future considerations
References
Chapter 10: The practice of block placements
Introduction
Placements as a program and professional requirement
Learning and teaching
Challenges in block placements
Sustainability
Roles and relationships
Assessment
Curriculum development
Case study: the Canterbury Dedicated Education Unit
Future directions
References
Chapter 11: The practice of sandwich degrees
Introduction
Origins of sandwich degrees
How practice has evolved
Duration and benefits of sandwich placements
Benefits to sandwich placement providers
The challenges of the sandwich placement
Work-integrated learning and the global skills shortage
The rise of remote work experience
Case study: postgraduate placements at the University of Central Lancashire, UK
Background
Program structure
Challenges preparing for work placements
Strategies for enhancing the employability of students pre-placement
Three-day experiential learning residential
Careers day
Careers events
Drop-in sessions
Position to date
The future for sandwich placements
Developing new skills in a changing world
Emerging changes for sandwich placements
Conclusion
References
Chapter 12: The practice of short-term and part-time work placements
Introduction
Defining short-term and part-time placements
Benefits of short-term and part-time placements
Framework of quality parameters in work-integrated learning
Case studies
Case Study 1: The Co-NNECTIONS placement program for Indigenous and low socio-economic status (SES) students, the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia
Case study 2: Bachelor of Sport and Recreation (BSR), Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Case study 3: Bachelor of Advanced Science (Honors) Curtin University, Australia
Mini case studies
Analysis
Discussion
Flexibility and inclusivity
Diversity of work-integrated learning experiences
Appeal to small–medium enterprise partners
Student learning and engagement
Careers
Conclusion
References
Chapter 13: The practice of apprenticeships as work-integrated learning
Introduction
A history of apprenticeships in higher education
The “how” of apprenticeships for education providers
Experiences of apprentices
Choosing the degree apprenticeship
Reconciling work and study
Integrating university and workplace learning and the support of work colleagues
Support of peer apprentices
Case study 1: graduate apprenticeships in the UK
Case study 2: the German dual-degree model
Future directions and challenges
Conclusion
References
Chapter 14: The practice of entrepreneurship education and start-up creation
Introduction
Experiential entrepreneurship education
Internship-based EWIL: a case study
Discussion
Defining entrepreneurial-work-integrated learning
Self-directed entrepreneurial-work-integrated learning
Supervised entrepreneurial-work-integrated learning
Conclusion
References
Chapter 15: The practice of service learning as work-integrated learning
Introduction
Service learning in the curriculum
Global service learning
Contemporary issues in service learning through collective case studies
Case study 1: service learning as curriculum – including First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives
Case study 2: service learning supporting students – students with disability and work-integrated learning
Case study 3: scaling service learning – future directions creating inclusive online spaces with multiple community partners
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 16: The practice of non-placement work-integrated learning
Introduction
Advancing and framing non-placement work-integrated learning
Illustrative examples of non-placement work-integrated learning
Benefits of non-placement work-integrated learning
Challenges and drawbacks of non-placement work-integrated learning
Reflective prompts for practitioners
Future directions for non-placement work-integrated learning
Conclusion
References
Chapter 17: The practice of simulations as work-integrated learning
Introduction
Theoretical foundations of simulation
Modalities, designs, and applications
The role of stakeholders and external partners
Modalities of simulation
Simulation for specific learning outcomes
Simulation as replacement or adjunct to work-integrated learning
Simulation uses: from novice to expert learners
Simulation for remediation of underperformance
Simulation design considerations
Learner engagement in simulation
Work-integrated-learning case study: ‘simulation for success’
Future directions for simulation in work-integrated learning
References
Chapter 18: The practice of online internships
Introduction
The changing landscape of internships
Quality and standards for online internships
Professional association roles
Designing online internships
Effective practice case study: University of Adelaide, Australia
Overview
How online internships work in practice
The rationale for online internships
The next steps for online internships
Effective practice case study: EY Global Limited
Overview
How online internships work in practice
The rationale for online internships
The next steps for online internships
Emerging themes and commonalities of the case studies
Online internships in practice: case studies and stakeholders' perspectives
The benefits of online internships
Increased diversity
Flexibility
Autonomy
Digital nomads
Challenges of online internships
Lack of familiarity
Isolation
Social bonds
Industry under-representation
Case study: Swinburne media and communication project units
Remote and online internships: post-pandemic
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
Notes
References
Chapter 19: The practice of international work-integrated learning
Introduction
Stakeholder considerations
Developing international work-integrated learning opportunities
Direct international work-integrated learning opportunity development with host organizations
Institutional partnerships
Other methods for sourcing opportunities
East–West practice and cultural implications on international WIL opportunity development
Student learning outcomes
Intercultural competency development
Professional development and extra-curricular learning
Risk management
Creation of risk management training and support for students
Utilizing stakeholders to support the creation of a safe environment
Immigration and permits
Procedures and processes for a quality IWIL student experience
Ethical considerations in international work-integrated learning
Conclusion and future direction
Acknowledgments
References
Part IV: Developing and managing work-integrated learning programs
Chapter 20: Establishing a new work-integrated learning program in a degree
Introduction
The Australian higher education experience of work-integrated learning
Policy support, expansion, and leadership
The international context of work-integrated learning
Key components of work-integrated learning
Work-integrated learning at the University of Newcastle
Case study 1: Newcastle Business School
Origin and design of the work-integrated learning program
Implementation and delivery
Success factors and challenges
Case study 2: College of Engineering, Science and Environment
Origin and design of the work-integrated learning program
Implementation and delivery
Quality assurance measures
Success factors and challenges
Synthesis of case study findings
Commonalities
Shared challenges
Unique issues and challenges
Program development recommendations
Conclusion
Note
References
Chapter 21: Establishing and managing a blended approach to institutional work-integrated learning
Introduction
Institutional work-integrated learning models
Institutional integration and centralization of work-integrated learning
Academic leadership
Shared language
Equity for students
Educational institution staff and faculty workload
Finding work-integrated learning host organizations
Resources and supports
Risk management
Assessment and evaluation
A case study: shifting the focus of institutional work-integrated learning
Description of the case
Reimagining institutional WIL as a blended model
Assessing the landscape: an internal audit
External review
Towards a blended WIL model through developing institutional capacity
Work-Integrated Learning Hub
Outreach
Course (re)design
Implementing institutional work-integrated learning: lessons learned
Managing information and developing processes for the evaluation and monitoring of institutional WIL
Working with Indigenous community partners
Working towards institutional change during COVID-19
Faculty workload
Wariness of blended or centralized work-integrated learning resources and processes
Towards a blended institutional work-integrated learning model
Acknowledgments
Notes
References
Chapter 22: Quality indicators of work-integrated learning
Introduction
Understandings of quality in higher education
The challenges of assuring quality in work-integrated learning
Exploring domains of work-integrated learning practice
Applying concepts of quality to work-integrated learning practices
Canadian approach to quality in work-integrated learning
Context of cooperative education in Canada
Describing the approach to quality assurance
Operationalizing the framework
Australian approach to quality in work-integrated learning
The Australian work-integrated learning context
Describing the approach
Connecting quality in work-integrated learning within a global context
Conclusions and future research
Note
References
Chapter 23: Accreditation and quality in work-integrated learning: An international comparison
Introduction
Accreditation as an indicator of quality
Quality in work-integrated learning
Professional accreditation
Inquiry process
Accreditation of work-integrated learning in Australia
Accreditation of work-integrated learning in Canada
Provincial and national work-integrated learning accreditation case studies
Professional and work-integrated learning accreditation in Canada
Comparison of accreditation in Canada and Australia
Bringing together co-op, professional accreditation, and WIL quality frameworks
Focus of work-integrated learning accreditation
Collaboration
Research and validated standards
Motivation
Evolution, innovation and best practice
Access
Institutional access
Student access
Deficits and challenges
Conclusion
References
Chapter 24: Learning ecosystems: Enhancing student understanding and agency through work-integrated learning
Introduction
Activity theory and a learning ecosystem
Ecosystem subjects: students
Ecosystem tools: pedagogy, experience, assessment, and reflection
Ecosystem: division of labor
Ecosystem: rules
Ecosystem: community
Ecosystem object: purpose
Ecosystem outcomes
A case study: the University of Waterloo’s work-integrated learning and career education learning ecosystem
Ecosystem subjects: University of Waterloo students in work-integrated learning and career education
Ecosystem tools: PEAR at the University of Waterloo
Ecosystem: division of labor at the University of Waterloo
Ecosystem: rules at the University of Waterloo
Ecosystem: community at the University of Waterloo
Ecosystem object: purpose clarification at the University of Waterloo
Ecosystem outcomes: the University of Waterloo
Implications for institutions seeking to invest in student agency
Conclusion
References
Chapter 25: Building sustainable partnerships and managing expectations of work-integrated learning stakeholders
Introduction
Identifying work-integrated learning stakeholders
Engaging with potential stakeholders
Theories of stakeholder engagement
Communicating expectations
Building trust
Using sustainability as a foundation for work-integrated learning partnerships
Fostering reciprocity and sustainability from the perspective of external stakeholders
Case study 1: work-integrated learning in an early learning center
Case study 2: work-integrated learning in an Aboriginal community-controlled health organization
Ongoing management of work-integrated learning partnerships
Complexity and risk in work-integrated learning partnerships
Managing multiple partnerships
Concluding a partnership
Framework for external stakeholder relationship management
Conclusion
References
Chapter 26: Risk management of work-integrated learning
Introduction
Risks to students, institutions, and host organizations
Legal risks
Ethical risks
Strategic risks
Reputational risks
Operational risks
Financial risks
Risk management framework
Agreements
Internal systems
Education, training, and resources
Internal collaboration
External collaboration
Stakeholder relationship management
Conclusion
References
Chapter 27: Understanding the national context of work-integrated learning
Introduction
Work-integrated learning’s macro-level context
Macro-economic context
Macro-social-cultural context
Work-integrated learning’s mezzo-level context
Work-integrated learning’s micro-level context
Conclusion
References
Part V: Topical challenges, opportunities, and future directions
Chapter 28: Preparing students to thrive in work-integrated learning
Introduction
Approaches to preparing students
Across program approach
Front-loading approach
Iterative preparation approach
Preparation for WIL activities
Preparing for practical matters
Specific skills and capacities for particular activities
Professional behaviors, skills, and capacities
Professional ethical issues
Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders
Career development
Catering for diverse student needs
Preparation for emotional aspects
Preparing students for learning in work-integrated learning
Preparing students to extract maximum learning from the work-integrated learning activity
Preparing students to apply and adapt their knowledge, skills, and experience in new contexts
Strategies and tools for learning in work-integrated learning
Additional preparation for international work-integrated learning
Strategies for preparing students
Conclusions
References
Chapter 29: Using instrumental mentoring to prepare students for work-integrated learning
Introduction
Background and context
Preparing students for internships and graduate work
Employability in the context of work-integrated learning
Theoretical framework
Pre-internship activities in parallel with the curriculum
Linking theory and practice through whole-of-program engagement
Implementing a pre-internship initiative outside the curriculum
Information session
Two-week internship
Closing event
What has been learned: implications for practice
Personal growth and reflection
Academic skills
Future visioning
Faculty culture
Transferability across programs and tasks
Conclusion
References
Chapter 30: Learner assessment in work-integrated learning
Introduction
Learner assessment in work-integrated learning
Assessment of learning in work-integrated learning
Assessing readiness for work-integrated learning
Assessment for learning in work-integrated learning
Learners' engagement with assessment-related feedback in work-integrated learning
Programs of assessment in work-integrated learning
Considerations for assessment in work-integrated learning
Constructive alignment (vertical and horizontal)
Authentic assessment and feedback
Balancing assessment within the safe container for work-integrated learning
Developing learners’ evaluative judgment skills
Designing assessments of learner performance in work-integrated learning
Recommendations for quality work-integrated learning assessment
References
Chapter 31: Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future: Melding work and learning through the role of the T-professional
Introduction
Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future
The adaptive innovator: the T-professional
Deep systems knowledge and thinking
Deep understanding of self
Integrating work and learning
Young university graduates in the workplace: articulating the T
Phase 1: 2009–2010
Phase 2: 2015
Phase 3: 2020
Gaining experience early
Managing expectations
Building relationships
The world of work is moving faster and faster
Technology change
COVID-19 influences work and emphasizes the T
Conclusion
References
Chapter 32: Applying principles of equity, diversity, inclusion, and access in work-integrated learning
Introduction
Barriers to work-integrated learning
A five-stage framework for applying the principles of EDIA in WIL
Program design
How are decisions made about program design or redesign?
Suggestions
Is your curriculum inclusive and culturally relevant?
Suggestions
Have you incorporated principles of universal design into the course design?
Suggestions
What are the prerequisites of the program and when are they communicated?
Suggestions
What funding opportunities are available for students with financial barriers?
Suggestions
Are your staff or faculty members properly trained to work with equity-deserving groups?
Suggestions
Is your space accessible and welcoming to a broad student population?
Suggestions
Does your list of partners support a broad range of student identities and circumstances?
Suggestions
Do the EDIA values and practices of the community or employer partners meet the standards of your institution?
Suggestions
Do you help your partners remove barriers for students from equity-deserving groups?
Suggestions
Promotion and outreach
How will the work-integrated learning opportunity be promoted?
Suggestions
Does your work-integrated learning opportunity use language that promotes equity?
Suggestions
Have you considered the various motivations a student might have for participating?
Suggestions
What information is provided to students about work-integrated learning opportunities?
Suggestions
Student preparation and supports
Do your services support all students?
Suggestions
Are there resources to help students experiencing barriers to securing a work-integrated learning opportunity?
Suggestions
Do you provide professionalism training for students and does it incorporate the principles of EDIA?
Suggestions
Do students know their rights and how to address and report workplace issues and conflict, discrimination, harassment, and health and safety issues, should they arise?
Suggestions
How can you support students to feel connected during their work-integrated learning experience?
Suggestions
Reflection and assessment of learning
Do you provide multiple methods for students to reflect and express their experiences?
Suggestions
Have you incorporated principles of universal design into the reflection and assessment plan?
Suggestions
Program evaluation
How will you follow up with students who experienced barriers?
Suggestions
Are you measuring the impacts of your equity, diversity, inclusion, and access initiatives?
Suggestions
What are your reflections as a practitioner?
Suggestions
Conclusion
Notes
References
Chapter 33: Supporting the wellbeing of students: A framework for work-integrated learning programs
Introduction
Making self-judgments and having agency
The importance of self-efficacy and motivation
Links to reflection and metacognition
Suggested wellbeing framework for work-integrated learning
Induction
Communities and support
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 34: Paid and unpaid work-integrated learning: Challenges and opportunities
Introduction
Comparison of practice
Educational approach
Meaningful versus trivial work
Supervisory relationship
Professional identity
Legal perspective
Human rights and health and safety in the workplace rights
Labor rights: employment test
No labor rights: regulation
Labor rights: regulation
Non-remunerative payments
Ethical dilemmas
Stakeholder perspectives
Student perspectives
Placement organization
Tertiary institution
Conclusions
References
Chapter 35: Addressing complex global challenges: Developing cultural intelligence in work-integrated learning
Introduction
Cultural intelligence as a vehicle for intercultural effectiveness
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
Integrating intercultural effectiveness and WIL quality framework
Aims
Governments
Institutions
Students
Employers
Educators
Actions
Pedagogy
Experience
Assessment
Reflection
Achievements and continuous improvement
Achievements and continuous improvement in cultural intelligence
Achievements and continuous improvement in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 36: Establishing sustainable national and global networks for promoting work-integrated learning
Introduction
Governance and growth associations and their impacts
Vision and leadership
Networks and advocacy
Quality assurance and professional development
Global research into WIL outcomes
Financial sustainability
National associations: successes, challenges, and opportunities
Conclusion
Notes
References
Chapter 37: Future directions for advancing work-integrated learning pedagogy
Introduction
Future directions of work-integrated learning
Research-informed practice of work-integrated learning
Resourcing of work-integrated learning
Quality practice of work-integrated learning
Work-integrated learning beyond employability
Student access and equity
Wellbeing of students
Wellbeing of staff
Guidance for good practice
Professional development for practitioners
Designing good practice
Sustaining and enhancing good practice
Conclusion
References
Index

Citation preview

THE ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING

The Routledge International Handbook of Work-Integrated Learning, third edition, provides an extensive overview of work-integrated learning (WIL) for practitioners and educators, and contains practical insights on how to improve everyday applications of it. WIL is a diverse and complex subject, with much debate around what constitutes good practice. In this Handbook, well-established international WIL scholars provide an overview of the history and educational theories related to WIL, an extensive compilation of the relevant literature related to its application, and examples of good practice. The third edition has been substantively revised and restructured, presenting 11 different models of WIL along with supporting literature and examples, and discusses developing and managing WIL within a qualification and across the institution. The Handbook also presents evidence-based benefits for stakeholders and explores topics such as stakeholder engagement, risk management, and the role of national and international associations. This Handbook presents discussions on defining the practice of WIL and explores the current literature on theoretical thinking about WIL, wellbeing, equity and inclusion, assessment, and quality indicators. Bringing together scholars and specialists from around the world, this Handbook is essential reading for practitioners, educators, researchers, higher education leaders, and policy makers. Karsten E. Zegwaard is Associate Professor and Director of Work-Integrated Learning Research at the University of Waikato, New Zealand. Karsten is Editor-in-Chief for the International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, President of Work-Integrated Learning NZ, Executive Board Member of the World Association of Cooperative Education, and a recipient of several international awards. T. Judene Pretti is Director of Business Services for Co-operative and Experiential Education, and Senior Advisor for the Work-Learn Institute at the University of Waterloo, Canada. Judene is a recipient of the Dr. Graham Branton Award for research excellence, Associate Editor for the International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, and President-Elect for Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada.

Routledge International Handbooks of Education

Routledge International Handbook of Universities, Security and Intelligence Studies Edited by Liam Gearon The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education Edited by Neil Mercer, Rupert Wegerif and Louis Major The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Rights Edited by Jane Murray, Beth Blue Swadener and Kylie Smith Routledge International Handbook of Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Edited by Jane M. Ussher, Joan C. Chrisler and Janette Perz The Routledge International Handbook of Student-centred Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Edited by Sabine Hoidn and Manja Klemenčič The Routledge Handbook of English Language Education in Bangladesh Edited by Shaila Sultana, M. Moninoor Roshid, Md. Zulfeqar Haider, Mia Md. Naushaad Kabir, and Mahmud Hasan khan The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Teaching Beyond the Classroom Edited by Hayo Reinders, Chun Lai and Pia Sundqvist The Routledge Handbook of Dyslexia in Education Edited by Gad Elbeheri and Siang Lee The Routledge Handbook of International Social Work Edited by Stephen Webb The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Autism Studies Edited by Damian Milton and Sara Ryan The Routledge International Handbook of Work-Integrated Learning Edited by Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/ Routledge-International-Handbooks-of-Education/book-series/HBKSOFED

THE ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING

Third Edition

Edited by

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti

Designed cover image: © Getty Images First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 selection and editorial matter, Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Zegwaard, Karsten, editor. | Pretti, T. Judene, editor. Title: The Routledge international handbook of work-integrated learning / Edited by Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti. Other titles: International handbook of work-integrated learning Description: Third edition. | Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2023. | Series: Routledge international handbooks of education | Identifiers: LCCN 2022057131 (print) | LCCN 2022057132 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367741761 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003156420 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Education, Cooperative--Cross-cultural studies. | Education, Higher--Aims and objectives--Cross-cultural studies. | College students--Employment--Cross-cultural studies. Classification: LCC LB1029.C6 R68 2023 (print) | LCC LB1029.C6 (ebook) | DDC 373.2/8--dc23/eng/20230210 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022057131 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022057132 ISBN: 978-0-367-74176-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-49718-1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-15642-0 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420 Typeset in Bembo by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)

CONTENTS

List of tables ix List of figures xi List of boxes xiii Acknowledgments xiv Preface xv Foreword xvii Notes on contributors xviii PART I

History, definition, and theoretical background of work-integrated learning

1

1 Contemporary challenges and diverse practices of work-integrated learning in higher education Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti

3

2 Work-integrated learning: A US history with lessons learned E. Sam Sovilla and Jim Varty

13

3 Defining work-integrated learning Karsten E. Zegwaard, T. Judene Pretti, Anna D. Rowe, and Sonia J. Ferns

29

4 Applying educational thinking in work-integrated learning Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

49

5 Organizational theory: Leveraging its explanatory potential for work-integrated learning Patrice Twomey and T. Judene Pretti

v

73

Contents PART II

Benefits for stakeholders

91

6 Benefits of work-integrated learning for students Denise Jackson and Elizabeth J. Cook

93

7 Benefits of work-integrated learning for host organizations Jenny Fleming, Sonia J. Ferns, and Karsten E. Zegwaard

113

8 Benefits of work-integrated learning for educational institutions Kerry Aprile, Ian Sladen, and James Stellar

131

PART III

Models of work-integrated learning

145

9 The practice of cooperative education Anne-Marie Fannon

147

10 The practice of block placements Kathryn Hay, Jo Borren, Jane Maidment, Raewyn Tudor, and Dominic Chilvers

163

11 The practice of sandwich degrees Julie Udell, Vicki O’Brien, Sarah Flynn, Helen Hooper, and Francesca Walker-Martin

176

12 The practice of short-term and part-time work placements Anna D. Rowe, Sonia J. Ferns, Patricia R. Lucas, Leanne Piggott, and Theresa Winchester-Seeto

190

13 The practice of apprenticeships as work-integrated learning Sally Smith, Ella Taylor-Smith, Khristin Fabian, and David Klotz

207

14 The practice of entrepreneurship education and start-up creation Alon Eisenstein

218

15 The practice of service learning as work-integrated learning Faith Valencia-Forrester

229

16 The practice of non-placement work-integrated learning Laura Rook and Bonnie Amelia Dean

243

17 The practice of simulations as work-integrated learning Belinda Judd, Jennie Brentnall, Anna Phillips, and Melanie Aley

254

vi

Contents

18 The practice of online internships Joy Perkins and Amy Irwin

271

19 The practice of international work-integrated learning Karima Ramji, Shabnam Surjitsingh Ivković, Nicole Miller, Farzana Karim-Haji, and Sherilyn Trompetter

289

PART IV

Developing and managing work-integrated learning programs

307

20 Establishing a new work-integrated learning program in a degree Bonnie McBain, Paul Stolk, Kylie Twyford, and Liam Phelan

309

21 Establishing and managing a blended approach to institutional work-integrated learning Mohna Baichoo, Jennifer Fane, Tania Loken, and Aurelea Mahood 22 Quality indicators of work-integrated learning Matthew Campbell and T. Judene Pretti

325 342

23 Accreditation and quality in work-integrated learning: An international comparison 361 Sonia J. Ferns and Christine Arsenault 24 Learning ecosystems: Enhancing student understanding and agency through work-integrated learning Norah McRae and Jennifer Woodside 25 Building sustainable partnerships and managing expectations of work-integrated learning stakeholders Elyce Green, Rebecca Barry, Jayne Lawrence, Brent Smith, Alicia Carey, Melanie Peelgrane, and Zara Crawford

381

395

26 Risk management of work-integrated learning Craig Cameron, Jenny Fleming, Kathryn Hay, and Anne Hewitt

413

27 Understanding the national context of work-integrated learning Philip S. Rose

428

PART V

Topical challenges, opportunities, and future directions

439

28 Preparing students to thrive in work-integrated learning Theresa Winchester-Seeto and Anna D. Rowe

441

vii

Contents

29 Using instrumental mentoring to prepare students for work-integrated learning 460 Dawn Bennett and Cindy Ann Smith 30 Learner assessment in work-integrated learning Jennie Brentnall, Belinda Judd, Jacqueline Raymond, and Emma Ashcroft 31 Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future: Melding work and learning through the role of the T-professional Philip Gardner and April L. Perry 32 Applying principles of equity, diversity, inclusion, and access in work-integrated learning Ainsley S. Goldman, Gifty MacKay, Vicki L. Lowes, Letitia Henville, Jewell Gillies, Cynthia Jairam-Persaud, Susan Soikie, Njamba J. M. Koffi, Naeemah Shah, and Julie Walchli 33 Supporting the wellbeing of students: A framework for work-integrated learning programs Iro Konstantinou, Trevor Gerhardt, and Elizabeth Miller 34 Paid and unpaid work-integrated learning: Challenges and opportunities Katharine Hoskyn, Craig Cameron, Patricia R. Lucas, Franziska Trede, Loletta Yuen, Sally Rae, Holly Capocchiano, and Michelle J. Eady

473

492

510

533 548

35 Addressing complex global challenges: Developing cultural intelligence in work-integrated learning Norah McRae, Karima Ramji, and Shabnam Surjitsingh Ivković

563

36 Establishing sustainable national and global networks for promoting work-integrated learning Judie Kay, Norah McRae, Nancy Johnston, and James Stellar

578

37 Future directions for advancing work-integrated learning pedagogy Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti

593

Index 607

viii

TABLES

3.1 Examples of definitions used to describe work-integrated learning within a context 4.1 Understanding the links between tasks and theory for a student teacher during a teaching placement in a school 4.2 Understanding the links between tasks and theory for an engineering student doing a placement with an engineering firm 4.3 Domain-independent tasks and relevant pieces of learning theory for work-integrated learning contexts 5.1 Typology of socialization 5.2 Model of intern socialization 6.1 Benefits of work-integrated learning for participating students 7.1 Benefits for organizations of hosting work-integrated learning students 7.2 Challenges for host organizations participating in work-integrated learning 7.3 List of recommendations for maximizing benefits and HE institution (HEI) and host organization (HO) responsibilities 12.1 Framework of quality parameters in work-integrated learning 12.2 Mini case studies 13.1 Examples of apprenticeships 16.1 Examples of non-placement work-integrated learning models 16.2 Examples of non-placement work-integrated learning in action 18.1 Twelve facets for online work-integrated learning: plan, create, support 19.1 Pre-departure risk management training 19.2 Stakeholder engagement in risk management 19.3 Stakeholder roles during the IWIL process 21.1 External review guiding questions 22.1 Dimensions of quality practice in work-integrated learning 22.2 Work-Integrated Learning Quality Framework AAA* 22.3 An overview of the domains of quality practice 23.1 Comparison of the CPA Ontario practical experience requirement and the CEWIL Co-op Accreditation Standards

ix

31 58 60 62 76 80 97 116 120 125 194 199 209 246 247 273 297 298 301 331 348 351 353 369

Tables

23.2 Comparison of work-integrated learning quality and accreditation practices in Canada and Australia 370 25.1 Benefits and challenges associated with engaging work-integrated learning stakeholders 399 25.2 Example of a risk management template 406 26.1 Ethical risks in work-integrated learning 417 26.2 Work-integrated learning agreement 420 28.1 Key areas of preparation for practical matters 446 28.2 Summary of preparation for learning in work-integrated learning 451 28.3 Preparation strategies 453 29.1 Features of an ongoing pre-internship initiative delivered parallel to the curriculum 461 30.1 Common assessment types in work-integrated learning 475 30.2 Design concepts for performance-based assessment 486

x

FIGURES

5.1 9.1 13.1 15.1 15.2 17.1 17.2 17.3 18.1 22.1 22.2 24.1 24.2 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 28.1 28.2 30.1 30.2 31.1 31.2 32.1

Interrelationships between dimensions of socialization 81 University of Waterloo’s Future Ready Talent Framework 158 The tripartite model of apprenticeships 210 Service learning supports students to develop personal and professional identities within the context of their community service 231 Service learning curriculum provides an opportunity to consider professional and personal identities through a lens beyond a student’s own experience 235 Overview of simulation modalities used in work-integrated learning 257 Interacting considerations in comprehensive simulation design 261 Engagement of learners in simulation 263 Online internship infographic 274 The interconnected elements of work-integrated learning 348 Global work-integrated learning quality model 355 Future Ready Talent Framework 387 Four domains of reflection at the University of Waterloo toward purposeful work 390 Stakeholders usually involved in work-integrated learning activities 397 Process for minimizing risk from change 407 Practical ways to move forward at the end of a partnership 409 Framework for external stakeholder relationship management 409 Timeline for three different approaches to student preparation for work-integrated learning 442 Intersecting areas of work-integrated learning preparation 445 Quality work-integrated learning assessment and feedback practices and considerations 474 Constructive alignment vertically and horizontally throughout a course 482 The T and its components 494 The elements of ME 497 Example of the experiences and barriers that students from equity-deserving groups may encounter when accessing work-integrated learning programs 511

xi

Figures

32.2 A five-stage framework for applying principles of EDIA in work-integrated learning 513 33.1 Work-integrated learning wellbeing framework used in Pearson Business School 538 35.1 Embedding intercultural effectiveness and UN SDGs within a quality work-integrated learning framework 564 35.2 Components of embedding intercultural effectiveness and UN SDGs within a quality work-integrated learning framework 566 35.3 Impact of embedding intercultural effectiveness and UN SDGs within a quality work-integrated learning framework 574

xii

BOXES

3.1 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 22.1 23.1 25.1 25.2 30.1 30.2 30.3 32.1 32.2 32.3 32.4 32.5 33.1 33.2 33.3 36.1

The definition of work-integrated learning and details of the defining elements 39 Effective practice features of the University of Adelaide case study 275 Effective practice features of the EY Global Limited case study 276 Triangulated, online internship, student case study 279 Triangulated, online internship, academic case study 280 Triangulated, online internship, employer case study 281 Good practice principles for implementing the work-integrated learning wellbeing framework used in Pearson Business School programs 347 Inviting diverse perspectives 375 Guidance for creating sustainable work-integrated learning partnerships 402 Suggestions for ongoing stakeholder engagement 404 Designing an assessment to evaluate allied health students’ readiness for work-integrated learning 477 The Critical Reflection and Feedback Tool to scaffold learners’ engagement with feedback 479 Supporting quality judgments about work-integrated learning performance in exercise physiology 486 Removing financial barriers: a University of British Columbia example 516 Showcase inclusivity: the importance of EDIA statements and equity initiatives 518 Educating work-integrated learning employers 519 Prioritizing EDIA values 520 Program evaluation case study 527 Academic induction and joining the program 539 Modules, assessments, and teaching 540 Communities and support 542 WACE’s vision statement, mission statement, and value statement 582

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A huge acknowledgment goes to the almost 100 authors who generously contributed their knowledge and expertise to authoring the chapters in this book. The compiling of this Handbook started and finished during the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst authors were struggling to manage the significant impact of the pandemic on their work lives and personal lives. We gratefully acknowledge the World Association of Cooperative Education (WACE) for their support and as publishers of the first and second editions. We also acknowledge WACE for creating the opportunity during the 2022 WACE International Research Symposium, Japan, for authors to deliver presentations from the Handbook chapters. We gratefully acknowledge Liz Shoostovian for her amazing and extremely thorough proofreading of all the chapters – her eye for detail is astonishing to say the least. We thank Georgia Oman and Vilija Stephens, and the editing team (supervised by Keith Povey Editorial Services), at Routledge for their support, patience, and guidance throughout the process. We thank our respective universities, the University of Waikato, New Zealand, and the University of Waterloo, Canada, for their support and resources that allowed us to focus on this Handbook. A big shout out to all our colleagues from across the world for their support of this work, their sense of humor that kept us energized, and the many promises of drinks for when we finally catch-up face-to-face. We will be cashing in those promises. Last, but certainly not least, we very gratefully thank our families, Lisa and the kids Reuben, Samara, Naomi, and Levi, and J. P. and the kids Janelle, Jillian, and Josh. Without their support and understanding (and generous patience), we would not have been able to finish this Handbook. Karsten E. Zegwaard T. Judene Pretti

xiv

PREFACE

The third edition of the The Routledge International of Work-Integrated Learning builds on two earlier editions and is intended to become a significant resource for work-integrated learning (WIL) professionals worldwide. As a comprehensive resource, it will appeal to WIL coordinators, faculty, researchers, students, and employers. The third edition has been substantively revised and restructured, with a greater emphasis on the models of practice of WIL rather than on the practice of WIL within the context of a specific discipline. As with the second edition, the third has a slight change in title to reflect the changing use of terminologies since the previous edition and the acceptance of “work-integrated learning” as the umbrella term for the diverse range of WIL models. With the rapid expansion of WIL practice across the curriculum and the diversification of WIL models (especially within the COVID-19 pandemic context), the use of the umbrella term has been particularly important in bringing together similar models of educational approaches. The Handbook consists of five parts. Part I introduces key concepts of WIL, explores its history to provide insights of lessons learnt from the past, and unpacks how WIL is conceptualized as well as providing a comprehensive definition of it. The part also discusses theories of learning that underpin WIL, including educational ways of thinking about it and organizational theory. Core within the WIL literature is the need for reciprocity between the stakeholders involved. Therefore, Part II presents details about the benefits for the three stakeholder groups: students, external stakeholders, and the educational institutions. For each of these stakeholders, the benefits are explored and supported with research literature that provides detailed insights into the reciprocal benefits of WIL. There is a diverse range of well-established models of WIL. Part III explores models of cooperative education, block placements, sandwich degrees, short-term and part-time work placements, apprenticeships, entrepreneurships, service learning, non-placement WIL, simulations, remote WIL, and international WIL. For each of these models, the supporting literature is discussed and detailed good practice examples are presented that provide details and insights that are important for educators and curricula designers. Effective management and enhancement of WIL programs are important, especially as WIL practice is becoming more common in all qualification offerings. Part IV presents discussions on establishing a new WIL program, sustaining established practice, and managing the complex interactions within an institution and with external stakeholders, along with supporting xv

Preface

examples. Managing risk associated with WIL is explored along with a discussion on contextualizing WIL to local contexts. Current challenges for WIL are presented in Part V. The preparation of students prior to engaging in WIL is fundamentally important in enabling good learning experiences and successful engagement with external stakeholders. The preparation argument is further expanded to the context of preparation for graduate employment, including the concept of T-Shaped professionals and the need for cultural intelligence. Assessment, which has long been a challenging area within WIL, is explored in detail, especially around authentic assessment practice. Wellbeing, equity, and inclusion are important and challenging topics across the entire higher education sector – these are explored here in the context of WIL along with guidance and recommendations for good practice. The challenges of paid and unpaid WIL are discussed along with a debate on the advantages and disadvantages of both. The role of national and international associations within the WIL community and enabling the enhancing of good practice are also presented. The part ends with an exploration of the current key challenges for WIL and provides guidance on how new practitioners can expand their WIL knowledge and capabilities, create new quality WIL programs, and enhance established practice. This Handbook has involved significant commitment from almost 100 authors from around the world who have graciously shared their valuable knowledge and insights with the wider WIL community during the challenging time of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is our sincere hope that WIL practitioners, educators, leaders, curriculum designers, and researchers will find this Handbook a valuable resource for informing their practice. Karsten E. Zegwaard, University of Waikato, New Zealand T. Judene Pretti, University of Waterloo, Canada

xvi

FOREWORD

It is timely that the third edition of the The Routledge International of Work-Integrated Learning is to be published and hence accessible to researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders alike in this rapidly expanding area of education. Work-integrated learning (WIL) has a long history in various forms, particularly in the applied and professional fields. More recently, the number and types of WIL models have broadened to include a variety of curricular and co-curricular opportunities for students to learn in workplace and practice settings. As WIL grows, so too does the body of research that informs it. We now know much more about the nature of WIL and the related design and assessment attributes that help ensure impactful, quality, work-integrated experiences. This Handbook presents current topical research in the WIL space that will help ensure that current and new programs meet stakeholder needs and that participating employers, students, and institutions alike are exercising the best available knowledge and practice. WIL offers a uniquely effective approach to learning, with a particular focus on employability and exposure to authentic practice sites. Students and employers participate in these programs so as to facilitate transitions between school and work, and ultimately to employment once the student has graduated. From an educational perspective, these models also provide highly impactful learning opportunities for the application of knowledge and skills learned in school to new contexts and for new learning that is brought back to enrich the classroom setting. In this sense, WIL programs serve a very practical employability goal as well as providing a highly effective learning environment that enhances skills and knowledge transfer. This Handbook provides updated scholarship regarding the attributes of high impact WIL, the growing number of models and WIL types, and speaks to the increasingly “borderless” world of work within which WIL graduates will be employed. With the recent dramatic increase in remote work and ongoing corporate globalization, it is clear that today’s workforce must be able and ready to work anywhere in the world, both remotely and face-to-face. International WIL experiences (both in person and virtual) are key to developing these abilities and are an undeniable area of future growth. As WIL continues to grow and develop, it is our hope that the knowledge and practical wisdom shared within the chapters of this Handbook will serve to inform design and implementation that leads to quality offerings and high impact results.

xvii

Dr Nancy Johnston On behalf of WACE Secretariat October, 2022

CONTRIBUTORS

Editors Karsten E. Zegwaard is Associate Professor and Director of Work-Integrated Learning Research at the University of Waikato, New Zealand. Karsten is Editor-in-Chief for the International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, President of Work-Integrated Learning NZ, and executive board member of the World Association of Cooperative Education. Karsten has been the recipient of the Ralph W. Tyler Award, the Donald McLaren Academic Award, the James W. Wilson Award, and the Fellow of Work-Integrated Learning New Zealand Award. T. Judene Pretti is Director of Business Services for Co-operative and Experiential Education, and Senior Advisor for the Work-Learn Institute at the University of Waterloo, Canada. Judene is a recipient of the Dr. Graham Branton Award for research excellence from Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning (CEWIL) Canada. Judene is Past-Chair of the WACE International Research Committee, Associate Editor for the International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, and President-Elect for CEWIL Canada.

Authors Melanie Aley is Program Director for the Bachelor of Oral Health program at the University of Sydney, Australia, and was previously the Head of Work-Integrated Learning in the School of Health Sciences at the same institution. Melanie is Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Kerry Aprile is Academic Director of Professional Practice in the School of Education and the Arts at Central Queensland University, Australia. This role encompasses the design and facilitation of work-integrated learning placements for over 2,000 students annually throughout all Australian states and territories in the university’s undergraduate and postgraduate teacher education programs. xviii

Contributors

Christine Arsenault is Managing Director, Management at the University of Toronto Scarborough, Canada. Christine has held leadership roles with Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL), the World Association for Co-operative Education, and the CEWIL Accreditation Council. Christine received a Service Award for contributions in designing a national database supporting co-op policy and advocacy. Emma Ashcroft is an occupational therapist and educator at Curtin University, Australia. Emma’s clinical background was in the community disability sector, in which Emma teaches undergraduate occupational therapy students. Emma is a PhD candidate, investigating feedback literacy in health professional students. Mohna Baichoo is the Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) Faculty Lead at Capilano University in North Vancouver, Canada, overseeing WIL initiatives and development. Mohna has 14 years of combined work experience in the Tourism and Higher Education industries, especially WIL, across various countries: Canada, Mauritius, Switzerland, and Dubai. Rebecca Barry is Clinical Educator/Lecturer in Rural Health at Three Rivers Department of Rural Health at Charles Sturt University, Australia. Rebecca has qualifications in social work, education, and applied management. Dawn Bennett is Assistant Provost and Director of the Transformation CoLab with Bond University, Australia. Dawn is an experienced senior leader, an educational reformist, and a passionate educator. Dawn’s expertise is the enhancement of student success and graduate employability. Dawn’s EmployABILITY Initiative holds the largest dataset of student-derived confidence data in the world. Jo Borren is Lecturer at the Centre for Postgraduate Nursing Studies at the University of Otago, New Zealand. Jo is studying toward a PhD investigating competence assessment and her research interests focus on the interplay between clinical and educational environments in the assessment of nursing students, work-integrated learning, and interprofessional education. Jennie Brentnall is Lecturer in the Faculty of Medicine and Health at the University of Sydney, Australia. Jennie has a background in Occupational Therapy. Jennie’s teaching and research interests are in the assessment of student performance and clinical reasoning, both in simulation and practice education placements. Craig Cameron is from the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia, and has established an international profile in the fields of risk management and skills development in work-integrated learning (WIL). Craig’s recent research in Australia and Canada examined the legal, ethical, strategic, reputational, operational, and financial opportunities and hazards of WIL (collectively “risks”), and how those risks can be managed. Matthew Campbell is Senior Principal Advisor (Policy and Governance) in the Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor at the University of Queensland, Australia. Matthew has an extensive background in work-integrated learning (WIL) leadership and policy, including leading several national scholarly projects and as a former board member of the Australian Collaborative Education Network. Matthew’s research interests include professional identity transformations in the workplace, enactment of employability, and WIL policy in diverse curriculum and learning contexts. xix

Contributors

Holly Capocchiano is a PhD student at the University of Wollongong, Australia, with a background in Primary Education. Holly has worked as a research assistant on a wide variety of projects that sparked her passion in research. Holly’s research interests include the wellbeing of higher education students and quality education. Alicia Carey is Lecturer in Midwifery and Nursing for the School of Nursing, Paramedicine and Healthcare Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia. Alicia has an interest in rural midwifery and the stressors impacting on the recruitment and retention of midwives in Australia. Jared Carpendale is Senior Lecturer in Education at Massey University, New Zealand. After teaching in secondary schools for a decade, Jared now works predominately with pre-service and in-service teachers, with a focus on developing teachers’ specialized knowledge for effective decision-making to enhance the quality of student learning. Dominic Chilvers is Principal Academic and Program Leader for the Bachelor of Social Work at the Ara Institute of Canterbury, New Zealand, and is the current Chair of the Council for Social Work Education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Dominic’s current research is focused on student wellbeing and communities of practice in work-integrated learning contexts. Elizabeth J. Cook is Senior Analyst at Edith Cowan University, Australia, and researches the use of relational employability pedagogy in work-integrated learning. Elizabeth is also interested in career development, inquiry graphics, sociomateriality, student experience, retention and success, higher education policy, data infrastructures, and evaluation. Zara Crawford is Exercise Scientist and Manager at the Orange Aboriginal Medical Service, located in Orange, New South Wales, Australia. Zara manages the walu-win Centre, a department in the medical service that specializes in providing holistic healthcare services for prevention, intervention, treatment, and rehabilitation. Bonnie Amelia Dean is Head of Academic Development and Recognition at the University of Wollongong, Australia, where Bonnie supports and celebrates university teaching. Bonnie is on the Board of Directors for the Australian Collaborative Education Network and is an experienced work-integrated learning curriculum designer and researcher. Michelle J. Eady is Associate Professor in the School of Education at the University of Wollongong, Australia. Michelle is currently President-Elect of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL), Fellow of both ISSOTL and Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, and holds a national teaching citation for work in quality teacher preparation. Michelle’s research interests include teaching and learning, distance learning, Aboriginal studies, and work-integrated learning. Alon Eisenstein is Assistant Professor of Teaching at the School of Engineering, University of British Columbia, Canada. Alon teaches several courses on the topics of entrepreneurship, innovation, and leadership and has been developing and studying the use of Entrepreneurial Work-Integrated Learning pedagogy since 2014.

xx

Contributors

Khristin Fabian is Lecturer in the School of Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment at Edinburgh Napier University, UK. Khristin’s research interests include technology enhanced learning, transitions, and work-based learning. Jennifer Fane holds an interdisciplinary PhD in Education, Public Health, and Social Policy and has over ten years experience in work-integrated learning in both higher education institutions and non-profit organizations in Canada and Australia. Jennifer is currently Director of Education at the Learning Disabilities Society of Greater Vancouver. Anne-Marie Fannon is Director of the Work-Learn Institute, University of Waterloo, Canada. Previously Anne-Marie was Director of Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) Programs where she oversaw the development of curricula and programming to support student learning through WIL. Anne-Marie is actively engaged in CEWIL Canada and served as President in 2016–2017. Sonia J. Ferns is Managing Partner of LearnWork Consulting and Adjunct Associate Professor at Curtin University, Australia. Sonia has led several high profile institutional strategic projects on curriculum renewal and institutional frameworks. Sonia has also been project lead for 13 nationally funded projects and has published extensively on industry engagement and work-integrated learning. Jenny Fleming is Head of Academic Partnerships and a Associate Professor in the School of Sport and Recreation at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. Jenny is an active and internationally recognized work-integrated learning (WIL) researcher, and holds leadership positions related to WIL at university, national, and international levels. Sarah Flynn was an ASET Trustee for 17 years, and ASET Chair during 2013–2019. Sarah is a National Teaching Fellow and continues to support the ASET Staff Development Workshop Program and is a major contributor to the development of ASET Good Practice Guides. Philip Gardner served as Director of the Collegiate Employment Research Institute at Michigan State University, USA, for over 35 years. Philip also was Executive Director of Career Services. Philip’s active research focuses on new graduate labor markets, early workplace socialization, work-integrated learning, and career development and student success. Trevor Gerhardt was Academic Lead for Work-Integrated Learning at Pearson College London, and since 1 October 2022 has been Reader and Director of Studies for Higher Degree Apprenticeships for the Business School at the University of Kent. Trevor’s current research focuses on lecturers teaching work-integrated learning, how students deal with a major crisis, and the future of education in the Web 5.0 world. Trevor is a convenor of the European Society for Research on the Education of Adults Working Life and Learning research network. Jewell Gillies is a two-spirit member of Musgmagw Dzawada’enuwx, Kwakwa̱ka̱ʼwakw First Nation. Jewell is a national educator on Truth and Reconciliation, Equity Diversity Inclusion, and Social Justice. Jewell is Executive Director for The Smokehouse Foundation and is an MBA candidate at the Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Canada.

xxi

Contributors

Ainsley S. Goldman is an Experiential Learning Educational Developer, Sessional Instructor, and PhD student at the University of Toronto, Canada. Ainsley’s research explores equity, pedagogy, and student agency in experiential and work-integrated learning. Elyce Green is Senior Lecturer in Rural Health and Rural Health Education Lead at Three Rivers Department of Rural Health, Charles Sturt University, Australia. Elyce has worked as a nurse across rural Australia for 14 years and for the past 10 years has been conducting research focused on rural health, the rural workforce, and work-integrated learning in rural areas. Kathryn Hay is Associate Professor in the School of Social Work and Associate Dean WorkIntegrated Learning (WIL) in the College of Health at Massey University, New Zealand. Kathryn’s current research interests are the duty of care of universities to WIL students and host organizations, and the wellbeing of WIL students. Letitia Henville is Manager, Work-Integrated Learning Programs in the Faculty of Arts at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada. Letitia runs both the UBC Arts PhD Co-op program and the UBC Arts Amplifier, a work-integrated learning initiative for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Anne Hewitt is Associate Professor of Law at the University of Adelaide, Australia, and Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy UK. Anne researches in the areas of educational regulation, prohibitions of discrimination, and labor law, with a focus on equitable access to quality work, work experience, and education. Helen Hooper realized the transformative impact that work-based learning and work placements could have after witnessing a student progress from barely passing their first year, to obtaining a first-class degree and progressing to PhD research after undertaking a second-year placement. This inspired Helen to pursue work-based learning enhancement opportunities for her students. Katharine Hoskyn currently works in health at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. Katharine has been passionately involved in work-integrated learning in leadership, coordination, and supervisory roles, especially in business, and also working with conjoint students studying in more than one faculty. Katharine’s research interests take a multidisciplinary approach and are focused on community-based and not-for-profit communities. Amy Irwin is Senior Lecturer within the School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland. Amy lectures primarily on Human Factors and Applied Psychology topics. Amy’s research interests include workplace incivility, non-technical skills, and student employability. Shabnam Surjitsingh Ivković is Director of International Strategic Initiatives, Co-operative and Experiential Education at the University of Waterloo, Canada. Shabnam leads strategic program development on several aspects of international work-integrated learning (iWIL). Shabnam leads global and national-level groups on iWIL and undertakes research in iWIL perspectives.

xxii

Contributors

Denise Jackson focuses on preparing students for future careers; her work has been recognized by several awards, including the James W. Wilson Award for Outstanding Contribution to Research in Cooperative Education. Denise is Principal Fellow of the UK’s Higher Education Academy, a National Director for the Australian Collaborative Education Network, and is based at Edith Cowan University, Australia. Cynthia Jairam-Persaud is Assistant Director of Student Services for the Arts and Science Co-op at the University of Toronto Scarborough in Canada. Cynthia is a member of the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion, and Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Committee member with Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada. Nancy Johnston is a past president of the World Association for Co-operative and WorkIntegrated Education, having completed her career at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, in the role of Associate Vice-President, Students and International. Nancy currently works as a consultant within the tertiary education system, is actively researching and publishing in the work-integrated learning field, and holds an adjunct professorship at Simon Fraser University. Belinda Judd is Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Medicine and Health at the University of Sydney, Australia. Belinda’s teaching and research interests include simulation-based education, student assessment, and preparation for placements. Belinda is Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy UK. Farzana Karim-Haji is Associate Vice Provost of Global Engagement at the Aga Khan University (AKU), Pakistan. Farzana is responsible for developing AKU’s global engagement strategy, and building a strategic portfolio of partnerships and global mobility programs to support AKU’s research, service, and educational priorities. Judie Kay is the WACE Vice Chair Programs and Partnerships, a WACE Executive Committee member, and leads the WACE Global Challenge. Judie was Co-founder and Past President of the Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN) and is the recipient of an ACEN Honorary Life Membership and WACE Excellence in Innovation and Entrepreneurship Award. David Klotz is Professor of Information Systems at Hochschule der Medien, Stuttgart, Germany. David’s research interests include applied artificial intelligence, data-driven business models and applications, and data engineering. Njamba J. M. Koffi is an award-winning community leader, author, and public speaker. Njamba works in philanthropy and strives to advance youth empowerment, refugee advocacy and racial equity, diversity, inclusion, and access values. Iro Konstantinou was Academic Lead for Research and Development at Pearson College London, England. Iro is currently Head of Research and Impact at Eton College conducting research in leadership, wellbeing, and cross-sector partnerships. In 2018, Iro launched the Eton Journal for Innovation and Research in Education and is currently Editor-in-Chief. Iro also holds a visiting research position in Education Studies at the University of Warwick.

xxiii

Contributors

Jayne Lawrence is an academic who is currently a lecturer in Midwifery and Nursing for the School of Nursing, Paramedicine and Healthcare Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Australia. Jayne has a passion for improving health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and growing the rural health workforce. Tania Loken has been a tourism industry member from 1995 and transitioned into post-secondary teaching in career development and work-integrated learning (WIL) in 2014. As Convenor of Tourism Management International, Tania’s research and development focuses on WIL with international students, and equitable and sustainable opportunities benefitting the industry and the student. Vicki L. Lowes is Director, Experiential Learning and Outreach Support in the Faculty of Arts and Science at the University of Toronto, Canada, and supports the development of quality experiential learning opportunities across more than 300 academic programs. Vicki previously served on Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning, Canada’s Accreditation Council. Patricia R. Lucas is a senior academic at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. Patricia is passionate about guiding students’ learning experiences to enable them, and their organizations, to optimize the opportunities offered by engaging in quality work-integrated learning. Patricia’s research is published in areas including critical reflection, cultural identity, employability, collaboration, and research methodologies. Gifty MacKay is an Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Advisor at the University of Toronto, Canada. Gifty holds a Master of Public Health with a specialization in Social and Behavioural Health Sciences. Formerly, Gifty worked with the Public Health Agency of Canada where she most recently worked as Policy Analyst with the Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Equity. Aurelea Mahood is Director of Academic Initiatives and Planning at Capilano University, North Vancouver, Canada, with responsibility for academic program development, review, and related academic quality assurance activities, including initiatives in support of the university’s commitments to community-engaged experiential and work-integrated learning. Jane Maidment is Professor in Social Work at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Jane’s research interests include work-integrated learning, graduate readiness for practice, teaching scholarship, and using craft as a vehicle for social connectedness. Bonnie McBain is Senior Lecturer at the University of Newcastle (UON), Australia. Bonnie is nationally recognized for teaching and curriculum design for sustainability and science. Bonnie has led the redesign of the Bachelor of Science at UON using a participatory approach called Collaborative Curriculum Design, co-designed with colleague Liam Phelan. Norah McRae is Associate Provost, Co-operative and Experiential Education and adjunct faculty member of the Department of Psychology at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Norah sits on the Executive Board of the World Association of Cooperative Education.

xxiv

Contributors

Elizabeth Miller is Deputy Dean of the Business School at Pearson College, London, and is a higher education researcher. Having worked in higher education in Australia, Cambodia, and the UK, her research focuses on the intersection between higher education and work, both for students and staff. Nicole Miller is Assistant Director, Learning and Professional Development at the University of Ottawa, Canada. Nicole is a member of the International Committee of Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada. Nicole’s wealth of knowledge and experience has served internationally transitioning students worldwide. Ian Mitchell was Senior Lecturer in Education at Monash University, Australia. Ian spent 23 years as a secondary teacher, during much of which he also taught in a university seeking to link theory and practice through collaborative teacher research to improve the quality of student learning; a focus that continued throughout his subsequent academic career. Vicki O’Brien is Lecturer in Digital Marketing working with a diverse range of students and employers alike. Previously Vicki was responsible for postgraduate students and worked to implement the placement module for MBA students. Vicki is currently working towards her PhD. Melanie Peelgrane served as Director of Lake Cargelligo Early Learning Centre, Australia, for three and a half years, and has been an active member in the early childhood profession for a combined 14 years. Joy Perkins is based in the Centre for Academic Development at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, where Joy leads a range of staff development initiatives. Joy’s research interests and recent publications are in areas such as enterprise education, work-integrated learning, and the role of employer engagement in curriculum development. April L. Perry is Associate Professor in the Master of Education in Higher Education Student Affairs at Western Carolina University, USA, and serves as Department Head for Human Services. April’s research focuses on student identity development, career development, student transitions, and institutional initiatives for student success. Liam Phelan is Senior Lecturer in the School of Environmental and Life Sciences at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Liam convenes the Bachelor of Science program and researches complex adaptive systems, climate change, and finance, as well as teaching and learning in higher education. Anna Phillips is Senior Lecturer and Researcher at the University of South Australia, and a Senior Physiotherapy Clinician at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. A passionate educator, Anna’s research interests include excellence in clinical education and supporting the delivery of best practice clinical education for physiotherapy students. Leanne Piggott is Director of Experience in the Division of Education and Student Experience at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Leanne’s achievements in education have been recognized nationally and internationally, including an Australian College of Educators’ National Teaching Award. Leanne is also Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.

xxv

Contributors

Sally Rae, formally from Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand, is experienced in education, sport, tourism, aviation, property, and horticulture with roles in research, marketing, management, leadership, and project management, where Sally has been able to combine her practical and intellectual capabilities. Karima Ramji serves as Associate Director, International, Indigenous and Strategic Initiatives, Co-operative Education Program and Career Services at the University of Victoria, Canada. Karima is a Certified Advanced Cultural Intelligence Facilitator, an active WIL researcher, and current Chair of CEWIL Canada’s International Committee. Jacqueline Raymond is Associate Professor in the School of Health Sciences at the University of Sydney, Australia. Jacqueline has research interests in performance assessment in workplace settings. Laura Rook is Senior Lecturer in Management in the Faculty of Business and Law at the University of Wollongong, Australia. Laura is passionate and experienced in embedding work-integrated learning into her teaching practice as well as researching it in the business curriculum. Philip S. Rose is Associate Professor, Chair of the Department of Global Business, and Director of the Global MBA program at Hannam University, South Korea. Philip has published his work in journals including Human Resource Management, Education & Training, and the Journal of Vocational Behavior. Anna D. Rowe is Senior Lecturer, Academic Development, University of New South Wales, Australia. Anna has published extensively in work-integrated learning with research interests including curriculum, pedagogy, and the role of emotions in learning. Anna is Associate Editor of the International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning and a previous Director of the Australian Collaborative Education Network national board. Naeemah Shah is a human resources professional specializing in equity, diversity, and inclusion. Naeemah utilizes antiracist and decolonial methodologies to break down barriers and create inclusive spaces, particularly within the workplace. Ian Sladen is Vice President of Cooperative Education and Career Development at Drexel University, USA. Ian’s previous roles at Drexel include: Founding Associate Dean of Close School of Entrepreneurship, and Assistant Dean, Undergraduate Programs at LeBow College of Business. Ian holds a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, from Stonehill College, and a Master of Science in Applied Educational Psychology, from Northeastern University. Brent Smith is Lecturer in Rural Health (Clinical Educator) with Three Rivers Department of Rural Health at Charles Sturt University, Australia. Brent has a background in rural clinical practice and clinical education in Podiatry, holds an MBA, and is currently completing a PhD.

xxvi

Contributors

Cindy Ann Smith is Lecturer in the School of Education, Curtin University, Australia, supporting pre-service educators. Cindy provides students with authentic learning experiences and consults with schools and industry regarding effective, inclusive learning and work environments for neurodiverse persons. Research interests include pre-service teacher development, women’s studies, and effective mentoring of university students, adolescents, and students with autism. Sally Smith is Head of Graduate Apprenticeships and Director of the Centre for Higher Education Research at Edinburgh Napier University, Scotland. Sally’s research interests include work-integrated learning and student/graduate identity. Susan Soikie is Director, Arts and Science Co-op and Work-Integrated Learning at the University of Toronto Scarborough, Canada. Susan sits on the Board of Directors for Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada. James Stellar is Professor of Behavioral Neuroscience at the University at Albany, USA, having returned to the faculty from administration as Provost and Interim President. James previously served as Provost at Queens College, and as Dean of the College of Arts and Science at Northeastern University. Previously James was on the faculty at Northeastern and at Harvard University in the Psychology Department. Paul Stolk is Lecturer and Director of Work-Integrated Learning for the Newcastle Business School, at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Paul is also a director of the University of Newcastle Sport (NUSport) Board. E. Sam Sovilla served for over 45 years with the University of Cincinnati, USA, and for 25 years directed the University’s large-scale co-op program as Associate Provost, Professor, and Division Director. Sam is a recognized authority on co-op’s history in the United States and strategies for building programs and quality assessment. Ella Taylor-Smith is Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Higher Education Research within Edinburgh Napier University, Scotland, focusing on students’ perspectives especially around transitions, work-based learning, and degree apprenticeships. Ella’s background is in social informatics and eParticipation. Franziska Trede is Associate Professor in Higher Education and Professional Practice at the University of Technology Sydney, Australia, and is currently President of the Australian Collaborative Education Network. Franziska’s research interests include professional learning, professional identity development, agency, educating the deliberate professional, employability, and the educational partnership between university and workplaces. Sherilyn Trompetter is Principal and Co-Founder of MT Consulting Group, a boutique diversity and inclusion consulting firm based in Edmonton, Canada. Sherilyn is a career and life coach, who caters to racialized women and helps them reclaim their own power within. Sherilyn’s former career in academia facilitated international study and work experience programs at the University of Alberta, Canada.

xxvii

Contributors

Raewyn Tudor is Senior Lecturer and Director of Field Education in Social Work at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Raewyn’s research focuses on work-integrated learning, disaster recovery, and using art-based methodologies. Raewyn is Book Review Editor for the Australasian Board of the International Journal of Social Work Education. Patrice Twomey is Director of Cooperative Education and Careers at the University of Limerick, Ireland. A current member of the WACE Executive Board, Patrice has extensive experience of work-integrated learning and early career employability. Patrice’s doctoral research at the University of Bath focused on the socialization experience of student interns. Kylie Twyford has over 25 years experience in the tertiary education sector, including a decade as the university-wide WIL coordinator. Kylie is currently Chair of Communications for the World Association of Cooperative Education, and Deputy Chairperson of the NSW/ACT State Chapter of the Australian Collaborative Education Network. Julie Udell is an academic with a wealth of experience having led the development of innovative approaches to work-based and placement learning at the University of Portsmouth, England. Julie has introduced course initiatives which have been upheld as models of good practice and adopted by other departments within the university. Julie leads the ASET Research Working Group. Faith Valencia-Forrester is Academic Lead (Work-Integrated Learning) at Charles Sturt University in Australia. Faith is Queensland Chapter Chair for ACEN, the peak body for work-integrated learning in Australia, and is a member of the Community-Based Global Learning Collaborative Steering Committee. Jim Varty has 30 years of varied experience as a community college administrator responsible for college–industry collaboration. In addition, Jim has worked as a national and international consultant and presenter on work-integrated learning. For the past 20 years Jim has served as a co-chair of the Design and Manufacturing Alliance that encourages industry–education collaboration across Southeast Michigan, USA. Julie Walchli is Executive Director of Work-Integrated Education and Career Initiatives in the Faculty of Arts at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and is Co-Director of the Canada-Japan Co-op Program. Julie is a past president of CEWIL Canada and of the British Columbia Work-Integrated Learning Council. Francesca Walker-Martin teaches students from undergraduate to postgraduate with a strong commitment to providing them with the best possible work-based learning experience. In 2017, Francesca enhanced her portfolio by adding Degree Apprenticeships, and is Degree Apprentice Lead with a focus on quality in line with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) and Quality Assurance Agency requirements. Theresa Winchester-Seeto is Adjunct Senior Lecturer from the University of New South Wales, Australia, and an experienced work-integrated learning (WIL) practitioner and researcher. Theresa’s research has focused on providing an evidence-based pedagogical foundation for curriculum design and effective learning and teaching strategies, and new ways of doing WIL. Theresa is a member of the Senior Editorial Board for the International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning. xxviii

Contributors

Jennifer Woodside is Director, Centre for Career Action at the University of Waterloo, Canada. Jennifer’s focus is on integrating career education with work-integrated learning (WIL) programs toward supporting student self-efficacy, agency, and wellbeing. Jennifer’s recent publications examine the impact of artificial intelligence tools and introducing user experience tools to enhance WIL accessibility. Loletta Yuen works at the University of Technology Sydney, Australia, as Business Relationship Coordinator. Loletta is experienced in stakeholder engagement, building and maintaining industry relationships, and implementing teamwork to promote optimal business outcomes. Loletta is well-educated in the humanities and graduated with a Master in Clinical Counseling from the Australian Catholic University.

xxix

PART I

History, definition, and theoretical background of work-integrated learning

1 CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND DIVERSE PRACTICES OF WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti Introduction Within higher education, work-integrated learning (WIL) continues to gain international attention due to increasing expectations that educational institutions align curricula more directly to employability outcomes (Ferns et al., 2014; Jackson, 2015b; Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017). A commonly accepted focus of higher education is to prepare and enable individuals to reach their highest potential so they can make successful and productive contributions to their chosen profession(s), society, and economy (Brooks et  al., 2021; Department of Education Science and Training, 2002; Watty, 2006). Therefore, arguably all curricula have at least some focus on student employability outcomes. However, WIL is uniquely positioned by explicitly linking the learning activity to employability outcomes by requiring external stakeholder involvement and authentic practice, thereby allowing students to be part of a relevant professional practice. WIL experiences have been linked to improving students’ career clarity (Zegwaard & Coll, 2011), better understanding of authentic practice (Gamble et al., 2010), building networks for future employment (Jackson, 2015a; Kay et al., 2018), developing work-related competencies (Khoo et al., 2020), the ability to link theory with practice (Smith et al., 2014), transitioning into poststudy work (Crebert et al., 2004), and employment (ACEN, 2020; Brooks & Youngson, 2016). The recent focus on student employability outcomes has given increased attention to WIL; however, student learning outcomes from engaging with WIL extend beyond employability outcomes. Given the ‘messy, borderless’ learning context of WIL, Salter et al. (2021) argued that global citizenship development fits naturally within WIL due to the opportunity for agentic actions by the learner within an authentic context. Considerations of global citizenship development through WIL are particularly dominant in, but not limited to, the WIL model of service learning (Valencia-Forrester et al., 2021), where there is a key focus on citizenship through authentic engagement with the community’s needs (Patrick et al., 2022). Additionally, the literature presents arguments that WIL can enhance self-awareness (Jackson, 2017; McIlveen et  al., 2011), allow for better conceptualization of learning (Anderson et  al., 2012; Gamble

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-2

3

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti

et al., 2010; Zegwaard & McCurdy, 2014), and enhance academic performance (Drysdale & McBeath, 2018; Gomez et al., 2004; Tanaka & Carlson, 2012).

Theory and research-informed practice of work-integrated learning History of practice and expanding of work-integrated learning Incorporating professional practice with student learning (i.e., learning through doing) is not a new concept. Sovilla and Varty (Chapter 2) explore the early beginnings of cooperative education (a model of WIL) that was developed by Herman Schneider at the University of Cincinnati, USA. In 1906, Schneider introduced work experiences within the engineering curriculum to bridge the gap between theory and practice. However, Schneider acknowledged that such learning approaches were not new concepts, and he described already established examples within legal and medical education that helped inform the development of the cooperative education plan. There are reports that indicate the UK Sandwich Degrees (four-year degrees with one year in the workplace) may have already been in existence as early as the 1840s (Brewer, 1990). The development work by Schneider, however, resulted in rapid expansion of the practice of cooperative education across the USA and prompted the eventual forming of national associations and the international association (the World Association of Cooperative Education, WACE) dedicated to this educational approach. As Kay et  al. discuss (Chapter 36), the forming of national associations was particularly important for bringing together like-minded people to share knowledge of good practice, and it continues to be an important structure within the WIL community to connect future researchers, educators, and leaders. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, practitioners and researchers started to expand their thinking beyond cooperative education to include other forms of work placements programs and campus-based work activities involving an external client (see, e.g., Chapters 10 and 16). At the same time, the term ‘work-integrated learning’, more commonly known by its acronym ‘WIL’, became increasingly used as an umbrella term to describe these similar practices (Patrick et al., 2008). WIL can be broadly defined as curricular-based, relevant, and authentic work-focused activities involving an external partner (see more detailed discussion in Chapter 3). The grouping of similar learning models within the term WIL, and the wider use of the term, led to national associations and WACE expanding their mandates to include many models of WIL, and several national associations changed their name to incorporate the term WIL (e.g., CEWIL Canada, WILNZ).

Theory-informed practice There is no single theory of learning for WIL, rather a number of well-established theories of learning underpin its practice. These theories of learning were derived by early thinkers such as Piaget, whose work on cognitive-development theory provided an understanding of how students learn through acquiring knowledge, adapting their thinking, and incorporating and maintaining their new understandings (see, e.g., Piaget, 1985). Bandura (1977) introduced the concept of social learning by examining the consequences of behaviors for the learners and for those around them. Lave and Wenger further developed the conceptualization of Bandura by introducing the idea of situated learning, which includes notions such as peripheral participation, community of practice, the newcomer and old timer, and enculturation (Lave, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Additional theorizing by Vygotsky (1978) and Wertsch (1991), along with modeling work on mediated action and tools by Engestrom (1999), brought 4

Contemporary challenges and diverse practices

to the fore the concept of socioculturalism. Along with Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model and Schon’s (1983) concepts of learning through reflection, these theories and concepts have provided a strong theoretical foundation of learning through WIL. These theories within the context of WIL are well-explored by Eames and Cates (2011), with more generalized discussion of theories of learning by Van Gyn and Grove-White (2011). These theories of learning continue to be important for WIL; however, by the very nature of being theories, they are often applied as high-level constructs with the assumption that learning experiences are neat and orderly. In reality, and particularly for authentic learning experiences within WIL, learning tends to be messy, unpredictable, and non-linear. Carpendale and Mitchell, and Twomey and Pretti (Chapters 4 and 5) explore the complexities of student learning in this messy and unpredictable place and how these relate to learning through WIL. Twomey and Pretti explore recent advances in organizational socialization theory to understand the complex dimensions of the student learning context within an organization. Carpendale and Mitchell bring the recent developments of ‘educational thinking’ to WIL as a more comprehensive way of understanding student learning, and they continue to exemplify how educational thinking can be applied to several well-established fields of WIL practice.

Benefits for stakeholders Perhaps the most well-known defining element of WIL is the involvement of the three stakeholders: the student, the educational institution, and the external stakeholder (e.g., employer, client, community), where each stakeholder contributes to the learning experience with the goal of benefiting all stakeholders (i.e., reciprocity) (Fleming et al., 2018). In this Handbook, Jackson and Cook (Chapter 6) explore the literature to evidence the benefits of WIL for students with a particular focus on the broad range of employability outcomes that students gain, in addition to benefits such as study progression and decisions around postgraduate studies. The benefits also extend to educational institutions, where Aprile and colleagues (Chapter 8) describe how WIL enhances institutional reputation, increases links with industry and other external stakeholders, improves student learning outcomes, and creates opportunities for engaging with industry for research. Fleming and colleagues (Chapter 7) describe the benefits and challenges for external stakeholders and discuss the benefits for recruitment, new ideas, opportunities to develop leadership skills in work teams, and access to university knowledge. It is important to acknowledge that the wider community (society), represented by or alongside government, are also stakeholders within the WIL ecosystem by being a significant financial investor in education and a benefactor of the long-term benefits that WIL (and education in general) provides society.

Models of work-integrated learning practice Traditionally, work placement models have dominated the practice of WIL and the related literature (Zegwaard et al., 2020). However, the need to research and develop other models of WIL has been identified (Jackson & Greenwood, 2015; Kay et al., 2018; Rowe et al., 2022; Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019), and in recent years, more attention has been given to models of WIL that are not work-placement based (Kay et al., 2022). In addition to providing multiple WIL models of practice suited for diverse cohorts of students, different models of practice also provide institutions alternative options for WIL during times of change and disruption (e.g., a pandemic) (Zegwaard et al., 2020). The differences between models of WIL are, at times, not well-defined and many models have considerable overlap in practice. 5

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti

Recently, typologies (e.g., Fincher et al., 2004; Kaider et al., 2017; Rowe et al., 2012) and frameworks (e.g., Groenewald et  al., 2011; McRae & Johnston, 2016) have been developed to help understand and clarify the different models of WIL. These typologies and frameworks are particularly useful for providing clarity to the discussion within the literature; however, for practice, it may be more useful to consider different models as points along a continuous multi-dimensional spectrum of practices rather than single well-defined categorical occurrences of WIL. This Handbook explores a range of models of WIL, along with good practice examples and supporting literature to evidence these models as research-informed. Some of these models have long well-established and well-researched histories whilst others are relatively new and/ or underexplored in the WIL literature. This Handbook discusses: • • • • • • • • • • •

Cooperative education (Chapter 9); Block work placements (e.g., full-time work placements for a semester) (Chapter 10); Sandwich degrees (Chapter 11); Short-term and part-time work placements (Chapter 12); Apprenticeships (Chapter 13); Entrepreneurships (Chapter 14); Service learning (Chapter 15); Non-placement WIL (Chapter 16); Simulations with an external stakeholder (Chapter 17); Remote WIL (e.g., online workplace) (Chapter 18); International WIL (Chapter 19).

The models of WIL above are not a full and comprehensive listing nor mutually exclusive – various practices exist that blend several different models of WIL and, in time, new models may be developed. Additionally, many of the models in the Handbook can be described using different terms; for example, block placements can also be described as practicums, internships, co-ops, work-terms, and fieldwork.

Developing and managing work-integrated learning Offering a range of models of WIL provides educational institutions with the ability to shift between different models to match changing circumstances or resources. The complex WIL context of the three stakeholder groups, the authenticity of the tasks and subsequent outcomes, the learning experiences that may occur off-campus, and the tendency for one-to-one staff–student interactions due to the students’ highly individualized WIL experiences has been identified as causing high staff workloads (Bates, 2011; Bilgin et  al., 2017; Jovanovic et  al., 2018; Rowe et  al., 2022). The breadth of these workloads can be particularly significant in small-scale operations where specialized staffing may not be possible and the use of specialized platforms to manage WIL workflow is not available. In this Handbook, McBain et  al. and Baichoo et  al. (Chapters 20 and 21) explore the development of WIL practices within a discipline and as an interdisciplinary practice across the educational institution. These authors discuss the challenges of developing a new WIL program, including for example the requirement for new resources (material and staffing), senior leadership support, institutional policy requirements, workload, generating new WIL opportunities and establishing new networks, and acceptance by other teaching staff.

6

Contemporary challenges and diverse practices

When WIL offerings are available across the educational institution, this allows for interdisciplinary WIL opportunities that provide experiences for students to undertake meaningful work as part of a diverse team (Ferns et al., 2022). Workplaces often consist of teams of people with different educational backgrounds; therefore, the opportunity for interdisciplinary WIL can provide students with an important learning experience that reflects the interdisciplinary nature of the workplace. Quality dimensions of WIL remain topical issues in the WIL literature. With research findings further evidencing enhanced WIL practices, several quality frameworks have been developed (e.g., Campbell et al., 2019; McRae et al., 2018; Winchester-Seeto, 2019). In the 1980s in Canada, views about quality practice were developed into an accreditation framework for cooperative education (Crichton, 2009). Ensuring quality delivery in WIL is important to maximize students’ learning experiences and host organizations’ benefits, and to ensure a focus on the safe and equitable operation of WIL programs. Reflecting on the rapid development of cooperative education during the US federal funding years (1965–1996), Sovilla and Varty (2011) noted that the withdrawal of federal funding for cooperative education programs was, in part, a response to poor quality programs, serving as a pointed reminder today of the importance of ensuring quality practices. Campbell and Pretti (Chapter 22) explore two national quality WIL frameworks and present a proposed international model for quality, whilst Ferns and Arsenault (Chapter 23) continue to provide a comparative overview of accreditation practices relevant to WIL together with a series of guiding principles for developing national accreditation for WIL. Ensuring quality delivery of WIL includes creating structures that allow for efficient and safe operations. Delivery of WIL is complex and requires multiple facets of the institution to operate in unison for the external engagement and facilitation of student learning opportunities. Careful management of institutional-wide external stakeholder (host, employer, client, etc.) engagement is particularly important and is further explored by Green et al. (Chapter 25). In addition to the complexity of external stakeholder engagement is the requirement of students to interact directly with these stakeholders and possibly go off-campus for educational purposes either as a work placement within a workplace or visiting the external client or community members (e.g., for non-placement WIL). Such activities create risks for the student, the educational institution, and the external stakeholder that require careful management (Cameron, 2017a, 2017b, 2019; Fleming & Hay, 2021). Cameron et al. (Chapter 26) explore the facets of risk for WIL and present a WIL-risk framework including how this could be applied within an institution. McRae and Woodside (Chapter 24) further explore the concept of a workplace ‘ecosystem’ as a tool for enabling the many facets of the institution to combine to manage the complexity of WIL to ensure effective, safe, and quality delivery of a WIL program. Further influencing the practice of WIL are the national and cultural contexts. There has been a tendency to apply well-established good practice models of WIL from Western contexts to non-Western contexts, only to find these practices do not transfer well to a non-Western context. This is due to macro- and micro-level cultural and economic differences, highlighting the need to develop non-Western and localized examples of good practice (Zegwaard, 2019). Rose (Chapter 27) explores this challenge further by considering macro-, mezzo-, and micro-contextual differences when attempting to understand the context of the WIL practice and program development. McRae et  al. (Chapter 35) present the argument that different cultural contexts allow for the development of student cultural intelligence that better prepares them for a diverse and rapidly changing world; they then take these ideas further to link students’ development to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2016).

7

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti

Supporting equitable and student-focused work-integrated learning The WIL literature has advanced considerably since the earlier developmental research around program delivery (Bartkus & Higgs, 2011; Zegwaard, 2012; Zegwaard & Coll, 2011). There are a number of key challenges currently pertinent to WIL, for example, wellbeing, equity, and adequate preparation of students prior to WIL. Resilience, persistence, motivation, and expectation are four areas currently subject to significant discussion across all levels of education (Sautelle et al., 2015; Seaton et al., 2014; Waxman et al., 2003), though only recently receiving attention in the WIL literature. Edgar and Connaughton (2014) discussed the importance of motivation for enhancing WIL learning outcomes while Reddan (2013) linked the grading of WIL (rather than pass/fail) with positive student motivation. Drysdale and McBeath (2014) linked positive self-conception and motivation as an outcome from positive WIL experiences and Drysdale et  al. (2022) describe how WIL can enhance student resilience and wellbeing and provide guidance on how to increase these positive outcomes. Wellbeing is currently a strong focal point across the higher education sector, with many institutions actively exploring and improving structures to better support students. Konstantinou and colleagues (Chapter 33) explore strategies for ensuring student wellbeing while engaging with WIL and how wellbeing for students could be enhanced. Whilst WIL affords many benefits to students, equitable access to it for all students is increasingly being highlighted as a challenge. Often students are required to source their own WIL opportunities, which students from well-connected and higher socioeconomic communities are generally able to do. However, students who are, for example, the first in the family to go to university, from a lower socioeconomic grouping, or far-removed from family connections (e.g., students from remote regions and international students) are less likely to successfully source their own opportunities. Goldman and colleagues (Chapter 32) provide important principles and strategies that educational institutions can implement to reduce the inequity due to systematic barriers that students may encounter while engaging with WIL. Hoskyn et al. (Chapter 34) unpack the rationale and challenges within the discussion of paid versus unpaid work placements.

Preparing for WIL and assessment of learning Within the complexities described by the authors above, the preparation of students for the workplace is fundamentally important in order to achieve good learning experiences and safe practice. Winchester-Seeto and Rowe (Chapter 28) provide a series of holistic frameworks for preparing students prior to WIL, including sets of considerations and strategies along with supporting literature. Bennett and Smith (Chapter 29) continue with a scaffolded approach across curricula with staged experiences to create a broad foundation of abilities prior to the student engaging with the practicum. Gardner and Perry (Chapter 31) continue further by presenting the argument that students are better prepared for the future of work if they possess a broad foundation of experience, knowledge, and skills along with a narrow range but highly advanced set of skills. This broad range of experience and skills is described as being T-shaped, and includes interdisciplinary experiences and boundary-spanning abilities, providing a broad base for future diverse experiences, as often encountered within a disruptive context. Core within the argument of student learning through WIL is ensuring that the learning outcomes are achieved, that is, by assessment (Orrell, 2011). The assessment should be structured to go beyond assessment ‘of ’ learning and instead be assessment ‘for’ learning in order to enhance student achievements. However, WIL includes variable, highly individualized, learning experiences within authentic contexts, which present as significant challenges to good assessment design (Ferns & Zegwaard, 2014). Brentnall et al. (Chapter 30) present a comprehensive 8

Contemporary challenges and diverse practices

overview of assessment philosophies and practices and apply these understandings to the context of learning through WIL, including presenting an analysis of strengths and challenges for a variety of assessment practices.

Conclusion As WIL continues to expand across the higher education curriculum, it is important to consider the well-established literature that supports current WIL curriculum development. The WIL models of practice provided in this Handbook evidence well-developed examples of good practice. The depth of the WIL literature and recent advances in scholarly thinking of WIL practice have allowed for further development of WIL. There are, however, challenges that need additional work. The highly individualized student experiences in work placement models of WIL continue to present challenges to good assessment practice; however, much progress has been made on how to successfully manage most of these challenges. As evidenced in the Handbook, sufficient resourcing for WIL often is, and likely will be, an ongoing challenge for many institutions. As WIL continues to expand and evolve, more deeply seated challenges such as institutional risk, equitable access, and wellbeing are being highlighted. The Handbook provides useful frameworks on how to manage and develop systems to address these core challenges and improve the good practice of WIL. As a model of education that directly engages with society and the world of work, it is critical that the practice of WIL addresses important societal and global issues, and that it continues to equip students with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they will need to be successful in the future world of work.

References ACEN. (2020). Australian Collaborative Education Network - summary report for graduate outcomes survey items 2020. ACEN. Anderson, E., Johnston, N., Iles, L., McRae, N., Reed, N., & Walchli, J. (2012). Co-operative education and student recruitment, engagement and success: Early findings from a multi-institutional study in British Columbia. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 46(1), 58–76. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall. Bartkus, K. R., & Higgs, J. (2011). Research in cooperative and work-integrated education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 73–84). World Association for Cooperative Education. Bates, M. (2011). Work-integrated learning workloads: The realities and responsibilities Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative. Education, 12(2), 111–124. Bilgin, A. A., Rowe, A. D., & Clark, L. (2017). Academic workload implications of assessing student learning in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education (Special Issue), 18(2), 165–181. Brewer, M. (1990). Sandwich courses, United Kingdom. Journal of Cooperative. Education, 26(2), 14–22. Brooks, R., Gupta, A., Jayadeva, S., & Abrahams, J. (2021). Students’ views about the purpose of higher education: A comparative analysis of six European countries. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(7), 1375–1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1830039 Brooks, R., & Youngson, P. L. (2016). Undergraduate work placements: An analysis of the effects on career progression. Studies in Higher Education, 41(9), 1563–1578. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507 9.2014.988702 Cameron, C. (2017a). The contract risks to universities of work-integrated learning programs. Australian Business Law Review, 45(5), 405–418. Cameron, C. (2017b). The strategic and legal risks of work-integrated learning: An enterprise risk management perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(3), 243–256.

9

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti Cameron, C. (2019). Risk management by university lawyers in work-integrated learning program. Monash University Law Review, 45(1), 29–69. Campbell, M., Russell, L., McAllister, L., Smith, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., & Barrett, M. (2019). A framework to support assurance of institution-wide quality in work-integrated learning. Queensland University of Technology. https://research.qut.edu.au/wilquality/wp-content/uploads/sites/261/2019/12/ FINAL-FRAMEWORK-DEC-2019.pdf Crebert, G., Bates, M., Vell, B., & Patrick, C.-J. (2004). Developing generic skills at university, during work placement and in employment: Graduates’ perceptions. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000206636 Crichton, A. (2009). From impossibility to reality: Documenting the history of CAFCE in Canada. Canadian Association for Cooperative Education (CAFCE). http://www.cewilcanada.ca/_Library/_documents/ 2009-CAFCEHistory-AC.pdf Department of Education Science and Training. (2002). Higher education report for the 2003 to 2005. Department of Education Science and Training. Drysdale, M. T. B., & McBeath, M. (2014). Exploring hope, self-efficacy, procrastination, and study skills between cooperative and non-cooperative education students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 69–79. Drysdale, M. T. B., & McBeath, M. (2018). Motivation, self-efficacy and learning strategies of university students participating in work-integrated learning. Journal of Education and Work, 31(5), 478–488. Drysdale, M. T. B., Twyford, K., Glenn, B., & Callaghan, S. A. (2022). Work, resilience and wellbeing: The long game of work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 75–84). Routledge. Eames, C., & Cates, C. (2011). Theories of learning in cooperative and work-integrated education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 41–52). World Association for Cooperative Education. Edgar, S., & Connaughton, J. (2014). Exploring the role and skill set of physiotherapy clinical educators in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 29–36. Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge University Press. Ferns, S., Campbell, M., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2014). Work-integrated learning. In S. Ferns (Ed.), Workintegrated learning in the curriculum (pp. 1–6). Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc. Ferns, S., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2014). Critical assessment issues in work-integrated learning [Special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3), 179–188. Ferns, S. J., Lewis, S., Russell, L., Childers, J., Brewer, M., & Alessandrini, J. (2022). Designing and implementing interdisciplinary project-based work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 167–178). Routledge. Fincher, S., Clear, T., Petriva, K., Hoskyn, K., Birch, R., Claxton, G., & Wieck, M. (2004). Cooperative education in information technology. In R. K. Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative education: An international perspective of the theory, research and practice of work-integrated learning (pp. 111–121). WACE. Fleming, J., & Hay, K. (2021). Understanding the risks in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(2), 167–181. Fleming, J., McLachlan, K., & Pretti, T. J. (2018). Successful work-integrated learning relationships: A framework for sustainability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 321–335. Gamble, N., Patrick, C.-J., & Peach, D. (2010). Internationalising work-integrated learning: Creating global citizens to meet the economic crisis and the skills shortage. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(5), 535–546. Gomez, S., Lush, D., & Clements, M. (2004). Work placements enhance the academic performance of bioscience undergraduates. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 56(3), 373–385. Groenewald, T., Drysdale, M. T. B., Chiupka, C., & Johnston, N. (2011). Towards a definition and models of practice for cooperative and work-integrated education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 17–24). World Association for Cooperative Education.

10

Contemporary challenges and diverse practices Jackson, D. (2015a). Career choice status among undergraduates and the influence of work-integrated learning. Australian Journal of Career Development, 24(1), 3–14. Jackson, D. (2015b). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842221 Jackson, D. (2017). Exploring the challenges experienced by international students during work-integrated learning in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(3), 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02188791.2017.1298515 Jackson, D., & Greenwood, K. (2015). Enhancing work integrated learning outcomes for international students in Australia. Edith Cowan University. http://acen.edu.au/docs/enhancing-wil-international-students-acenresearch.pdf Jovanovic, J., Fane, J., & Andrew, Y. (2018). Giving institutional voice to work-integrated learning in academic workloads. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(2), 93–109. Kaider, F., Hains-Wesson, R., & Young, K. (2017). Practical typology of authentic work-integrated learning activities and assessments [Special Issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 152–164. Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., & Smith, J. (2018). Expanding work-integrated learning (WIL) possibilities: Enhancing student employability through innovative WIL models. https://acen.edu.au/innovative-models/ wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ATN-Final-Report-Expanding-Work-Integrated-Learning-WILPossibilities-October-2018.pdf Kay, J., Ferns, S. J., Russo, A. M., Smith, J., & Younger, A. (2022). Innovation in work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 133–144). Routledge. Khoo, E., Zegwaard, K. E., & Adam, A. (2020). Employer and academic staff perceptions of science and engineering graduate competencies. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 103–118. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, K. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice, perspectives on social shared cognition (pp. 63–82). American Psychological Association. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. McIlveen, P., Brooks, S., Lichtenberg, A., Smith, M., Torjul, P., & Tyler, J. (2011). Perceptions of career development learning and work-integrated learning in Australian higher education. Australian Journal of Career Development, 20(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841621102000105 McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework [special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 337–348. McRae, N., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2018). Work-integrated learning quality framework. University of Waterloo. https://uwaterloo.ca/work-learn-institute/sites/ca.work-learn-institute/files/uploads/files/ wil_quality_framework_-_aaa_-_for_posting.pdf Orrell, J. (2011). Good practice report: Work-integrated learning. Australian Leaning and Teaching Council. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/GPR_Work_Integrated_Learning_Orrell_2011.pdf Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibrium of cognitive structures (T. Brown & K. L. Thampy, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (1975) Patrick, C.-J., Chambers, D., Andersen, L., Lloyd, K., & Hughes, B. (2022). Service-learning as an approach to work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future. Routledge. Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). The WIL [Work Integrated Learning] report: A national scoping study, [Final report]. The Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279477734_The_WIL_Work_Integrated_Learning_ report_a_national_scoping_study_Final_Report Reddan, G. (2013). To grade or not to grade: Student perceptions of the effects of grading a course in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(4), 223–232. Rowe, A., Ferns, S., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2022). The future of work-integrated learning: Vision and insights. In S. Ferns, A. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Theories, practices and research in work-­integrated learning in Australia: Enhancing employability capabilities for a sustainable future (pp. 251–268). Routledge. Rowe, A. D., Winchester-Seeto, T., & Mackaway, J. (2012). That’s not really WIL! Building a typology of WIL and related activities. In M. Campbell (Ed.), Collaborative education: Investing in the future - Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN) National Conference (pp. 246–252). Australian Collaborative Education Network.

11

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti Rowe, A. D., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2017). Developing graduate employability skills and attributes: Curriculum enhancement through work-integrated learning [Special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 87–99. Salter, P., Lowrie, K., Howard, E., Bhati, A., Wong, C., Miles, D., & Jones, P. (2021). A continuum for global citizenship: Analyzing the complex transformations of service-learning. International Journal of Work Integrated Learning, 22(2), 199–211. Sautelle, E., Bowles, T., Hattie, J., & Arifin, D. N. (2015). Personality, resilience, self-regulation and cognitive ability relevant to teacher selection. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 40(4), 54–71. https:// doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n4.4 Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professional think in action. Basic Books. Seaton, M., Parker, P., Marsh, H., Craven, R. G., & Yeung, A. S. (2014). The reciprocal relations between self-concept, motivation and achievement: Juxtaposing academic self-concept and achievement goal orientations for mathematics success. Educational Psychology, 34(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 1443410.2013.825232 Smith, C., Ferns, S., Russell, L., & Cretchley, P. (2014). The impact of work integrated learning on student work-readiness. Office for Learning and Teaching Australia. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/337518 Sovilla, E. S., & Varty, J. W. (2011). Cooperative and work-integrated education in the US, past and present: Some lessons learnt. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–15). Work Association for Cooperative Education. Tanaka, Y., & Carlson, K. (2012). An international comparison of the effect of work-integrated learning on academic performance: A statistical evaluation of WIL in Japan and Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(2), 77–88. United Nations. (2016). The sustainable development goals report. United Nations. https://unstats. un.org/sdgs/report/2016/The%20Sustainable%20Development%20Goals%20Report%202016.pdf Valencia-Forrester, F., Patrick, C.-J., Webb, F., & Backhaus, B. (2021). Practical aspects of service learning make work-integrated learning wise practice for inclusive education in Australia. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 31–42. Van Gyn, G., & Grove-White, E. (2011). Theories of learning in education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 31–39). World Association for Cooperative Education. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Watty, K. (2006). Addressing the basics: Academics’ view of the purpose of higher education. The Australian Educational Researcher, 33(1), 23–39. Waxman, H. C., Gray, J. P., & Padron, Y. N. (2003). Review of research on educational resilience. Research report. Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85–100). American Psychological Association. Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). Quality and standards for work integrated learning. Australian Government Department of Education and Training. https://www.acds.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/WinchesterSeeto-Literature-Review-Quality-and-Standards.pdf Zegwaard, K. E. (2012). Publishing cooperative and work-integrated education literature: The AsiaPacific Journal of Cooperative Education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(4), 181–193. Zegwaard, K. E. (2019). Cooperative education in the Asian region: Future development and direction. In Y. Tanaka & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Cooperative and work-integrated education in Asia: History, present and future issues (pp. 176–184). Routledge. Zegwaard, K. E., & Coll, R. K. (2011). Exploring some current issues for cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 45(2), 8–15. Zegwaard, K. E., & McCurdy, S. (2014). The influence of work-integrated learning on motivation to undertake graduate studies Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 13–28. Zegwaard, K. E., & Rowe, A. D. (2019). Research-informed curriculum and advancing innovative practices in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 323–334. Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2020). Responding to an international crisis: The adaptability of the practice of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 317–330.

12

2 WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING A US history with lessons learned E. Sam Sovilla and Jim Varty Introduction This chapter provides an overview of the modern history of work-integrated learning (WIL) with a focus on cooperative education, internships, and service-learning as they developed in the USA over more than 100 years. Emphasis is given to cooperative education. The chapter concludes with some lessons learned from history that appear to have general application to WIL both in the USA and worldwide going forward. Cooperative education and service-learning have generally accepted defining features. ‘Internship’ is a more general term that references a broad variety of practices. As a result, its history is more difficult to track. The following chapters in this handbook provide in-depth information on the present practice of some of these strategies across the world. For more information on evolving WIL strategies in eight countries, see Turner and Frederick (1987).

The roots of work-integrated learning For centuries, it has been understood that learning is enhanced when knowledge derived from reading, observation, and instruction is practiced under real time conditions. As early as the 5th century, the famous ancient Greek playwright Sophocles wrote: “One learns by doing a thing; for though you think you know it, you have no certainty until you try.” Apprenticeships in the skilled trades and clinical practice have been the norm for centuries and are still so today. Internships have long been a basic learning tool for students preparing for careers in law, ministry, and medicine. While the idea of combining theory and practice is not new, the widespread adoption of WIL strategies is a relatively new development in higher education. This chapter traces that development in the USA because the US practices of cooperative education (co-op), internships, and service-learning have strongly influenced WIL worldwide. At the turn of the century, universities had little to do with the world outside their hallowed halls. Institutions were centered on classroom attendance, study, reflection, and research as the focal points for learning. Students received little institutional financial assistance and the mostly elitist postsecondary student population viewed those working to support themselves while studying as the ‘working class’, who aspired to improve their station in life.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-3

13

E. Sam Sovilla and Jim Varty

In the early 1900s change was underway. Rapid industrial growth created a need for graduates with specialized training. Universities and colleges began to respond with new disciplines like engineering and management. New postsecondary institutions were established to focus on practical or applied education. This opened the door for middle-class students and created fertile ground for linking education with the world of work. WIL received strong support from several leading educators who saw the value for students in combining the classroom with a community experience. John Dewey, an American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer, held as a central belief “that people learn from experience and from doing” and that “the purpose and hence the function of education was to help prepare students for effective and satisfying citizenship” (Ryder & Wilson, 1987, p. 8). Herman Schneider, university educator and founder of cooperative education, felt deeply about the importance of a relevant education and was influenced by Dewey’s perspectives on the productive relationship of classroom education and real-world practice. Dewey focused on providing students with experiences that prepared them to be better informed, responsible citizens, and a force for change in the community. Schneider focused on providing students with practice that strengthened specific skills needed by industry and prepared them for success in their career field. Both had a profound impact on the development, growth, and acceptance of WIL in the USA.

Variations in work-integrated learning The modern history of WIL predates the use of the term. It effectively began when Sunderland Technical College in England (1903) developed the Sandwich Education plan and Herman Schneider developed Cooperative Education at the University of Cincinnati (1906). While these initiatives would ultimately result in a variety of WIL strategies worldwide, all linked classroom studies to the real world of work. The foremost reason for the variety of WIL strategies worldwide is that they need to respond to external cultural norms, economic conditions, business/industry availability, and governmental priorities. For developing countries, issues around infrastructure, wars, food shortages, industrial conditions, and unsettled government agendas add still other external dimensions. Internally, programming variance can be attributed to a college’s educational orientation, administrative perception of a program’s purpose, placement of programs within an institution, support provided, and the level of involvement with participating employers or community agencies. These external and internal factors naturally result in variance in the type, structure, goals, and length of programs. At the program level, there are often different approaches to personal goal setting, encouraging reflection, worksite supervision, and program evaluation. Gardner and Bartkus (2014) provide a comprehensive overview and bibliography that identifies the titles of the principal WIL strategies and describes the fundamentals of each. Cooperative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada) defines nine types of experiential learning: Co-op Work Term, Internship, Clinical Placement, Field Placement, Apprenticeship, Applied Research, Entrepreneurship, Service-Learning, and Work Experience (CEWIL Canada, 2021). The growing diversity of WIL programming over the years has resulted in revised mission statements and even the titles of related professional organizations. In 1926, the Association of Cooperative Colleges was founded. In 1929, the Association petitioned the forerunner organization of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, for membership and was accepted as the Cooperative Education Division (CED). Later, this division became the Cooperative and Experiential 14

History of work-integrated learning

Education Division (CEED). Founded in 1963, the Cooperative Education Association (CEA) later became known as the Cooperative Education and Internship Association (CEIA). Likewise, the Canadian Association for Cooperative Education (CAFCE) changed its title to Cooperative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada), and the New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education (NZACE) to Work-Integrated Learning New Zealand (WILNZ). On a global level, the World Association for Cooperative Education (WACE) was founded in 1990 with a focus on cooperative education and merged with the US-based National Commission for Cooperative Education in 2010. In 2003, its title became WACE: The World Association for Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education, to reflect the diverse practices of WIL supported under its professional umbrella while maintaining its commitment to cooperative education. The global reach of WIL strategies today is evident from the makeup of WACE. Its 40-member Board of Governors (now called the Global Strategy Council) represents a wide variety of countries. WACE has more than 4,000 members and, beginning with its predecessor organization, the World Council and Assembly for Cooperative Education, has sponsored bi-annual world conferences since 1979.

Cooperative education in the USA The 2005–2006 academic year marked the 100th anniversary of co-op. This section provides a definition of co-op, identifies its unique features, reviews the key events in its history, and suggests some characteristics of a successful cooperative education program from that history. As co-op evolves in its second century, it continues to be a work in progress. As mentioned, the road to today began with the conviction and tenacity of one man, Herman Schneider, who designed a blueprint and sold the concept of the value of integrating academic studies with practical experience. Over the years, the co-op field has weathered world wars, serious economic downturns, pandemics, much experimentation, significant shifts in public policy, and ever-changing priorities in educational institutions. In the aftermath of it all, co-op has progressed to the point of having programs worldwide. For a more in-depth treatment of the US history of co-op, see Sovilla and Varty (2011). A very helpful historical timeline for both co-op and internships can also be found in the CEIA website (CEIA, 2019).

A definition and description of cooperative education Over its history co-op has been variously defined and described. Disagreements about precisely what is and is not co-op have been the source of controversy. For the purposes of this section, we define co-op as: A structured and reflective educational strategy integrating classroom studies with learning through progressively challenging and paid work experiences in a field related to a student’s academic or career goals. Co-op students are provided with a series of paid alternating (full-time) or parallel (parttime) productive experiences that are skill-oriented to better prepare them for entry into the workforce. Experiences are structured by a co-op coordinator or a faculty co-op advisor in collaboration with an employer representative. Students often establish personal goals for each experience that will enable them to integrate theory with practice and learn to grow in their 15

E. Sam Sovilla and Jim Varty

understandings through reflection. Co-op differs from internships that are often unpaid, singular, and frequently occur as a capstone experience in a program. Internships can be either discipline-specific or generic. Service-learning tends to be a more generic civic engagement experience than co-op that encourages civic mindedness and provides a positive result for the community.

Cooperative education: First 50 years (1906–1956) Co-op was launched in 1906 by Herman Schneider, an engineering professor (later engineering dean and university president), at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio. Schneider was convinced that many professional concepts and skills could not be mastered in the classroom alone but required practical experience. Essentially, he proposed the coordinated alternation of on-campus study and off-campus real-world paid experiences. In the early 1900s, the USA was in a period of significant industrial expansion in the electrical, steam turbine, telephone, railroad, street railway, and automobile industries as well as the building of bridges and dams. Technical and engineering education was not meeting employers’ needs for better-trained employees. While colleges were gradually evolving from a classical education focus to address industry-specific skill needs, educators realized that additional strategies were necessary. The time was right for “Schneider’s plan.” Despite the skepticism of many, in 1906 Schneider enrolled 27 electrical and chemical engineering students in his co-op program. The following year, more than 400 students inquired about the program and a large percentage applied for admission. Word of Schneider’s innovation spread. Many engineering schools inquired about “The Cincinnati Plan.” Schneider never claimed to be the originator of the idea and he often pointed out that earlier plans for preparing people for legal and medical careers and technical apprenticeships were antecedents of his plan. However, Schneider’s biographer, Clyde Park, indicated that though work-oriented programs existed prior to the early 1900s, Schneider’s plan was unique (Park, 1943). Over the early years, the number of institutions offering programs grew at a modest rate. In 1909, the Polytechnic School of the YMCA Evening Institute (later Boston’s Northeastern University) established the second co-op program. By 1920, seven other universities and one technical institute had initiated similar programs in the engineering discipline. The first co-op program outside of engineering was established in business at the University of Cincinnati in 1919 and the university admitted the first women to co-op in 1920. A year later Antioch College started the first co-op program in a totally liberal arts institution. The adoption of programs in business and the liberal arts evidenced co-op to be an appropriate strategy across disciplines. By 1941, 39 colleges had established co-op programs. Twelve institutions discontinued their programs during World War II and seven were reinstated after the war (Armsby, 1950). By co-op’s 50th anniversary (1956), 60 US colleges had established programs. In the first 50 years, co-op had revealed its flexibility and resiliency. It had survived business recessions, a severe depression, and two world wars. The President of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, H. P. Hammond, announced at the organization’s 40th annual conference that “the most noteworthy, single development in engineering education in the life of this society since 1883 was the establishment in 1906 of the ‘cooperative system’” (Hammond, 1933, p. 51). At its 50th anniversary, the majority of co-op programs were in the engineering or technology disciplines. Some institutions offered co-op in business administration, the physical sciences, and the liberal arts. Even though most colleges had not (yet) adopted co-op in the 50 years since its introduction, the co-op plan was recognized as a well-established pedagogy. 16

History of work-integrated learning

While co-op had not been widely adopted in the USA, it is interesting to note that the expansion of the WIL strategy worldwide was beginning. In 1957 in Canada, a newly formed Waterloo College, later known as the University of Waterloo, founded an engineering program based on the concept of co-op (McLaughlin, 1997). As the Waterloo co-op program grew, co-op programs began to be adopted at other Canadian institutions. Waterloo ultimately built the largest co-op program in the world. Even beyond North America, the number of higher education institutions adopting some form of co-op was steadily increasing. Mosbacker (1977) reported that some form of co-op existed in 55 countries. In 1982, a study by Northeastern University identified 272 institutions across 76 countries with some form of co-op (Wilson, 1983).

Cooperative education: Road to the modern era (1956–1965) In the USA, co-op developed and grew significantly in its second 50 years primarily because of federal support. This period is summarized here but the reader is referred to Cooperative Education in a New Era (Ryder & Wilson, 1987) for a more comprehensive account. Charles Kettering, a former General Motors vice president and research director, was a close friend of Herman Schneider and a strong advocate of co-op. He was disappointed with the level of national publicity that co-op’s 50th anniversary celebration garnered. In 1957, as chair of the Thomas Alva Edison Foundation, he charged the Foundation’s executive director, George Probst, to bring greater attention to co-op. The Edison Foundation organized a conference in Dayton, Ohio, to assess co-op’s role in American higher education. At that conference, attendees concluded that co-op’s alternating schedule offered an economical way to accommodate growing numbers of college-bound students. However, documented evidence of co-op’s educational value was not available. To address this need, the Ford Foundation Fund for the Advancement of Education agreed to finance a two-year study. Ralph W. Tyler, former Dean of Social Sciences at the University of Chicago, was named chair of the Study Committee. Tyler was held in high esteem in the behavioral sciences and became a champion of the pedagogical value of co-op. The study culminated in the 1961 publication Work-Study College Programs (Wilson & Lyons, 1961). James W. Wilson was at the Rochester Institute of Technology and later held the Asa Knowles Chair for Research in Cooperative Education at Northeastern University. Edward H. Lyons served on the staff of the University of Detroit. Their study elaborated, for the first time, the educational value of co-op and launched its modern era and the roadmap to federal involvement. Following the book’s publication, George Probst met with the Study Committee to determine the next steps. Ralph Tyler recommended that a special commission be created to advocate for co-op. The National Commission for Cooperative Education (NCCE) was incorporated in 1962 with Tyler serving as its first chairman. In addition to fundraising, the Commission’s goals were to double the number of co-op programs within five years and to promote co-op nationally, particularly with the federal government.

Federal funding years (1965–1996) Several factors came together and resulted in government support for co-op programs. The NCCE alerted legislators to the benefits of co-op in testimony to congressional committees. Also, societal forces encouraged a national agenda that supported equal access to affordable and relevant higher education. The Higher Education Act of 1965, an initiative of US President Lyndon Johnson, provided the initial federal assistance. Three years later, in 1968, the College 17

E. Sam Sovilla and Jim Varty

Work-Study Program under the Higher Education Act was amended to establish Title VIII, providing funds to colleges to plan, establish, and expand co-op programs. Title VIII also provided training of staff and research to evaluate the effectiveness and improve the practice of co-op. With federal assistance, a major expansion of co-op programs occurred. Numbers grew from a base of approximately 277 in 1971 to a peak of 1,012 colleges or roughly one-third of all US postsecondary educational institutions in 1986 (Wilson, 1986). The years of federal funding were not without controversy. From the inception of Title VIII to 1976, only institutions that met the federal government definition of co-op were approved for funding. Because this definition was drawn from the practices of established engineering programs, many co-op models that were better suited to other disciplines and community colleges in general were not eligible for support. Beginning in 1977, after significant lobbying, the government gradually revised its regulations, opening the door for funding of various experiential models. While this enabled the growth of more organic models suited to particular students, institutions, and communities, it created considerable diversity in the structure of co-op programs. As mentioned, this resulted in constant and often non-productive debate about definitions, standards, and terminology within the co-op community.

Cooperative education: Aftermath of federal and program expansion (1996–2021) While the advent of federal funding was the most significant force in co-op’s evolution since its initial development, many other factors subsequently impacted the field. Advocacy for co-op gained support in 1963 when the CEA, today the CEIA, was founded. Six regional and many local co-op professional associations were established at this time as well. In the 1970s, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) adopted criteria for engineering and engineering technology co-op programs. These were the first discipline-related accreditation standards established for co-op. In 2000, the overall accreditation criteria for engineering and engineering technology programs changed to outcome-based programmatic criteria. Co-op programs were considered part of the academic program and assessed on their contribution to the overall educational process. This change removed the engineering society’s specific criteria that had served as the standard for how co-op differed from other forms of WIL. An Accreditation Council in Canada has been accrediting co-op programs since 1979 and has firmly established accreditation criteria. This period ushered in some significant variations from the traditional engineering model. Many community colleges adopted the parallel plan for co-op (attend school while assigned part-time work) to better serve their large population of older students who needed to work at least part-time, year-round. Very few of the early co-op programs awarded academic credit for the co-op work experience though often participation was required to earn a degree. Because federal guidelines encouraged academic credit for co-op experiences, most of the newer programs offered co-op for credit. This was also a way to generate revenue to partially offset the cost of the program. More recently, advances in technology have had a very positive impact on the practice of co-op. Technology has enhanced the day-to-day operations of co-op programs, facilitated contact with employers as well as students on assignment, and become a superb road for global co-op networking. During the years of federal funding the government required annual reports from funded programs and supported statistical and research studies. Statistics were readily available on the number and types of programs. Today, it is difficult to determine the current number and characteristics of co-op programs in the USA. It is estimated that the number is less than half 18

History of work-integrated learning

of the 1,012 programs in existence in 1986 and there is considerably more variation in the structure of programs than there was at that time. Also, in our experience, some programs that were categorized as co-op over the years of federal funding were internship programs described as co-op to be eligible for federal funding support. Research was a priority within Title VIII. Despite the lack of federal funding support, research continues to be important, especially when it involves researchers from related disciplines. In the USA, the communication of that research was done through a print and later an electronic version of the Journal of Cooperative Education (1964–2009). Historically, this juried journal was particularly well-respected and influential within the field. The work of this journal continues today through the International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL).

Learning from more than a century of cooperative education Federal funding was a grand experiment. However, results fell short of the vision that co-op might become commonplace in higher education. Federally supported programs beginning in the 1960s faced start-up conditions far different from those encountered in the early 1900s. Former Associate Provost and Director of Professional Practice at the University of Cincinnati, E. Sam Sovilla, elaborated these differences: Higher education in the early years of the past century provided a rich base for co-op. Colleges were expanding. Curriculum was diversifying. Major academic officers spearheaded and committed resources to co-op development while most of the federally funded programs lacked sufficient institutional support and were developed by faculty members or non-academic administrators. Student enrollments were increasing. The new wave of middle-class and working-class college students were work and high-achievement oriented but needed money to stay in college. Very few financial aid programs were available. Co-op was obviously an attractive option for financing one’s education. Skilled workers were in demand and industrialists were increasingly attracted to the co-op plan. (Sovilla, 1998, p. 140) In addition to these differences in overall climate, new programs faced obstacles that in our perception limited program development and expansion despite federal support. They included: •

•

•

Institutional commitment: Institutional support has always been critical to the success of co-op programs. Tight budgets made it difficult for many colleges to support new co-op programs until the level of participation achieved an economy of scale. Some programs became very person-dependent and when the key staff or faculty person left or retired, the program was weakened or failed because it did not have broad institutional support. Lack of institutional commitment is still a principal cause of program failure in some programs and limited growth in others. Co-op is right for every institution: A myth of federal funding was that successful co-op programs could be built on most campuses if outside resources provided seed money. In reality, the culture of many colleges and their surrounding employer base were often not fertile ground for co-op. Building programs without the benefit of experience: Co-op staff and consultants failed to identify key success factors of viable programs until late into the federal funding years, leaving early adopters without essential information about how to structure successful programs. 19

E. Sam Sovilla and Jim Varty

•

•

•

•

•

Campus-wide implementation: Historically, successful campus-wide programs were built one step at a time, beginning in disciplines with committed faculty and a receptive employer base. Federal funding encouraged the development of campus-wide programs. Time limited grants, modest federal funding, and limited institutional resources following federal funding made campus-wide co-op program implementation unrealistic. Because there was an emphasis on numbers rather than on program quality and strategies to enable faculty to achieve student-learning goals, faculty support was often withdrawn. Program location: Even when co-op programs were housed in the academic unit, co-op coordinators had little time for anything other than interviewing, placing students, and working with employers. Also, often the literature and performance reports of co-op units overly emphasized placement statistics and provided limited references to learning outcomes related to faculty curricular goals. Consequently, co-op was primarily seen as a placement activity. A significant number of programs were either transferred from the academic division into career service centers or initially developed in that area. This administrative alignment signaled to faculty that co-op was a student service function and not an integral component of the academic program. From our experience, very few programs transferred from the academic division to career centers or developed in those areas experienced major growth. Academic credit: Federal guidelines encouraged granting academic credit for co-op. Institutions tended to favor it as a strategy to partially offset program costs. Often the academic rationale for this practice followed the financial decision. Awarding of credit required the direct participation of faculty who expected additional compensation for their involvement. Once federal funds disappeared, there was less money to compensate faculty. On many campuses this became controversial, creating both a logistical and political issue for program directors. Staff credentials and advancement: In institutions where co-op was underfunded or located outside of the academic division, there was often a problem retaining academically qualified staff since there were few opportunities for career advancement. Staff credentials were an issue as well. Though credentials did not need to be equivalent to regular faculty, staff who possessed similar academic backgrounds were in the best position to promote the value of the program to faculty and elicit their support. Corporate downsizing: Downsizing, mergers, and other structural changes in corporations and workplaces over the past 40 years has made it more challenging for colleges to maintain quality co-op programs. In the first 70 years, college and employer partnerships tended to be strong and productive. A human resources executive often had the title Manager of College Relations, even Manager of Cooperative Education. Individuals in those roles understood the purposes of co-op and developed quality programs within their companies. More recently, most companies do not have a senior manager overseeing their co-op program and the result is that many companies no longer understand the value of co-op for their organizations and lack well-planned programs. These factors have forced some colleges to compromise their standards in providing students with practical work experience.

The future of cooperative education Co-op in the USA continues to be a viable postsecondary learning pedagogy. Today, co-op programs exist in every state of the union and students are increasingly placed in other countries. Over the next few years, it is unlikely that significant growth will occur. Most large-scale 20

History of work-integrated learning

programs will remain strong because they are part of the core values of their institution and have the necessary resources. Because colleges are interested in providing students with a variety of WIL options, co-op has become just one option among a mix for interested students. Some co-op departments have added internships or experiential education to their unit title to reflect these additional options. Whatever the mix of WIL programs, co-op will always be present. It has revealed its resiliency and flexibility over more than a century. There will be periods of growth and stagnation, but its benefit for students, institutions, and employers will ensure its viability well into its second century.

Internships Co-op, internships, and service-learning share a common goal to enhance the learning experience through an integration of work in the educational experience. However, they differ considerably in program structure, sponsorship partnering, supervision, reflection, and the level of integration in an established curriculum. This section focuses on the nature and history of internships with an immediate caveat. “Internship” is a broad term in the USA used to identify a variety of strategies that are often equated with more specific titles. When one looks at the actual practice of these strategies, there is considerable overlap but also differences. Some of the terms used in the USA and around the world for internship strategies are externships, practice-oriented education, project-based learning, summer-hire programs, practice teaching, virtual learning, job shadowing, sandwich degree courses, field-based learning, entrepreneurial experiences, and many others. Because of these differences in title, structure, methods, and policies, it is more difficult to describe the history or the evolution of internships in the USA, much less across the world. Indeed, each of the specific strategies has its own history and structure and the description of each is beyond the scope of this chapter. Modern internships clearly benefited from the pre-existing co-op movement and internships globally were often modeled on related practices in the USA.

Profiling internships In the USA, internships are typically one-time work or community experiences involving students who are nearing the end of their academic program. Some experiences simply involve observing what the field is ‘really like,’ while others are designed to be a worksite-based capstone experience permitting students to apply the principles and theories taught on the campus to real life projects. Internships are usually unpaid though sometimes stipends or scholarships are provided to the student. Finally, internships tend to be monitored by faculty and are usually housed in academic departments. Like the other WIL strategies, one can expect differences in the practice of internships because of internal institutional policies and practices and external forces that include culture, local economic conditions, and government policy.

Evolution of internships in the modern era As earlier noted, the pedagogy of internships is centuries old but the widespread adoption of internships in US postsecondary institutions is relatively new. Prior to the late 1960s, only a few colleges were involved in programs labeled today as internships. But this strategy grew quickly. In one study, “only 3% of college students in the United States completed internships in the 1980s in comparison to 80% of college seniors in 1999” (Taylor Research Group, 2014, p. 3). 21

E. Sam Sovilla and Jim Varty

In the USA, internships, especially academic internships, have become the growth industry in WIL. Many of these programs provide academic credit that generates income to support academic departments. Industrial demand for better prepared graduates fuels their expansion as does the recognition of this strategy by government at all levels. In the late 1970s and 1980s, a growing number of college faculty members began to establish internship programs after hearing about them from colleagues at other institutions. Even in the liberal arts areas, where internships had long been less prevalent, there was increased advocacy for them. A 2009 article by the Association of American Colleges and Universities reported: While cooperative education programs have waned, internships are increasing. Most college students now complete an internship. Career Centers at liberal arts colleges, disciplinary journals devoted to college curricula, and the popular press kept up a steady drumbeat encouraging faculty members to support, and students to obtain internships, in order to ease the transition to the workplace. (Eyler, 2009, p. 24) It is interesting to note that in the early 1960s, internships were a more common strategy at community colleges than co-op. Usually found in the business departments, they were coordinated by the academic staff and were often a required capstone program experience. Part of the reason that co-op developed slowly in community colleges was that internships were the widely accepted experiential option. Within community colleges, and to some extent universities, the advent of Title VIII funding also improved the quality and availability of internships as they grew side by side with co-op programming. When funding disappeared, some co-op programs were restructured into internships as a less complex and costly alternative. Throughout the history of internships and even today, there is discussion about whether internships should be paid or unpaid, as most clinical experiences are. Some contend that if students are adding value for their employer, then they should be paid. On the other hand, others contend that the internship is primarily a learning experience, and, like clinical experience, it is expensive to support students in an initial assignment. They conclude that, even if productive, students need not be paid because of their added expense to the participating organization.

Professional organizations A significant indicator that a new initiative is beginning to gain traction in almost any field is the emergence and formalization of organizations of like-minded professionals. The emergence of professional organizations also provides clues about the history of internships in the USA. Two examples come to mind. In 1971, the National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE) was founded, with its membership growing rapidly to include members from many countries. In 1972, the Association for Experiential Education (AEE) was founded as a global membership community comprising experiential educators, practitioners, inquirers, researchers, and students with the shared goal of elevating the field of Experiential Education. The AEE and NSEE reflected increased interest in internships in postsecondary education and were evidence that these strategies had become an integral part of the curriculum in increasing numbers of disciplines. As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, the rise of internships also caused traditional professional co-op organizations both in the USA and across the world to change their policies and welcome staff and faculty involved with internships into their ranks. 22

History of work-integrated learning

The influence of social and technological change Just as with education in general, when new societal norms, technology, or educational innovations surface, institutions change; so too have internship practitioners adapted. This has occurred in the areas of globalization, entrepreneurism, and virtual education: •

•

•

Globalization: The significant growth of multinational corporations, coupled with (preCOVID-19) less-restrictive and less-expensive travel options, has enabled students to have internship experiences in countries other than their own. Some are industry-sponsored; others are arranged by their educational institution. Entrepreneurism: Increased business and industry interest in hiring employees with an entrepreneurial background resulted in the development of related courses and programs that included internships as a part of the curriculum. Some governments, including the UK, Canada, and New Zealand, have committed funding to support entrepreneurship education. Virtual experiences: Most recently, a global pandemic has brought about changes in postsecondary education. Some changes are temporary, while others will be permanent. Practitioners have realized that work experiences may increasingly be virtual or semi-virtual and have adapted internship parameters accordingly. The International Journal of WorkIntegrated Learning has recently published two special issues on the impact of the pandemic on WIL going forward that are well worth reviewing (Zegwaard et al., 2020).

In summary, today increasing numbers of higher education institutions in the USA require completion of at least one experiential assignment, which, while differing in title and structure from institution to institution, fit under the broad umbrella of an internship. This dramatic increase has grown over the past 70 years due to the conviction on the part of educators, students, and the community of the educational value of combined academic and work experience. The very fact that program structures differ has contributed to this growth because programs have grown organically and are responsive to the community, institutions, and students they serve.

Service-learning Variations of service-learning have been practiced for hundreds of years. While John Dewey was a well-known advocate of the general integration of academics and work, as mentioned previously, because of his emphasis on community education, service-learning particularly resonated with him. As understood and practiced today across the world, service-learning was certainly influenced by its growth in the USA over the last 60 years. For the purposes of this chapter, service-learning is defined as: A teaching and learning strategy integrating meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience and to teach civic responsibility and strengthen communities. When compared to co-op and internships, service-learning is unique in its focus on community improvement and fostering in the student a sense of civic responsibility. These community-based assignments tend to be more generic and place less emphasis on specific skill development. As a result, non-technical skill development, for example leadership, teamwork, 23

E. Sam Sovilla and Jim Varty

and communication improvement, are more often emphasized and achieved. Service-learning is intended to make a positive difference in the community served. Interestingly, service-learning, unlike co-op and internships, has been well-received and implemented extensively in secondary schools across the USA. Federal funding for service-learning at the collegiate level was part of a broader bill to advance this strategy in education generally. Having defined service-learning generically, it is important to emphasize that its application is varied. Usually it is an accredited, singular, and unpaid experience. It can be an option available across a campus, within a college, unique to a discipline, and even to a single course. In some instances, the community experience becomes the curriculum content for a specific course. While this chapter focuses on service-learning as developed and practiced in the USA, Service-Learning as an Approach to Work-integrated Learning by Patrick et al. (2022) provides an excellent overview of WIL as it is currently practiced in Australia.

A history of service-learning Some trace the modern US history of service-learning to the formation of the Peace Corps in the Kennedy Administration (1962) and connect it to federal initiatives that include VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) (1964) and AmeriCorps (1993). The National and Community Service Acts in the 1990s, sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, established the Corporation for National and Community Service Trust that consolidated existing service programs and provided funding under the Learn and Serve America program for service-learning at both the secondary and collegiate levels. This funding, very instrumental in the expansion and strengthening of service-learning, was re-authorized in 2009 but eliminated in 2011. In 1969, a group of Peace Corps and VISTA officials along with university faculty members and students held a conference in Atlanta, Georgia, and defined service-learning as a new pedagogical approach. This term attempted to capture the sentiment and activism of the 1960s (Busch, n.d.). In 1985, a small group of university presidents met with the President of the Education Commission of the States and founded the Campus Compact dedicated solely to campus-based civic engagement. Campus Compact enables campuses to develop students’ citizenship skills and forge effective community partnerships. Their resources support administrators, faculty, staff, and students to pursue community-based teaching, scholarship, and action in the service of public good. In 2021, over 1,000 institutions were a part of Campus Compact worldwide. This is a clear indication of the institutional support that service-learning enjoys today (Campus Compact, 2021). In 1990, Mesa Community College, located in Scottsdale, Arizona, became the host institution for the Community College National Center for Community Engagement (CCNCCE). For 25 years until 2015, CCNCCE held annual conferences, provided training and consultation, and disseminated service-learning funds to help US community colleges develop or enhance service-learning and civic engagement programs. In the process, CCNCCE built a network of community college educators who incorporated service-learning and civic engagement across a variety of academic disciplines within their colleges and later became role models for other colleges to replicate their work (CCNCCE, 2016). In addition to Campus Compact and CCNCEE, individual universities have made significant contributions to the development of service-learning. For example, the Edward Ginsberg Center for Community Service and Learning at the University of Michigan defines its role as: 24

History of work-integrated learning

a community and civic engagement center with a mission to cultivate and steward equitable partnerships between communities and the University of Michigan to advance social change for the public good. (Edward Ginsberg Center, 2022, p. 1) Since 1994, the Center has published the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. This peer-reviewed journal is a recognized leader in the field of community-engaged scholarship.

The impact of service-learning According to numerous studies done at the height of the service-learning movement (1990– 2010), service-learning has been shown to make a difference with students, faculty, and in the community. At a Glance: What We Know about the Effects of Service-Learning on College Students, Faculty, Institutions and Communities, third edition, provides an extensive list and summary of these studies (Eyler et al., 2001). This study generally points out the importance of faculty support, well-structured experiences, and opportunities for student reflection. Also, the U.S. News and World Report (2021) provides an annual listing of outstanding collegiate service-learning programs. In summary, the success and expansion of service-learning in the USA has been organic, differing across institutions and at times within an institution. This is likely the reason for its significant growth. This stemmed from the national commitment to volunteerism and civic engagement that came out of student activism in the 1960s and the war on poverty in the early 1970s. It was encouraged and funded by public policy and on a collegiate level is supported by consortia of college and university presidents through the College Compact and was supported by the CCNCCE.

Lessons learned This chapter has provided a brief history of co-op, internship, and service-learning strategies developed and practiced in the USA for well over a century. History often points out valuable lessons. Because many of the issues previously experienced continue to exist in the present practice of WIL, we believe that these learnings continue to have application to the general practice of WIL: •

•

Successful programs take into consideration and are nuanced by the cultures of a nation, community, institution, program discipline, and students served. Externally, programs are influenced by the economic conditions, business and industrial base available, governmental priorities, and internal institutional mores. There is no standard WIL strategy appropriate for every instance. Often, variation is found in the practice of WIL strategies within the same institution. In the case of co-op in the USA, federal funding may have been too prescriptive in defining and mandating a narrow strategy that did not take into consideration environmental and institutional circumstances. Many institutions received federal assistance but lacked an employer base and the faculty and administrative support needed to later sustain the program. Programs that grow organically are far more likely to thrive. High-level administrative support is critical to any educational innovation. WIL is a relatively complex strategy that frequently works across disciplines and because of this administrative support has proven particularly important. The early co-op programs had such support. The successful integration and retention of later programs after government funding 25

E. Sam Sovilla and Jim Varty

•

•

•

•

•

were directly related to such support. Support of service-learning at the presidential level though the College Compact resulted in the initiation of programming and the acquisition of federal support. Because service-learning supports local communities through positive interaction, which is very important to senior college staff, it continues to receive their enthusiastic support. Faculty acceptance and support is critical. Academic in nature, the support of faculty is pivotal to the success or failure of WIL strategies. Because internships and service-learning are usually offered for academic credit, are often required components of established programs, and sometimes become the curriculum content for a course in the case of service-learning, faculty involvement is essential. Co-op coordinators who were housed in an academic unit and were able to relate well with faculty tended to develop successful programming. Programs administered from non-academic units with minimal faculty involvement or by staff unfamiliar with the nuances of academic goals and faculty culture tended to be less successful. Governmental support, in addition to institutional commitment, has been the catalyst for both co-op and service-learning. However, flexibility in funding guidelines is critical so that institutions can develop organic programs that are appropriate to their student body, their institution, and their community. Such flexibility was available in the federal funding of service-learning as opposed to the earlier years of government funding for co-op. Government funding for research and training that accompany funds for program development and expansion are key to the identification of solid strategies and the development of, and networking among, involved faculty and staff. WIL learning outcomes need to be clearly identified and widely shared at both a programmatic and student level. Students benefit when staff or faculty assist them in establishing personal learning goals for their work experiences. Some understanding of learning theory and its application to WIL can be very helpful, though this is not always a part of a coordinator’s background. Learning goals enable coordinators to share employer perceptions of students’ progress with their faculty, as well as employer and student suggestions for curriculum improvement. This opens doors for productive employer–faculty–institutional dialogue. To do this, staff need to focus on developing authentic methods for assessing learning experiences. Support for WIL significantly increases when the learning outcomes from WIL strategies contribute to positive results in institutional accreditation or discipline certification reviews. Some WIL practices can be very labor intensive. The development of student goals; the implementation of reflective practices; staff, employer, student, and program evaluation; and the sharing with faculty and administration of student and program accomplishments are valuable. However, at times program complexity interferes with program implementation, limits the number of students served, and results in high-program and per-student cost. This, in turn, can result in program cancelation when budget cuts are required. An alternative to consider is to develop a simplified and less labor-intensive process for student goal setting, assessment, and reflection and thus enable increased student participation while reducing per-student cost. Advances in communication technology are very important to the success of WIL. Effective communication by program staff with faculty, employer contacts, and involved students required local placements historically. Current communication technology enables placements across the world and still provides for a frequency and depth of communication once not even available with local placements.

26

History of work-integrated learning

•

Professional associations and journals have strengthened both staff and program strategies and provided channels of communication worldwide. The ability to recognize outstanding programs, identify leaders in the field, and share exceptional programs and insights is a result of both professional associations and journals.

Conclusion The idea of combining theory taught in an academic setting with ‘real-world’ exposure and experience is not new, but it was not until the 1960s that a trend began that would ultimately result in WIL strategies worldwide. In this chapter, we have provided an historical overview of three major WIL strategies in the USA: co-op, internships, and service-learning. Because many of the global WIL programs were influenced by or modeled after these strategies, we feel that the lessons learned from US practices have general application to WIL worldwide. In recent years, employers and educators have been increasingly interested in strategies that enhance the employability of students. Technology has provided improved communication across the field, professional associations have strengthened their working relationships with WACE serving as the world’s focal organization, and developments in the field are shared through quality professional journals. Because of these factors, we envision a bright future for WIL strategies worldwide.

References Armsby, H. (1950). Cooperative engineering education. Bulletin 1949, 15. U.S. Office of Education. Busch, D. (n.d.). History of service learning. Social Change, 101. https://www.socialchange101.org/ history-of-service-learning/ Campus Compact. (2021). 30th Anniversary action statement of presidents and chancellors. https://compact.org/ actionstatement/statement/ Community College National Center for Community Engagement (CCNCCE). (2016). http://ccncce. org/ Cooperative Education and Internship Association (CEIA). (2019). History of cooperative education and internships. https://www.ceiainc.org/about/history Cooperative Education and Work-Integrated Learning (CEWIL) Canada. (2021). Work-Integrated Learning definitions. http://www.cewilcanada.ca Edward Ginsberg Center for Community Service and Learning, The University of Michigan. (2022). Our mission, philosophy, & guiding principles. https://ginsberg.umich.edu/article/our-mission-philosophyguiding-principles Eyler, J. (2009). The power of experiential education. Liberal Education, 95(4), 24–31. Eyler, J., Giles, D., Stenson, C., & Gray, C. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions and communities, 1993–2000: Third edition. Higher Education, 139. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered/139/?utm_so Gardner, P., & Bartkus, K. (2014). What’s in a name, A reference guide to work-education experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 37–54. Hammond, H. (1933). Promotion of engineering education in the past forty years. In F. Bishop (Ed.), Proceedings of the annual American Society for Engineering Conference (pp. 44–61). Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education. McLaughlin, K. (1997). Waterloo: The unconventional founding of an unconventional university. Cober Printing. Mosbacker, W. (1977). Cooperative education worldwide. In A. Knowles (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education. Jossey-Bass. Park, C. (1943). Genesis of the cooperative idea. Journal of Cooperative Engineering, 33, 410–421. Patrick, C.-J., Chambers, D., Andersen, L., Lloyd, K., & Hughes, B. (2022). Service-learning as an approach to work-integrated learning. In S. Ferns, A. Rowe, and K. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future. Routledge.

27

E. Sam Sovilla and Jim Varty Ryder, K., & Wilson, J. (1987). Cooperative education in a new era: Understanding and strengthening the links between college and the workplace. Jossey-Bass. Sovilla, E., & Varty, J. (2011). Cooperative and work-integrated education in the US, past and present: Some lessons learnt. In R. K. Coll and K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–15). World Association for Cooperative Education. Sovilla, E. S. (1998, January). Co-op’s 90-year odyssey. The American Society for Engineering Education, Prism, pp. 18–23. Taylor Research Group. (2014). A brief history of the internship. https://www.taylorresearchgroup.com/ news/2017/4/5/a-brief-history-of-the-internship Turner, S., & Frederick, A. (1987). Comparing programs worldwide, In K. Ryder and J. Wilson (Eds.), Cooperative Education in a new Era: Understanding and Strengthening the Links Between College and the Workplace, (pp. 45–74). Jossey-Bass U.S. News and World Report. (2021). Colleges with great service-learning programs. https://www.usnews. com/best-colleges/rankings/service-learning-programs Wilson, J. (1983). 1982 International directory of work experience institutions, International Center for Education and Work, Northeastern University. Wilson, J. (1986). Annual Survey on Cooperative Education, Northeastern University Cooperative Education Research Center, Northeastern University, Boston. Wilson, J., & Lyons, E. (1961). Work-study college programs: Appraisal and report of the study of cooperative education. Harper & Brothers. Zegwaard, K. (Ed.). (2020). International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL). Work-Integrated Learning New Zealand. Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2020). Responding to an international crisis: The adaptability of the practice of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 317–330.

28

3 DEFINING WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING Karsten E. Zegwaard, T. Judene Pretti, Anna D. Rowe, and Sonia J. Ferns

Introduction Work-integrated learning (WIL) is an inclusive term used to describe a range of related work-focused learning models. These learning models are similar in purpose, share common design components, and generate comparable learning outcomes; however, they are described using a wide range of individual terms. Of late, WIL has received increasing attention by curriculum developers and educational institution leaders, in part in response to increasing pressure on higher education institutions to better evidence direct links between higher education and employability outcomes and, at times, employment outcomes ( Jackson, 2013; Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019). In response, many higher education institutions are introducing or expanding their WIL offerings as a way to evidence and strengthen the links between educational delivery and employability outcomes ( Jackson, 2013, 2015; Jackson & Greenwood, 2015; Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017). Although discussion of the employability benefits of WIL has dominated the literature and curriculum designers’ thinking, WIL affords further benefits such as greater student self-awareness of their values and dispositions, confidence and self-efficacy, and community citizenship (Campbell & Zegwaard, 2011; Cox & Simpson, 2016; Drysdale & McBeath, 2014; Salter et al., 2021). Broadly, WIL encompasses an educational approach whereby students engage in work-­ focused tasks, similar to those expected of working professionals (Ferns et al., 2014). These tasks may require students to be fully immersed in an organization for a set duration (e.g., work placements, cooperative education, internships, practicums, field placements) or be campus-based whilst completing tasks required by an external stakeholder (e.g., client reports, developing a product, consultancy projects, scoping projects, community-based projects) (Zegwaard et al., 2022). While WIL models vary considerably, a consistent defining element across all models is the involvement of an external stakeholder (e.g., employer, client, community) and engaging students in relevant, meaningful practice (Groenewald et al., 2011). The practice of WIL, the use of the term, and related research has mostly been higher education focused; however, it is not restricted to this sector (e.g., the practice of co-op at Canadian secondary schools; see Government of Ontario Canada, 2018). WIL is an academic field in its own right that overlaps with the fields of work-based learning, vocational education and training, and experiential learning/education (Helyer & Fleming, 2015). These respective fields DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-4

29

Karsten E. Zegwaard et al.

draw from similar theoretical underpinnings, such as those developed by Dewey, Kolb, and Piaget, and some research literature from each of these fields are relevant to WIL. The term ‘WIL’ is particularly useful as it groups together various work-focused educational models with similar intended outcomes that are described using different terms (Coll et al., 2009; Gardner & Bartkus, 2014). Patrick et al. (2008) provide particularly useful guidance on the use of the term as “an umbrella term for a range of approaches and strategies that integrate theory with the practice of work within a purposefully designed curriculum” (p. 44). This description is often cited as a definition; however, it was not intended to be a definition and is missing the elements of what defines WIL. Patrick et al. (2008) were the first to clearly state that the term encompasses a range of existing similar practices and helped embed the term ‘WIL’ into the literature as a ‘capture all’ (umbrella) term for grouping similar educational models. The umbrella term eliminated confusion around different practices using the same term, and the same practices using different terms (Zegwaard & Coll, 2011a). To date, there is no single agreed definition of WIL; however, many authors have defined it for the purposes of their institution or program. It is our intent in this chapter to explore some of these definitions, describe the unique elements that define WIL as separate from other educational approaches, and present a definition that is inclusive of the diverse educative practices currently accepted as WIL.

History of the term ‘work-integrated learning’ In the literature, early reference to the term ‘WIL’ can be found in the late 1990s (e.g., Barrett et al., 1998; Coll, 1996; Jancauskas et al., 1999; Kvale, 1998; Sauter, 1999), including similar terms such as ‘integrated learning with work’ (Raelin, 1997) and also in relation to classroom task-focused learning rather than workplace-related tasks (Stuber, 1998). Prior to 1995, WACE1 evidently included the term ‘WIL’ within a vision statement, declaring that “by the year 2000, WACE will be viewed as a highly valued leader in enhancing work-integrated learning worldwide” (quoted by Bradford, 1995, p. 9; emphasis added). In 1999, the National Commission for Cooperative Education (NCCE), USA, also used the term “work-integrated learning” (Hutcheson, 1999, p. 1) within an executive summary report; however, they used the phrase ‘integrated learning’ without the word ‘work’ in the remainder of the report. The practice regarded as WIL had existed under different terms prior to this time. For example, the Sandwich Education Plan was developed in 1903 (Sovilla & Varty, 2011), with forms of sandwich degrees perhaps being practiced as early as 1840 (Brewer, 1990). In 1906, Herman Schneider, at the University of Cincinnati, introduced the cooperative education program, acknowledging that integrating work with learning was a concept already practiced in legal and medical education and technical apprenticeships (Sovilla & Varty, 2011). Over time authors have developed typologies (e.g., Fincher et al., 2004; Kaider et al., 2017; Rowe et al., 2012) and frameworks (e.g., Groenewald et al., 2011; McRae & Johnston, 2016) in an attempt to bring uniformity around the uses of terms within WIL. Kay et al. (2018) undertook an analysis of terms used to describe non-placement WIL practices and found natural groupings of: micro-placements; online projects or placements; hackathons, competitions, and events; incubators/startups; and consulting. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, some authors used the term ‘WIL’ as a synonym for cooperative education (e.g., Coll, 1996), likely reflecting that many authors had a background in cooperative education and work placement programs and were less familiar with non-placement forms of WIL. However, the intended scope of the term was broader than the practice of cooperative education and work placement and included other forms of work-focused learning 30

Defining work-integrated learning

models involving external stakeholders (Dean & Campbell, 2020; Dean et al., 2020; Wood et al., 2020; Zegwaard et al., 2020). Until recently, research and scholarly discussion of WIL had been dominated by placement forms of WIL, whilst discussion of non-placement WIL had been mostly neglected within the literature (Jackson & Greenwood, 2015; Rowe, et al., 2022; Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019). However, the COVID-19 pandemic created an immediate need to have diverse WIL offerings at higher educational institutions, initiating a focus on developing and researching non-placement forms of it (Dean et al., 2020; Kay et al., 2022; Zegwaard et al., 2020).

Definitions of work-integrated learning within the literature Early discussions of WIL refer to the difficulties of defining it; for example, when needing to describe the term as part of the cost analysis of delivery (Sauter, 1999). Rowe (2017) echoes similar difficulties with defining the related term ‘experiential education.’ The difficulty, in part, of defining these terms is due to the significant variability of practices, the range of labels used, and the inconsistent use of these terms (Rowe et al., 2012; Zegwaard & Coll, 2011a), in addition to the range of different definitions developed to reflect disciplinary, institutional, local, and national contexts. Furthermore, national and international associations have also developed definitions for WIL relevant to their professional community’s interpretation of its application within their national context (e.g., see CEWIL,2 WILNZ,3 ACEN,4 WACE). These definitions commonly include locally preferred wording, institutionally branded terms, and good practice components deemed important for strategic purposes. Therefore, it has been preferable to focus on describing the practice rather than the term used (Peach & Gamble, 2011; Zegwaard & Coll, 2011a). Authors have attempted to describe the defining elements of WIL as, for example, a discipline-centered curriculum that uses authentic engagement with practices in the workplace (Ferns et al., 2014), part of a course of study involving experience in a practice setting (Cooper et al., 2010), and integration of knowledge and practice with exposure to the world of work (Smith et al., 2014). The literature presents a number of definitions of WIL, a selection of which are presented in Table 3.1. The authors of these definitions did not intend to define WIL in its entirety, but rather to define it as practiced within their respective institution or program, or to describe the context as part of a research publication. However, it is useful to explore these definitions to determine common defining elements of WIL. Table 3.1  Examples of definitions used to describe work-integrated learning within a context Author(s) and definition/description

Defining elements

Patrick et al. (2008, p. 44) [WIL] is an umbrella term for a range of approaches and strategies that integrate theory with the practice of work within a purposefully designed curriculum. Billett (2009, p. v) WIL refers to the process whereby students come to learn from experiences in educational and practice settings and integrate the contributions of those experiences in developing the understandings, procedures and dispositions required for effective professional practice, including criticality.

Integration of theory with practice of work, purposefully within the curriculum. Learning from practice setting experiences, integration, professional understandings, and dispositions; being critical of practice.

(Continued) 31

Karsten E. Zegwaard et al. Table 3.1  (Continued) Author(s) and definition/description

Defining elements

Coll et al. (2009, p. 14) … is a strategy in which students undergo conventional academic learning, mostly at a higher education institution (HEI), and combine this learning with some time spent in a workplace relevant to their program of study and career aims. Smith et al. (2009, p. 8) Learning which is embedded in the experience of work: which may be work, which is paid or unpaid; or fulltime or part-time; or formally endorsed as part of a university course; or extracurricular and complementary of studies; or totally independent of studies; in the past, present, or future; and which is made meaningful for a student when reflected upon in terms of personal learning and development occurring as part of a career development learning experience or course-related process. Cooper et al. (2010, p. xiii) The intersect and engagement of theoretical and practice learning. The process of bringing together formal learning and productive work, or theory and practice. Constructing one system using available knowledge from several separate sources. Martin et al. (2011, p. 7) … a structured educational strategy, which aims to merge theoretical knowledge gained in academic studies to workplace experiences by developing relevant professional skills in preparation for future career opportunities. It is a bridge for the student between the academic present and their professional future. Oliver (2015, p. 62) Work-integrated learning occurs at various levels across a range of tasks that are authentic (the task resembles those required in professional life) or proximal (the setting resembles professional contexts). Smith (2012, p. 247) WIL is a curriculum design in which students spend time in professional work or other practice settings relevant to their degrees of study and to their occupational futures. Sattler and Peters (2013, p. 13) WIL describes educational activities that intentionally integrate learning within an academic institution with practical application in a workplace setting, relevant to a student’s program of study or career goals. This structured integration of theory and practice differentiates WIL from other experiential learning activities that provide students with exposure to the workplace, such as job shadowing, industry field trips, career mentoring and work-study.

Linking on-campus learning with experience in the workplace, relevant to study direction, career focused, and in higher education context. Learning embedded within work, meaningful for the student, and for career development. Very broad as to where, when, and how; includes outside, before, and after student engagement with curriculum.

Mixing theory learning with practice learning and productive (meaningful) work, drawing on knowledge from other sources. Structured learning experience, linking/ bridging theoretical learning with workplace experiences; career and profession focused.

Authentic tasks related to professional life, within or near a professional context, across different educational levels. Curricular, time spent in a workplace setting (or similar), relevant to the degree and career direction. Educational activities, integration of on-campus learning with practical application in a workplace, relevant to student study or career focus, excludes shadowing, field trips, career mentoring/guidance.

(Continued) 32

Defining work-integrated learning Table 3.1  (Continued) Author(s) and definition/description

Defining elements

Smith et al. (2014, p. 15) … an educational approach that aims to give opportunities to students to practice professional or disciplinary skills, to apply theoretical knowledge to real problems or to experience the real world of work. This is typically achieved through a broad collection of curriculum strategies. Winchester-Seeto et al. (2016, p. 101) A broad range of experience-based education models and curriculum approaches where students engage with industry and community organizations, for example, service learning, work-based learning, community engagement, cooperative education … as well as internships, teacher practicums, clinical placements, engineering sandwich courses, virtual projects, simulations, fieldwork etc.

An education approach in the curriculum, professional and relevant practice, applying theoretical knowledge, ‘real problems’ and ‘real world of work’ (authenticity), multiple strategies/approaches. A learning approach described by using different terms, curriculum, involving industry and community organizations.

The definitions in Table 3.1 present elements of the educative process that results in WIL; however, none capture its full scope. The defining elements can broadly be grouped into the following: • • • • •

Integrating (intersecting, bringing together, bridging, merging) theory with practice; (Purposefully) within the curriculum; Educational strategy (intentional focus on learning); (Some) time spent in, or with, the workplace or professional practice setting; Authenticity, or (the practice of) productive and meaningful work with/in a real-world workplace; • Relevant to the study/degree and career goals/direction; • Intentional (i.e., intentional tasks and intentionally within the curriculum); • (Not clearly stated but consistently implied) external partner involvement with the work-focused tasks and the student learning. Interestingly, inclusion of an external partner (e.g., workplace supervisor, mentor, client, host organization, community) is not specifically mentioned within any of the definitions in Table 3.1 (except for Winchester-Seeto et al., 2016); however, it is an implied underpinning element within each definition by way of the context of a workplace or a place of practice and authenticity of the tasks. Clear statements of the inclusion of the external partner are more common within definitions of cooperative education (a form of WIL) (Groenewald et al., 2011) and within the well-established WIL literature discussing the tripartite relationship of the student, the educational institution, and the employer/community (e.g., Braunstein et al., 2011; Coll et al., 2009; Ferns et al., 2022; Fleming, 2015; Ruskin & Bilous, 2022; Smith et al., 2022). More detailed discussion exploring the defining elements of different models of WIL (rather than WIL generally) within a Canadian context was undertaken by McRae and Johnston 33

Karsten E. Zegwaard et al.

(2016). These authors presented two comprehensive tables describing different models of WIL, including the terms used to describe them and distinguishing elements; however, they did not offer a broad definition of WIL.

Exploring the defining elements of work-integrated learning As outlined earlier, many localized definitions offered by authors in the literature have common themes highlighting the defining elements of WIL. The literature discussing quality dimensions and professional accreditation of WIL provides deeper insight into good practice around the defining elements (e.g., Campbell et al., 2019; Ferns et al., 2022; McRae et al., 2018; Orrell, 2011; Sachs et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2022; Winchester-Seeto, 2019). Recurring themes in the literature include WIL as an educational approach that embraces the involvement of an external stakeholder, the authenticity of the WIL experience (in reference to discipline, workplace, and tasks), meaningful activities, and is purposefully situated within the curriculum. The defining elements identified earlier are not necessarily independent of each other, for example, ‘authenticity of the learning experience’ is connected both to ‘meaningful tasks’ and the ‘relevance to the study and career direction.’ For purposes of this chapter, some elements have been combined to create a list of defining elements of WIL to be considered within a definition: • • • • • •

Integrating theory and practice; Intentionally within the curriculum; Authenticity of the learning context; Meaningful practice of work-focused tasks; Related to study, career direction, and citizenship; External partner involvement.

Integrating theory and practice Perhaps one of the most widely reported purposes (and benefits) of WIL is that it provides students with the opportunity to apply theory to practice. That is, it allows students to link theoretical learning to the application of authentic work-focused tasks, requirements, and practices, where they can critique and challenge both the theory and practice. This integration of experiences between educational and practice settings helps students develop “the understandings, procedures, and dispositions required for effective professional practice” (Billett, 2009, p. v), thereby supporting their transition from student to practitioner. The origins of this concept can be traced to early adult learning theories, namely John Dewey, who proposed that people learn from real life experiences through interacting with their environments. This general theoretical principle has been incorporated into various theories of experiential learning, for example, the work by Kolb and Schon, which underpins the theoretical bases of WIL. Ideally, the integration of theory and practice in WIL should align both with industry requirements (Sachs et al., 2017) and educational institutions’ perceptions of the future of work. However, despite its importance, integration has not always been enacted in an intentional and systematic way, hence it is important that integration remains “an explicit learning objective supported by pedagogies that foster and measure it” (Rowe & Winchester-Seeto, 2022, p. 100). When effective, WIL aligns academic and industrial requirements, thereby acting as a ‘boundary spanner’ that can better prepare students for their chosen career direction (Asplund 34

Defining work-integrated learning

& Flening, 2022) and push students beyond the ‘traditional curriculum’ into unknown (and less safe) spaces that empower learning advancement.

Intentional within the curriculum WIL is described as being intentionally within a qualification, that is WIL is either curricular or co-curricular but not extracurricular. WIL activities should be situated within the curriculum (curricular) or be a required component that sits alongside the curriculum (co-curricular) where the WIL requirement is an intentional part of the education program and central to student learning outcomes and graduate capabilities. Co-curricular WIL needs to be a required component of the curriculum (but not within the curriculum) and (ideally) includes assessment of the learning experiences with learning linkages to taught offerings. For example, it is common for accredited Bachelor of Engineering degrees to require compulsory work placement that sits alongside, rather than within, the degree structure (i.e., compulsory co-curricular requirements). Curricular requirements include assurances that expected student learning outcomes are achieved along with a measure to confirm the learning progression. Therefore, WIL within the curriculum or as a co-curricular requirement must include assessment of student learning (Yorke, 2011). Ferns and Zegwaard (2014) describe assessment as the core of an educational institution’s responsibilities. A challenge for assessment in WIL is that student learning, which often occurs within a socially constructed context, happens across highly varied contexts (Ferns & Zegwaard, 2014; Garnett, 2012). Yorke (2011) refers to WIL assessments as “messy” (p. 121), as tasks are less defined and contained than a typical academic assignment that is dominated by measurement and marks. Common assessment tools include reflective learning assignments, technical reports, work performance evaluation completed by the external partner, journaling, presentations, and portfolios (Ajjawi et al., 2022; Ferns & Bosco, 2014; Connaughton et al., 2014; Ferns & Comfort, 2014). Some educational institutions will have limitations on the maximum weighting of a single assessment item, thereby essentially setting a required minimum number of assessment items per WIL offering, creating the opportunity to select several different assessment tools. Assessments focused on technical aspects of the discipline are important (especially for technical subjects such as engineering and science); however, the highly situated and authentic nature of the WIL experience provides the opportunity to assess for difficult-to-teach aspects such as professional identity development, interpersonal skills, career clarification, and ability to reflectively self-assess.

Authenticity of the learning context A recurring defining element in Table 3.1 is the authenticity of the student-learning context, an element regularly highlighted in the WIL literature (e.g., Orrell, 2011; Sachs et al., 2017). The learning context needs to reflect the context of authentic practice as expected for the relevant discipline of practice, where expected tasks are set by the external partner (employer, client, community) rather than the completion of an educational artifact for grading that are a preserve of the educational institution assessment system (e.g., essays and exams). The authenticity needs to include the linking of theory and knowledge to relevant practice and application, that is, the students are bridging the ‘academic world’ with the ‘real world’ (Martin et al., 2011). The location of the authentic learning context may range from campus-based, homebased, to workplace-based. For work placement models of WIL (e.g., cooperative education 35

Karsten E. Zegwaard et al.

work terms, practicums, clinical field placements, and internships), the context of the learning environment has a high degree of authenticity by virtue of the students’ proximity to relevant practices through full immersion (Kaider et al., 2017). However, an authentic learning context does not require physical positioning in the workplace and instead may be generated by the authenticity of the tasks and interaction with (but not situated within) a site of actual practice, such as that for non-placement forms of WIL. Furthermore, within the context of the evolving modern workplace and the application of advanced technologies, the workplace may no longer be a physical location or a single location. Instead, the workplace may be an online environment accessed remotely from many locations (Kakihara & Sorensen, 2002), such as on campus (but with an external client) (Dean & Campbell, 2020; Dean et al., 2020; Wood et al., 2020), at home (Zegwaard et al., 2020), whilst on public transportation, different office locations, and from different countries.

Meaningful practice of work-focused tasks The activities that students undertake during WIL form a core part of the WIL learning experience and yet are not explicitly referenced in most of the definitions in Table 3.1. For two definitions, there is no notion of work responsibilities, rather reference to time spent in a workplace setting. Five of the definitions describe WIL as the connection between theory and practice and use a variety of phrases to describe either work or ‘practicing work’ including the practice of work, workplace learning, practical application, productive work, and real-world problems. The integration of theory and practice is a key feature of WIL as elaborated in the previous section; but in the exploration of what defines WIL, there is a need for further understanding of practice, that is: What is the work in work-integrated learning? Research that explores students’ perceptions of WIL reveals that work is meaningful when it relates to their academic programs or career interests (Drewery & Pretti, 2021), when it contributes to tangible outcomes for an employer or external partner (Bean & Dawkins, 2022), or when the work is what would be typically expected for individuals of a given profession (Smith & Worsfold, 2015). This distinguishes it from relevant or authentic work that students might complete in their studies within a course where the impact of the completion of the work does not go beyond completion of the course. The fact that WIL students undertake meaningful work has significant implications for WIL outcomes for both the student and the external organization. Meaningful work is associated with a number of student-related outcomes including the development of workplace competencies (Jackson et al., 2021), career clarity (Nevison et al., 2017; Zegwaard & Coll, 2011b), and satisfaction with the WIL placement (Drewery & Pretti, 2021). Engaging students in meaningful work has also been associated with important outcomes for the partner organization (see Chapter 25 in this Handbook) such as productivity (Pretti et al., 2020), innovation (Hodge & Smith, 2019), and the development of talent pipelines (Drewery et al., 2020). It needs to be acknowledged that, within WIL, the very nature of authentic and purposeful tasks also directly implies risk for the student, the educational institution, and the external stakeholder. However, this risk is an important part of authenticity and meaningfulness for the student. These risks need to be carefully managed (Cameron & Orrell, 2022; Fleming & Hay, 2021) and institutions must accept that engaging with WIL requires some institutional risk-appetite; however, it is important that risk management of WIL does not reduce the authenticity, purposefulness, and meaningfulness of the tasks for students. Student payment by the employer/client is common within some disciplines, especially work placements; however, student payment does not always occur. Whether students are paid 36

Defining work-integrated learning

for their tasks or not is irrelevant to whether the activities are deemed as WIL. However, the literature has indicated that WIL experiences, especially work placements that include payment (e.g., hourly rate), change the nature of the relationship between the student and the employer and raise expectations of the outcomes and the motivations to achieve these outcomes, therefore enhancing the meaningfulness and authenticity of the WIL experience (Hoskyn et al., 2020; and Chapter 34).

Related to study, career direction, and citizenship WIL is a student learning experience within (or alongside) the curriculum. As part of a qualification, the WIL experience and the tasks within should relate to the qualification’s expected graduate outcomes; that is, WIL needs to relate to the discipline of study and/or the relevant career direction. The extent of the relevance of the WIL experience to the discipline of study has been a point of debate among practitioners. Accredited qualifications (e.g., professional degrees) typically have specific accreditation requirements around the duration and the extent of the relevance of the WIL experience to the discipline (e.g., medicine, nursing, engineering, teaching). Non-accredited degrees tend to have greater flexibility around the context of the WIL experience, and some disciplines (e.g., the humanities and social sciences) lead to diverse career options and, therefore, diverse WIL contexts will be relevant to these disciplines. Relevance of the WIL context to the study discipline is important; however, curricular designers and practitioners need to be cautious about how this relevancy requirement is applied. Much literature has been devoted to the transferability of skills from one context to another (Freudenberg et al., 2011; Martin & Rees, 2019a) and the need for T-shaped graduates with a broad base of boundary-crossing competencies (Gardner, 2017; Martin & Rees, 2019b), developed through diverse learning experiences that may be extended beyond their study discipline context (Bridges, 1993; Gibbs, 1994). For example, service-learning, a model of WIL that includes activities (often in a volunteering capacity) on community projects not necessarily directly related to the student’s discipline of study, has a strong focus on developing citizenship and awareness of community needs (Patrick et al., 2022; Valencia-Forrester et al., 2021), two elements arguably highly relevant for any discipline and career path. The development of citizenship is common, to some extent, across all WIL models, for example through enculturation into a community of practice, developing professional identity within a professional community, immersion into community work, awareness of social issues and responsibilities, socially and ethically aware critical thinking, international WIL experiences, or active and agentic engagement (Campbell & Zegwaard, 2011; Goldman & Stirling, 2020; Lucas, 2017; Salter et al., 2021; Trede, 2012; Zegwaard et al., 2017). Furthermore, professional practice needs to be considered in its entirety, including supporting elements such as leadership, administration, documentation, planning, budgeting, and reporting. These supporting elements are core to the practice of the discipline, and therefore relevant as part of the overall WIL experience.

External partner involvement A high-profile defining element of WIL is the inclusion of an external stakeholder. The external stakeholder can be identified by a range of terms, such as employer, client, host organization, community, governmental authorities, and professional bodies. Given WIL entails a blend of work or career-related practice and educational theory, the role of external partners in supporting students through real-world learning experiences is particularly important (Orrell, 37

Karsten E. Zegwaard et al.

2004). The employability of graduates, important for economic productivity and sustainability, cannot be achieved by universities working in isolation from other stakeholders (Fleming et al., 2018). Partnerships with external stakeholders to ensure the currency and relevance of WIL learning experiences are essential for actuating WIL and for providing authentic student learning experiences that nurture appropriate workplace skills, awareness, and expertise (Ferns et al., 2019). Employers, industry personnel, community agencies, government representatives, and professional accreditation bodies are integral to successful WIL outcomes. The roles and responsibilities of external stakeholders may vary across a broad spectrum of involvement. Co-designing curriculum and assessment ensures contemporary industry-focused and authentic learning experiences, and facilitates student agency (Ruskin & Bilous, 2022). In addition, industry practitioners are valuable mentors, and can provide meaningful feedback for students and role-model professional behaviors (Hodges et al., 2014). Feedback from diverse sources promotes student engagement and strengthens skill development, self-awareness, and self-efficacy (Ferns & Zegwaard, 2014). Furthermore, stakeholder collaboration establishes a shared vision, clarifies expectations, builds social capital, and broadens the perspective and capacity of stakeholders (Ferns et al., 2019). Partnerships based on trust and reciprocity facilitate “a shift from the instructional paradigm to the learning paradigm” (Evans-Greenwood et al., 2015, p. 20). Mutual benefits and tangible outcomes are pivotal components of stakeholder partnerships in WIL. The level of involvement of the external stakeholder can vary from ongoing day-to-day (full immersion, work placements) through to only a few points of contact (e.g., non-placement WIL with a client where contact is only at the start and the end, entrepreneurships with limited industry mentoring). The external stakeholder’s input in the student experience can occur via a myriad of approaches including scoping and negotiating work-based problems, conducting workshops for students, providing feedback on proposed solutions, co-designing curricula and assessments, and providing feedback on student performance. The external stakeholder can also be the educational institution itself. These institutions are large, complex entities with many activities and responsibilities beyond providing education to students (e.g., administrative functions, research activities, community events), that is, educational institutions ‘wear many hats.’ Educational institutions can offer WIL opportunities in areas outside the student’s typical, on-campus, learning activities, and engage the student in an experience where the institution is either an employer or client (i.e., wearing the ‘external stakeholder hat’).

Establishing a definition of work-integrated learning The challenge of developing a definition of WIL is the tensions between what defines the ‘practice’ of WIL, the ‘good practice’ of WIL, and the ‘intentions’ of WIL. The focus here is to define the ‘practice of WIL,’ acknowledging that the intentions may, for a wide range of reasons, not always be fulfilled, and that defining ‘good practice in WIL’ is subject to separate scholarly discussion (e.g., Campbell et al., 2019; McRae et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2022; and Chapter 22) where what defines ‘good practice’ varies significantly depending on the context. As many educational institutions and authors have developed definitions to reflect elements of good practice, as well as defining features of their local context, it is, therefore, not surprising that the literature presents many varied definitions of WIL. By incorporating common defining elements of what constitutes WIL from Table 3.1, along with the earlier exploration of the WIL literature, a broad definition of the practice of WIL

38

Defining work-integrated learning

Box 3.1  The definition of work-integrated learning and details of the defining elements An educational approach involving three parties – the student, educational institution, and an external stakeholder – consisting of authentic work-focused experiences as an intentional component of the curriculum. Students learn through active engagement in purposeful work tasks, which enable the integration of theory with meaningful practice that is relevant to the students’ discipline of study and/or professional development: • •

•

•

• •

• •

•

An educational approach: intentionally supports student learning through a range of practice models. Involving three parties: the student, the educational institution, and an external stakeholder: all three stakeholders are engaged in the experience, where the external stakeholder, or host organization, can be an employer, client, community organization, government agency, or an educational institution (where the educational institution is an employer or client). Authentic work-focused experiences: tasks undertaken by the student are related to activities expected at a place of practice (e.g., a workplace, a community, or remotely online with an external stakeholder). Intentional component of the curriculum: either curricular or co-curricular but not extracurricular. By definition of curricular and co-curricular, the student learning outcomes must be assessed. Students learn: there is an emphasis that the student, while engaging with the tasks, is learning through doing. Active engagement in purposeful work tasks: the student is an active participant (i.e., not an observer) within the context of the place of practice to which the tasks are intended to be purposefully applied. Integration of theory with practice: applying, critiquing, and forming opinions about principles, theories, and knowledge learnt through formal teaching to authentic practice. Meaningful practice: the tasks are work-based and relevant to the student and have relevant purpose for the external stakeholder, whereby the student engages with the tasks in a similar way to that expected of a working professional. Relevant to the students’ discipline of study and/or professional development: the experience supports and correlates to the student’s knowledge and skill development requirements as part of their study and/or career interests.

can be established (Box 3.1). This definition focuses on the defining elements of the practice of WIL (e.g., external stakeholder) rather than the intentions of WIL (e.g., employability outcomes). This definition includes defining elements that must be included for the practice to be WIL. The intent of this definition is to capture current understanding about what constitutes WIL and to support developments in the WIL literature. It may also inform individual educational institutions, national associations, and countries in developing their own definitions using terminologies that reflect institutional, local, and national contexts, priorities, and values.

39

Karsten E. Zegwaard et al.

What is not work-integrated learning Preparation for, and reflection on, work-integrated learning Preparation for WIL and reflection during and after the WIL experience are an essential requirement for ensuring quality learning (Rowe & Winchester-Seeto, 2022; Smith et al., 2014). Student preparation for WIL is integral to successful student engagement and subsequent learning outcomes. However, preparation on its own is not WIL; instead, it is appropriate preparation of the student prior to engaging with WIL. This preparation may include health and safety and other relevant legal requirements (Cameron & Orrell, 2022); preparation for learning, for example, reflective learning (Winchester-Seeto et al., 2010); wellbeing (Drysdale et al., 2022); employer expectations (Fleming et al., 2018); ethical expectations (Campbell & Zegwaard, 2015); and other essential components such as self-regulation of learning (Zimmerman, 2009). Debriefing and reflection during and after the WIL experience enhances the learning gained from it and is an important component within quality WIL programs; however, the post-WIL debriefing and reflection is not WIL on its own, rather it is a learning activity that is a part of, or after the, WIL experience. Many institutions include preparation for WIL and post-WIL debriefing and reflection as part of the wider ‘WIL program,’ and often prescribe preparation for WIL as a compulsory activity.

Field trips Field trips are a common practice-based educational strategy included in curricula that either involve students undertaking practical activities within an authentic context (e.g., geology students undertaking a field-mapping trip) or learning through the observation of activities in an authentic context (e.g., environmental engineering students visiting a wastewater treatment plant). Such activities are useful for enhancing student comprehension of complex principles within their discipline; however, these activities do not meet the defining WIL elements of ‘authentic and purposeful work-focused tasks,’ and external stakeholder involvement (if any) is usually limited to explaining workplace processes rather than engaging the student with active learning through work-focused tasks.

Case studies Case studies are a useful approach for enabling knowledge development of an industry sector or a particular context. Many case studies do not actively engage an external stakeholder nor engage students in authentic and meaningful work tasks that are intended to be applied in a workplace or community setting. Therefore, it is best to see such studies as learning activities that may be ‘related to WIL’ but not WIL per se. It is important to distinguish between such case studies and models of non-placement WIL that at times are also labeled as case studies, for example, as student consultancy reports where the report was prepared for an external stakeholder (e.g., a client) around a real problem (authenticity) with the intent for the work to be applied in the workplace (e.g., meaningfulness).

Shadowing Shadowing has been a controversial discussion topic among WIL practitioners where some institutions have included it as a high proximity and low authenticity form of WIL whilst 40

Defining work-integrated learning

others see it outside of the scope of WIL. Shadowing provides students with useful learning experiences and draws from similar literature that informs WIL. However, the predominant practice of shadowing involves students following and observing (shadowing) an employee who is undertaking work activities in the workplace (Watts, 1996) without allowing the student to participate in the work in an authentic, meaningful, and purposeful way. Thus, shadowing may be useful preparation for WIL, contribute to the understanding of employability skills, and allow for the observation of authentic tasks; however, without students actively engaging in authentic, meaningful, and purposeful tasks, shadowing cannot be considered as WIL. There are sporadic mentions outside the literature of ‘enhanced shadowing experiences’ where, in addition to shadowing in the workplace, students are also engaged in some work activities. If these activities actively engage students in meaningful, authentic, and purposeful work-focused tasks, consideration should be given that these activities are perhaps a variant of the work-placement model of WIL rather than shadowing.

Simulations without an external stakeholder The inclusion of simulations within WIL has been actively debated by the WIL community, with some educational institutions including simulations as a form of WIL. Simulations can be virtual learning experiences, such as online activities using virtual reality around a common workplace scenery (e.g., flight simulations, police training of armed confrontations), engaging with work-related tasks with a virtual, computer generated ‘employer,’ or artificial non-virtual settings that mimic a real setting (e.g., role-play, nurse and doctor training) (Chernikova et al., 2020). Such simulations provide insightful learning experiences for students; however, depending on the nature of the simulation design, they may not be WIL (Wood et al., 2020). Simulations were subject to discussion by Wood et al. (2020), who delineated them as a model of WIL from the practice of simulations that are not WIL. Here the relevant defining element of WIL is the inclusion of an external partner or lack thereof. An example of simulations as WIL is where a real (authentic) external stakeholder has direct input into the student’s work activities and where the work activities will be meaningful for the external stakeholder (e.g., where student work is intended to refine the workplace practice). However, simulations that do not include direct input from an external stakeholder are learning activities that do not include one of the defining elements of WIL. However, it is not uncommon to include such simulations in a WIL program as part of preparing students before they engage with WIL (see, e.g., Carmody et al., 2020). It is likely that further technological advances in virtual reality will inform continued debate around whether high-quality simulations should be seen as a model of WIL.

Extracurricular work experience Extracurricular experiences encompass a diverse range of experiences outside the curricular requirements that may or may not in part be arranged by the educational institution whereby students voluntarily engage with a range of activities such as sport, interests, clubs, community volunteering, through to part-time work. By definition, what is extracurricular is not situated within the curriculum. Extracurricular experiences have been shown to benefit student development of interpersonal skills and study commitment (Feldman, 2005). Workplace-based extracurricular experiences, especially when relevant to the student’s study direction, can be informative learning opportunities that may inform his or her future actions and choices; however, as such experiences are outside the curriculum, there is no requirement to assess 41

Karsten E. Zegwaard et al.

the student learning progression and outcomes. It is, however, not unusual for educational institutions to legitimize extracurricular experiences as WIL by, for example, shifting these experiences into a WIL offering (i.e., reforming extracurricular experiences as curricular experiences). Similarly, educational institutions have pathways that allow prior work experiences (before attending the institution) to be recognized as meeting WIL learning outcome requirements through Recognition of Prior Learning credits. Such recognition of prior learning would require appropriate evidence that the WIL learning outcomes have been satisfactorily met.

Conclusion As WIL continues to expand and evolve across the higher education sector, it is important to articulate what the practice of WIL is, allowing for subsequent discussions around intentions and good practice. It is important to acknowledge that defining the practice of WIL is a separate, albeit related, discussion from defining ‘good practice’ of WIL and describing the intentions of WIL (e.g., employability outcomes, citizenship). The definition of the practice of WIL presented in this chapter is offered to help clarify the outer realms of the field of WIL and inform the WIL literature as it further explores and develops elements of good practice and quality. The definition identifies WIL as a curriculum-based educational approach including multiple models, involving three parties (educational institution, the student, and an external stakeholder), and where the student is both a learner and a worker. This definition will assist educational institutions and national associations in developing their own definitions to suit their specific strategic directions and contexts. As the scholarly understanding of the practice of WIL continues to advance, the contexts where WIL is applied continue to develop, and local and international circumstances continue to change, so our understandings of what defines the practice of WIL may also evolve and adapt. It is, therefore, important to see defining the practice of WIL as an ongoing discussion. As research and development improves the practice of WIL, the learning approach will continue to provide students with transformational learning opportunities where benefits gained will impact students’ immediate and long-term career choices and the workplaces where they seek out their careers. It is our hope that this chapter will inspire further development, refinement, and research in the field of WIL.

Acknowledgments We would like to gratefully acknowledge the colleagues and reviewers involved with developing, testing, and critiquing the definition – their feedback was invaluable in refining the final version of the definition.

Notes 1 WACE: The international association for WIL, formerly an acronym for the World Association of Co-operative Education, now operating as the World Association for Co-operative and WorkIntegrated Education, retaining WACE as the formal short version of the name. 2 CEWIL: Cooperative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada. 3 WILNZ: Work-Integrated Learning New Zealand. 4 ACEN: Australian Collaborative Education Network.

42

Defining work-integrated learning

References Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Jorre de St Jorre, T., & Johnson, L. (2022). Authentic assessment design for work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 37–46). Routledge. Asplund, F., & Flening, E. (2022). Boundary spanning at work placements: Challenges to overcome, and ways to learn in preparation for early career engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education, 47(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2021.1889467 Barrett, A., Hovels, B., den Boer, P., & Kraayvanger, G. (1998). Exploring the returns to continuing vocational training in enterprises. A review of research within and outside of the European Union. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED422508.pdf Bean, M., & Dawkins, P. (2022). University-industry collaboration in teaching and learning. Department of Education Skills and Employment Australia. https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-reviewsand-consultations/resources/universityindustry-collaboration-teaching-and-learning-review Billett, S. (2009). Developing agentic professionals through practice-based pedagogies: Final report for ALTC Associate Fellowship. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Bradford, I. W. (1995). International recognition of vocational qualifications. International Vocational Education and Training Association Conference (South Africa, May 1995), South Africa. Braunstein, L. A., Takei, H., Wang, F., & Loken, M. K. (2011). Benefits of cooperative and workintegrated education for employers. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 277–286). World Association for Cooperative Education. Brewer, M. (1990). Sandwich courses, United Kingdom. Journal of Cooperative Education, 26(2), 14–22. Bridges, D. (1993). Transferable skills: A philosophical perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 18(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079312331382448 Cameron, C., & Orrell, J. (2022). Governance and risk management. In S. Ferns, A. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 215–226). Routledge. Campbell, M., Russell, L., McAllister, L., Smith, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., & Barrett, M. (2019). A framework to support assurance of institution-wide quality in work-integrated learning. Queensland University of Technology. https://research.qut.edu.au/wilquality/wp-content/uploads/sites/261/2019/12/FINALFRAMEWORK-DEC-2019.pdf Campbell, M., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2011). Values, ethics and empowering the self through cooperative education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 12(3), 205–216. Campbell, M., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2015). Developing critical moral agency through workplace engagement. In M. Kennedy, S. Billett, S. Gherardi, & L. Grealish (Eds.), Practice-based learning in higher education: Jostling cultures (pp. 47–64). Springer. Carmody, C., Duffy, S., Brown, L., & Del Fabbro, L. (2020). Preparing for work-integrated learning during COVID-19: How a new virtual orientation tool facilitated access for all. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 545–557. Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Seidel, T., & Fischer, F. (2020). Simulationbased learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499–-541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544 Coll, R. K. (1996). The BSc(Technology) degree: Responding to the challenges of the education marketplace. Journal of Cooperative Education, 32(1), 29–35. Coll, R. K., Eames, C., Paku, L., Lay, M., Hodges, D., Bhat, R., Ayling, D., Fleming, J., Ferkins, L., Wiersma, C., & Martin, A. (2009). An exploration of the pedagogies employed to integrate knowledge in work-integrated learning. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 43(1), 14–35. Connaughton, J., Edgar, S., & Ferns, S. (2014). Assessing WIL. In S. Ferns (Ed.), Work-integrated learning in the curriculum (pp. 27–31). HERDSA. Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning: A guide to effective practice. Routledge. Cox, J., & Simpson, M. D. (2016). Exploring the link between self-efficacy, workplace learning and clinical practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(3), 215–225. Dean, B. A., & Campbell, M. (2020). Reshaping work-integrated learning in a post-COVID-19 world of work. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 355–364.

43

Karsten E. Zegwaard et al. Dean, B. A., Eady, M. J., & Yanamandram, V. (2020). Advancing non-placement work-integrated learning across the degree [Editorial]. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(4). https://ro.uow.edu. au/jutlp/vol17/iss4/1 Drewery, D., & Pretti, T. J. (2021). The building blocks of relevant work experiences. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(2), 241–251. Drewery, D., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2020). Contributions of work-integrated learning programs to organizational talent pipelines: Insights from talent managers. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(3), 275–288. Drysdale, M. T. B., & McBeath, M. (2014). Exploring hope, self-efficacy, procrastination, and study skills between cooperative and non-cooperative education students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 69–79. Drysdale, M. T. B., Twyford, K., Glenn, B., & Callaghan, S. A. (2022). Work, resilience and wellbeing: The long game of work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 75–84). Routledge. Evans-Greenwood, P., O’Leary, K., & Williams, P. (2015). The paradigm shift: Redefining education. Deloitte. http://landing.deloitte.com.au/rs/761-IBL-328/images/deloitte-au-ps-education-redefined-040815. pdf Feldman, A. (2005). The role of school-based extracurricular activities in adolescent development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 159–-210. https:// doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543075002159 Ferns, S., & Bosco, J. (2014). ePortfolios as evidence of standards and outcomes in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3), 269–280. Ferns, S., Campbell, M., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2014). Work-integrated learning. In S. Ferns (Ed.), Workintegrated learning in the curriculum (pp. 1–-6). Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc. Ferns, S., & Comfort, J. (2014). Eportfolios as evidence of standards and outcomes in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3), 269–280. Ferns, S., Dawson, V., & Howitt, C. (2019). A collaborative framework for enhancing graduate employability. International Journal of Work Integrated Learning, 20(2), 99–111. Ferns, S., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2014). Critical assessment issues in work-integrated learning [Special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3), 179–188. Ferns, S. J., Dawson, V., & Howitt, C. (2022). Professional accreditation: A partnership proposition. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future. Routledge. Fincher, S., Clear, T., Petriva, K., Hoskyn, K., Birch, R., Claxton, G., & Wieck, M. (2004). Cooperative Education in Information Technology. In R. K. Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative education: An international perspective of the theory, research and practice of work-integrated learning (pp. 111–121). WACE. Fleming, J. (2015). Exploring stakeholders’ perspectives of the influences on student learning in cooperative education [special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(2), 109–119. Fleming, J., & Hay, K. (2021). Understanding the risks in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(2), 167–181. Fleming, J., McLachlan, K., & Pretti, T. J. (2018). Successful work-integrated learning relationships: A framework for sustainability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 321–335. Freudenberg, B., Brimble, M., & Cameron, C. (2011). WIL and generic skill development: The development of business students’ generic skills through work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 12(2), 79–93. Gardner, P. D. (2017). Flourishing in the face of constant disruption: Cultivating the T-Professional or adaptive innovators through WIL. In T. Bowen & M. Drysdale (Eds.), Work-integrated learning in the 21st Century: International perspectives on education and society (pp. 69–81). Emerald. Gardner, P. D., & Bartkus, K. R. (2014). What’s in a name? A reference guide to work-education experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 37–54. Garnett, J. (2012). Authentic work integrated learning. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus (pp. 164–179). ACER Press. Gibbs, G. (1994). Developing students’ transferable skills. Oxford Centre for Staff Development, Oxford.

44

Defining work-integrated learning Goldman, A. S., & Stirling, A. E. (2020). Becoming a part while apart: Building professional identity and membership when working and learning remotely. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 387–399. Government of Ontario Canada. (2018). The Ontario curriculum grades 11 and 12: Cooperative education. Ministry of Education Canada. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/cooperativeeducation-2018.pdf Groenewald, T., Drysdale, M. T. B., Chiupka, C., & Johnston, N. (2011). Towards a definition and models of practice for cooperative and work-integrated education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 17–24). World Association for Cooperative Education. Helyer, R., & Fleming, J. (2015). work-based learning terminologies. In R. Helyer (Ed.), The work-based learning student handbook (2 ed., pp. 278–287). Palgrave. Hodge, S., & Smith, R. (2019). Innovation and VET student work placement. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 71(4), 519–537. Hodges, D., Eames, C., & Coll, R. K. (2014). Theoretical perspectives on assessment in cooperative education placements [Special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3), 189–205. Hoskyn, K., Eady, M. J., Capocchiano, H., Lucas, P., Rae, S., Trede, F., & Yuen, L. (2020). GoodWIL placements: How COVID-19 shifts the conversation about unpaid placements. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 439–450. Hutcheson, P. (1999). Cooperative education: Institutional profiles of integrated learning. NCCE Executive Summary Series, No. 2. N. C. f. C. Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED434579.pdf Jackson, D. (2013). The contribution of work-integrated learning to undergraduate employability skill outcomes Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(2), 99–115. Jackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842221 Jackson, D., & Greenwood, K. (2015). Enhancing work integrated learning outcomes for international students in Australia. Edith Cowan University. http://acen.edu.au/docs/enhancing-wil-international-­studentsacen-research.pdf Jackson, D., Shan, H., & Meek, S. (2021). Enhancing graduates’ enterprise capabilities through work-integrated learning in co-working spaces. Higher Education, 1–-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-021-00756-x Jancauskas, E., Atchinson, M., Murphy, G., & Rose, P. (1999). Unleashing the potential of work-integrated learning through professionally trained academic and industry supervisors WACE Conference, Washington, D.C., USA. http://www.waceinc.org/papers/Erin_Jancauskas_6_14_00.pdf Kaider, F., Hains-Wesson, R., & Young, K. (2017). Practical typology of authentic work-integrated learning activities and assessments [Special Issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 152–164. Kakihara, M., & Sorensen, C. (2002). ‘Post-modern’ professional work and mobile technology. New ways of working in IS: The 25th information systems research seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS25). Copenhagen Business School. Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., & Smith, J. (2018). Expanding work-integrated learning (WIL) possibilities: Enhancing student employability through innovative WIL models. https://acen.edu.au/innovative-models/ wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ATN-Final-Report-Expanding-Work-Integrated-Learning-WILPossibilities-October-2018.pdf Kay, J., Ferns, S. J., Russo, A. M., Smith, J., & Younger, A. (2022). Innovation in work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in workintegrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 133–144). Routledge. Kvale, S. (1998). Travel impressions from scholastic education. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Lucas, P. (2017). Positioning critical reflection within cooperative education: A transactional model. AsiaPacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 7(3), 257–268. Martin, A., & Rees, M. (2019a). Student insights: The added value of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(2), 189–199. Martin, A., & Rees, M. (2019b). Students insights: Developing T-shaped professionals through work-­ integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(3), 365–374. Martin, A. J., Rees, M., & Edwards, M. (2011). Work-integrated learning: A template for good practice. Ako Aotearoa.

45

Karsten E. Zegwaard et al. McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework [Special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 337–348. McRae, N., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2018). Work-integrated learning quality framework. University of Waterloo. https://uwaterloo.ca/work-learn-institute/sites/ca.work-learn-institute/files/uploads/files/ wil_quality_framework_-_aaa_-_for_posting.pdf Nevison, C., Drewery, D., Pretti, J., & Cormier, L. (2017). Using learning environments to create meaningful work for co-op students. Higher Education Research and Development, 36(4), 807–-822. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1229268 Oliver, B. (2015). Redefining graduate employability and work-integrated learning: Proposals for effective higher education in disrupted economies. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 6(1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2015vol6no1art573 Orrell, J. (2004). Work-integrated learning programmes: Management and educational quality. In R.  Carmichael (Ed.), Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2004 (pp. 1–4). AUQA Occasional Publication. Orrell, J. (2011). Good practice report: Work-integrated learning. Australian Leaning and Teaching Council. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/GPR_Work_Integrated_Learning_Orrell_2011.pdf Patrick, C.-J., Chambers, D., Andersen, L., Lloyd, K., & Hughes, B. (2022). Service-learning as an approach to work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future. Routledge. Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). The WIL [Work Integrated Learning] report: A national scoping study. The final report to the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279477734_The_WIL_Work_Integrated_Learning_ report_a_national_scoping_study_Final_Report Peach, D., & Gamble, N. (2011). Scoping work-integrated learning purposes, practices and issues. In S. Billett & A. Henderson (Eds.), Developing learning professionals: Integrating experiences in university and practice settings (pp. 169–186). Springer. Pretti, T. J., Etmanski, B., & Durston, A. (2020). Remote work-integrated learning experiences: Student perceptions. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 401–414. Raelin, J. A. (1997). A model of work-based learning. Organization Science, 8(6), 563–579. Rowe, A., Ferns, S., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2022). The future of work-integrated learning: Vision and insights. In S. Ferns, A. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Theories, practices and research in work-­ integrated learning in Australia: Enhancing employability capabilities for a sustainable future (pp. 251–268). Routledge. Rowe, A. D., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2022). Support for student learning in work-integrated learning: A holistic framework. In S. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 96–106). Routledge. Rowe, A. D., Winchester-Seeto, T., & Mackaway, J. (2012). That’s not really WIL! Building a typology of WIL and related activities. In M. Campbell (Ed.), Collaborative education: Investing in the future - Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN) National Conference (pp. 246–252). Australian Collaborative Education Network. Rowe, A. D., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2017). Developing graduate employability skills and attributes: Curriculum enhancement through work-integrated learning [Special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 87–99. Rowe, P. M. (2017). Toward a model of work experience in work-integrated learning. In T. Bowen and M. T. B. Drysdale (Eds.), Work-integrated learning in the 21st century: Global perspectives on the future (pp. 3–17). Emerald. Ruskin, J., & Bilous, R. (2022). Engaging stakeholders in work-integrated learning: A sustainable model for curriculum co-creation. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, and K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 49–59). Routledge. Sachs, J., Rowe, A. D., & Wilson, M. (2017). Good practice report – WIL. Report undertaken for the Office of Learning and Teaching. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/WIL_Report.pdf Salter, P., Lowrie, K., Howard, E., Bhati, A., Wong, C., Miles, D., & Jones, P. (2021). A continuum for global citizenship: Analyzing the complex transformations of service-learning. International Journal of Work Integrated Learning, 22(2), 199–211.

46

Defining work-integrated learning Sattler, P., & Peters, J. (2013). Work-integrated learning in Ontario’s postsecondary sector: The experience of Ontario graduates. The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Sauter, E. (1999). The risks and opportunities of learning on the job. European Journal of Vocational Training, 17, 14–24. Smith, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: A comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360. 2011.558072 Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2014). The impact of work integrated learning on student work-readiness. Office for Learning and Teaching. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/337518 Smith, C., Ferns, S. J., & Russell, L. (2022). A quality framework for developing and assuring high-quality work-integrated learning curricula. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 107–120). Routledge. Smith, C., & Worsfold, K. (2015). Unpacking the learning-work nexus: “priming” as lever for high-­ quality learning outcomes in work-integrated learning curricula. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchesteron-Thames), 10(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.806456 Smith, M., Brooks, S., Lichtenberg, A., McIlveen, P., Torjul, P., & Tyler, J. (2009). Career development learning: Maximising the contribution of work-integrated learning to the student experience [Australian Learning and Teaching Council] final project report June 2009. University of Wollongong. http://www.nagcas.org. au/uploads/file/ALTC%20Report%20July.pdf Sovilla, E. S., & Varty, J. W. (2011). Cooperative and work-integrated education in the US, past and present: Some lessons learnt. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–15). Work Association for Cooperative Education. Stuber, F. (1998). Planning and scheduling in new computer supported production contexts AI & Society, 12, 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01179797 Trede, F. (2012). Role of work-integrated learning in developing professionalism and professional identity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(3), 159–167. Valencia-Forrester, F., Patrick, C.-J., Webb, F., & Backhaus, B. (2021). Practical aspects of service learning make work-integrated learning wise practice for inclusive education in Australia. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 31–42. Watts, A. G. (1996). Experience-based learning about work. In A. G. Watts, B. Law, K. John, J. M. Kidd, and R. Hawthorn (Eds.), Rethinking careers education and guidance: Theory, policy, and practice (pp. 233–242). Routledge. Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). Quality and standards for work integrated learning. A. G. D. o. E. a. Training. https://www.acds.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/Winchester-Seeto-Literature-Review-Quality-andStandards.pdf Winchester-Seeto, T., Mackaway, J., Coulson, D., & Harvey, M. (2010). ‘But how do we assess it?’ An analysis of assessment strategies for learning through participation (LTP). Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 11(3), 67–91. Winchester-Seeto, T., Rowe, A. D., & Mackaway, J. (2016). Sharing the load: Understanding the roles of academics and host supervisors in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(2), 101–118. Wood, Y. I., Zegwaard, K. E., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2020). Conventional, remote, virtual and simulated work-integrated learning: A meta-analysis of existing practice. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 331–354. Yorke, M. (2011). Work-engaged learning: Towards a paradigm shift in assessment. Quality in Higher Education, 17(1), 117–130. Zegwaard, K. E., Campbell, M., & Pretti, T. J. (2017). Professional identities and ethics: The role of work-integrated learning in developing agentic professionals. In T. Bowen & M. T. B. Drysdale (Eds.), Work-integrated learning in the 21st century: Global perspectives on the future (pp. 145–160). Emerald. https:// doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920170000032009 Zegwaard, K. E., & Coll, R. K. (2011a). Exploring some current issues for cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 45(2), 8–15. Zegwaard, K. E., & Coll, R. K. (2011b). Using cooperative and work-integrated education to provide career clarification. Science Education International, 22(4), 282–291.

47

Karsten E. Zegwaard et al. Zegwaard, K. E., Ferns, S. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2022). Contemporary insights into the practice of work-­ integrated learning in Australia. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning in Australia: Enhancing employability capabilities for a sustainable future (pp. 1–14). Routledge. Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2020). Responding to an international crisis: The adaptability of the practice of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 317–330. Zegwaard, K. E., & Rowe, A. D. (2019). Research-informed curriculum and advancing innovative practices in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 323–334. Zimmerman, B. J. (2009). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Applications (pp. 1–19). Routledge.

48

4 APPLYING EDUCATIONAL THINKING IN WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

Introduction This chapter builds on the discussions in the previous Handbook edition from Van Gyn and Grove-White (2011) about theories of learning in education and Eames and Cates (2011) about the relationship between these theories in work-integrated learning (WIL). While much of their previous discussion is pertinent a decade later, this chapter focuses on understanding how educational thinking can inform the learning that takes place in WIL environments, with a particular focus on the learning that is intended during work placements. Understanding the ways that learning is intended to occur in these placement environments is critical for the success of WIL, particularly when the goal is for students to develop dispositions and capabilities which, as Hay (2020) signals, are largely disciplinary specific. Nevertheless, an analysis of the intended learnings in different disciplines allows generalizations about how educational thinking and theories about learning can influence curriculum design, program structure, and ways of supporting both students and supervisors in WIL programs, including assessment considerations. Wilson (1989) identified that the focus of WIL programs should be student learning from such experiences, rather than simply giving them credit for participation. To support such views to focus on learning, Ricks et al. (1990) and Stull et al. (1997) argued that work-integrated programs should be grounded within theoretical considerations of learning. However, identifying which considerations becomes an important challenge for this type of discussion. These views about focusing on theories of learning led Eames and Cates (2011) to express how the legitimization of WIL experiences was a key concern, which has been under scrutiny for some time. Echoing other WIL researchers and practitioners, Eames and Cates (2011) argued for the need to better understand the complex relationships that exists between learning during work-integrated experiences and learning in traditional classroom environments. Rather than differentiating between these two learning contexts, understanding their integration and complementary nature becomes an important consideration for legitimizing these programs, and also for supporting student learning. However, while Eames and Cates (2011) identify various learning theories that are important to consider for WIL, these are not tightly linked to student learning that may occur during work-integrated experiences, which should be a key consideration (Wilson, 1989). Thus, this chapter focuses on improving that important link by exploring the epistemological and DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-5

49

Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

ontological considerations (i.e., what is out there to be known and how can a person know it) that underpin student learning in work-integrated environments, with particular emphasis on student learning as a result of placement experiences. Such considerations influence the design of programs, including pedagogical strategies and assessment methods within particular disciplines to support students to develop appropriate capabilities and dispositions. Without such theoretical frameworks, the design risks being somewhat ad hoc, reinforcing the concern around legitimization that Eames and Cates (2011) raised, while also negatively affecting student learning outcomes. Questions to consider when exploring the links raised in this chapter between theoretical considerations and student learning include: Who is this program being designed for and what are the contextual considerations for the students? What are the intended student learning outcomes from these experiences? Why are these outcomes important? What do quality outcomes look like in particular discipline settings? What particular experiences will support such learning? To explore these important links and questions, this chapter is structured as follows. Firstly, how educational thinking and learning theories are being conceptualized in this chapter are articulated. Secondly, the nature of authentic and messy contexts in which WIL experiences take place are explored; this acts as an important filter for the focus of this chapter. From these arguments, an evolution of how thinking around learning has developed over time is discussed. Building on this evolutionary discussion, the complex relationship between theories of learning and the learning that occurs in the inevitably messy work-integrated settings is discussed. This thinking is then applied to the nature of the specific tasks that students are commonly asked to do in four different domains, which are then abstracted one level to generate domain-­ independent descriptions of nine tasks that were present in all four domains. Links between the intended thinking and learning associated with each of these tasks to relevant pieces of educational thinking are provided. To finish, some concluding remarks are offered, including how this chapter contributes to future discussion around theories of learning in WIL and how it can be used to influence WIL program design, along with possible research avenues. A number of pieces of educational thinking/theory were selected as being relevant to WIL; however, they are not artificially integrated into a single body of ‘theory,’ nor just presented as a mere catalog of different items. Rather these theories are contextualized in ways that illuminate why they are useful for WIL. This is done in two ways: some pieces of thinking emerge during the discussion that traces the development of educational theories over the past 70 years. A second group flow from the analysis of the thinking needed to tackle different tasks in practicum situations. This approach will result in introducing pieces of theory in two places in the chapter.

Understanding educational theory for work-integrated learning Before embarking on a discussion about educational thinking, including educational theories and how they can support student learning in WIL environments, a central question to ask is: What is educational theory? According to Lee Shulman,1 educational theory is a way of thinking that integrates and underpins many phenomena. He explored the notion of going back through layers of abstraction of narrative accounts of experience to find generalizations across those narratives, although in doing so, he cautioned that going to back too many layers results in thinking that is too generalized, and not going back enough layers results in thinking that is too specific – neither of which are helpful. Rather, he argued for finding a balance between generalization and narrative experiences as educational theory should allow people to not only better understand the world of education, but to also give guidance about acting 50

Applying educational thinking

in specific environments. The above means that some of the ideas that are discussed in this chapter are clearly pieces of educational theory, others are perhaps better described as generalizations of practice and hence the phrase ‘educational thinking’ is used in the chapter title rather than ‘educational theory.’ An example of this thinking is how Mitchell and Carbone (2011) analyzed hundreds of tasks that teachers were using to engage students in their classrooms to create generalizations about the nature of tasks that were effective in promoting student engagement. As these researchers abstracted layers of generalizations, they identified eight dimensions along which tasks could be placed, and six of these dimensions had what could be regarded at a more positive end in terms of generating student engagement; this chapter reports on two of these. Crucial to understanding this work is that Mitchell and Carbone (2011) stressed that most high-quality tasks involved high-end features of only three or fewer of these dimensions. One was a dimension of moving from closed to open tasks. Closed tasks are defined as those that have a specified and expected route and outcome, while open tasks are broader and have either or both of multiple plausible outcomes and multiple ways of tackling the task. This generalization allows teachers to analyze, modify, and create tasks that are more likely to be engaging and, in some cases, more appropriate in authentic real-world contexts. A second dimension will be revisited later, which was the extent to which the tasks were ‘artificial’ or ‘authentic.’ Authentic tasks are defined as ones that did a reasonable job of replicating the practice of practitioners within the domain. In classroom settings, Mitchell and Carbone (2011) reported that it was often, and understandably, difficult to set highly authentic tasks. In the case of WIL, if one is looking for one piece of educational theory so as to understand it as a whole, then situated cognition is important (see Brown et al., 1989; Hennessy, 1993; Lave, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Situated cognition acknowledges how learners make sense and develop specialized knowledge and dispositions when entrenched in a particular environment. Within the context of WIL, it is the appreciation of the authentic context in which the learner is immersed that becomes important. However, situated cognition was developed in the context of career-long immersion in a workplace, not the far shorter practicum placements in WIL where there is frequent and generally structured intervention and support from mentors. It is argued that, given the complexity of WIL environments and the nuances between disciplines, looking at it as a whole in this way has limitations. In particular, situated cognition does not always provide specific advice for improving learning in the practicum. Rather, in this chapter we have adopted a broader view of educational thinking in the way espoused by Shulman to explore generalizations about particular practices and student tasks that occur in these complex environments. Thus, we will offer some ways to consider educational and learning theories for WIL in authentic contexts. However, before exploring this educational thinking, it is important to appreciate the complex contexts where this learning is operating.

The complexities of learning in the swamp When teaching physics at secondary school, simplifications are always applied to various situations to support students’ understanding of concepts. For example, when learning about projectile motion, students are often told to ignore air resistance, allowing them to focus solely on the downward force due to gravity and use kinematic equations. Educational thinking and theories of learning often do something similar – remaining in what Schön (1987) labeled the ‘high ground’ of well-formed and neat problems that can be addressed and discussed in prescribed and expected ways. However, he argued that the real world does 51

Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

not operate in such ways, with the problems professionals face in authentic and real contexts generally residing in a ‘messy swamp.’ Within these authentic environments, the problems that professionals face are not well-­ defined or clear cut. In these environments, professionals, such as a social worker developing a care plan with a victim of domestic abuse, need to exercise their judgment to adapt by making decisions in-the-moment by considering multiple factors, including various stakeholders and variables; moreover, a high proportion of care plans turn out to be initially unsuccessful and must be revised. Within this context, Shulman (2005) argues that professionals have to make decisions in conditions of uncertainty. It is this uncertainty that leads to the use of the adjective ‘swampy’ to complex spaces – a situation such as a mathematician trying to prove Fermat’s last theorem is complex but is not full of uncertainty. To exemplify the impact of uncertainty and the messiness of decision making, consider the example presented earlier about open and closed tasks used by teachers to engage students’ learning (see Mitchell & Carbone, 2011). While teachers may have explicitly considered the use of open tasks and their influence on engagement and learning in their planning processes, the enactment of these strategies may be quite different to what was intended. As teachers are facilitating learning with their class, they will be exercising their professional judgments and making in-the-moment decisions based on student responses; they may need to scaffold the task to be less open or suggest more challenging extensions, for example. The design of WIL programs supports the preparation of professionals to act in these messy and swampy environments – complex spaces where multiple real-world variables are at play, including the need for time-sensitive decisions. While students can develop their understanding within the confines of a university classroom, that understanding will be robustly tested and scrutinized in an authentic environment. Serious complex and ethically fraught dilemmas, for example, are common in social work and must be managed in ways that meet client needs. Thus, it is important to consider what this swamp may look like in different disciplinary contexts along with identifying the (intended) learning in such environments. It is through this consideration that an understanding of the links between learning theories, and the tasks students complete in the messy swamp, can develop. Establishing these links and connections is the central focus of this chapter. Before doing this, however, it is useful to understand how views on theories of learning have developed over time. The trajectory of this development, which reflects increasing awareness of complexities, together with far more sophisticated understandings of learning and cognition, can be said to be one that provides ways of better understanding learning in WIL contexts.

Evolution of educational thinking and learning This section offers a discussion about the evolution of educational thinking and its links to learning from educational research, which tracks the key developments from the 1950s (which aligns with the work of Van Gyn and Grove-White (2011) in the previous Handbook). The evolution of educational thinking during this time has changed the way educators understand both learning and educational research and subsequently how they design and implement their particular programs, including WIL experiences. The developments in theories of learning that researchers subscribed to over these years were consistent with the leading psychology theories and research of that time. For instance, educational thinking and research was dominated by behaviorism until the 1970s, when a shift occurred that saw a greater focus on how students were constructing their own understandings, and what experiences lead to changes in their own conceptual frameworks. 52

Applying educational thinking

Behaviorism Behaviorism focused on changing people’s behavior through the use of objectives and operant conditioning via positive or negative responses (Winch & Gingell, 2008). Within an education setting, behaviorists argue that teachers should write behavioral objectives that specify precisely what they want students to be able to do. For instance, an objective of ‘understanding contour maps’ is too vague. Rephrasing to ‘correctly interprets contour maps’ is better, but again, still too general. Putting more emphasis on what students will be given, what they are asked to do, and what it means to succeed are needed – thus, using the same example, a better behavioral objective could be ‘given a contour map with a line running describing a journey from point A to point B, the student will identify where the route is uphill or downhill, the steepest slope, the highest and lowest point, and the bottom of any valley.’ However, while framing behavioral objectives can be useful to support teachers regarding clarity around what they are trying to achieve, there are many teacher goals that are either not expressible in that manner, or are distorted when this is attempted. For example, if a goal is getting students to understand the value of contributions from migrants to their new country, framing that goal as a behavioral objective of ‘list ten positive contributions of migrants’ does not adequately capture what is desired. Along with creating behavioral objectives, some type of positive or negative response would then accompany students’ responses in order to modify their behavior in the desired way (i.e., to align with the intended objective). For instance, using the example above, if students were able to correctly use contour maps, they would receive some type of positive reinforcement, such as praise. However, if they were incorrect, they would receive some type of negative reinforcement, such as a criticism. Prominent behaviorist and psychologist B. F. Skinner (1974) promoted this type of operant conditioning where you shape the behavior of the subject (e.g., students) by reinforcing the response(s) you want and extinguishing those you do not want; he then applied this to teaching. He was only interested in phenomena that could be seen and measured, as that subscribed to a scientific way of thinking. Hence, he had no interest in the process of learning, nor in what or whether a student understood. Rather, he was only interested in what students could do, which is situated on the high ground and not in the swamp, and deliberately ignored the cognitive aspects of learning. Much educational research throughout the first half of the 20th century was dominated by this assumption. This type of educational research was guided by a positivist paradigm (Mackenzie, 1972) and quantitative research methods were used. A common model was to test the effectiveness of a teaching approach by comparing control and treatment groups when doing a performance test. The 1960s and early 1970s were a time of well-funded reform attempts in school education, but positivist perspectives meant that these were manifested in big projects that developed curriculum materials in the belief that all teachers would use these in the ways intended by the developers and that all the important aspects of delivery could be specified. It became apparent that it was useful to involve teachers in the development process who would trial the new materials. Puzzlingly (at the time), these materials were typically less successful when rolled out widely than had been the case in the trial classrooms. Fullan and Pomfret (1977) discussed this type of research, highlighting that the teachers involved in the trialing and development processes had built richer understandings of the pedagogical purposes of the resources compared to those teachers and schools that had just been given resources to use. These researchers identified that adoption of new materials did not necessarily mean implementation of what the designers intended – teaching and change was more complex and nuanced than had been assumed. 53

Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

The focus and influence of behaviorism in educational research waned during the 1970s as limitations of trying to tightly specify and understand complex tasks became increasingly apparent. For some tasks – ones that can be tightly specified (e.g., welding in engineering or carrying out a primary survey in nursing) – using a behavioral objective way of thinking can be useful. However, as the importance of complexities became better appreciated in teaching and learning, researchers began to understand and notice that the subtle differences in data, such as variations in classroom discourse, which were often attributed to error, were actually of critical importance. A greater recognition of the importance of cognition was paralleled by the increasing use of qualitative and ethnographical approaches to educational research – a significant shift in the domain. The American Educational Research Journal, the peak journal for educational research, only began accepting qualitative research in the late 1980s as they recognized the shift in the world around them. A significant aspect of this shift in research approaches was that the focus was switching to cognition from behavior. One of the first researchers to make this shift and focus on students’ cognitive processes was David Ausubel (1968). He argued that learners organize their knowledge in hierarchical cognitive structures, where more inclusive ideas at the top ‘subsume’ smaller ideas. Ausubel (1968) argued that learning was a process that involved learners integrating new information into their existing cognitive structures. The resultant hierarchies were hierarchies of propositional statements. White (1988) extended this thinking by describing understanding as a network of ‘elements of memory’ that included propositions but also involved other types such as episodes and intellectual skills. A good understanding of a concept, he argued, contained many elements that were richly linked. Ausubel (1968) assumed that learners would keep their cognitive structures coherent and that they would change them if new contradictory information were presented. However, a large body of research in the late 1970s and 1980s challenged this assumption by showing that learners often maintained cognitive structures that contained conflicting, unreconciled elements. This finding was very much unexpected and many of the very early researchers of this phenomenon were genuinely shocked: it exposed new complexities in thinking about learning and resulted in a large number of studies on students’ constructed meanings. It was this type of complexity about how learners made sense and developed their own conceptual framework that led to one of the most important developments in educational theory of the last 40 years: constructivism (Gunstone, 2000).

Constructivism Constructivism is a label that has been used in multiple ways in educational research, and, for us to understand it as a theory of learning, it is best described as a view about how learners make individual meaning from some type of sensory input (Gunstone, 2000). As a theory of learning, constructivism emerged to help science education researchers make sense of repeated observations that students were leaving classrooms with ideas markedly different to what the teachers thought they had taught (Gunstone, 2000). Constructivism identifies that learners will filter what they notice and attend to through their existing thinking, thus they may not notice something that someone else (e.g., a teacher) regards as important. Learners then construct a personal meaning for this by connecting what they see or hear to existing ideas and the meaning they construct may be very different to what was intended. From this perspective, knowledge does not exist in texts ready for transmission, but is constructed by learners as they read and make meaning for what they noticed in the sensory input. A significant consideration is then the need to listen carefully to what students say to check their constructed meanings. 54

Applying educational thinking

One fruitful way to ascertain student knowledge is via stimulating discourse, allowing students to express their own understanding and for an experienced facilitator to notice possible gaps or misunderstandings. For example, students may be presented with a diagram of water pipes by their science teacher to explain electrical circuits, including key understandings such as voltage, resistance, and current. Whilst the teacher has intended student learning in mind, and presents additional information alongside the diagram, constructivism describes how those students make sense of the diagram and additional information through their existing conceptual framework. Constructivism argues that, while all the students experienced the same sensory input, they each will have constructed a unique and personal understanding about the key concepts being taught. This has major implications for the type of classroom discourse that needs to be stimulated. As it was first conceptualized, constructivism described learning as an individual process as a learner interacted with some type of sensory input (e.g., pictures, diagrams, the teacher’s explanations). While learning often happens in this way, Lev Vygotsky’s ideas identified the role of others, which developed constructivism into social constructivism with understandings being socially constructed and enriched as ideas bounced from student to student. Vygotsky, who published his work in Russian, died in 1934. Although some translations of his work appeared in the 1960s (e.g., Vygotsky, 1962), his work was largely unknown until the 1980s when others began to realize how ahead of his time he had been. Included within this construct of social constructivism, Vygotsky (1978) coined the phrase “zone of proximal development” or ZPD to describe the difference between what a learner can do without help, and what the learner cannot do at all. The ZPD is the space between these, identifying what a learner can do and achieve with guidance and encouragement from someone with more knowledge – this is, of course, highly relevant to WIL contexts and this thinking was important in the development of situated cognition by Lave and her colleagues. As the focus within educational research shifted towards cognition and understanding how learners constructed knowledge, attention was also given to how understandings of concepts can change. In particular, seeking to explore how learners can develop and where necessary restructure their own conceptual understandings. This focus led to further developments in educational thinking, particularly around the role of metacognition and how metacognitive reflection supports students developing their conceptual understanding (Baird, 1986).

Metacognition and conceptual change If cognition is viewed as knowing and understanding, metacognition is then going back a layer of abstraction to know about your knowing and understanding – or thinking about your own thinking and beliefs. Metacognition links thinking about your own beliefs in relation to understanding, and identifying possible changes to understanding and beliefs. Metacognition provides a pathway to understanding learning that is built on learners being purposefully reflective of, and intellectually active in, their own learning (see Flavell, 1976, 1979, 1987). For instance, supporting metacognitive learning could take the form of reflecting on and debriefing a particular task with learners to identify how their own thinking has been influenced. Carpendale and Cooper (2021) reported on this type of approach with their physics education pre-service teachers, noting how engaging in a reflective discussion challenged their thinking about their own understandings, contributing to their development as future physics teachers. Thus, when thinking about learning through a constructivist lens, metacognition is the process by which learners reorganize their own conceptual understanding. This process of becoming aware of your own understanding and developing your conceptual framework further 55

Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

is often referred to as conceptual change. Conceptual change was described by Posner et al. (1982) as a way to articulate how learners developed their understanding of scientific concepts. This was an important contribution to thinking about learning, as within science it is common for students to hold alternate conceptions about various phenomena. For example, some students believe that an object has a force within it, and when the object is moving that force is used up, which contrasts the accepted scientific (Newtonian) view of a force acting on an object (Halloun & Hestenes, 1985). Research showed that many students continued to hold versions of this belief while successfully using Newtonian laws of motion. To support students aligning their current view (which may be incorrect) with an accepted way of understanding, Posner et al. (1982) described a four-step process. The first step involves challenging a learner’s pre-conceived understanding to set up a sense of dissatisfaction – that is, their current way of thinking does not agree with the new situation or information. Once in a state of dissatisfaction, the second phase requires a new way of thinking to be provided that the learner finds intelligible, meaning that they are able to comprehend and make sense of it (Palmer, 2003). However, intelligibility they argued, was not enough; the new thinking also had to be perceived as plausible – it is not plausible for many learners that an apparently inert coffee table can suddenly exert an upwards force on an object placed on it. Finally, the new thinking had to be fruitful – the learner saw it as a more useful way of thinking than the previous way; many learners who hold a continuous view of matter do not find it fruitful to think through and adopt a complex model of matter involving invisible particles that behave differently to any macroscopic object. While introduced as a way of thinking about student conceptual change, others took these ideas to create more-specific multi-stepped strategies to support teachers and education (e.g., Cosgrove & Osborne, 1985; Stepans, 1994). What is common through descriptions of conceptual change processes is the need for metacognitive reflection and thinking. That is, learners actively considering their own way of thinking and understanding about a particular situation. In situations of WIL, this notion becomes fundamentally important because students will have developed ways of thinking and knowing about their particular discipline. However, when they are given opportunities to think about their own understanding within an authentic workplace environment, situations will occur that will challenge their thinking and contribute to their conceptual development. Thus, it is now important to explore how theories of learning support WIL settings.

Theories of learning in work-integrated learning After considering the evolution of educational thinking about learning and the swampy nature of authentic real-world contexts, the focus of the chapter returns to the comments made earlier about understanding educational theory from Shulman – in particular, using narrative accounts to construct generalizations so as to be able to understand and predict learning in various situations. To better understand learning that occurs during WIL placements, the tasks that students are expected to do while on placement are explored in four different domains that use WIL opportunities as a core part of their curriculum design: teaching, nursing, engineering, and social work. For this process, industry professionals’ and academics’ views were obtained to better understand the types of tasks that students are required to do while on placement. This analysis was then extended to include the thinking needed to tackle these tasks and what quality would look like in tackling them. This thinking was then linked to relevant pieces of educational thinking that underpin those smaller narrative accounts. Focusing on thinking and learning means that the educational thinking that is discussed has a greater focus on aspects of cognition than the socio-cultural and experiential theories often associated with WIL. 56

Applying educational thinking

Including the outcomes from all of these discussions, or indeed all domains and industries that utilize WIL work placements, is not feasible within this chapter. Similarly, the specific nature and structure of these placements must also be considered, as other WIL contexts may utilize placements where supervision and structures of learning are less prescribed. However, presented here are two contrasting domains, where the only commonality is WIL placements: teaching and engineering.

Teacher education Pre-service teachers (student teachers) typically go on work placement experiences in each year of their qualification. At the start, they are expected to work in an observational role to notice what an experienced teacher is doing, and how pupils are responding. They also may be asked to do some curriculum design work and work with individual or small groups of pupils. During their placement experience, students gradually take on more planning and teaching responsibilities. By the end of the placement, it is expected that they will be working as a full-time graduate teacher, whilst still being appropriately supported by an experienced mentor. The tasks these students are asked to do, along with possible thinking required and what quality in this thinking (not always achieved) would look like, as well as links to the relevant theory, are presented in Table 4.1.

Engineering education When engaging with WIL, engineering students often want to be involved in high level design thinking processes to solve real and authentic problems. While that is part of an engineer’s responsibility, there is much knowledge to develop and skills to master in this environment first. Thus, throughout their placement experiences, students have opportunities to do various tasks, and over time situations get more complex, allowing them to exercise more critical and creative thinking – although these tasks and experiences are also highly dependent on the type of engineering, the nature of the workplace, and the character of the student. Nevertheless, engineering students, like pre-service teachers, are expected to take on more responsibilities throughout their placement experience. Possible tasks given to engineering students on placement are presented in Table 4.2, along with the possible thinking required and what quality of the task would look like, as well as links to the relevant theory.

Disaggregating and abstracting tasks and educational theory Having these types of narrative accounts are extremely useful to understand the (intended) learning that occurs within a complex and swampy environment of a discipline. However, as Shulman cautioned, while beneficial, narrative accounts need to have layers of abstraction to identify useful generalizations. Thus, the analysis added a layer of abstraction to the tables of domain-specific tasks in teaching, nursing, engineering, and social work. The tasks were disaggregated, looking for domain-independent features; this process allowed the creation of descriptions of nine types of tasks that were present in all four domains. Each of these tasks was interrogated to identify the thinking and aspects of learning that they required. This process allowed the identification of relevant pieces of educational theory/thinking that inform both the design and enactment of the task in ways that can support students in WIL contexts. The results from this process are shown in Table 4.3, followed by a discussion of each of the learning theories referred to that has not previously been discussed in this chapter within the context of evolution of theories. 57

Table 4.1  Understanding the links between tasks and theory for a student teacher during a teaching placement in a school Student Teacher Placement Possible thinking required

Quality indicators

Links to relevant theory

Observing an experienced teacher

What will I be focusing on? What can I learn from this lesson? How is the teacher achieving their goals? Are the pupils engaged? How was this achieved?

Identifying new, and perhaps, subtle skills. Recognizing unexpected teachable moments. Using pieces of theory to scaffold observations.

Unit planning

What are my big ideas? Where can I locate this in the pupils’ world? What are common pupil ideas in this area? What are possible sources of engagement for this topic? Which pieces of content are likely to prove challenging? Why? How will I generate and sustain cognitive engagement? What tasks will I ask pupils to do? How will I link to earlier lessons and to relevant big ideas? What key questions will I ask?

Constructing pedagogically powerful big ideas. Constructing a good conceptual flow. Using a variety of types of activities. Adapts, not just adopts ideas from elsewhere. Seeks and uses a range of resources.

Reflection on action. Noticing. Constructivism. Cognitive strategies linking theory and practice, monitoring understandings. Self-regulated learning. Cognitive strategies linking theory and practice.

Lesson planning

Whole class teaching One-on-one teaching

How are the pupils responding? Are some pupils disengaged or not participating? Do all pupils seem able to participate? How can I check on the learning that is occurring? What can I tell about this pupil’s understanding? Constructed meanings? Confidence in being able to succeed?

Designs for cognitive not just behavioral engagement. Designs tasks where all pupils can experience both challenge and success. Willing to try different approaches. Shows creativity, tinkers with practice and with the design of a task in a resource to make it more cognitively demanding/challenging. Shows flexibility and responsiveness; recognizes and capitalizes on critical moments. Builds a supportive and cooperative classroom environment. Looking for opportunities for praise and encouragement. Looks behind correct or incorrect answers and performance. Establishing a trusting relationship.

Self-regulated learning. Cognitive strategies linking theory and practice. Reflection in action.

Reflection in action.

Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

58

Tasks

Reflecting on a lesson

Designing assessment

Did this go as planned? Why? Why not? What have I learnt about teaching this content? About using this approach? About generating and sustaining engagement? Are there any aspects of my practice or my thinking about practice where my views are shifting or need rethinking? What are the skills/understandings I am aiming for? How can I assess for quality learning and high order thinking? Can I structure assessment for learning? Assessment as learning? Can I build a variety of ways for pupils to succeed?

Seeks constructive criticism. Always looking for ways to improve.

Shows creativity. Recognizes flaws in design and wording.

Reflection on action. Constructivism. Metacognition. Explicating tacit thinking. Kolb’s learning cycle. Cognitive strategies linking theory and practice.

Applying educational thinking

59

Table 4.2  Understanding the links between tasks and theory for an engineering student doing a placement with an engineering firm Possible thinking required

Quality indicators

Links to relevant theory

Routine manufacturing (e.g., welding, circuit wiring, fault finding in a circuit board, using a CNC machine). Problem-solving (given scenario-problems or working with actual engineers).

What is the appropriate technique? Why do we do it in this way? What skill is needed? How can efficiency be increased? How can it be scaled?

Ensuring the manufactured product is to an appropriate standard. Processes are appropriately efficient. Result meets appropriate professional and industry standards.

Behavioral objectives. Deep vs. surface processing.

What is the problem? What are some possible solutions? How can we solve the problem? What consequences are there to consider? Reflect on the success or failure of what was done.

Problem-based learning. Reflection in action. Constructivism. Metacognition.

Working as part of an engineering team with other students and engineers.

How are the engineers going about this: identifying issues, selecting and using relevant theory and processes? What are they doing that I would not have thought of doing? How is what I am asked to do contributing: so what is needed from this? What interpersonal skills are there to be mindful of? What is their role in the team? How do I navigate (power) dynamics? What does being an engineer in a team look like? What data is needed? What is the best approach to collect data? How can the data be analyzed? What do the data mean? How does what we constructed or designed work? Do we need to modify? If so, how? How should the data be presented?

Rich understanding of a problem-based approach. Being able to adapt their thinking and designs with different variables or problems, as they arise. Understand impact of designs (e.g., pollution, economic). Ability to identify, understand the nature of, and adopt skilled approaches to practice. Understanding own role within a group. Communicating and collaborating in an effective way. Act as a professional.

Understands the role of prototypes. Collecting data that best informs the project and being able to discuss what it represents and what it means.

Reflection in action. Constructivism. Cognitive strategy, monitoring performance. Metacognition. Problem-based learning. Reflection in action. Constructivism.

Data collection and analysis (around things already built, testing and designing prototypes). Build some things (e.g., a probe to measure soil characteristics, a piece of robotics).

What is the project? What information is needed to build the item? What theory is needed? What are the consequences?

Rich understanding of a problem-based approach. Being able to adapt with different variables. Creativity and professional artistry in design. Understand impact of designs (e.g., pollution, economic). Understanding of relevant performance and safety standards.

Reflection in action. Metacognition. Self-regulated learning. Reflection on action.

Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

60

Tasks

Looking at physical structures and making recommendations (e.g., an old wharf in need of repairs or the design of a new major highway). High level design, with autonomy or a leadership responsibility.

Understanding what they are looking for, such as possible defects or design issues. Being able to make recommendations for improvement (e.g., safety, structural integrity). Flexibility and creativity: identifying different and appropriate ways of solving problems.

Reflection in action. Noticing. Problem-based learning.

What is the project? Is there a problem? What do the stakeholders expect? What processes do they need to work through? What are the indicators of a successful design or outcome? Are there unintended consequences?

Recognition of the ill-formed ‘swamp’ aspects of real-life engineering. Rich understanding of a problem-based approach. Being able to adapt with different variables or problems as they arise (e.g., a particular solution in a design may cause an unintended problem elsewhere). Understand impact of designs (e.g., pollution, economic).

Problem-based learning. Open vs. closed tasks. Reflection on action. Constructivism. Metacognition.

61

Note: These tasks are generalized to engineering, rather than a specific type of engineering.

Applying educational thinking

What are you looking for? Who are you making recommendations to? What are you trying to achieve?

Table 4.3  Domain-independent tasks and relevant pieces of learning theory for work-integrated learning contexts Examples Teaching

Nursing

Engineering

Social work

1. Practicing and developing a skill

Using behavioral objectives. Self-regulated learning. Deep vs. surface processing.

Taking part in, and running, meetings. Writing and pitching for grant applications.

Noticing. Reflection on action (observing and analyzing the practice of the expert). Cognitive strategies: linking theory and practice, monitoring learning. Situated cognition. Reflection on action; monitoring learning. Zone of proximal development. Constructivism. Metacognition. Self-regulated learning. Cognitive strategies: linking theory and practice and monitoring performance. Reflection on action. Deep vs. surface processing.

Correctly making up intravenous medications (e.g., correct diluting). Supporting the personal care of patients (e.g., showering). Shadowing and observing an experienced nurse interacting with patients.

Routine manufacturing (e.g., welding, using a CNC machine, wiring a circuit).

2. Observation of expert practice

Designing and constructing resources. Using the schools learning management system successfully. Observing an experienced teacher, teaching students.

Shadowing and observing an experienced engineer as they design and build prototypes.

Shadowing and observing an experienced social worker interacting with clients.

Reflecting on a lesson and developing professional goals.

Reflecting on an interaction with a patient and developing professional goals.

Planning and running a lesson or learning experience.

Successfully completing clinical handovers.

Analyzing something that did not work and creating actionable steps going forward. Fault-finding in a circuit board.

Reflecting on the failure of a care plan. Discussion on achieving their learning plan goals with supervisor. Establishing a trusting relationship with a client. Choose an ethical dilemma and identify and map a real case onto this.

3. Reflection on performance

4. Developing and practicing professional routines

Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

Relevant learning theories

62

Type of task

Examples Relevant learning theories

Teaching

Nursing

Engineering

Social work

5. Learning roles, behaviors, relationships, ethics, and dilemmas in the professional world 6. Working with one or more experts on a real problem

Situated cognition. Cognitive strategy: monitoring learning and understanding.

Maintaining appropriate patient records.

Taking part in meetings with stakeholders when designing a solution to a problem.

Actively observe how an ethical decision-making framework is utilized.

Reflection on action (observing and analyzing the practice of the expert). Situated cognition. Zone of proximal development.

Demonstrating compliance with the code of ethics for teachers. Developing appropriate relationships with colleagues. Collaboratively planning a unit of work. Moderating student work.

Deciding whether a situation needs escalating to a higher level of care.

Working in a team to diagnose issues and offer solutions for a particular structure.

7. Working relatively autonomously as a professional in that field (professional social skills)

Reflection in action (identifying and responding to the actions of others, drawing on relevant theory as appropriate). Situated cognition.

Facilitating a productive wholeclass discussion. Teaching a sequence of learning.

Interviewing/checking on a patient alone and then reporting to their appropriate line manager. Receiving clinical handover notes and constructing clinical handover notes.

Using problemsolving and design thinking capabilities to solve a given problem. Identifying potential impacts of designs, including risks.

Pairing with an experienced social worker in a home visit to a family violence situation. Referring clients to other services as appropriate. Interviewing a client alone and then reporting to their appropriate line manager. Working with very sensitive data to make decisions.

(Continued)

Applying educational thinking

63

Type of task

Table 4.3  (Continued) Examples Relevant learning theories

Teaching

Nursing

Engineering

Social work

8. Confronting the swamp of real-world professional practice

Problem-based learning. Ill-formed vs. well-formed problems. Noticing. Metacognitive reflection.

Being responsive to pupils’ learning needs and making in-themoment decisions to adapt to seize a teachable moment.

Monitoring patients’ well-being and making in-the-moment decisions to support their care.

Iteratively testing and redesigning a prototype within a real-world context.

9. Working relatively autonomously as a professional in that field (planning skills)

Cognitive strategies: identifying relevant theory and linking it to practice and monitoring performance. Reflection on action. Reflection in action.

Planning and designing a sequence of lessons. Designing authentic, valid, and reliable assessment tasks.

Developing a comprehensive care plan for a patient.

Leading the design for a piece of robotics that is part of a larger solution for a particular project.

Recognize their own emotional responses and create a self-care plan to support their own emotions. Experiencing the failure of an apparently successful intervention as a woman returns to an abusive partner. Developing a comprehensive care plan for a client of family violence.

Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

64

Type of task

Applying educational thinking

Educational thinking for work-integrated learning What follows are pieces of educational theory/thinking listed in Tables 4.1 to 4.3 not already discussed. The tables are intended to provide much of the relevance of each of these to WIL.

Problem-based learning Problem-based learning (PBL) is an approach to teaching and learning that reverses the order by which teaching is often designed. Rather than begin by asking students to learn a number of disaggregated concepts and skills and then linking these into a solution to a real-world problem, PBL begins by confronting students with an authentic and ‘ill-structured’ problem that they can relate to. Ill-structured problems have multiple solutions and students are not provided with all of the information that they will need during provocation. The students have to find and use the relevant theory and data, and utilize skills such as problem solving and critical thinking, building understanding in situations where theories and data can be applied. While first developed for use in a medical education context (Barrows, 1986; Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980), PBL has also been adapted to other educational settings, including schools (Chin & Chia, 2006). A significant advantage of this approach is that students have a greater understanding of why they are learning new information (Gallagher et al., 1995). The problems and scenarios given to enact PBL are ill-formed and ill-structured: learners do not inherently have all of the necessary information to create a solution immediately, and similarly there are multiple solutions (Chin & Chia, 2006). As students seek to solve the problem, the process is entrenched in the ideas of social constructivism espoused earlier as learners construct their knowledge with input from others as they address their problem. Similarly, for deep learning to occur, there needs to be elements of metacognitive reflection throughout, a process that may be supported by a facilitator (e.g., a teacher). As learners grapple with the problem, and are supported by peers and a facilitator, they are within their ZPD. Within WIL settings, the notion of ill-structured problems within a PBL framework becomes fundamentally important as discussed in early comments about the swampy and messy nature of the real world. In contrast, problems within a classroom environment are often neatly structured, given with expectations around what the answer may look like. However, the ill-structured problems posed in authentic workplace settings allow learners to critically use, and examine, their own conceptual framework as they seek to solve an issue. For example, while in a university class, a pre-service teacher may be given a well-formed scenario about a student response that has been developed as a particular teaching situation that the tutor intends will elicit specific responses. In the classroom, however, when the scenarios and problems that may arise are not as predictable – school students will respond in varied ways and the pre-service teacher is now grappling with an ill-formed problem.

Deep versus surface processing Marton and Saljo (1976) developed the construct of deep versus surface processing, which describes two ends of a continuum in relation to the intention or goals of a learner. At one end, surface processors are focused on and interested in learning how to get the task done – they are uninterested in the reasons for why they are doing tasks and the way they are done. These learners are content to remain dependent on being told what to do. In contrast, deep 65

Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

processors are dissatisfied if they do not build a rich understanding about the underpinning ideas of a task – they want to know why a task is done in a certain way. These learners want to work independently with autonomy and not be reliant on being told what to do. A reasonable level of deep processing is needed if PBL is to be successful. The extent to where learners fall along this continuum and their level of processing for completing tasks is as much a temporary state as a deep-seated trait. Learners will move along this continuum depending on a variety of factors, such as their interest in the perceived importance of the task or other demands on their time. Similarly, the assumption that learners should always be operating at the deep processing level is untrue, as seeking reasons and a rich understanding for every task completed is not always desirable. A learner approaching tasks in this way may become bogged down and never move on. Thus, the continuum is, to a large degree, volitional. However, what remains important for the relationship to WIL is being cognizant of this type of continuum and being able to support students to shift along it as needed. For instance, in the case of developing students’ professional capabilities, the student as a learner may need to process tasks at a deep level. For this to occur, workplace mentors and/or university tutors need to support students in ways that build the volition to do so. For example, while some tasks have behavioral objective elements (e.g., an engineer finding a circuit fault, or a nurse writing clinical notes), these tasks can be performed in better ways, including being applied to novel situations, when the learner has a deeper understanding of what they are doing, why they are doing it, and in many professional situations, the possible consequences that may arise.

Cognitive strategies Cognitive strategies is a term used to describe different and specific types of thinking associated with quality learning. Rosenshine et al. (1996) described them as a heuristic to help students tackle less-structured tasks; they review relevant literature including different ways of stimulating cognitive strategies. The construct is widespread in the education literature, but they are described in a range of ways; it is not important here to define constructs. One useful approach is to group cognitive strategies into those that involve different forms of linking and those that involve different forms of monitoring. In classroom contexts, linking includes linking ideas and activities from different lessons, different topics and linking classroom ideas to the outside world – which is crucial in WIL contexts. Monitoring includes monitoring understanding, monitoring performance, and monitoring learning, all of which are important in practicum settings. What is important is that while their value in any educational setting is self-evident, research has shown that many students make less use of them than teachers imagine. Baird (1986) reported widespread use of what he labeled poor learning tendencies (PLTs) – learnt habits of passive, unreflective learning. Two examples of PLTs: he labeled ‘Superficial Attention’ as the habit of not attempting to actively seek meaning and monitor understanding when (say) reading text material; and he labeled ‘Lack of External Reflective Thinking’ as the habit of making no attempt to link classroom ideas and experiences to the wider world. Baird (1986) turned to metacognition to address this situation and had students use a rubric of self-questions that sought to counter each of his PLTs. The review by Rosenshine et al. (1996) was framed around self-questions, which are used in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Scaffolding and promoting cognitive strategies in this way is clearly of value in WIL contexts; debriefing sessions should stimulate and support monitoring performance and changes in

66

Applying educational thinking

understanding. Students may need support in linking theory to the messy world of authentic practice where examples of theory can present differently to what was presented in theory classes.

Self-regulated learning Monitoring performance leads into a large body of educational theory clustered under the label of self-regulated learning (Brown, 1987; Chin & Brown, 2000; Fox & Riconscente, 2008; Winnie, 2014). Like many other terms used within this chapter, this one is used in somewhat different ways. However, the commonality between multiple uses is that many of them involve the learner thinking systematically about all aspects of a task, often constructing a checklist and then independently using this to ensure that they do everything that is required for successful completion (Pintrich, 2004). While there are sometimes strong links between thinking about self-regulated learning and metacognition, it is important to identify that they are different things. While the focus of metacognitive thinking is one’s own understandings and thinking, self-regulated learning is more focused on thinking about the task at hand. For some tasks and the intended learning in WIL situations, thinking about learning through a self-regulated learning lens is useful as it highlights how students can become critical thinkers about the tasks they need to complete. For example, inadequately planned clinical handovers as nurses change shifts cause many adverse events; a student constructing their clinical handover needs to consider, for each patient, what has happened since yesterday, the possible significance of this and what the next shift needs to know including what needs to be monitored and whether a particular variable may be approaching a threshold, requiring escalation to a different level of care. Being self-aware and thinking systemically about the task helps to ensure success.

Reflection on action Schön (1987) described the process of considering alternative approaches after the completion of a task as reflection on action, which is an important consideration when operating in the swamp of real-world environments. There are two important ways to think about reflecting on action in WIL settings, the first being a situation where a student is observing the actions of an expert and then reflecting on what they see. That is, students identify skilled practice and link it to relevant theory, while considering what it means for their own knowledge and skill development. For many WIL environments, this type of opportunity would present itself near the beginning of a placement experience. For example, a social work student may spend some time shadowing an experienced social worker to reflect on how they handled different situations, such as situations when the client’s perception of what was occurring differed to those of the social worker. The second way to think about reflection on action is a learner reflecting on their own actions as they complete tasks. This type of reflection is built into the placement structure of many domains. For example, engineering students may have to write a technical report about something that did not work well. Social work students need to recognize their own emotional responses and contain these, creating a self-care plan to support their own emotions. Pre-service teachers have reflective debrief discussions with their mentors after teaching. However, as this type of reflection on action occurs, it is important to consider how it influences knowledge and future actions. One useful model to conceptualize this type of reflection on action is the experiential learning model of Kolb (1984).

67

Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

This model highlights how reflection on action leads to new and revised actions as practice and understanding are continually refined and extended. As Eames and Cates (2011) highlight, this model eloquently describes learning cycles within WIL; subsequently, it can be readily used to inform the design and assessment of a placement experience. This model reflects a perspective that professionals should not rest contented when they have learnt to operate competently. Rather, professional practice should be seen as a career-long journey of exploration, development, and refinement. In some professions, such as teaching, this perspective is being increasingly mandated and built into performance criteria.

Reflection in action and noticing Building from reflection on action, Schön (1987) also described professionals engaged in what he labeled ‘reflection in action.’ Here, the reflection is occurring during professional practice involving almost instantaneous reactions to what is happening (cf., reflection after action, as described above). To exemplify what was meant, Schön (1987) gave an example of a musician who missed the first two rehearsals with an orchestra that was playing an unfamiliar work. Upon joining the orchestra, they reacted to how the piece was being interpreted and adjusted their playing to match. This example shows how a person can be cognizant of what is occurring in a given situation, and utilize their existing knowledge and skills to make adjustments in the moment. In many education settings, the term ‘teachable moments’ is used to describe a unique and unexpected situation that can be seen and immediately responded to. While responding, the intention of the lesson may deviate, but the learning from that teachable moment can be significant. Being able to recognize and act in the moment requires knowledge and skill, and it is strongly linked to ‘noticing’ (Chan et al., 2021). Within this context, noticing refers to how a professional notices what is occurring in a particular situation. For experts, this type of action is often subtle and tacit, with an expert being unable to articulate what it is that they are doing. In the case of a student on placement, it is challenging as they do not have the knowledge and skill, and sensitivity to notice. For example, a student nurse may observe their supervisor engaging in a cordial chat with patients on morning rounds, but they may not notice that their mentor is actually checking on each patient’s emotional and cognitive states. A student teacher may notice that their supervisor’s class is quiet and on-task, but not notice the extent to which students are making independent decisions about what they are doing. An experienced chemical engineer is given a complex set of data involving multiple variables relating to an extraction process that is not working. The student, while observing the engineer identifying the critical issue, may not notice the expertise and strategies used to identify the source of the issue without having to work through all of the data. There are obvious consequences of this for both pre-briefing and debriefing discussions in WIL contexts. Schön (1987) referred to the role of artistry in professional practice, but described it as often being used as a junk category that closed off further exploration because it was regarded as something innate to the expert and not capable of elucidation of transfer to others. Noticing subtle features of expert practice is a key part of being able to unpack its artistry. Since a central goal of WIL is to develop students’ capabilities as autonomous professionals, it is important to ensure there are many opportunities to reflect in action within the swamp. It is only within these environments that they can develop their knowledge and skills to notice and adapt. For example, a pre-service teacher needs to experience a lesson not going to plan in order to reflect in action (and then on action) – to go through a metacognitive process and develop their understanding including a greater awareness of the multiple variables to be navigated. 68

Applying educational thinking

Conclusion and implications As has been signaled throughout this chapter, there is no single piece of educational theory that provides a comprehensive underpinning to WIL. Moreover, the whole notion of the phrase ‘educational theory’ and its inevitable overlap with ‘educational thinking’ means that this situation should be expected. However, what we have done is highlighted the tasks that students are typically asked to do while embarking on a work-integrated placement experience, analyzed the thinking needed for these tasks, and identified relevant pieces of educational thinking that can help students, mentors, and course designers improve placement experiences and analyses of these. The distinction made by Schön (1987) between the high ground of neat, well-formed problems and the complex and messy swampy nature of real world professional practice is fundamental to the thesis presented in this chapter. This distinction highlights the value of understanding the journey of education researchers as they recognized what they were not researching in a space dominated by behaviorism and approaches that sought to regard what was going on in classrooms of large numbers of teachers as classifiable into one or other of two groups, while regarding differences in these groups as sources of error as opposed to sensitive and nuanced variations. It was these differences and sensitivities that developed into an important shift to focus on cognition and understanding, and metacognition throughout the 1970s. The nature of students’ learning while on work-integrated placements has made it essential to identify and track these increased sensitivities to the nature of learning, cognition, and metacognition. By identifying tasks and appropriate educational thinking in different domains and disaggregating these, we have listed constructs that are important to this narrative, which are important when thinking about WIL. For example, cognitive strategies, constructivism, ZPD and social constructivism, noticing, reflection on action, and reflection in action are situated within a suite of educational thinking and theorizing, which is critical to understanding and predicting learning that occurs during WIL. WIL is firmly placed within the messy swamp identified by Schön (1987). It is useful to return to the typology of the characteristics of tasks that influenced pupil engagement identified by Mitchell and Carbone (2011), and it is important to note that the tasks placement students are asked to undertake are almost always open and are always highly authentic. Of course, there are important domain-specific features, and this is merely a selection of specific examples. Nevertheless, Table 4.3 identifies and summarizes nine different kinds of tasks that were identified in all four of the domains that were investigated, along with the thinking each of these tasks requires and links to relevant pieces of educational thinking. These nine different kinds of tasks provide a way for students, mentors, and work-integrated course designers to scaffold learning to develop capabilities for a successful placement and for working in the domain. Reflection on practice and the cognitive strategy of linking practice with theory appear multiple times, but this is because reflection on practice typically requires such links to be established. There are multiple aspects of reflection, and mentors and supervisors need to build a repertoire of ways that stimulate reflective thinking to elicit metacognition. For instance, this could include thinking about the following prompts: • • • • •

What have I learned? Did I add new knowledge or change existing ideas or beliefs? What critical moments led towards a change in thinking? What have I learned about doing this type of task? Could this be improved? (How?) Is the final product or outcome what was intended? What have I learned about the learning purposes of this sort of task? 69

Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell

While reflection on action can be seeded with purposes, prompts, and questions, effective reflection in action is in some ways more challenging for students while on placement. For experienced practitioners, a critical aspect of being able to reflect in action is their ability to draw on a rich, and often vast, array of relevant prior experiences, and in the moment to recognize the significance of what has just occurred and respond in an expert way. Framing reflection in action in this way makes it clear how this thinking must be seen as a journey for novices, but one that can be facilitated and supported through discussion during work-­ integrated placements with experienced mentors and supervisors. One assumption that could be held about WIL is that students may acquire new knowledge and develop new skills via osmosis just by being there, which is part of the legitimization arguments from Eames and Cates (2011). However, such an assumption is not appropriate. Rather, we have used an overview of educational thinking and developments in educational theory and research to argue that, in the ideal world, the thinking and learning of students during a work-integrated placement should be seen as rich, complex, multi-layered, multi-focused, and metacognitive, though it is important to realize that achieving this will require careful planning, explicit scaffolding, and students learning how to learn in informed, intellectually active, and independent ways. Many students may not share this assumption, and thus preparation for placements should include proactively challenging it. Of course, there never can be an ideal world, but the pieces of educational thinking that we have referred to can help students, mentors, and course designers improve placement experiences by focusing on what the intended learning is, why it is important to consider, and appropriate ways to support that type of learning. Future research in the area of understanding learning in WIL contexts could be to use a multiple case study approach (e.g., Yin, 2014) to better understand first-hand learning experiences. While we have reported on expert thinking from four domains, the narratives generated are somewhat general and relatively broad. Given the range of disciplines that utilize WIL, it will be important to analyze and appreciate narrative accounts of student learning. Throughout this process, raw narrative data can be abstracted, and generalizations identified and corroborated to both validate and refine the links to educational thinking highlighted in Table 4.3. Such research will further develop understanding around the relationship between educational thinking, theories of learning, and WIL to enhance educational outcomes.

Acknowledgments We could not have written this chapter without the descriptions of the nature of the placement experiences and the tasks that students are asked to do in three domains that were generously provided by Jennifer McConachy (social work), Katie and Andy Douglas (nursing), and Karsten Zegwaard, Ben Dean, and Jim Siemon (engineering). Similarly, we appreciate the thoughts from Cheryl Cates and the multiple pieces of advice from Richard Gunstone about this chapter, and we are extremely grateful for the time and shared wisdom of Lee Shulman.

Notes 1 Personal communication with Lee Shulman on 1 September, 2021. Shulman is an Emeritus Professor at Stanford University and a retired President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

70

Applying educational thinking

References Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart & Wilson. Baird, J. R. (1986). Improved learning through enhanced metacognition: A classroom study. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 263–282. Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education (Vol. 1). Springer. Brown, D. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In E. F. Weinert & H. R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, mitivation and understanding (pp. 65–116). Lawrence Erlbaum. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Carpendale, J., & Cooper, R. (2021). Conceptual understanding procedure to elicit metacognition with pre-service physics teachers. Physics Education, 56(2), 1–10. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ abc8fd Chan, K. K. H., Xu, L., Cooper, R., Berry, A., & van Driel, J. H. (2021). Teacher noticing in science education: Do you see what I see? Studies in Science Education, 57(1), 1–44. Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138. Chin, C., & Chia, L. G. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology project work. Science Education, 90(1), 44–67. Cosgrove, M., & Osborne, R. (1985). A teaching sequence on electric current. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children’s science (pp. 112–123). Heinmann. Eames, C., & Cates, C. (2011). Theories of learning in cooperative and work-integrated education. In R. Coll & K. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2 ed., pp. 41–52). World Association for Cooperative Education. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Erlbaum. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In E. F. Weinert & H. R. Kluwe (Eds.), Matacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 21–30). Lawrence Erlbaum. Fox, E., & Riconscente, M. (2008). Metacognition and self-regulation in James, Piaget and Vygotsky. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 373–389. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335–397. Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., Sher, B. T., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95(3), 136. Gunstone, R. F. (2000). Constructivism in the classroom. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education; Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (Ninety-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part 1) (pp. 254–280). University of Chicago Press. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056–1065. Hay, K. (2020). What is quality work-integrated learning? Social work tertiary educator perspectives. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(1), 51–61. Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269308560019 Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice, perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). American Psychological Association. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Mackenzie, B. D. (1972). Behaviourism and positivism. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 8(2), 222–231.

71

Jared Carpendale and Ian Mitchell Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I-outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. Mitchell, I., & Carbone, A. (2011). A typology of task characteristics and their effects on student engagement. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(5), 257–270. Palmer, D. H. (2003). Investigating the relationship between refutational text and conceptual change. Science Education, 87(5), 663–684. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1056 Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–408. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of scientific conceptions: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. Ricks, F., Van Gyn, G., Branton, G., Cutt, J., Loken, M., & Ney, T. (1990). Theory and research in cooperative education: Practice implications. Journal of Cooperative Education, 27(1), 7–20. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate question: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism (1st ed.). Knopf. Stepans, J. (1994). Targeting students’ science misconceptions: Physical science concepts using the conceptual change model (1st ed.). Showboard. Stull, W. A., Crow, D., & Braunstein, L. A. (1997). An investigation to identify needed research in cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 32(2), 30–35. Van Gyn, G., & Grove-White, E. (2011). Theories of learning in education. In R. Coll & K. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2 ed., pp. 31–39). World Association for Cooperative Education. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. M.I.T. Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identify. Cambridge University Press. White, R. T. (1988). Learning science. Blackwell. Wilson, J. W. (1989). Assessing outcomes of cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 25(2), 38–45. Winch, C., & Gingell, J. (2008). Philosophy of education: The key concepts (2nd ed.). Routledge. Winnie, P. H. (2014). Issues in researching self-regulated learning as patterns of events. Metacognition Learning, 9, 229–237. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

72

5 ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY Leveraging its explanatory potential for work-integrated learning Patrice Twomey and T. Judene Pretti

The complex business of organizations Organizations are living organisms with a particular purpose (Oswick & Grant, 2016). According to Waldo (1978), organizations represent complex interactions of phenomena, as experienced at the level of the individual, the group, and the organization. Organizations are also at the heart of work-integrated learning (WIL). The intentional disruption of placement centers on the student interns’ move from their higher education organization to their employing organization. By design, this switch in organizational loci requires students to leave behind their educational organization in order to achieve temporary membership of an employing organization and a new team collective. A rich discourse exists around the conceptualization of work placement as located in learning, skills development, and graduate readiness. However, the lens of organizational theory has received relatively scant attention across WIL research. As a field of study, organizational theory is complex and diverse, covering myriad disciplines including economics, sociology, anthropology, and psychology, as well as applied fields such as human resource management and management science. Pfeffer (1997) argues that this diversity has militated against the emergence of a common theory of organizations. It is not, therefore, our intention in this chapter to cover all aspects of organizational theory. Rather, our purpose is to explore its evolution and its potential, as a critical lens, to observe, understand, and explain the phenomenon of placement in terms of individual students who temporarily inhabit a single employing organization (or single part of an organization). To understand current thinking on organizational theory, it is useful to begin with an overview of the key theoretical pillars and track their pathway to the current theory landscape.

Organizational scholarship: the eating of a theoretical elephant Organizational theory, put simply, is the study of the behavior and nature of formal social organizations, the behaviors of individuals, groups, and subgroups within them, and their interrelationships with the internal and external environments within which they operate (Crowther & Green, 2004; Miner, 2005). Classical Weberian theory of management was characterized by operational efficiency, economic efficacy, and a detachment from workers’ needs, reflecting a view of organizations being rigid, hierarchical, and rule/role oriented DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-6

73

Patrice Twomey and T. Judene Pretti

(Blau, 1963). A counterpoint to this school of thought was offered by scientific management theorists such as Taylor (1911) and Fayol (2016) whose focus shifted towards standardization and product optimization. Crucially, Taylor shed light on the relationship between production, remuneration, and worker satisfaction levels, thereby sowing the seeds of an early performance incentive system (Wagner-Tsukamoto, 2007). Criticism of scientific management theory points to the alienating effects of treating workers as mere components of the organizational machine. In a radical inflection, the emergent neo-classical school of thought drove the development of a scholarly concern for human behavior in the work context, the 1930s Hawthorne Studies (Muldoon, 2012) serving as a high-profile example of the same. The studies concluded that informal organizations co-exist alongside formal organizations. They further found that socio-psychological factors (at the level of the group and the individual) exercise an important influence on human behavior as well as employee satisfaction, performance, and productivity. This swing towards an evidence-based understanding of organizations and workers was groundbreaking and paved the way for influential human behavior theorists such as Herzberg and Maslow, particularly across motivation discourse. Maslow’s seminal hierarchy reflected individual workers’ physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization needs (Neher, 1991). The work of Herzberg (2017) attempted to extend this understanding. His categorization of needs centered around hygiene factors (salary, working conditions, and fringe benefits), and those needs that can motivate individual workers (recognition, responsibility, achievement, opportunities for progression). Maslow’s and Herzberg’s work reflects Barnard’s core contention that an organization’s success is contingent on being able to satisfy the motivations of its employees (Nirenberg, 1978). The systematic study of organizations since the 1960s reflects the increasing complexity and dynamism of the external environment, the demands of accelerating technological developments, and the emergence of a more broadly based pool of workers. A diversity of theories attempts to explain and understand modern organizational contexts. Systems organizational theory, for example, focuses on the internal dynamics of the organization’s structure and behavior, conceptualizing organizations as an assemblage of parts that form a complex whole (Johnson et al., 1964). Its ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach was rejected by contingency (or situational) theorists whose ‘it-depends-on-the-situation’ view contends that organizational effectiveness is highly contextualized and contingent on multiple (often uncertain) determinants in the external environment (Harney, 2016; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). McGregor’s (1960) work on Theory X and Theory Y draws a notable distinction between ‘old school’ mechanistic incentive schemes and the higher ‘reward’ motivation of self-actualization. His findings reflect an emergent acceptance of human behavior as a legitimate lens of organizational studies. This truncated review of the evolution of organizational theory reflects a complex, multifaceted, theoretical landscape that is evident across current organizational thinking and practice. The focus of this chapter is an exploration of the organizational context of WIL. There are, of course, many levels of observation available but we consider that work placement is most meaningfully observed in terms of students as organizational members. For this reason, the unit of observation is designedly the individual student. As the review shows, there are multiple organizational theoretical lenses through which the placement phenomenon might be observed and understood. A number of approaches were considered, in particular lenses that might be used to explain what happens when newcomers join an organization. These include socialization, adjustment, expectation, fit, and newcomer theories. It was held that socialization wields a particular explanatory power. Firstly, it offers the advantage of accounting for many

74

Organizational theory

of the organizational experiences that students are likely to have on placement. Secondly, as a major overarching organizational theory, socialization displays a relatively high degree of connectivity with other individual level organizational theories, a number of which will be visited in this chapter. Accordingly, the point of departure is organizational socialization. It is further acknowledged that there are many tangible expressions of WIL. However, the focus of this inquiry is specifically on in-company placements, where students are required to be embedded in their organization for the duration of their placement.

Definitions of organizational socialization Organizational beginnings are not easy and are often turbulent. This is true for both regular organizational newcomers and for student interns making the temporary transition ‘from ivory tower to concrete jungle’ (Candy & Crebert, 1991). According to Saks and Gruman (2012), a fragmented and incomplete field of socialization theory seeks to explain this boundary passage from neophyte organizational entrant to more fully functioning organizational member. Across the discourse, socialization has indeed been variously defined. Earlier scholars tended to view it narrowly as an instrument of orientation, or molding, whose primary purpose is to ‘explain the rules and teach the role.’ The scholarly conceptualization of socialization has, however, expanded in more recent years. Van Maanen and Schein (1979, p. 211) define it as a ‘process of learning the ropes, the process of being indoctrinated and trained, the process of being taught what is important in an organization or its sub-units.’ Katz (1980) defines socialization as the events and activities through which newcomers learn and make sense of their new work experiences. According to Lacaze and Rosse’s (2001) more generic definition, socialization centers on the ways in which newcomers are absorbed into an organization. In their work, Saks and Gruman (2011) view it as the process whereby a newcomer acquires the skills to fulfil a particular organizational role in a specific setting. Ghosh et al. (2013) define it in broader terms as a learning process through which newcomers acquire information in order to perform their job and fit into their new organization. The work of Cooper-Thomas and Anderson (2005) focuses on the adjustment and learning that newcomers have to undergo in order to meet organizational standards and norms. Likewise, Bauer et al. (2007) train their focus on the newcomer, defining socialization as the procedure whereby new employees are transformed from strangers to fully functioning organizational members. Taormina’s (2009) expanded definition sees socialization as the acquisition of a portfolio of necessary knowledge, skills, and responsibilities that enables newcomers to adapt their behaviors to those of their organizational peers and to the culture of their new organization. For Chao (2012), socialization is a learning and adjustment process that enables newcomers to assume a new organizational role that is congruent with both the needs of the organization and themselves. Viewed overall, the literature has come to reflect the responsibilities and efforts both at the level of the organization (and its agents) and at the level of the individual newcomer in the dynamic process of socialization. It has also moved from early attempts to conceptualize it towards the development of scales to measure it. In this context, there are two prominent scales. The Chao et al. (1994) 34-item scale measures six content areas of organizational socialization (history, language, polities, people, goals and values, and performance proficiency). Taormina’s (1994) 20-item inventory centers on four dimensions of organizational socialization: training, understanding, co-worker support, and future prospects within the organization. The extent to which these definitions and measurements of socialization have the potential to explain or enhance understanding of the WIL experience has received relatively scant attention to date.

75

Patrice Twomey and T. Judene Pretti

How socialization is enacted Organizational socialization is enacted formally and informally. Formal or institutionalized socialization is structured and initiated by the organization and shaped through formal practices such as recruitment and selection procedures, and training and mentorship programs. Informal socialization, on the other hand, takes place outside of the organization’s formal structures and its spheres of direct management, control, and influence (Schott et al., 2019). Earlier conceptualizations of organizational socialization focused on the efforts (consciously or unconsciously) deployed by organizations in order to socialize their newcomers (Bargues & Valiorgue, 2019; Yang & Zhang, 2018). In their seminal work, Van Maanen and Schein (1979) conceptualized socialization as being a uni-directional process, structured for newcomers by the organization and its membership (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2006; Yang, 2008). Van Maanen and Schein’s bi-polar typology characterized the gamut of ways in which organizations approach newcomer socialization, ranging from individualized to institutionalized tactics (Åkesson & Skålén, 2011; Burböck et al., 2016; Tuttle, 2002). The tactical nodes are classified in Table 5.1. Building on Van Maanen and Schein’s model, Jones (1986) congregated the suite of tactics into two distinct sets of polarities. He theorized that the bundle of highly structured tactics, namely, collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, and investiture tactics encourages newcomers to reproduce the organizational status quo, thereby reducing uncertainty, role ambiguity, and intention to leave. Conversely, he theorized that the deployment of a bundle of individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive, and divestiture tactics encourages newcomers to challenge the organizational status quo, stimulating them to be innovative in relation to their roles (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2006; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Informal socialization (intentional or unintentional) occurs outside of formal organization-centric efforts to transmit organizational culture and expectations to the newcomer (Korte, 2007). This can take place within the organization, for example, in the context of work groups, water coolers, or coffee interactions. However, it can also occur externally with a range of agents who have neither been selected nor instructed by the organization, for example, peers, clients, suppliers, and competitor networks (Ardts et al., 2001; Rollag, 2012). Informal socialization can be orchestrated by the newcomer through proactive behaviors, for example, information seeking, feedback seeking, or network building. As a mechanism, informal socialization is important as it can have the effect of confirming or disconfirming formally espoused organizational expectations, behaviors, and values. For this reason, it may serve to Table 5.1  Typology of socialization Tactic

Descriptor

Collective vs. individual Formal vs. informal

Degree to which newcomers are socialized singly or collectively. Degree to which the newcomer socialization setting is segregated from the ongoing work context. Degree to which transitional socialization processes are mapped in identifiable stages in order to achieve the goal of socialization. Degree to which newcomers are provided with a precise timetable for their socialization. Degree to which experienced organizational members provide mentoring and guidance to newcomers for their assumed roles. Degree to which newcomers receive signals from the organization that encourage and affirm their individual identity.

Sequential vs. random Fixed vs. variable Serial vs. disjunctive Investiture vs. divestiture Source: Van Maanen & Schein (1979).

76

Organizational theory

reinforce or undermine formal socialization efforts (Schott et al., 2019). The understanding and accommodation of both formal and informal approaches may be the key to successful newcomer socialization, accruing benefits for both the organization and the newcomer in terms of connectedness, embeddedness, productivity, and access to newcomer innovation.

Socialization does matter Organizational socialization is important because it accelerates newcomers’ adjustment and integration into their organization (Saks & Gruman, 2011). It matters because it has been shown to expedite the training of newcomers and guide their development from uncertain, awkward neophyte into trusted, functioning, performing employees (Ashforth et al., 2007; Perrot et al., 2014). There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that it assists new employees in getting to know and understand the organization’s values, norms, politics, and networks (Bauer & Green, 1998; Cooper-Thomas & Burke, 2012). Research by Risch-Rodie and Klein (2000) further found that effective organizational socialization facilitates employers in taking full advantage of newcomers’ abilities in terms of knowledge, skills, experience, energy, effort, and time. Accordingly, as a phenomenon, socialization is arguably salient and directly applicable to the experience of WIL students who are newcomers to their organizations and, moreover, are expected to achieve effective assimilation within a contracted period of time. It may also support WIL employers who wish to optimize the organizational benefits accruable from placement. It is further contended that socialization constitutes a primary mechanism for organizations to transfer and reproduce their core character, values, culture, and distinctiveness (Birnholtz et al., 2007; Korte, 2007). Viewed as such, it may play a key role in organizational stabilization. From the perspective of the newcomer, organizational socialization is associated with a range of positive outcomes, including increased satisfaction, commitment, and performance (Dean, 1983; Song et al., 2015; Yang, 2008). Indeed, employee retention is often used as a proxy for effective socialization outcomes (Takeuchi & Takeuchi, 2009). In their meta-analysis of the organizational socialization literature, Saks et al. (2007) located positive associations with job satisfaction, job performance, fit, and commitment. Similarly, Bauer et al.’s 2007 meta-study involving 12,279 participants also found that socialization is positively correlated to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to remain in the organization. These findings are corroborated by Taormina’s (1999) finding that socialization variables are strong predictors of both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Socialization has been linked to newcomers’ integration and performance in their new role, group, and work environment. Aligned to this, it has also been linked to newcomers’ development of the range of appropriate skills, behaviors, attitudes, understandings, and relationships necessary for successful integration and performance (Cooper-Thomas & Burke, 2012; Field & Coetzer, 2008). According to Wanberg (2012), socialization is positively related to higher levels of role clarity, social acceptance, and self-efficacy. These findings chime with research that indicates that socialization supports newcomers in adjusting their initial expectations, acquiring information regarding their role, and contributing effectively to their organization (Anderson & Ostroff, 1997; Rollag, 2004; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Interestingly, Anderson and Ostroff (1997) further found that socialization is associated with other complex positive outcomes for both the organization and the individual newcomer, that is, increased newcomer willingness to work to achieve organizational goals, as well as increased newcomer esteem, sense of personal and professional growth, and psychological wellbeing. The corollary is also true. Failure to effectively socialize organizational 77

Patrice Twomey and T. Judene Pretti

newcomers is associated with a range of negative impacts related to retention, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, role clarity, performance, negative behaviors, poor attitudes, and unmet expectations (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2006; Wanous, 1992). The financial costs of unsuccessful socialization in terms of lost productivity, reduced morale, and decreased engagement are largely unknown (Ellis et al., 2015). Overall, the evidence is strongly suggestive of socialization having a multifactorial impact on newcomer experience and outcomes.

WIL students: a very particular category of newcomer All organizational newcomers – including WIL students – come armed with varying degrees of pre-entry expectations, assumptions, excitement, apprehension, and vulnerability (Korte et al., 2015; Preenen et al., 2014). On entry, they are confronted by an organization with its own distinctive culture, values, design, leadership, behaviors, policies, and practices (Beer, 1998). They are thrust from a context of familiarity and predictability to one of uncomfortable uncertainty and ambiguity. As neophytes, they are driven by a mix of human needs, chief amongst them being the need to belong to their new organization and a fundamental desire to fit in with its membership. This can be unnerving as they operate in a deficit of organizational awareness and understanding, possessing none of the rights, privileges, understandings, and cultural cues enjoyed by their established insider peers. They also have limited knowledge of their new role, colleagues, and organization. Almost by definition, they are required to chart this potentially problematic boundary passage with an incomplete cognitive map of their new organizational context. To ease their transition, organizational newcomers are motivated to socialize themselves within their new organization. They do this by re-evaluating their pre-entry assumptions, reducing their levels of uncertainty, acquiring an understanding of their new organization and its interdependent parts, mastering their role, and promoting their social acceptance within their new team collective. For students transitioning into the world of work, it could be argued that their journey is more fraught and their challenges more amplified than those of regular organizational newcomers who may be simply moving from one workplace to another. By design, they are required to transition from one very specific zone of interaction (i.e., the world of higher education) to a completely different zone (i.e., the world of work). As assimilated members of their university, faculty, and class collectives, most students enjoy a high familiarity with the academic, social, cultural, and political climate shaped by faculty and students on their campus. They have a sense of what is required to be a functioning member of their educational organization. They are familiar with its predictable routines, rhythms, rituals, and rewards. They have clarity around their role within the collective, and the technical requirements of their academic diet. Students often have established, salient social groups (peer and friendship) that can help to reinforce their sense of social acceptance and credibility. They operate within an educational organization that deploys a formalized, structured, and signposted system of assessment (formative and summative) and progression. They also enjoy access to a range of organizational support systems and services that can help build their confidence and self-efficacy. In the case of many students, they share similarities with their peer organizational members in terms of age, background, qualifications, and vocational choice. Accordingly, students’ organizational life at university can be broadly characterized by low levels of ambiguity, and an overriding sense of familiarity and inclusionary comfort. Depending on circumstances, placements represent an important, exciting, daunting, and often stressful step for students in higher education. Their organizational ‘cocoon’ is deliberately disrupted at the point of immersive placement, whereby students relinquish their high “relatedness” to their social structures, their 78

Organizational theory

university organization, and their place. Armed with an often-fragile sense of their work self, they must transition from student status to that of novice practitioner, a move that involves a novel zone of interaction and a new set of conventions. They undertake this journey without the benefit of their established peer network and other social ties, and with limited or no professional context. For many students, the transition to this new zone of interaction requires a change in geographical location. In what is a complex organizational switch, students must move from an educational environment with a fixed horizon and linear advancement, to a work environment where they may have to navigate multidimensional unknowns. Their placement also demands that they swap a system of structured performance criteria for one of more nuanced assessment. Viewed as such, students’ boundary passage from academia to the world of work is a delicate one. For these reasons, it is important to acknowledge that the status of ‘student intern newcomer’ is quite specific, and furthermore, its specificity may be salient in the context of their organizational socialization. On entering their new organizations, interns do not relinquish their membership of their educational organization. Rather, they retain their student status whilst simultaneously gaining membership of their new organizational collective. This hybrid status of ‘student-professional’ can be conceptualized as a form of temporary ‘dual organizational citizenship’ for the duration of their placement. In addition, work placements occur outside of the regular recruitment and selection processes. Embedded in an overarching educational structure, placements take place in the absence of any long-term obligation for either party. As such, it represents a low risk, non-committal arrangement, with both student and employer parties enjoying high levels of discretion in relation to retention decisions (McHugh, 2017; Rose et al., 2014; Zhao & Liden, 2011). In some countries and across particular disciplines, it is common for interns to undertake their work on an unpaid basis. Student professionals are often dually assessed and supervised, by both their educational and work organizations. The contracted timeframe for placement may also be an issue. There is some debate in the literature regarding the window in which effective socialization can be achieved. In this context, suggested timeframes generally fall into a range of six months (Morrison, 1993; Saks & Gruman, 2012) to twelve months (Allen, 2006; Bauer et al., 2007; Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2018). There is a question as regards to whether full organizational socialization is an achievable goal for interns and their organizations, particularly given the truncated timeframe of placement. Accordingly, a more realistic goal might be the partial socialization of interns. This is particularly apposite in the context of shorter placements, where employer intention may be realistically pegged to goals of “welcome” and professional inclusion, rather than a deeper socialization experience. For employers, the finite timeframe of the socialization process may add complexity and urgency to the process of supporting interns in their adjustment to organizational life (Dixon et al., 2005) in order to optimize the benefits accruing to the organization. Finally, unlike most organizational newcomers, many student interns undertake their role in the burdensome context of no or low remuneration (Stratta, 2004). So, whilst student interns are very similar to regular organizational newcomers, they should be conceptualized and understood as a separate, distinct, and important cohort of newcomer, who may bring to their organizations slightly different needs, expectations, and perspectives.

Conceptualizing and modeling workintegrated learning socialization Intuitively, it would seem that the wealth of academic discourse around the conceptualization and enactment of regular newcomer socialization has the potential to be transferable to 79

Patrice Twomey and T. Judene Pretti Table 5.2  Model of intern socialization Phase

Issues, actions, and experiences

Getting in/anticipatory phase

Expectation building, recruitment and selection, signaling, information seeking, sense-making On-boarding/induction, confrontation with organizational and social realities, confirmation/disconfirmation of initial expectations, relationship building with insiders (supervisors, co-workers, mentors), initial task and role learning Advanced tasks, role clarity, task mastery, functional performance, social acceptance, value congruence, personal change

Breaking in/encounter phase

Settling in/metamorphic phase

Source: Garavan & Murphy (2001).

the context of WIL. However, the review of the literature points to a paucity of systematic socialization scholarship in the WIL domain. This empirical deficit is somewhat surprising, given socialization’s relationship with a range of desirable outcomes both at the level of the individual and that of the organization. Most WIL research conceptualizes placement as an event that encapsulates the entire socialization process. Garavan and Murphy’s (2001) exploratory study is a useful example of this overarching concept. Drawing on previous work by Feldman (1976), Schein (1978), and Wanous (1992), Garavan and Murphy proposed a model of intern socialization across three phases: getting in, breaking in, and settling in. The study is of interest from a number of perspectives. Firstly, it contends that the quality of learning for intern newcomers is directly and emphatically related to their socialization experiences. Secondly, it highlights a rich constellation of antecedents and influencers related to socialization, as presented in Table 5.2. In a more recent study of 247 undergraduates (Twomey, 2019), intern socialization revealed itself as a multivariate, interactive process over which neither interns nor organizations exercise direct control. The study explored students’ experience of placement from the perspective of five content dimensions of intern socialization, that is, supervisor, co-worker, task mastery, values, and history/rituals. The results show that intern socialization pivots on a network of complex interrelationships between all five dimensions, any of which can either enhance or hinder successful socialization (Figure 5.1). This suggests that, for scholars and practitioners, a fuller meaning and understanding of interns’ experience of organizational socialization is located within the ‘bundle’ of interactive variables, rather than from the (potentially reductive) perspective of a unidimensional focus. Other researchers have reconceptualized placement as a mechanism of anticipatory socialization or as the initial phase of a student’s career socialization (Huang & Jia, 2010; McManus & Feinstein, 2008). In other words, it is viewed as an immersive pre-career-entry socialization assignment, one that facilitates students not only in bridging the initial gap between the world of academia and work, but also in acquiring the range of uncertainty reduction and organizational adjustment skills that will ease their future transitions across their career lifetime. The inflection is salient, particularly in the context of a future world of work where careers may play out across a series of shorter-tenured ‘instalments,’ demanding from graduates high levels of comfort with disruption and adjustment. This is corroborated by research (Dailey, 2016) that found that newcomers with prior placement experience enter organizations (and vocations) with reduced levels of uncertainty and increased confidence, and furthermore that these interns may think and act like seasoned organizational members. This, in turn, is reflected in Gardner and Kozlowski’s (1993) investigation that found that co-op students adjust to organizational 80

Organizational theory

Figure 5.1  Interrelationships between dimensions of socialization. Source: Twomey (2019).

life more effectively than non-co-op students. This difference may be attributable to previous interns’ successful initial career socialization, which has the effect of nurturing an enhanced understanding of their work self and fostering a confidence in their professional identity applicable in their post-placement career (Dailey, 2016; Jackson, 2016). Socialization places many constructs within a single framework. The WIL discourse – albeit sparse – points to a mosaic of socialization antecedents, influencers, and outcomes. A full review of the literature is beyond the scope of this chapter, but it is of interest to briefly visit some key topics. In the anticipatory phase of socialization, interns and organizations both experience an information asymmetry and, aligned to this, their own sets of stakeholder expectations. The WIL literature refers to intern expectations, including exposure to a field of study, formal training, direct supervision, adequate information, opportunities to acquire relevant skills, performance of mundane tasks, gaining of academic credit, opportunity for career advancement, and job offers (Daugherty, 2011; Hite & Bellizzi, 1986). The discourse also highlights the saliency of unmet expectations (or significant expectation–reality gaps) as these give rise to dysfunctional reality shock and, furthermore, can have a deleterious effect on outcomes associated with successful intern socialization, such as on commitment, retention, and job satisfaction (Major et al., 1995). The additional challenge of students having very unclear expectations of their actual placement also receives attention in the scholarship (Zehr & Korte, 2020). In a 2018 study, Farmaki proposed that the perceived success of internships is primarily based on interns’ perceptions of their placement expectations being met. The role that the recruitment selection process can play in the management and adjustment of intern 81

Patrice Twomey and T. Judene Pretti

expectations has been observed from different perspectives across the WIL literature. Lam and Ching (2007) found that prospective interns actively engage in peer-to-peer messaging during the anticipatory phase, with a focus on work issues, opportunities, logistics, compensation, and career advancement. Similarly, Harris and Pattie (2020) examined Human Resources department pre-entry messaging to students around organizational expectations, values and goals, and the extent to which these may affect students’ intention to undertake a placement with the organization. Across the literature, unmet expectations have not been found to constitute a universally negative phenomenon. In their 2006 study, Walmsley et al. found that the clash of expectation and experience is critical for interns’ personal development and learning. The salience of interns’ first few days and post-entry weeks is an issue. Armed with heightened levels of pre-entry expectations, students are highly sensitive to behavioral and organizational cues, both positive and negative. Moreover, it has been shown, during this period, that interns form enduring impressions of the organization and its members. Such impressions are based around their perception of their initial reception/welcome, their feelings of being expected by their team/supervisor, access to passwords, permissions, and platforms, availability of an appropriate workstation in proximity to their colleagues, and induction (Twomey, 2019). The enduring nature of interns’ initial impressions, both positive and negative, serve to reinforce the significance of effective early socialization.

No intern is an island WIL socialization scholarship locates student learning in the wider relational and social networks of the organization (Korte, 2009). Crucially, it has also established a parallel between interns’ and newcomers’ experiences of organizational socialization (Rose et al., 2014). Key to interns’ experience is their interaction with socialization agents within their host organization such as supervisors and co-workers. In the WIL literature, high quality attachment with these credible and desirable organizational insiders is associated with interns’ access to insider knowledge, insights, and understandings (Rose et al., 2014; Twomey, 2019). Reflecting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, quality has also been shown to build interns’ sense of organizational belonging (Lee & Chao, 2013). Students’ relationship with their supervisor is more formal and more power and authority bound than their relationship with their co-workers. Moreover, the intern–supervisor exchange is salient in shaping the key internship outcomes of in-role performance, satisfaction, and learning opportunities (Rose et al., 2014). Sosland and Lowenthal (2017) found that internship supervisors define their role broadly as educator, teacher, mentor, and role model. The WIL literature also considers the traits of a good supervisor. They include availability, proximity, mentoring, deployment of regular one-to-one feedback, and provision of direction (Daugherty, 2011; Rothman, 2007; Waters and Gilstrap, 2010). Met expectations of supervisor support have also been investigated, with the finding that they are positively related to psychological contract expectations (Hurst et al., 2012). There are challenges, however. Sosland and Lowenthal. (2017) refer to supervisors as the forgotten outsiders of the internship. This is supported by research which has found evidence that some supervisors do not receive adequate training in intern supervision, are unwilling to take on the role of intern mentor, exhibit professional knowledge deficits, are overwhelmed by their workload to the detriment of the intern–supervisor relationship, and typically do not meet students for frequent one-to-one feedback (Daugherty, 2011; Kerka, 1997; Zehr & Korte, 2020). To a certain extent, as socialization stewards, supervisors are viewed as being all that is good or bad about the host organization (Twomey, 2019). 82

Organizational theory

Co-workers emerge as a key agent of intern socialization with significant capacity to reduce interns’ uncertainty. A lack of a formal relationship code, lower power distance, and often higher physical proximity, mean that for many interns, co-workers are the most obvious source of localized social interaction and a credible source of localized knowledge. Interns also spend more time with their co-workers than with their supervisors (Liu et al., 2011). A significant and positive relationship has been identified between the co-worker dimension and two measures of interns’ successful socialization, namely general job satisfaction and intention to return (Chathoth & Song, 2010). The relationship between co-workers and intention to return is corroborated by research by Zhao and Liden (2011). On a cautionary note, however, it has been found that co-workers’ role in interns’ socialization is largely discretionary, requiring intentional endeavor on their part. Aligned to this, co-worker reluctance or unavailability to engage with intern colleagues can thwart their socialization and lead to impaired task mastery (Twomey, 2019). Interestingly, it has been shown that interns consider incumbent interns as a particular category of direct co-worker peer. Viewed by interns as being a non-threatening, informed, and accessible source of information guidance, incumbent roles have been shown to play an important role in supporting students in settling in, achieving task mastery, and developing a sense of organizational connectedness (Twomey, 2019). Certainly, the discourse would suggest that a troika of supervisor–co-worker–incumbent intern represents a potent mechanism for intern socialization.

Students as proactive socialization agents In line with regular newcomer research, the WIL discourse broadly supports a parallel between the experiences of regular organizational newcomers and student interns in relation to their participatory role in their socialization. Interns engage in self-initiated strategies in order to reduce their aversive state of uncertainty, increase their role and task clarity, and promote their integration into their organization (Cooper-Thomas & Burke, 2012; Major & Kozlowski, 1997; Pennaforte, 2016; Sosland & Lowenthal, 2017). Examples of intern proactive behaviors include information seeking, feedback seeking, relationship building with co-workers and supervisors, and positive framing (Beenen et al., 2017; Griffin et al., 2001). These are important in that they are significantly related to internship satisfaction, task mastery, and team socialization as well as role, organizational, and social learning (Huang & Jia, 2010; Pennaforte, 2016; Tan et al., 2016). Proactive disposition has also been shown to predict high quality intern–supervisor exchange (Newman et al., 2016) and contributes to how interns view their employing organization as a career destination. However, even though proactive agency affords interns more control over how to construct their learning and organizational integration, agentic behaviors cannot be assumed, with low intern agency shown to be associated with low self-efficacy (Ngonda et al., 2020).

Retention: the hero outcome of successful organizational socialization Of all intern-socialization outcomes, it is perhaps conversion and its proxy, conversion intention (i.e., formation of an intention to leave or remain with the employer), that receive the highest profile in the popular discourse. Conversion and conversion intention, however, have received relatively little empirical treatment in the scholarly literature (National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), 2019). Not surprisingly, the site of much WIL conversion research is located in sectors associated with high turnover, for example, retail, tourism, service, and 83

Patrice Twomey and T. Judene Pretti

hospitality. The interest in retention is to be expected, given employers’ extensive leveraging of placement as an instrument of ‘graduate precruitment’ (Twomey, 2019). In this context, NACE (2019) reported an average conversion rate of 56.8%, corroborating a previous finding that 60% of internships convert to graduate offers (Zhao & Liden, 2011). Successful socialization is positively associated with regular employee retention and, conversely, neglect of socialization has been shown to be significantly and positively related to dysfunctional turnover and intention to leave (Salleh et al., 2012; Yang, 2008). Variables of intern socialization (and their interactions) are also shown to be positively related to intention. These include, for example, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, supervisory support, and co-workers (Hurst et al., 2012; Rose, 2013; Song & Chon, 2012; Zhao & Liden, 2011). Moving beyond the establishment of a relationship between socialization variables and conversion intention, the WIL research focus has shifted to the prediction of student interns’ conversion intentions. Perhaps surprisingly, Rose et al. (2014) found that neither internship nor supervisor–intern exchange play a significant role in predicting intern conversion intentions. However, they found that interns’ intention to convert, strongly predicts actual conversion after graduation. A separate study examined the predictive ability of internship satisfaction, subjective norms, and self-efficacy (Putra & Purba, 2020). This found that intern satisfaction and subjective norms can significantly and positively predict the conversion intention of interns, though self-efficacy was found to be deficient in predictive power. Using forward selection, a predictive model was developed to measure the likelihood of interns forming a positive conversion intention based on their socialization experience (Twomey, 2019). The model proposed seven items that may serve to predict students’ conversion intentions. The item with the highest explanatory power (accounting for more than 50% of the model’s predictability) was interns’ sense of belonging to the organization, followed by their perception that they fitted in well during their placement (14%), with both items accounting for almost two-thirds of the model’s predictive strength.

Conclusion As lenses, organizational and socialization theories have the potential to expand employer and practitioner knowledge and understanding of student interns’ experience of placement. There are many parallels between the experiences of regular organizational newcomers and student interns. However, the chapter has highlighted the utility of conceptualizing interns as a distinct and separate cohort of newcomer. WIL student socialization is not neat and typically unfurls in the context of a complex dynamic bundle of interrelated variables. This means that, whilst notions of belongingness and fitting in might be conceptually accessible, successful reframing of intern socialization as a critical business process may be challenging for employers. Moreover, the operationalization of what is a fuzzy, complex, difficult-to-measure, time-consuming, and often subjective concept may place substantial demands on employer resources and employee goodwill. At the same time, there is a significant organizational risk attached to employer underestimation, complacency, or negligence around intern socialization (and its effects, positive and negative). This is particularly apposite for the increasing numbers of employers who deploy WIL placements to build a future talent pipeline. The value of socialization as an influencer and predictor of students’ intention to convert, demands that employers achieve a clearer understanding of the complexity of the adjustment and learning experience that student interns undergo. From the perspective of higher education institutions, a knowledge and understanding of socialization theory and its outcomes has the potential to enhance pre-placement preparatory efforts. In interactions with students, practitioners should emphasize that uncertainty, disruption, and ambiguity are an expected, intentional, and integral 84

Organizational theory

element of the placement experience. It should further be highlighted that socialization is not uni-directional and that students themselves play a key role as agents in the dynamic process of their own socialization.

Future research Student interns’ experience of and successful integration into organizational life has important implications for students, employer organizations, and higher education institutions. However, we have suggested that organizational theory generally, and socialization theory more specifically, remain largely overlooked in the WIL literature. As lenses, their salience has been well established across regular organizational/employee discourse but there is significant potential to leverage these lenses to extend our knowledge and understanding of the intersection of WIL and organizational theory. We advocate further in-depth research into single dimensions of intern socialization and the influence of variables including a program of study, remuneration, duration, number of internship experiences, and disposition. Rich research opportunities also exist to explore intern socialization from the perspective of the employing organization, and in particular, the role of less-explored intern socialization agents such as co-workers and incumbent interns. Finally, existing assumptions around the socialization of newcomer interns are based largely on the scenario whereby the student is physically located in the workplace. Future research might usefully explore the extent to which these assumptions hold true in the context of remote or virtual placement provision.

References Åkesson, M., & Skålén, P. (2011). Towards a service-dominant professional identity: An organisational socialisation perspective. Journal of Service Management, 22(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09564231111106901 Allen, D. G. (2006). Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness and turnover? Journal of Management, 32(2), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305280103 Anderson, N., & Ostroff, C. (1997). Selection as socialization. In N. Anderson & P. Herriot (Eds.), International handbook of selection and assessment (pp. 413–440). John Wiley & Sons. Ardts, J., Jansen, P., & van der Velde, M. (2001). The breaking in of new employees: Effectiveness of socialisation tactics and personnel instruments. Journal of Management Development, 20(2), 159–167. https:// doi.org/10.1108/02621710110382178 Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in organizational contexts. In G.  P.  Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 22. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2007 (pp. 1–70). John Wiley & Sons. Bargues, E., & Valiorgue, B. (2019). Maintenance and creation of roles during socialization processes in entrepreneurial small firms: An institutional work perspective. Management, 22(1), 30–55. https://doi. org/10.3917/mana.221.0030 Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.707 Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer information seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 72–83. https://doi. org/10.1037//0021-9010.83.1.72 Beenen, G., Pichler, S., & Levy, P. E. (2017). Self-determined feedback seeking: The role of perceived supervisor autonomy support. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/ hrm.21787 Beer, M. (1998). Organizational behavior and development. Division of Research, Harvard Business School. Birnholtz, J. P., Cohen, M. D., & Hoch, S. V. (2007). Organizational character: On the regeneration of camp poplar grove. Organization Science, 18(2), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0248

85

Patrice Twomey and T. Judene Pretti Blau, P. M. (1963). Critical remarks on Weber’s theory of authority. The American Political Science Review, 57(2), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952824 Burböck, B., Schnepf, S., & Pessl, S. (2016). Individualized versus institutionalized socialisation tactics. Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, 7(1), 25–43. http://www.absrc.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/06/PAPER-Burbock.pdf Candy, P. C., & Crebert, R. G. (1991). Ivory tower to concrete jungle: The difficult transition from the academy to the workplace as learning environments. The Journal of Higher Education, 62(5), 570–592. https://doi.org/10.2307/1982209 Chao, G. T. (2012). Organizational socialization: Background, basics, and a blueprint for adjustment at work. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 579–614). Oxford University Press. Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 730. Chathoth, P. K., & Song, Z. (2010). An interactional approach to organizations’ success in socializing their intern newcomers: The role of general self-efficacy and organizational socialisation inventory. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 34(3), 364–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348009350648 Cooper-Thomas, H., & Burke, S. (2012). Newcomer proactive behavior: Can there be too much of a good thing? In C. R. Wanberg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Socialization. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199763672.013.0004 Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2005). Organizational socialization: A field study into socialization success and rate. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(2), 116–128. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00306.x Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2006). Organizational socialization: A new theoretical model and recommendations for future research and HRM practices in organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(5), 492–516. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610673997 Crowther, D., & Green, M. (2004). Organisational theory. Charted Institute of Personnel and Development Publishing. Dailey, S. L. (2016). What happens before full-time employment? Internships as a mechanism of anticipatory socialization. Western Journal of Communication, 80(4), 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/105703 14.2016.1159727 Daugherty, E. L. (2011). The public relations internship experience: A comparison of student and site supervisor perspectives. Public Relations Review, 37(5), 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.010 Dean, R. A. (1983). Reality shock: The link between socialisation and organizational commitment. Journal of Management Development, 2(3), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb051544 Dixon, M. A., Cunningham, G. B., Sagas, M., Turner, B. A., & Kent, A. (2005). Challenge is key: An investigation of affective organizational commitment in undergraduate interns. Journal of Education for Business, 80(3), 172–180. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.3.172-180 Ellis, A. M., Bauer, T. N., Mansfield, L. R., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Simon, L. S. (2015). Navigating uncharted waters: Newcomer socialization through the lens of stress theory. Journal of Management, 41(1), 203–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314557525 Farmaki, A. (2018). Tourism and hospitality internships: A prologue to career intentions? Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 23, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2018.06.002 Fayol, H. (2016). General and industrial management. Ravenio Books. Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391853 Field, R., & Coetzer, A. (2008). The effects of organisational socialisation on individual and organisational outcomes: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Labour, Employment and Work in New Zealand. https://doi.org/10.26686/lew.v0i0.1667 Garavan, T. N., & Murphy, C. (2001). The co-operative education process and organisational socialisation: A qualitative study of student perceptions of its effectiveness. Education+ Training, 43(6), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005750 Gardner, P. D., & Kozlowski, S. (1993). Learning the ropes: Co-ops do it faster. Journal of Cooperative Education, 28, 30–41. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED367937 Ghosh, R., Reio, Jnr T. G., & Bang, H. (2013). Reducing turnover intent: Supervisor and co-worker incivility and socialization-related learning. Human Resource Development International, 16(2), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.756199

86

Organizational theory Griffin, A., Collela, A., & Goparaju, S. (2001). Newcomer and organizational socialization tactics: An interactionists perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 10(4), 453–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1053-4822(00)00036-X Harney, B. (2016). Contingency theory. In S. Johnstone & A. Wilkinson (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Human Resource Management (pp. 72–73). Edward Elgar Publishing. Harris, C. M., & Pattie, M. W. (2020). Interns’ perceptions of HR practices and their influence on fit and intentions to join. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(12), 1513–1532. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1416651 Herzberg, F. (2017). Motivation to work. Routledge. Hite, R., & Bellizzi, J. (1986). Student expectations regarding collegiate internship programs in marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 8(3), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/027347538600800309 Huang, H., & Jia, J. (2010, October). Factors affecting internship /satisfaction: Based on organizational socialization theory. Factors affecting internship satisfaction: Based on organizational socialization theory. 2010 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (ICAIE), 128–131. https:// doi.org/10.1109/ICAIE.2010.5641137 Hurst, J. L., Good, L. K., & Gardner, P. (2012). Conversion intentions of interns: What are the motivating factors? Education+. Training, 54(6), 504–522. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211254280 Jackson, D. (2016). Re-conceptualising graduate employability: The importance of pre-professional identity. Higher Education Research and Development, 35(5), 925–939. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2 016.1139551 Johnson, R. A., Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1964). Systems theory and management. Management Science, 10(2), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.10.2.367 Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262–279. https://doi.org/10.2307/256188 Katz, R. (1980). Time and work, towards an integrative perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2, 81–127. Kerka, S. (1997). Constructivism, workplace learning, and vocational education (ERIC Digest No. 181, Accession No. ED407573). ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education. Korte, R., Brunhaver, S., & Sheppard, S. (2015). (Mis) interpretations of organizational socialization: The expectations and experiences of newcomers and managers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(2), 185–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21206 Korte, R. F. (2007). The socialization of newcomers into organizations: Integrating learning and social exchange processes. International Research Conference in The Americas of the Academy of Human Resource Development, 1–8. Korte, R. F. (2009). How newcomers learn the social norms of an organization: A case study of the socialization of newly hired engineers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 285–306. https://doi. org/10.1002/hrdq.20016 Lacaze, D., & Rosse, J. (2001). Newcomers’ information acquisition in a service context: A pilot study. AEI. Lam, T., & Ching, L. (2007). An exploratory study of an internship program: The case of Hong Kong students. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(2), 336–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhm.2006.01.001 Lapointe, É., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). Examination of the relationships between servant leadership, organizational commitment, and voice and antisocial behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(1), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3002-9 Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University. Lee, C. S., & Chao, C. W. (2013). Intention to “leave” or “stay”–the role of internship organization in the improvement of hospitality students’ industry employment intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18(7), 749–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2012.695290 Liu, Y., Xu, J., & Weitz, B. A. (2011). The role of emotional expression and mentoring in internship learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.5465/ AMLE.2011.59513275 Major, D. A., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1997). Newcomer information seeking: Individual and contextual influences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1468-2389.00042

87

Patrice Twomey and T. Judene Pretti Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.3.418 McGregor, D. (1960). Theory X and theory Y. Organization Theory, 358(1), 374. McHugh, P. P. (2017). The impact of compensation, supervision and work design on internship efficacy: Implications for educators, employers and prospective interns. Journal of Education and Work, 30(4), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2016.1181729 McManus, A., & Feinstein, A. H. (2008). Internships and occupational socialization: What are students learning? In Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL conference 35, 128–137. Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational behavior I: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. M.E. Sharpe. Morrison, E. W. (1993). Learning the ropes: Information acquisition during socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 173–183. Muldoon, J. (2012). The Hawthorne legacy: A reassessment of the impact of the Hawthorne studies on management scholarship 1930–1958. Journal of Management History, 18(1), 105–119. National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2019). The 2019 student survey report: Attitudes and preferences of bachelor’s degree students at four-year schools. NACE. https://www.naceweb. org/uploadedfiles/files/2019/publication/executive-summary/2019-nace-student-survey-four-yearexecutive-summary.pdf Neher, A. (1991). Maslow’s theory of motivation: A critique. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 31(3), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167891313010 Newman, A., Rose, P. S., & Teo, S. T. (2016). The role of participative leadership and trust-based mechanisms in eliciting intern performance: Evidence from China. Human Resource Management, 55(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21660 Ngonda, T., Shaw, C., & Kloot, B. (2020). Perceived influence of mechanical engineering students’ work placement experiences on their occupational competency and self-efficacy. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306419020953117 Nirenberg, J. (1978). The evolution of organizational theory and its application to public schools. NASSP Bulletin, 62(414), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263657806241401 Oswick, C., & Grant, D. (2016). Re-imagining images of organization: A conversation with Gareth Morgan. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(3), 338–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615591854 Pennaforte, A. (2016). The influence of proactive socialization behaviors and team socialization on individual performance in the team. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 413–421. Perrot, S., Bauer, T. N., Abonneau, D., Campoy, E., Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2014). Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: The moderating role of perceived organizational support. Group & Organization Management, 39(3), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114535469 Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organization theory: Problems and prospects. Oxford University Press. Preenen, P., van Vianen, A., & De Pater, I. (2014). Challenging tasks: The role of employees’ and supervisors’ goal orientation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 48–61. https://doi. org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.702420 Putra, I. H., & Purba, D. E. (2020). Effects of internship satisfaction, subjective norms, and self-efficacy on student intern’s job application intention. Psychological Research on Urban Society, 3(2), 87–96. https:// doi.org/10.7454/proust.v3i2.92 Risch-Rodie, A., & Klein, S. (2000). Customer participation in services production and delivery. In T. A. Swartz & D. Iacobucci (Eds.), The handbook of services marketing and management (pp. 111–125). Sage. Rollag, K. (2004). The impact of relative tenure on newcomer socialization dynamics. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(7), 853–872. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.280 Rollag, K. (2012). Socializing the ‘other’ organizational newcomers—customers, clients. In C. Wanberg (Ed.) The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization (pp. 250–263). Oxford University Press. Rose, P. (2013). Internships: Tapping into China’s next generation of talent. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(2), 89–98. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1113761 Rose, P. S., Teo, S. T., & Connell, J. (2014). Converting interns into regular employees: The role of intern–supervisor exchange. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(2), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jvb.2013.12.005 Rothman, M. (2007). Lessons learned: Advice to employers from interns. Journal of Education for Business, 82(3), 140–144. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.3.140-144

88

Organizational theory Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(2), 234–279. https://doi.org/10.1006/ jvbe.1997.1614 Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2011). Getting newcomers engaged: The role of socialization tactics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(5), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111139001 Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2012). Getting newcomers on board: A review of socialization practices and introduction to socialization resources theory. In S. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization. Oxford University Press. Saks, A. M., Uggerslev, K. L., & Fassina, N. E. (2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 413–446. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.12.004 Salleh, R., Nair, M. S., & Harun, H. (2012). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention: A case study on employees of a retail company in Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 6(12), 3429–3436. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1070727 Schein, E. H. (1978), Career dynamics: Matching individuals and organizational needs. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Schott, C., Steen, T., & Van Kleef, D. D. (2019). Reality shock and public service motivation: A longitudinal, qualitative study among Dutch veterinary inspectors. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(6), 468–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1485044 Song, Z., & Chon, K. (2012). General self-efficacy’s effect on career choice goals via vocational interests and person–job fit: A mediation model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 798–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.016 Song, Z., Chon, K., Ding, G., & Gu, C. (2015). Impact of organizational socialization tactics on newcomer job satisfaction and engagement: Core self-evaluations as moderators. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.02.006 Sosland, J. K., & Lowenthal, D. J. (2017). The forgotten educator: Experiential learning’s internship supervisor. Journal of Political Science Education, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2016. 1165106 Stratta, T. M. (2004). The needs and concerns of students during the sport management internship experience. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 75(2), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/073 03084.2004.10608555 Takeuchi, N. & Takeuchi, T. (2009). A longitudinal investigation on the factors affecting newcomers’ adjustment: Evidence from Japanese organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(4), 928–952. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190902770877 Tan, K. W., Au, A. K., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Aw, S. S. (2016). The effect of learning goal orientation and communal goal strivings on newcomer proactive behaviours and learning. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 420–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12134 Taormina, R. J. (1994). The organizational socialization inventory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2(3), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.1994.tb00134.x Taormina, R. J. (1999). Predicting employee commitment and satisfaction: The relative effects of socialization and demographics. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(6), 1060–1076. https:// doi.org/10.1080/095851999340125 Taormina, R. J. (2009). Organizational socialization: The missing link between employee needs and organizational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(7), 650–676. https://doi. org/10.1108/02683940910989039 Taylor, F. W. (1911), The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers. Tuttle, M. (2002). A review and critique of Van Maanen and Schein’s “Toward a theory of organizational socialization” and implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 1(1), 66–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302011004 Twomey, P. (2019). It takes two to tango: The role of organisational socialisation in the conversion intentions of student interns [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Bath. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Towards a theory of organizational socialization. In B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behaviour (pp. 209–264). Jai publishing house. Wagner-Tsukamoto, S. (2007). An institutional economic reconstruction of scientific management: On the lost theoretical logic of Taylorism. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 105–117. https://doi. org/10.5465/AMR.2007.23463879 Waldo, D. (1978). Organization Theory: Revisiting the Elephant. Public Administration Review, 38(6), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.2307/976043

89

Patrice Twomey and T. Judene Pretti Walmsley, A., Thomas, R., & Jameson, S. (2006). Surprise and sense making: Undergraduate placement experiences in SMEs. Education + Training, 48(5), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610677063 Wanberg, C. (2012). The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization. Oxford University Press. Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, orientation, and socialization of newcomers (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Waters, R. K., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2010). Examining the roles of peer messages in the anticipatory socialization process of the internship experience. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 44(1), 6–12. https://wilresearch.uwaterloo.ca/content/legacy/JCEI_2010_44_1_6_12.html Yang, J. T. (2008). Effect of newcomer socialisation on organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention in the hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal, 28(4), 429–443. https://doi. org/10.1080/02642060801917430 Yang, X., & Zhang, X. (2018) Review of Proactive Socialization Behavior of Newcomer [Conference proceedings]. 2018 International Conference on Management Science and Industrial Economy Development. https:// webofproceedings.org/proceedings_series/ECOM/MSIED%202018/MSIED21022.pdf Zehr, S. M., & Korte, R. (2020). Student internship experiences: Learning about the workplace. Education+. Training, 62(3), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2018-0236 Zhao, H., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Internship: A recruitment and selection perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021295

90

PART II

Benefits for stakeholders

6 BENEFITS OF WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING FOR STUDENTS Denise Jackson and Elizabeth J. Cook

Introduction This chapter synthesizes the evidenced impact of work-integrated learning (WIL) on different dimensions of student employability with the aim of assisting WIL practitioners, students, and industry stakeholders in identifying and understanding the broad range of evidenced benefits from engaging in WIL. The focus is to interpret a wide range of documented benefits rather than provide an exhaustive or systematic literature review. The chapter considers WIL in its broadest sense, encompassing workplace-based, campus-based, and virtual forms across all academic disciplines, including disciplines where WIL is neither mandatory nor accredited. However, it was evident when compiling the chapter that much of the published work in this area is focused on workplace-based WIL (i.e., internships, practicums, and placements). This chapter embraces more recent, broader conceptualizations of employability that extend beyond securing employment and developing industry-relevant skills and knowledge. We consider, for example, professional identity, career self-management, skills and knowledge transfer, self-efficacy, and wellbeing. The theoretical framework underpinning the chapter is Tomlinson’s (2017) graduate capitals model, which defines five types of capital (human, cultural, social, identity, and psychological) as they relate to employability. This framework provides a lens for interpreting the potential benefits of WIL among higher education students. Evidence is drawn from 57 empirical studies that explore WIL in various disciplines in higher education at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. This review of the literature spans studies that reported data from Australia (24), the United States (9), the United Kingdom (8), Canada (6), New Zealand (5), Ireland (2), and Finland, Spain, Portugal, South Africa, Israel, and Japan (one study in each of these countries). In addition, national data gathered in 2020 by the Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN), the professional association for WIL in Australia, is considered. This research investigated the impact of WIL on different employability outcomes for 80,000 graduates from 30 participating universities across Australia. The chapter begins with a brief introduction of the complex notion of employability in higher education. It then provides an overview of Tomlinson’s (2017) graduate capitals model, before presenting the evidenced benefits of WIL for higher education students. The noted benefits are summarized in a table, followed by additional interpretation through the lens of

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-8

93

Denise Jackson and Elizabeth J. Cook

the graduate capitals model. The final section identifies research areas where evidence remains scarce both in respect to the key benefits of WIL and the impact of campus-based and virtual WIL on student employability.

The employability context Graduate employability is a widely explored and complex construct. It has become strategically important in higher education in recent years with institutions focused on enhancing shortterm graduate outcomes, preparing graduates for future work, and/or instilling lifelong learning (Bridgstock & Jackson, 2019). Jackson and Bridgstock (2018) highlight how, controversially, graduate employment outcomes have become widely used as a proxy measure for graduate employability. They attribute this trend to links between graduate employment and institutional funding (e.g., Wellings et al., 2019), the massification of higher education, and widely publicized institutional league tables, which have a particular focus on full-time employment among new graduates. There is often an overly simplistic belief that an ‘employable’ graduate will be able to secure employment following completion of their university studies. This does not acknowledge the complex nature of graduate employability, nor the many factors that mediate its relationship with employment. Many of these factors are beyond the control of universities and graduating individuals, including bias in recruitment processes (Ingram & Allen, 2019), personal circumstances, and labor market conditions (Guilbert et al., 2016). Importantly, we acknowledge that employability, and ways to develop it, extends far beyond the predominant focus on skills. While the ‘skills-based’ approach to employability captures the important acquisition of discipline-based and generic skills for enhancing human capital, scholars have criticized this narrow conceptualization as it fails to recognize other important dimensions of employability (see, e.g., Clarke, 2018; Holmes, 2013; Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017). This chapter does not provide an exhaustive review of the different dimensions of employability but focuses on those relevant to benefits gained during WIL. First, career self-­ management is critical for students to effectively leverage their skills and knowledge acquired during higher education to realize their personal career goals. With reference to the decision learning, opportunity awareness, transition learning, and self awareness model (Watts, 2006), commonly known as the DOTS model, of career development learning, it is important that students build self-awareness to understand their career aspirations, strengths, weaknesses, and accomplishments. Students should have a clear understanding of labor market opportunities and career pathways to formulate goals and make informed career decisions. Further, they should be able to adapt job-search strategies and self-presentation to different opportunities and be familiar with graduate recruitment processes. Another key component of career self-management is building the capacity to develop networks or what Bridgstock et al. (2019) describe as ‘social connectedness.’ Despite Bridgstock’s (2009) assertion that career self-management forms a key component of student employability, the two fields remain largely disconnected in the literature (Healy et al., 2022). Professional identity has commanded growing attention in the literature relating to graduate employability and is considered an important bridge to future employment (Tomlinson & Jackson, 2021). It broadly refers to an individual’s understanding of and connection with the ideology, culture, and norms of relevant profession(s) (see Trede et al., 2012). For students, Jackson (2016) termed this ‘pre-professional identity’ and emphasized the role of higher education in supporting professional socialization to ease transitions from university to work. Trede (2012) argues that the development of professional identity and professionalism in students 94

Benefits of work-integrated learning for students

should be grounded in theory and pedagogy (embedded in the curriculum), with the aim of educating “critical, considerate, global citizens and lifelong learners” (p. 166). A further dimension is that of perceived employability, the extent to which an individual believes they are employable and hold appeal in the labor market (Berntson & Marklund, 2007). Greater confidence in one’s capabilities and future job prospects can lead to heightened career success (de Vos et al., 2011) and enhanced wellbeing (Berntson & Marklund, 2007; Praskova et al., 2015; Vanhercke et al., 2020). The next section will describe the theoretical lens being applied when interpreting the benefits of WIL for students.

Theoretical framework WIL pedagogy draws on Kolb’s (1984) theory of experiential learning in which students put into action their classroom learning and develop through undertaking and reflecting on transformational experiences. Kolb’s model applies to all forms of WIL, including where students are immersed in the workplace (e.g., internships, placements, and practicums) through to WIL undertaken on-campus and virtually (e.g., projects and consulting). WIL’s defining factor, as compared to other forms of authentic learning, is that it actively engages industry and/or community partners in learning and assessment activities. These activities range from lighter touch models, such as simulations under industry guidance or projects with industry feedback, to cooperative education that alternates traditional, classroom-based learning with immersive and transformative WIL experiences in which students work under the supervision of host organizations. In this chapter, the benefits of WIL have been theoretically framed using the graduate capitals model (see Tomlinson, 2017), a conceptualization of employability that accounts for the resources used and/or required by graduates to transition to the labor market, as opposed to focusing solely on skills, knowledge, attributes, and employment outcomes. We consider the capitals model to be a useful framework for interpreting the evidenced student benefits of WIL given its focus on effective graduate transitions to work and early career management, both important motivators for embedding WIL in higher education. Moreover, elements of the model (i.e., capitals) offer opportunity for empirical analysis, unlike many other employability conceptualizations that may be less easy to evaluate and measure. Therefore, empirical research is explored to show how WIL can support the development of different types of graduate capitals, specifically human, cultural, social, identity, and psychological. The capitals are summarized here, including how each relates to graduate employability: •

•

•

Human capital: Underpinned by human capital theory (Becker, 1964), individuals who acquire skills and knowledge through higher education are anticipated to be better positioned for the graduate labor market. Advanced human capital should result in superior employment outcomes, stronger performance in the workplace, and, ultimately, more successful careers (Clarke, 2018). Cultural capital: This encompasses cultural knowledge, values, and embodied behaviors, and can assist students in identifying and articulating their fit with prospective employers. Closer alignment between an individual’s personal values and behaviors, and those in the professions and/or industries they intend to enter, can support positive recruitment experiences and ease transitions to work. Social capital: Individuals’ informal and formal networks can inform and shape career awareness, and support access to hidden job markets (see Clarke, 2018; Tomlinson, 2017). Graduates with developed social capital are also often better equipped to build relationships, 95

Denise Jackson and Elizabeth J. Cook

•

•

have clearer understandings of suitable career opportunities, and can navigate labor markets to achieve personal career goals. Identity capital: Defined as a student’s ability to understand their identity in respect to a field and/or workplace, supporting development of a personal narrative that accurately reflects their strengths, weaknesses, capabilities, and achievements (Tomlinson, 2017). Narratives that are better aligned to targeted workplaces can be advantageous in graduate recruitment processes. Psychological capital: Relates to graduates’ ability to draw on resilience (Ershadi et al., 2022), self-efficacy (Dacre pool & Qualter, 2013), career adaptability (Guan et al., 2013; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012), and coping strategies to effectively respond to and manage career shocks and challenges faced throughout life (Tomlinson, 2017). Well-developed psychological capital may be particularly useful in declining graduate labor markets, enabling graduates to cope with multiple rejections during recruitment and adapt career goals and intentions to available opportunities.

It is important to note that these various capitals relate to aspects of individual employability. The capitals model does not account for external (or demand side) factors, which can influence student transitions to work and future careers, such as economic policy and labor market characteristics (McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005).

Benefits of work-integrated learning Table 6.1 summarizes the different benefits that students in higher education can gain from WIL. Most overarching benefits reflect a key dimension of student employability and have several sub-benefits. Key studies relating to each benefit are provided under ‘Example literature.’ In developing this table, the intention was to provide a range of international sources that have empirically examined and evidenced the benefits of multiple forms of WIL in developing student employability. In our review, it was apparent that there has been far greater empirical exploration of the impact and benefits of WIL undertaken in the workplace (e.g., internships and placements) than in other forms, such as project-based learning and consulting. The first column of Table 6.1 indicates the employability capital(s) to which each sub-benefit relates (where relevant). This is included to signal, rather than interpret, theoretical framing that may enhance understandings of why these benefits occur.

Discussion of benefits Graduate capitals lens There are numerous ways that WIL enhances graduate capitals. Table 6.1 clearly indicates how WIL supports the development of discipline-specific skills and professional capabilities, enhancing students’ human capital. As Tomlinson (2017) explains, to utilize these advanced skills, students must understand why they are important and how they are used in different professions and industries. WIL appears to develop these insights, along with a greater understanding of personal strengths and weaknesses. Translating achievements, however, relies on quality WIL design that incorporates reflective activities and assessments (e.g., skill portfolios) that enable students to clearly articulate skill accomplishments and other aspects of employability to prospective employers.

96

Table 6.1  Benefits of work-integrated learning for participating students Sub-benefits

Example literature

(Continued)

Benefits of work-integrated learning for students

97

Benefit: Improved academic outcomes Participation can lead • Brail (2016) compared the grades of service-learning and non-service-learning students and found that those engaged in to enhanced academic service-learning achieved higher marks overall. Both female and international students benefited the most from optional performance in degree studies. participation in service-learning. Capitals: Human. • Drysdale and McBeath (2018) determined that 1,048 students who undertook work placements as part of a cooperative education program were less extrinsically goal-oriented, used deeper rather than surface learning strategies, and achieved higher Grade Point Averages (GPAs) than their 656 peers who did not complete a placement. • Edwards (2007) reported stronger overall academic performance and higher mean GPAs for final year civil engineering students participating in industry placements. • Jones et al. (2017) controlled for the likelihood that higher achieving students are more likely to enroll in work placements and found placements still had a positive impact on final degree marks. • Mungo (2017) found that students who participated in service-learning achieved higher GPAs and were more likely to graduate (within six years; rate 2.4 times higher) than comparable students without service-learning. Service-learning improved graduation rates for all students regardless of racial/ethnic background. • Prescott et al. (2021) undertook an extensive review of the international literature relating to the impact of internships on students’ academic performance (measured by GPAs), concluding that there appear to be academic benefits. • Reddy and Moores (2012) observed enhanced academic performance between the second and third year of study among students who completed a work placement. • Song et al. (2017) focused on the impact of service-learning on underrepresented students’ academic outcomes, retention, and graduation. Of the 5,368 underrepresented students, 51% had enrolled in at least one service-learning course during their first four college years. Service-learning participation was positively related to underrepresented students’ course GPAs, retention, and graduation. • Tanaka and Carlson (2012) found that three, sizeable graduating cohorts in Japan experienced higher GPAs due to WIL (mainly work placements). For two of the groups, these findings were statistically significant.

Table 6.1  (Continued) Sub-benefits

Example literature

Heightened value of degree attainment and/or improved student experience, leading to improved retention or positive attrition. Capitals: Human, cultural, identity, psychological.

•

•

•

Benefit: Developing discipline-related skills and knowledge

98

Opportunity to practically apply theoretical knowledge acquired during degree studies and explicitly link professional practice and classroom learning. Acquire new technical knowledge through observation and/or practice. Understand how disciplinary knowledge is used in different ways at work and how theory can sometimes differ from practice. Insight into required skill standards and employer expectations of new graduates. Capitals: Human.

• • •

• • •

Anderson et al. (2012) surveyed 2,737 post-secondary students in British Columbia and over three-quarters purported that cooperative education helped them to understand the links between their studies and work. Arsenis and Flores (2020) found subject-specific expertise was advanced among 130 economics students undertaking a oneyear work placement in the UK. Clark et al. (2015) noted that students involved in an interprofessional community service-learning program themselves identified the value of interdisciplinarity in workplaces for establishing teams of professionals that can provide more comprehensive and holistic patient care. The program had given students the opportunity to critique workplace operations and systems, in addition to practicing and developing workplace skills. Gamble et al. (2010) found that international students reported greater understandings of disciplinary skill standards, having completed work-based projects in workplaces, and valued the opportunity to benchmark themselves against these standards. Gribble and McRae’s (2017) study of international students in diverse disciplines in Canada and Australia found that work placements offered excellent opportunities to understand and develop the requisite skills and knowledge through the practical application of theory in contexts with less familiar workplace standards and expectations. Wang & Calvano (2018) explored Kolb’s theory of experiential learning in respect to service-learning and found that the pedagogy helped students transform abstract concepts and theories into real knowledge, thus developing their disciplinary knowledge.

Denise Jackson and Elizabeth J. Cook

•

Anderson et al.’s (2012) multi-institutional study in British Columbia associated cooperative education (i.e., academic study plus paid work experience) with increased student engagement and success. Approximately two-thirds of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that work experiences helped them to analyze theories, ideas, and experiences, and almost three-quarters reported that work experiences helped them to assess and judge the importance of information learned in class. Furthermore, two-thirds believed that work experiences helped them to apply concepts or theories to practical problems. Kay et al. (2018) found that innovative forms of WIL (i.e., micro-placements; online projects or placements; hackathons, competitions, and events; incubators and start-ups; and consulting) increased students’ self-reported motivation to study and complemented their learning. Smith et al. (2014) reported that WIL (mainly in the form of work placements), which was embedded and scaffolded vertically and horizontally across curricula, tended to enhance students’ university experiences. Zegwaard and McCurdy (2014) found that work placements increased postgraduate science students’ motivation to continue their studies.

(Continued)

Benefits of work-integrated learning for students

99

Benefit: Developing professional capabilities Developing professional • Arsenis and Flores’s (2020) study of a UK institution’s one-year placement program found positive outcomes for economic capabilities to prepare for students across a wide range of professional capabilities. future work, including • Coll et al. (2009a) undertook national research in New Zealand involving students, employers, and WIL practitioners/facilicommunication, teamwork, tators from higher education institutions in three case studies across science and engineering, business and management, and critical thinking, problem sport. Graduates believed they gained professional capabilities and career enhancement from their placement, practicum, or solving, adaptability, timeindustry-based learning project experience. management, and technology • Crebert et al. (2004) observed that work placements and employment can ease difficulties in the transfer of skills from unirelated skills. versity to work. Understanding why different • Drysdale and McBeath (2014) reported that cooperative students who had undertaken work placements scored higher on professional capabilities are psychological scales used to measure the use of study aids and time-management than their non-cooperative education peers. important and how they are However, these authors noted that both groups performed poorly as compared to previous national research using the same used in different work contexts scale. and industries. • Freudenberg et al. (2011) found their campus-based WIL program enhanced students’ professional capability development Developing the ability to and their appreciation of these and other employability capabilities in respect of academic and professional performance. The transfer professional capabilities on-campus program also enhanced students’ understandings of the purposes of different skills in the workplace. across contexts for improved • Hiller et al. (2014) found that, compared to a non-internship group, interns improved aspects of career preparedness, in work-readiness. particular goal selection self-efficacy. Capitals: Human. • Jackson’s (2015a) study of 130 placement students from multiple disciplines in one Australian university highlighted the potential impact of WIL on professional capability development. • Jackson et al.’s (2019) international, multi-disciplinary study of placement students found that, while work placements augmented learning transfer across university and work contexts, program and workplace characteristics influenced transfer. • Jackson and Bridgstock (2021) found off-campus and virtual internships and, to a lesser degree, projects and consultancies were perceived by Australian creative arts and business graduates as useful for learning employability skills. • Patrick et al.’s (2018) case study of 194 domestic and international students, and 111 community partners, reported professional and personal growth benefits from service-learning. Partners observed positive improvements in students’ functioning across a range of key professional capabilities, as reflected in the students’ self-reports. • Smith et al. (2014) found that work placements enhanced students’ work-readiness and contributed to employability capabilities, even after controlling for factors such as work-experience, age, progression in studies, and the curriculum. Employers noted improvement in self-awareness of abilities, practical application of theory, ability to communicate and behave professionally, and heightened commitment and interest in the job.

Table 6.1  (Continued) Sub-benefits

Example literature

Enhancing knowledge, skills and, understanding of workplace hazards, risks, and safety. Capitals: Human.

•

Bringle and Kremer (1993) reported that students involved in service-learning gained insights for informing their career choices. Students demonstrated sensitivity in respect to social and emotional needs of elderly clients, and broadened understanding of systems and resources surrounding the work context. Clark et al. (2015) examined students’ reflective pieces from an interprofessional community service-learning program experience and found deep learning occurred in relation to broader health and social issues relating to work and the community, including barriers, impacts, and strengths. Students were able to conceive of systemic solutions to problems that they identified and could describe the importance of their chosen professions. Jackson’s (2015b) study of business undergraduates found that work placements provided important networking opportunities, gave insight into areas of career interest, aided career decision-making, and helped to identify pathways to pursue career goals. Jackson and Bridgstock’s (2021) Australian-based study reported virtual and face-to-face internships as reasonably useful for broadening networks. Kay et al.’s (2018) Australian national study into emerging forms of WIL found an increase in students’ professional networks due to WIL and benefits associated with preparing for future employment. WIL challenged Australian students to move outside their comfort zone, experience new things, and feel a sense of accomplishment at work in real contexts. McIlveen et al. (2011) reported that WIL encouraged reflection on personal development and skill capabilities, enhanced understandings of different professions and work contexts, and aided socialization into professional behaviors. Pretti et al. (2014) evaluated the effectiveness of an online career development learning program embedded alongside a cooperative education program and reported improved employability skills and awareness of workforce requirements. Purdie et al.’s (2013) cross-sectional analysis of 716 undergraduates in a UK university found that work placement participants perceived themselves as more hopeful, and confident in setting and achieving goals, than peers who did not participate in placements. Smith et al. (2009) found WIL beneficial for different aspects of career development learning, particularly in gaining insights into work realities, career planning, and building networks. Tran and Soejatminah (2016) used Bourdieu’s thinking tools of capitals and habitus to analyze 105 international students’ experiences in work placements and found they helped to cultivate social connectedness and cultural capital through their interactions with Australian workplaces.

Denise Jackson and Elizabeth J. Cook

100

Benefit: Career self-management Developing networking • capabilities and building networks for career purposes. Capitals: Social. • Understanding labor market opportunities and different career pathways, including contingency planning for • rejection and career shocks. Capitals: Psychological. • Exposure to aspects of professional practice to • clarify career goals and support informed career decision-making. • Capitals: Identity, cultural. Self-awareness, particularly • understanding one’s strengths and limitations, to develop • personal brand. Capitals: Identity. Insight into contemporary work • to foster real-world thinking and understand the bigger • picture. Capitals: Identity, cultural.

Tella et al. (2016) reported that negative incidents experienced through work placements appeared to reinforce the importance of patient safety. Experiencing positive events emphasized the value of teamwork, communication skills, and practical experience in maintaining good practices in patient safety. Students were able to reflect on the prevention of hazards, and critically appraise errors in patient safety response and management, including in relation to patient wellbeing.

(Continued)

Benefits of work-integrated learning for students

101

Benefit: Professional identity development Socialization into professional • Coll et al. (2009b), in their national research in New Zealand, interviewed students, employers, and cooperative education cultures, norms, conduct, and practitioners who conveyed that placements assisted students in gaining insights into workplace values and culture. values. • Dvir and Avissar (2014) explored the development of 18 teacher candidates’ critical professional identities and found that serCapitals: Cultural, identity. vice-learning helped them to deconstruct stereotypes and better cope with difficulties, dilemmas, and conflicts when engaged Insight into the importance in dialogue with others. and practice of ethical • Grace and Trede’s (2013) study of physiotherapy and dietetics students described participants as active learners who form behavior, social responsibility, judgments based on what they see during clinical placements. Transformative dialogues in relation to developing professional cultural awareness, and moral identity occurred when lectures were used alongside clinical placements. citizenship. • Jackson (2017a) used 105 undergraduate business students’ structural reflections to show that work placements can foster Capitals: Cultural. identity construction. Moreover, observations, questions, and interactions with experienced professionals in industry assisted Increased awareness of the students in making sense of their chosen professions. professions and industries. • Jackson (2017b) observed that work placements provided international students with valuable opportunities for gaining Capitals: Cultural. insights into work cultures and professional practices in contexts beyond their home countries. Opportunity to experiment • Mahon et al.’s (2020) case study example of service-learning explored how students’ professional identities developed in a with a profession, self-assess, discipline with less obvious ‘signs’ of professionalization (e.g., geography). They found that reflective exercises raised students’ and receive feedback to better awareness of the contributions of geographical knowledge and skills to local development problem-solving, thus supporting understand personal fit to a professional identity development. workplace or career. • Roberts et al. (2017) reported that students themselves had mentioned that they had noticed increased understandings of Capitals: Identity, cultural, social. cultural and socio-economic issues during their longitudinal integrated clinical placements. Encourage and support critical • Smith et al. (2014) found that work placements enhanced students’ awareness of professional identity. Employers provided perspectives of existing work evidence of students’ understanding of the profession and ability to act appropriately in the workplace. practices. Capitals: Human.

Table 6.1  (Continued) Example literature

102

Benefit: Perceived employability Building confidence in • capabilities, enhanced self-efficacy, and greater • appreciation of employability. • Capitals: Identity. Building confidence through experience and challenges, • leading to more self-authored individuals. • Capitals: Identity. • •

• •

Barton et al. (2019) reported that positive work placement experiences were associated with higher levels of perceived employability among international students at university in Australia. Billett (2011) asserted that practice-based experiences build students’ confidence in their capacity for professional practice. Clark et al. (2015) reviewed students’ reflections and found that workplace confidence increased and that they were inspired, motivated, and fulfilled by their interprofessional community service-learning program experiences. Community organizations confirmed students’ increased confidence and comfort at work. Kay et al. (2018) reported that students and employers perceived emerging forms of WIL as making students more employable and attractive to prospective employers. Jackson and Wilton (2017) reported positive impacts in respect to UK students’ perceived employability due to one-year work placements, although there was no change in perceived employability for the Australian cohort undertaking a semester-long placement. Martin et al. (2011) interviewed workplace supervisors who purported that students gained confidence during their workplace experiences. Mtawa et al. (2021) reported that students perceived that service-learning enabled them to develop their critical thinking, communication, and teamwork skills, and supported understandings and respect for diverse groups. It also enhanced their capacity for agency through developed leadership skills, actions and responsibilities, and capability to care for others and see things from alternate perspectives. St Clair-Thompson and Chivers’s (2019b) study of psychology students found that they perceived the main benefits of placements as enhancing experience, knowledge and skills for employment, career certainty, and future employment prospects. Tolich et al. (2014) discovered internships considerably increased students’ self-reported confidence in their abilities as emerging professional sociologist researchers.

Denise Jackson and Elizabeth J. Cook

Sub-benefits

103

Benefit: Wellbeing Enhanced sense of belonging to a profession or industry. Capitals: Cultural, identity. Opportunity to practice personal agency, agility, and coping. Capitals: Psychological. Improved understanding of work–life balance. Capitals: Psychological. Supported opportunity to reflect on one’s wellbeing and psychological capital. Capitals: Psychological.

• •

•

• •

•

ACEN’s (2020) large-scale study of WIL outcomes of 80,000 Australian graduates found a positive impact of work placements on full-time employment among undergraduates. However, these findings were not replicated for postgraduates. For all course levels, participation in placements reduced the likelihood of graduates perceiving themselves as overqualified in their current roles. Brooks and Youngson (2016) found graduates who had experienced work placements were more likely to achieve graduate-level employment and receive higher earnings after graduation. Di Meglio et al. (2022) found internships facilitated university-to-work transitions among Spanish graduates. Gault et al. (2010) surveyed 185 employers and reported significantly increased full-time employment rates for graduating bachelor students who had experienced internships, even for average-performing interns. High-performing interns were more likely to earn higher starting salaries. Gribble and McRae (2017) observed that international students considered work placements a critical part of their migration strategy, believing they can aid in securing residency in their chosen study destination. Silva et al.’s (2018) national study situated in Portugal found internships positively impacted on job attainment. Clark et al. (2015) reported spiritual growth and emotions such as excitement for the future, satisfaction, reward, and gratefulness in some students who participated in an interprofessional community service-learning program. These are positive emotions known to be associated with wellbeing. For example, Liao and Weng’s (2018) study involving 232 university students found that gratefulness contributed to wellbeing “through increased social connectedness and greater presence of meaning in life” (p. 383). Drysdale and McBeath (2014) reported that 746 non-cooperative education students (and females in particular) felt more anxious (but not dangerously so) than the 1,224 cooperative education students in their study. Anxiety was positively correlated with extrinsic motivation, but negatively correlated with intrinsic motivation, the latter of which was predominantly experienced by the cooperative education students. Another finding was that students were generally anxious about their futures and careers. Jackson (2015a) found that work placements exposed students to the struggles of effectively balancing WIL with other commitments, such as paid employment, studies, and caring or family duties. Roberts et al.’s (2017) qualitative study explored the relationships between learning, perceptions of preparedness for practice, and engagement among students experiencing longitudinal integrated clinical placements. Most students self-reported progress in key aspects of employability, more specifically professional identity, sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and confidence. Valencia-Forrester and Backhaus’s (2020) pilot project found that international students’ confidence increased in communicating in English and making social connections when engaged with local social issues through service-learning, thus helping them find their place in society.

Benefits of work-integrated learning for students

Benefit: Employment outcomes Enhanced full-time employment • outcomes. Gaining practical experience to create positional advantage among graduate recruits. • Increased chance of securing graduate level employment, • leading to greater professional • fulfillment and enhanced career satisfaction. Capitals: Human. •

Denise Jackson and Elizabeth J. Cook

Table 6.1 highlights how WIL can enhance students’ understandings of professional culture, norms, values, and appropriate conduct. Such professional socialization helps to develop cultural capital and may support a more effective and comfortable transition from university to work. Further, students’ exposure to different roles, industries, and work contexts may heighten their understandings of different career pathways, and confidence in pursuing them, leading to improved employment prospects (Tomlinson, 2017). Our review highlights the growing body of evidence to support the networking benefits offered by WIL, particularly where students are immersed in the work environment. The opportunity for students to extend professional networks and build capacity to network through WIL can enhance their social capital. Making initial connections, strengthening these during the experience, working alongside connections, and understanding the importance of professional networks are critical ‘connectedness capabilities’ (Bridgstock & Tippett, 2019) for graduate employability and can be supported by a quality WIL experience. WIL that is thoughtfully designed and incorporates reflective learning activities for encouraging students to consider and make sense of their experiences (Jackson & Trede, 2020) provides an important platform for developing self-awareness. This understanding of ones’ strengths, weaknesses, and achievements is critical to constructing professional identity. Further, the WIL experience, and associated assessment and learning activities, can help students to develop a personal narrative that accurately reflects their professional self for recruitment purposes. Finally, Jackson and Trede (2020) highlight how WIL can expose students to challenges and uncomfortable ‘moments’ that encourage the development of coping strategies, which builds psychological capital. Exposure to various roles, and heightened understanding of different career options, may also support students’ contingency planning for alternative career pathways given rapidly evolving work contexts and weak labor markets.

Caveats to documented benefits There are known challenges when measuring the impact of WIL. Benefits are often gauged through self-assessment, which is widely acknowledged as being subject to bias (see Karnilowicz, 2012). Further, self-assessed data may reflect increased student confidence in their capabilities, rather than actual improvements in performance (Jackson, 2013). Harnessing any benefits of skill development must also account for students’ ability to transfer skills across contexts, something that is often assumed in education, yet complex and difficult to gauge (Blume et al., 2010). St Clair-Thompson and Chivers’s (2019a) study of psychology students in the UK found that those who consider taking a placement have higher levels of conscientiousness and autonomy than those who don’t and, thus, may be more likely to secure employment, achieve higher degree classifications, and have stronger transferable skills, irrespective of whether they complete a placement. They therefore caution against assuming all benefits of WIL apply to all students, highlighting the need to control for personal characteristics and prior attainment ( Jones et al., 2017). It is also important to note that the benefits of WIL are not necessarily automatic. For example, a student participating in a placement or project to engage with industry partners will not necessarily gain all the benefits presented in Table 6.1. First, students must be self-directed, agentic, and intentional in their learning during WIL (Billett, 2015). WIL also needs to be carefully designed to leverage these benefits and its purpose clearly explained to students. Aprile and Knight (2020) affirm the ‘contingent’ nature of WIL, where poor pedagogical design and/or limitations within the workplace (such as a lack of supervisory support) can heavily impact achieved benefits. It is also important that institutions 104

Benefits of work-integrated learning for students

acknowledge the significant resourcing requirements associated with quality WIL (Orrell, 2011) and engage with these in a sustainable way. Similarly, WIL relies on strong pedagogical practice and, resultantly, useful resources have been developed to support quality design (e.g., Cooper et al., 2010; Ferns, 2014). Billett (2011) recommends incorporating preparation for the WIL experience and involving students in self-reflection both during and after WIL to assist with making sense of their workplace experiences and how these relate to classroom learning and the broader world-of-work. Further, effective WIL relies on adequate resourcing from education institutions and industry, including access to supervisory support, induction processes, guidance and feedback interwoven into the experience, the identification of learning goals (Smith, 2012), and effective assessment strategies (see Jaekel et al., 2011; Winchester-Seeto et al., 2010). These principles of quality WIL culminate in better student experiences and produce greater and more diverse benefits for students (Smith et al., 2014). National WIL quality frameworks are emerging that communicate and reinforce the underpinning principles for quality WIL. These quality frameworks can be used by practitioners to inform WIL evaluation at the program, course, and institutional level and are becoming increasingly important given the growth in WIL globally in recent years. An example of such a quality framework is Australia’s ACEN-funded project by Campbell et al. (2019), which articulates standards relating to four domains for quality WIL: student experience, curriculum design, institutional requirements, and stakeholder engagement. In Canada, McRae et al. (2019) support the criticality of a national WIL quality framework and argue that positive outcomes are not guaranteed without purposeful and considered design. In addition, the structures and characteristics of WIL design may impact the benefits gained. For example, Jackson and Wilton (2017) found that the duration of WIL experiences can make a difference to the benefits achieved, with lengthier WIL resulting in more pronounced benefits in respect of perceived employability. Prescott et al. (2021) similarly discovered that longer internships were associated with stronger academic performance post-WIL than shorter ones. Further, scaffolding WIL across courses, to ensure quality WIL throughout the degree, may optimize students’ overall experiences and outcomes (Sachs et al., 2016).

Work-integrated learning and employment The wide use of employment as a proxy measure for employability has meant the impact of WIL is often measured through graduate employment outcomes. The evidence is somewhat mixed. Wilton (2012) highlighted a systematic improvement in employment outcomes among one-year placement students, as compared to single, shorter internships, and recommended further investigation into placement characteristics and aspects of WIL design that may lead to such improvements, while Silva et al. (2018) found multiple, shorter internships embedded across the degree produced stronger employment effects than one, lengthy internship towards the end of the degree. More recently, Bittman and Zorn (2020) reviewed numerous studies of the impact of different types of internships worldwide, the varying outcomes highlighting that positive effects cannot always be assumed. Also apparent is the lack of empirical exploration of employment outcomes in respect of other, non-traditional forms of WIL (delivered on-campus or virtually). However, Silva et al. (2018) did find that workplace-based internships were more impactful than WIL experiences where students could choose between a range of on-campus experiences, possibly given their more authentic nature, and greater exposure to industry mentorship and supervision. 105

Denise Jackson and Elizabeth J. Cook

Conclusion This review of WIL’s documented benefits highlights its importance as a pedagogical strategy for enhancing employability among higher education students. It also provides a useful starting point for WIL practitioners, students, and industry stakeholders to identify and understand evidenced benefits when engaging in WIL. The theoretical lens of the graduate capitals model further illuminates WIL’s diverse and rich benefits, and how it may support groups of students in different ways. For example, it is likely that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds will have less developed social and cultural capital, and less confidence to build them. WIL may, therefore, have a greater impact on these students with respect to these graduate capitals than their advantaged peers. Indeed, participating in WIL may improve their access to often middle-class dominated industries and professions (see Tomlinson, 2017). That said, there is currently limited research into the benefits of WIL for certain groups of students, such as those of low socioeconomic status, Indigenous heritage, and those who have a disability or mental health condition. This is perhaps due to limited sample sizes or difficulties in accessing these groups. Exploring how WIL might ease their transitions to work, and how these students perceive WIL as benefiting them, could inform effective practice and identify practical strategies that make a difference to their careers and, thus, quality of life. This review has also highlighted the lack of empirical exploration of WIL beyond traditional workplace-based models, such as internships, placements, and practicums. With online WIL increasingly prevalent and recently amplified due to COVID-19 restrictions, there is greater opportunity to evaluate the benefits of online offerings compared with traditional, face-toface WIL. Extending empirical investigations of the benefits of WIL beyond traditional forms is particularly important given the drive to upscale WIL across the higher education sector. Specifically, this review indicates a scarcity of research on the following benefits of non-­ traditional forms of WIL: academic outcomes; developing discipline-related skills and knowledge; enhancing knowledge, skills, and understanding of workplace hazards, risks, and safety; professional identity development; employment outcomes; and wellbeing. It has been suggested that pedagogical strategies are needed to support WIL students in achieving a satisfactory work– life balance (Carter et al., 2015) given that a poor balance can contribute to students’ stress and, in turn, increase their likelihood of anxiety and depression (Sprung & Rogers, 2021). Further, most of the reviewed literature is focused on the benefits of WIL for domestic undergraduate students. More investigation of the perspectives of international students and postgraduates would deepen our understanding of their gains from WIL and how this varies across cohorts. In writing this chapter, we have identified future areas of research that would enhance stakeholder understanding of the benefits gained by students in undertaking different forms of WIL. First, extending empirical exploration across equity and previously described student groups would be valuable. Second, research is needed that examines if and how virtual and on-­campus offerings are equitable and offer similar benefits for students undertaking workplace-based WIL. Third, greater exploration of interventions in practice, which are designed to safeguard student wellbeing during WIL, and the effects of interventions for different student groups are needed. Finally, broadening empirical analysis to include international and postgraduate students could further enrich our insights. To conclude, this chapter has synthesized the empirical higher education research literature on the benefits of WIL across various dimensions of student employability. We then discussed these in relation to graduate capitals to assist WIL practitioners, students, and industry stakeholders to identify, understand, and articulate the benefits of WIL to students in their everyday pedagogical practice. Enhancement of WIL teaching and learning will now depend on how 106

Benefits of work-integrated learning for students

much and how soon we identify effective strategies through research to attend to the diverse needs of students who participate in all types of WIL. With increasing governmental interest in WIL and industry–university partnerships, and continued advocacy for funding WIL, the higher education sector may have a real chance at making such enhancements a reality.

References ACEN. (2020). Australian Collaborative Education Network - summary report for graduate outcomes survey items 2020. Australian Collaborative Education Network. Anderson, E., Johnston, N., Iles, L., McRae, N., Reed, N., & Walchli, J. (2012). Co-operative education and student recruitment, engagement and success: Early findings from a multi-institutional study in British Columbia. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 46, 58–76. Aprile, K. T., & Knight, B. A. (2020). The WIL to learn: Students’ perspectives on the impact of work-integrated learning placements on their professional readiness. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1695754 Arsenis, P., & Flores, M. (2020). Determinants of students’ salaries in the professional training year. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863345 Barton, G., Hartwig, K., & Le, A. H. (2019). International students’ perceptions of workplace experiences in Australian study programs: A large-scale survey. Journal of Studies in International Education, 23(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1028315318786446 Becker, G. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. University of Chicago Press. Berntson, E., & Marklund, S. (2007). The relationship between perceived employability and subsequent health. Work and Stress, 21(3), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370701659215 Billett, S. (2011). Curriculum and pedagogical bases for effectively integrating practice-based experiences. Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC). Billett, S. (2015). Pedagogic practices supporting the integration of experiences. In S. Billett (Ed.) Integrating practice-based experiences into higher education (pp. 195–223). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-94-017-7230-3_8 Bittmann, F., & Zorn, V. S. (2020). When choice excels obligation: About the effects of mandatory and voluntary internships on labour market outcomes for university graduates. Higher Education, 80(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00466-5 Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065–1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352880 Brail, S. (2016). Quantifying the value of service-learning: A comparison of grade achievement between service-learning and non-service-learning students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 28(2), 148–157. Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 31–44. https://doi. org/10.1080/07294360802444347 Bridgstock, R., & Jackson, D. (2019). Strategic institutional approaches to graduate employability: Navigating meanings, measurements and what really matters. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(5), 468–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1646378 Bridgstock, R., Jackson, D., Lloyd, K., & Tofa, M. (2019). Social connectedness and graduate employability: Exploring the professional networks of graduates from business and creative industries. In R. Bridgstock & N. Tippett (Eds.) Higher education and the future of graduate employability: A Connectedness learning approach (pp. 70–89). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788972611.00012 Bridgstock, R., & Tippett, N. (2019). Connectedness pedagogies. In R. Bridgstock & N. Tippett (Eds.) Higher education and the future of graduate employability: A Connectedness learning approach (pp. 91–99). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788972611.00014 Bringle, R. G., & Kremer, J. F. (1993). Evaluation of an intergenerational service-learning project for undergraduates. Educational Gerontology, 19(5), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/0360127930190504 Brooks, R., & Youngson, P. L. (2016). Undergraduate work placements: An analysis of the effects on career progression. Studies in Higher Education, 41(9), 1563–1578. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507 9.2014.988702

107

Denise Jackson and Elizabeth J. Cook Campbell, M., Russell, L., McAllister, L., Smith, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., & Barrett, M. (2019). A framework to support assurance of institution-wide quality in work-integrated learning. Australian Collaborative Education Network. Carter, A. G., Wilkes, E., Gamble, J., Sidebotham, M., & Creedy, D. K. (2015). Midwifery students’ experiences of an innovative clinical placement model embedded within midwifery continuity of care in Australia. Midwifery, 31, 765–771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2015.04.006 Clark, M., McKague, M., McKay, S., & Ramsden, V. R. (2015). Deeper learning through service: Evaluation of an interprofessional community service-learning program for pharmacy and medicine students. Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice & Education, 5(1), 1–25. Clarke, M. (2018). Rethinking graduate employability: The role of capital, individual attributes and context. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1923–1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1 294152 Coll, R. K., Eames, C., Paku, L., Lay, M., Ayling, D., Hodges, D., Bhat, R., Ram, S., Ayling, D., Fleming, J., Ferkins, L., Wiersma, C., & Martin, A. (2009a). An exploration of the pedagogies employed to integrate knowledge in work-integrated learning in New Zealand higher education institutions. Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. Coll, R. K., Eames, C., Paku, L., Lay, M., Hodges, D., Bhat, R., Ram, S., Ayling, D., Fleming, J., Ferkins, L., Wiersma, C., & Martin, A. (2009b). An exploration of the pedagogies employed to integrate knowledge in work-integrated learning. Journal of Cooperative Education & Internships, 43(1), 14–35. Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning: A guide to effective practice. Routledge. Crebert, G., Bates, B., Bell, B., Patrick, C.-J., & Cragnolini, V. (2004). Developing generic skills at university, during work placement and in employment: Graduates’ perceptions. Higher Education Research & Development 23(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000206636 Dacre Pool, L., & Qualter, P. (2013). Emotional self-efficacy, graduate employability, and career satisfaction: Testing the associations. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(4), 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ajpy.12023 de Vos, A., de Hauw, S., & Van der Heijden, B. (2011). Competency development and career success: The mediating role of employability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 438–447. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.010 Di Meglio, G., Barge-Gil, A., Camiña, E., & Moreno, L. (2022). Knocking on employment’s door: Internships and job attainment. Higher Education, 83(1), 137–161. Drysdale, M. T. B., & McBeath, M. (2014). Exploring hope, self-efficacy, procrastination and study skills between cooperative and non-cooperative education students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 69–79. Drysdale, M. T. B., & McBeath, M. (2018). Motivation, self-efficacy and learning strategies of university students participating in work-integrated learning. Journal of Education and Work, 31(5–6), 478–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2018.1533240 Dvir, N., & Avissar, I. (2014). Constructing a critical professional identity among teacher candidates during service-learning, Professional Development in Education, 40(3), 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 9415257.2013.818573 Edwards, D. (2007). Improving student achievement through industry placement. Proceedings from the International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEE). http://www.ineer.org Ershadi, M., Davis, P., & Newaz, M. T. (2022). Systematic review of resilience measures: Construction management graduates’ perspective. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(11), 2037–2050. Ferns, S. (2014). Work-integrated learning in the curriculum. Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. Freudenberg, B., Brimble, M., & Cameron, C. (2011). WIL and generic skill development: The development of business students’ generic skills through work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 12(2), 79–93. Gamble, N., Patrick, C., & Peach, D. (2010). Internationalising work-integrated learning: Creating global citizens to meet the economic crisis and the skills shortage. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(5), 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.502287 Gault, J., Leach, E., & Duey, M. (2010). Effects of business internships on job marketability: The employers’ perspective. Education + Training, 52(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011017690 Grace, S., & Trede, F. (2013). Developing professionalism in physiotherapy and dietetics students in professional entry courses. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 793–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/030750 79.2011.603410

108

Benefits of work-integrated learning for students Gribble, C., & McRae, N. (2017). Creating a climate for global WIL: Barriers to participation and strategies for enhancing international students’ involvement in WIL in Canada and Australia. In G. Barton & K. Hartwig (Eds.) Professional learning in the workplace for international students (pp. 35–55). Springer. Guan, Y., Deng, H., Sun, J., Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Ye, L., Fu, R., Wang, Y., Zhang, S., & Li, Y. (2013). Career adaptability, job search self-efficacy and outcomes: A three-wave investigation among Chinese university graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 561–570. Guilbert, L., Bernaud, J-L., Gouvernet, B., & Rossier, J. (2016). Employability: Review and research prospects. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 16(1), 69–89. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10775-015-9288-4 Healy, M., Hammer, S., & McIlveen, P. (2022). Mapping graduate employability and career development in higher education research: A citation network analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 47(4), 799–811. Hiller, M. L., Salvatore, C., & Taniguchi, T. (2014). Evaluation of a criminal justice internship program: Why do students take it and does it improve career preparedness? Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2013.856929 Holmes, L. (2013). Competing perspectives on graduate employability: Possession, position or process? Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 538–554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.587140 Ingram, N., & Allen, K. (2019). ‘Talent-spotting’ or ‘social magic’? Inequality, cultural sorting and constructions of the ideal graduate in elite professions. The Sociological Review, 67(3), 723–740. https://doi. org/10.1177/0038026118790949 Jackson, D. (2013). The contribution of work-integrated learning to undergraduate employability skill outcomes. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(2), 99–115. Jackson, D. (2015a). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842221 Jackson, D. (2015b). Career choice status among undergraduates and the influence of work-integrated learning. Australian Journal of Career Development, 24(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416215570043 Jackson, D. (2016). Re-conceptualising graduate employability: The importance of pre-professional identity. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(5), 925–939. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.20 16.1139551 Jackson, D. (2017a). Developing pre-professional identity in undergraduates through work-integrated learning. Higher Education, 74, 833–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0080-2 Jackson, D. (2017b). Exploring the challenges experienced by international students during workintegrated learning in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(3), 344–359. https://doi.org/10.10 80/02188791.2017.1298515 Jackson, D., & Bridgstock, R. (2018). Evidencing student success in the contemporary world-of-work: Renewing our thinking. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(5), 984–998. https://doi.org/10. 1080/07294360.2018.1469603 Jackson, D., & Bridgstock, R. (2021). What actually works to enhance graduate employability? The relative value of curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular learning and paid work. Higher Education, 81(4), 723–739. Jackson, D., Fleming, J., & Rowe, A. (2019). Enabling the transfer of skills and knowledge across classroom and work contexts. Vocations and Learning, 12, 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-019-09224-1 Jackson, D., & Trede, F. (2020). The role of reflection after placement experiences to develop selfauthorship among higher education students. In S. Billett, J. Orrell, D. Jackson & F. Valencia-Forrester (Eds.) Enriching higher education students’ learning through post-work placement interventions (pp. 189–208). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48062-2_11 Jackson, D., & Wilton, N. (2017). Perceived employability among undergraduates and the importance of career self-management, work experience and individual characteristics. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(4), 747–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1229270 Jaekel, A., Hector, S., Northwood, D., Benzinger, K., Salinitri, G., Johrendt, J., & Watters, M. (2011). Development of learning outcomes assessment methods for co-operative education programs. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 45(1), 11–32. Jones, C. M., Green, J. P., & Higson, H. E. (2017). Do work placements improve final year academic performance or do high-calibre students choose to do work placements? Studies in Higher Education, 42(6), 976–992. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1073249 Karnilowicz, W. (2012). A comparison of self-assessment and tutor assessment of undergraduate psychology students. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(4), 591–604. https://dx.doi.org/10.2224/ sbp.2012.40.4.591

109

Denise Jackson and Elizabeth J. Cook Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., & Smith, J. (2018). Expanding work integrated learning (WIL) possibilities: Enhancing student employability through innovative WIL models. Australian Technology Network of Universities. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Liao, K. Y., & Weng, C.-Y. (2018). Gratefulness and subjective well-being: Social connectedness and presence of meaning as mediators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(3), 383–393. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/cou0000271.supp Mahon, M., Conway, T., Farrell, M., & McDonagh, J (2020). Service learning as a means to develop geography graduates’ professional identity. The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 1–20. Martin, A., Rees, M., & Edwards, M. (2011). Work integrated learning. A template for good practice: Supervisors’ reflections. Ako Aotearea. McIlveen, P., Brooks, S., Lichtenberg, A., Smith, M., Torjul, P., & Tyler, J. (2011). Perceptions of career development learning and work-integrated learning in Australian higher education. Australian Journal of Career Development, 20(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841621102000105 McQuaid, R. W., & Lindsay, C. (2005). The concept of employability. Urban studies, 42(2), 197–219. McRae, N., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2019). Work-integrated learning quality framework. University of Waterloo. Mtawa, N., Fongwa, S., & Wilson-Strydom, M. (2021). Enhancing graduate employability attributes and capabilities formation: A service-learning approach. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(5), 679–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1672150 Mungo, M. H. (2017). Closing the gap: Can service-learning enhance retention, graduation, and GPAS of students of color? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(2), 42–52. Orrell, J. (2011). Good practice report: Work-integrated learning. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Patrick, C.-J., Webb, F., Smith, C. (2018). Service learning: More than employability. In J. Smith, K.  Robinson & M. Campbell (Eds.) WIL: Creating Connections, Building Futures – Proceedings of the 2018 ACEN National Conference (pp. 97–101). Australian Collaborative Education Network Limited. Praskova, A., Creed, P. A., & Hood, M. (2015). Self-regulatory process mediating between career calling and perceived employability and life satisfaction in emerging adults. Journal of Career Development, 42(2), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845314541517 Prescott, P., Paulson Gjerde, K., & Rice, J. L. (2021). Analyzing mandatory college internships: Academic effects and implications for curricular design. Studies in Higher Education, 46(11), 2444–2459. Pretti, T. J., Noël, T., & Waller, T. G. (2014). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an online program to help co-op students enhance their employability skills: A study of the University of Waterloo’s Professional Development Program (WatPD). Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Purdie, F., Ward, L., McAdie, T., Kind, N., & Drysdale, M. (2013). Are work-integrated learning (WIL) students better equipped psychologically for work post-graduation than their non-work-integrated learning peers? Some initial findings from a UK university. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(2), 117–125. Reddy, P., & Moores, E. (2012). Placement year academic benefit revisited: Effects of demographics, prior achievement and degree programme. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10 .1080/13562517.2011.611873 Roberts, C., Daly, M., Held, F., & Lyle, D. (2017). Social learning in a longitudinal integrated clinical placement. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 22, 1011–1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10459-016-9740-3 Rowe, A. D., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2017). Developing graduate employability skills and attributes: Curriculum enhancement through work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2): 87–99. Sachs, J., Rowe, A., & Wilson, M. (2016). Good practice report–Work-integrated learning. Australian Government Department of Education and Training. Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 80(3), 661–673. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011 Silva, P., Lopes, B., Costa, M., Melo, A. I., Dias, G. P., Brito, E., & Seabra, D. (2018). The million-dollar question: Can internships boost employment? Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 2–21. https://doi.org /10.1080/03075079.2016.1144181

110

Benefits of work-integrated learning for students Smith, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: A comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360. 2011.558072 Smith, C., Ferns, S., Russell, L., & Cretchley, P. (2014). Assessing the impact of work-integrated learning (WIL) on student work readiness: Final report. Australian Government, Office for Learning & Teaching. Smith, M., Brooks, S., Lichtenberg, A., McIlveen, P., Torjul, P., & Tyler, J. (2009). Career development learning: Maximising the contribution of work-integrated learning to student experience. Final report. University of Wollongong Press. Song, W., Furco, A., Lopez, I., & Maruyama, G. (2017). Examining the relationship between servicelearning participation and the educational success of underrepresented students. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, (Fall), 23–37. Sprung, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2021). Work-life balance as a predictor of college student anxiety and depression. Journal of American College Health, 69(7), 775–782. St Clair-Thompson, H., & Chivers, C. (2019a). Characteristics of students who consider taking a psychology placement year. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1889–1899. https://doi.org/10.1080/030750 79.2018.1466113 St Clair-Thompson, H., & Chivers, C. (2019b). Perceived advantages and disadvantages of taking a psychology professional placement year. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 9(3), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-06-2018-0065 Tanaka, Y., & Carlson, K. (2012). An international comparison of the effect of work-integrated learning on academic performance: A statistical evaluation of WIL in Japan and Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2, 7788. Tella, S., Smith, N-J., Partanen, P., & Turunen, H. (2016). Work placements as learning environment for patient safety: Finnish and British preregistration nursing students’ important learning events. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 68(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2015.1 104715 Tolich, M., Paris, A., & Shephard, K. (2014). An evaluation of experiential learning in a sociology internship class. New Zealand Sociology, 29(1), 119–134. Tomlinson, M. (2017). Forms of graduate capital and their relationship to graduate employability. Education + Training, 59(4), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2016-0090 Tomlinson, M., & Jackson, D. (2021). Professional identity formation in contemporary higher education students. Studies in Higher Education, 46(4), 885–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019. 1659763 Tran, L. T., & Soejatminah, S. (2016). ‘Get foot in the door’: International students’ perceptions of work integrated learning. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(3), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00 071005.2015.1128526 Trede, F. (2012). Role of work-integrated learning in developing professionalism and professional identity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(3), 159–167. Trede, F., Macklin, R., & Bridges, D. (2012). Professional identity development: A review of the higher education literature. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079. 2010.521237 Valencia-Forrester, F., & Backhaus, B. (2020). Service learning as supported, social learning for international students: An Australian case study. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1864789 Vanhercke, D., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2020). Perceived employability and well-being: An overview. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 14(1), 8–18. Wang, L., & Calvano, L. (2018). Understanding how service learning pedagogy impacts student learning objectives. Journal of Education for Business, 93(5), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2018. 1444574 Watts, A. (2006). Career development learning and employability. Learning and Employability Series Two. Higher Education Academy. Wellings, P., Black, R., Craven, G., Freshwater, D., & Harding, S. (2019). Performance-based funding for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. Australian Government Department of Education. Wilton, N. (2012). The impact of work placements on skill development and career outcomes for business and management graduates. Studies in Higher Education, 37(5), 603–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/030 75079.2010.532548

111

Denise Jackson and Elizabeth J. Cook Winchester-Seeto, T., Mackaway, J., Coulson, D., & Harvey, M. (2010). ‘But how do we assess it?’ An analysis of assessment strategies for learning through participation (LTP). Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 11(3), 67–91. Zegwaard, K. E., & McCurdy, S. (2014). The influence of work-integrated learning on motivation to undertake graduate studies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 13–28.

112

7 BENEFITS OF WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING FOR HOST ORGANIZATIONS Jenny Fleming, Sonia J. Ferns, and Karsten E. Zegwaard

Introduction Work-integrated learning (WIL) is realized through relationships and partnerships with host organizations. The importance of these partnerships and critical success factors for sustaining these relationships are examined in the literature (see, e.g., Ferns et al., 2022; Fleming et al., 2018; Kay et al., 2014) and discussed in more detail in Chapter 25 in this Handbook. A key principle of WIL partnerships is reciprocity, where there are mutual benefits gained for each stakeholder (Fleming & Hickey, 2013). This chapter discusses the benefits of WIL for host organizations. The key motivations for hosting a WIL student and supporting student learning are identified, the current literature highlighting the benefits summarized, and the challenges encountered discussed. This chapter discusses evidence useful in the recruitment of suitable organizations for student WIL experiences and strategies for retaining and sustaining these relationships. In addition, the chapter provides guidelines for good practice, to optimize the benefits for hosts, and create positive WIL experiences. There are different approaches to hosting a student depending on, for example, the model of the WIL program, structure of the WIL experience, size of the host organization, nature of the discipline (e.g., the need for WIL to meet professional registration requirements), and the type of activities or roles that students will undertake (Cooper et al., 2010; Rowe et al., 2012). For some organizations, the student may be on an employment contract and paid a wage, while for other organizations the student may receive a stipend or specified contractual amount, or undertake tasks for the organization in an unpaid, volunteer capacity. Organizations can offer students either full-time or part-time WIL opportunities. The length of WIL experiences is variable and can range from as little as 30 hours to several months, and for some, a full year. For work placement WIL experiences, the students are typically located physically in the workplace setting, but recently remote work has become more common (Zegwaard et al., 2020). Non-placement WIL activities are typically project-based and usually unpaid, on-campus experiences with an external stakeholder as a client (Dean & Campbell, 2020). These differences contribute towards a variety of motivations for organizations to host students, along with the benefits they may gain from participating in WIL.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-9

113

Jenny Fleming et al.

Motivations for organizations to participate in work-integrated learning Drawing on inter-organizational relationship theory (Oliver, 1990), key motivations for being involved with WIL can be categorized under two broad themes: efficiency and legitimacy. Efficiency motivations are generally internally rather than externally orientated (Oliver, 1990), for example, to improve productivity and output. Legitimacy focuses on improving an organization’s image and reputation (Fleming & Hickey, 2013). Sometimes, this is through being linked with organizations who have a perceived ‘higher standing’ than their own, or by developing relationships that align with social responsibilities (Oliver, 1990). A number of studies have identified that a key motivation for participation in WIL is the need for extra resources and additional labor to improve efficiency (i.e., productivity), and to increase work capacity (e.g., Fleming & Hickey, 2013; Sattler & Peters, 2012). In their large Canadian study of 3,369 employers, Sattler and Peters (2012) found that the most commonly cited reason for an employer to host WIL students was to develop the workforce skills needed in their industry or profession. Other efficiency motivations include managing short and long-term pressures or special projects (Braunstein & Stull, 2001; Martin et al., 2019) or creating opportunities to release existing staff to take on higher level roles. Efficient recruitment (Reeve, 2001) through pre-screening future staff was also identified as a key motivation for hosting a student, with the intent of recruiting the WIL student for a permanent position when the student graduates. An additional motivation for organizations to be involved in WIL may be ‘legitimacy.’ This can be enhanced through the altruistic notion of ‘giving back’ to the industry or profession (Atkinson, 2016; Sattler & Peters, 2012), particularly where alumni want to contribute to the institution at which they studied and, in particular, to provide opportunities for current students from the same WIL program, which they completed as a student (Martin et al., 2019). Similarly, many hosts are motivated by opportunities to contribute to economic productivity through enhancing students’ career development (Tran, 2016). Employers perceive their support of student learning and employability development as a mechanism “to increase their social responsibility and improve their corporate image” (Tran, 2016, p. 65). Raising awareness of the organization, and what it has to offer, to future graduates is also seen as a legitimacy motivation for smaller and less-well-known organizations (Fleming & Hickey, 2013), or organizations that have challenges in recruitment of employees due to their remote or rural location (Quillan & Bourke, 2021). Similarly, larger organizations will use WIL as a way of raising their profile to recruit high-performing students before they graduate (Sattler & Peters, 2012). Providing a positive WIL experience may also fulfill an additional public relations role where students sharing their experiences with fellow students, career staff, and higher education (HE) staff may raise the profile and image of the organization to future employees (Breen & Hing, 2001; Maertz et al., 2014).

Benefits for host organizations The stakeholder benefits of various models of WIL have been researched for over 40 years (see the second edition of this Handbook, Braunstein et al., 2011) and many of the findings are still relevant today. More recent studies specifically focus on the host organization or employer perspectives (e.g., Braunstein & Stull, 2001; Cullen, 2005; Martin et al., 2019; Sattler & Peters, 2012). However, frequently the benefits have been captured in wider studies that include all three stakeholders (e.g., Fleming, 2014; Maertz et al., 2014) or as an incidental finding from other WIL-related research. 114

Benefits for host organizations

Several studies have explored the benefits for host organizations, and described the findings in relation to the graduate capabilities developed through WIL that are beneficial to a future employer. Highly skilled graduates are potentially productive employees for an organization and bring fresh ideas and innovative approaches that can boost the profile, economic status, and competitive edge of the organization, which in the long term contributes to sustaining a buoyant economy (Tran, 2016). While there are some interconnected benefits for the host organization and students, this chapter will focus specifically on the host organization, while the benefits of WIL for students have been discussed in Chapter 6 in this Handbook. It is likely the benefits for the host organization for placement WIL and non-placement WIL are similar; however, research to date has almost exclusively focused on benefits to host organizations through more traditional work placement forms of WIL. This section discusses the benefits to the organization of hosting or participating in WIL. Frequently, benefits align with the motivations for engaging in WIL as outlined earlier. It is acknowledged that the benefits realized will vary depending on the model of WIL and the size and nature of the host organization, and this is evident through the research in different contexts summarized in this section. The key themes identified from the literature (with a focus primarily on research literature) include increased work capacity and economic impact, workplace culture, recruitment, staff development, altruistic and social responsibilities, and connections with education institutions. These themes, sub-themes, and supporting literature (a selection from the last 20 years) relating to these themes are summarized in Table 7.1.

Increased work capacity and economic impact Similar to the motivations for initially becoming involved in WIL, one of the most commonly cited benefits for host organizations is the value of increasing productivity or work capacity through additional labor resources (Sattler & Peters, 2012; Smith et al., 2015). WIL students can provide value-added short-term tangible returns, as they help manage short-term pressures during ‘busy’ times (Martin et al., 2019) through the capacity of either paid or unpaid work placements. This particular benefit is important for organizations in sectors with seasonal peaks and demands or who often rely on ‘volunteers’ to support their activities (e.g., sport, tourism, hospitality, events) (Fleming & Pretti, 2019; Martin et al., 2019). In a study describing the benefits of taking on international exchange students for WIL experiences, Beard et al. (2001) highlighted the opportunity for a company to fill staffing needs at a time when it is difficult to find local staff. WIL students in the workplace may also relieve permanent staff to take on more critical or higher level tasks for short periods of time or undertake special projects (Cullen, 2005) that staff may otherwise not have time to complete. While the time and resources needed for managing and supporting a WIL student are acknowledged, in most cases the benefits to the host organization are considered to outweigh the additional workload required (Fleming & Pretti, 2019). Albeit in many sectors work placements include a monetary payment to the student, unpaid work placements are still common, especially in areas where voluntary service is typical (e.g., in sports and recreation or within the service-learning WIL model). However, unpaid work placements may present significant legal and reputational risks for both the host and the HE institution (Cameron, 2018). In some models of cooperative education, for example in Canada, students complete multiple work terms during their studies. Additional benefits for host organizations may be realized when a student returns to the same organization for more than one placement or ‘work term.’ Along with the increased productivity and contribution of a returning student, having a more senior student in the workplace who is able to take on a mentoring or supervisory role for 115

Jenny Fleming et al. Table 7.1  Benefits for organizations of hosting work-integrated learning students Key theme

Benefits

Supporting literature

Increased work capacity and economic impact

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Cullen (2005), Fleming and Hickey (2013), Fleming and Pretti (2019), Maertz et al. (2014), Martin et al. (2019), Nevison and Pretti (2016), Pretti et al. (2016), Sattler and Peters (2012), Smith et al. (2015) Braunstein and Stull (2001), Ferns et al. (2019), Ferns et al. (2021), Fleming and Pretti (2019), Kessels and Kwakman (2007), Martin et al. (2019), Pretti et al. (2016), Tanaka (2009), Wang et al. (2018)

Workplace culture

Recruitment

• • Staff development

• • • • • •

Altruistic and social responsibilities Connection with educational institutions

Additional labor resource Short-term cover (often for busy times) Special projects Release of staff for higher/other roles Unpaid and/or lower cost roles Access to government-funded schemes Organizational citizenship Fresh perspectives and ideas Enthusiastic and motivated students Staff role modeling Shared learning and knowledge sharing Broadening networks Lower staff turnover Pre-screening potential employees Supply of skilled graduates (talent pipelines) Reduced training requirements when recruiting from past WIL students Faster progression of WIL students as new employees (no probation) Improved staff retention Opportunity for staff to learn to manage staff/students Development of supervision and mentoring skills Leadership development Access to new knowledge Links to HE institution

• Opportunity to ‘give back’ and ‘make a difference’ for students • Educating the future workforce • Corporate responsibility • Public image • Access and sharing of research knowledge • Access to specialized equipment • Research and development opportunities • Opportunities to give presentations to students • Co-branding for marketing purposes

Bennett et al. (2008), Braunstein and Stull (2001), Cullen (2005), Drewery et al. (2020), Gohringer (2002), Jackson et al. (2017), Maertz et al. (2014), Sattler and Peters (2012), Tran (2016), Wang et al. (2018) Braunstein and Stull (2001), Ferns et al. (2021), Ferns et al. (2021), Fleming and Pretti (2019), Fleming et al. (2021), Jackson et al. (2017), Kessels and Kwakman (2007), Martin et al. (2019), Smith et al. (2015) Breen and Hing (2001), Ferns et al. (2014), Martin et al. (2019), Mgaya and Mbekomize (2014), Tran (2016) Ferns et al. (2014), Ferns et al. (2019), Ferns et al. (2021), Tran (2016), Zegwaard and McCurdy (2014)

a less-experienced student reduces the investment of time required by other staff within the organization (Nevison & Pretti, 2016). Increased work capacity is clearly a benefit for host organizations providing an opportunity for economic gain, particularly in unpaid placements. Yet, the true economic return on investment of having a WIL student in the organization can be difficult to measure due to the intangible and subjective nature of some of the benefits gained (Bennett, 2008). 116

Benefits for host organizations

Workplace culture The term ‘added value’ has been used to describe some of the workplace benefits for the host organization (Martin et al., 2019). Workplace supervisors have mentioned how WIL students bring energy, enthusiasm, vitality, and a different dynamic to the workplace environment, which is perceived as ‘refreshing’ (Fleming & Pretti, 2019; Wang et al., 2018). WIL students also may influence the way a workplace team functions by providing new perspectives, challenging existing ideas, and providing colleagues with new ways of doing things. Host organizations benefit from the added value of students who can perform the necessary tasks and offer the capability to improve current practice. For organizations to gain benefits from hosting WIL students, they need to capitalize on students’ motivation and enthusiasm. However, it is acknowledged that it can take some time before students have the confidence or capacity to contribute to the workplace in a significant way (Rowe et al., 2021). When WIL students share their knowledge and ideas with work colleagues, are enthusiastic and work hard, or help in ways above and beyond the expected requirements, they are perceived to be good organizational citizens (Pretti et al., 2016), providing positive benefits for the host organization. Workplace staff may also respond to the presence of a WIL student by creating a positive, supportive workplace environment, as well as modeling professional practices and behaviors, which has the potential to improve team culture. Hosting a WIL student has also been shown to motivate some staff in their own roles and enable them to appreciate the skills and knowledge they have when they are able to share this with a student (Fleming & Pretti, 2019). Establishing a ‘shared’ learning community premised on a collaborative dynamic where “a diverse range of expertise and access to resources enhances problem-solving capacity” (Ferns et al., 2021, p. 219) provides numerous benefits for hosts. Cooperative decision-making potentially broadens the knowledge and skills of staff (Ferns et al., 2019) and promotes creative ideas and innovative solutions for organizations. Furthermore, social connections are strengthened, thereby extending professional networks and fostering inclusivity. When a WIL student accepts an offer of graduate employment, they have an awareness of the culture and expectations of working for that particular organization. This reduces the likelihood of WIL graduates then leaving within a short time due to misaligned expectations of their role and, therefore, potentially reducing staff turnover. While this notion is drawn from experiences of WIL practitioners, further research is needed to provide substantive evidence.

Recruitment advantages Employers often require graduate applicants to have relevant work experience and be ‘workready’ with the skills and capabilities to operate effectively in the workplace ( Jackson et al., 2017). Chapter 6 has discussed further the generic and specific capabilities that students develop through their WIL experience, and how these are beneficial to a future employer. For host organizations, there are benefits gained from recruiting employees from their current or previous WIL students. One such benefit is the ‘try before you buy’ approach or the opportunity to ‘pre-screen’ a WIL student as a potential permanent employee (Braunstein & Stull, 2001; Cullen, 2005). Employing a graduate who has completed a WIL placement with the organization may reduce the ‘recruitment risk’ and the time and financial costs of searching and interviewing suitable candidates. Sattler and Peters (2012) found that many Canadian organizations were keen to hire graduates who had undertaken a WIL experience at their own workplace, and for those that did not hire their WIL students, the reason most often given was a lack of job openings or the student was not interested or available. 117

Jenny Fleming et al.

A WIL graduate is more likely to ‘fit in’ easily (Bennett et al., 2008) requiring less time for socialization into the workplace culture, and familiarizing with the organizational procedures, when starting a full-time role (Bennett et al., 2008; Maertz et al., 2014). Familiarity with the organization may reduce the entry or ‘reality shock’ and lead to improved retention. Gohringer (2002), in a study of German employers who had employed past placement students, found that these students were able to hold positions of greater responsibility without a settling-in period and were able to advance more rapidly in their careers compared to other new employees. Drewery et al. (2020) researched the concept of a ‘talent pipeline’, whereby WIL students with appropriate skills and capabilities are identified for a work placement opportunity, developed through their WIL experiences, and then retained by the organization. Findings of the study reinforced the value of WIL in reducing employment risk. If the dynamics between the student and host were not a good fit, then the student could complete their work placement with no subsequent commitment to full-time employment and minimal consequences for the host organization. Important advice arising from this study was that in preparation for seeking a WIL placement, students need to be educated on how to highlight their skills and attributes and be able to articulate these to potential employers (e.g., lifelong learning mindset, critical thinking, and adaptability) to make it easier for organizations in the recruitment process to select appropriate WIL students for their talent pipeline. In an Australian study involving 118 business sector employers, producing ‘skilled’ graduates within the profession and being able to access talent more easily to meet future recruitment needs were cited as key benefits of participating in WIL (Jackson et al., 2017). This is increasingly important for organizations in competitive markets where there are labor and skill shortages (Wang et al., 2018).

Staff development Working alongside or supervising a WIL student can encourage staff to reflect and examine their own professional practice (Fleming & Pretti, 2019). Staff may be challenged to justify how and why they do tasks in a particular way, thus providing opportunities for them to question whether they are approaching tasks efficiently and effectively or if there are alternative methods (Martin et al., 2019). When organizations host international students on work placement, staff have the opportunity to assist with enculturating the student into the sociocultural norms and behaviors of a workplace in that country, which can have positive benefits for both student and workplace supervisor, such as gaining a broader worldview and approaching workplace problems from a global perspective. The merging of cultures also enables appreciation and understanding of diverse cultural nuances and affords a more compassionate and collegial workplace (Ferns et al., 2019). Working alongside WIL students as colleagues may provide an opportunity for staff to gain new knowledge and ideas (Atkinson et al., 2015; Braunstein & Stull, 2001; Ferns et al., 2021; Fleming & Pretti, 2019; Kessels & Kwakman, 2007). When supervisors support students in transferring skills and knowledge learnt in the educational institution to the workplace (Fleming et al., 2021), supervisors and other staff in the workplace benefit from this knowledge as well. The presence of a student may also create a ‘learning culture’ within the workplace (Smith et al., 2015). Commonly, workplace supervisors express their gratitude to students who are able to share research and techniques (Ferns et al., 2021; Fleming & Hickey, 2013; Fleming & Pretti, 2019), particularly in disciplines that rely on the latest applied research for advancement. 118

Benefits for host organizations

Hosting a WIL student in the workplace may provide an opportunity for staff to take on leadership or management roles that otherwise may not have been possible (Fleming & Pretti, 2019; Martin et al., 2019). For example, being a supervisor for a work placement student has the potential to develop supervision and mentoring skills (Ferns et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2015), potentially enhancing promotion opportunities through demonstrating the ability to manage, lead, or inspire others.

Altruistic and social responsibilities For many host organizations, the notion of ‘making a difference’ and ‘giving back’ to the community, their profession, or their educational institution was seen as an altruistic benefit gained by hosting a student. When ‘giving back’ to the HE institution in recognition of the opportunities they had been provided as a student, they are also ‘paying it forward’ by providing opportunities for a new student. In a study of alumni who were now involved in WIL as a host supervisor, their positive WIL experiences as a student inspired them to become a host (Martin et al., 2019). The supervisors highlighted the value of empathy and understanding of what it was like to be a WIL student in a workplace and this created a sense of responsibility to provide positive experiences for others. A benefit that may be less obvious is the opportunity for organizations to fulfil their corporate social responsibilities (CSR). In a study conducted in Botswana, CSR was one of the key benefits cited by host organizations, and this was achieved through hosting business internship students (Mgaya & Mbekomize, 2014). The contribution of CSR was seen as enhancing the public image of the host organization.

Connections with educational institutions For some host organizations, the connections made with the HE institution through WIL enable opportunities for employers to promote their organization to potential graduates through, for example, career or job fairs, discipline-specific events held on campus, or through other advertising channels. These network connections may lead to opportunities for collaborative research and knowledge sharing that benefits both parties (Striukova & Rayna, 2015), and opportunities for sharing specialized equipment. Partnerships fortify coherence and advocacy for original ideas that enable insightful approaches to, and foci of, research initiatives (Ferns et al., 2022) and “allow[s] for new, unexpected perspectives, which enable unforeseen solutions to emerge” (Ferns et al., 2021, p. 220). Employers also perceive the potential for co-branding as a benefit of hosting students and subsequent partnerships with HE institutions, providing greater marketability that employers can leverage for attracting quality graduates and business opportunities (Ferns et al., 2019).

Challenges for host organizations While the previous section highlighted benefits to host organizations for participating in WIL, there are challenges to realizing these benefits. The key challenges to hosting a WIL student are summarized in Table 7.2. It is acknowledged that some of the challenges cited in the literature are jurisdiction specific. The challenges will be discussed under the themes of appropriate resources, student recruitment, student attitudes and learning requirements, communication, financial and legal, and wellbeing, equity, access, and inclusion. 119

Jenny Fleming et al. Table 7.2  Challenges for host organizations participating in work-integrated learning Key theme

Challenge

Supporting literature

Appropriate resources

• Relevant and suitable work activities • Adequate supervision • Time and expertise • Appropriate student support • Attracting students with right skills and knowledge • Student selection process • Alignment of HE schedules • Physical location of placement organization • Student attitude, skills, motivations, and behaviors • Student learning and curriculum requirements • Ownership of learning and development, student agency • Lack of understanding of WIL • Clarity of expectations and requirements • Administrative, feedback, and assessment processes • Complex structures within large organization • Variability of practices and processes across institutions • Identifying HE contacts • Identifying the value proposition of WIL • Different socio-cultural contexts • Financial impact of student wages and staff time • Legal requirements, such as labor laws and health & safety • Student exploitation • Insurance and liability • Assessing and managing risk • Student exclusion within the workplace • Student accessibility to WIL opportunities • Workplace discrimination, bullying, sexism, racism, ageism, and classism • Host stress related matters for hosting WIL students • Disabilities and mental health of students and staff

Atkinson et al. (2015), Fleming and Pretti (2019), Fleming et al. (2021), Jackson et al. (2017), Sattler and Peters (2012), Winchester-Seeto et al. (2022) Atkinson et al. (2015), Atkinson (2016), Jackson et al. (2017), Quillan and Bourke (2021), Sattler and Peters (2012)

Student recruitment

Student attitudes and learning requirements

Communication

Financial and legal

Wellbeing, equity, access, and inclusion

120

Atkinson (2016), Billett (2015), Ferns et al. (2019), Fleming and Pretti (2019), Helyer (2015), McRae and Johnston (2016), PhillipsKPA, (2014), Stirling et al. (2016) Ferns et al. (2019), Fleming and Haigh (2017), Fleming et al. (2021), Jackson et al. (2017), PhillipsKPA, (2014), Reeves and Gallacher (2005)

Atkinson (2016), Bennett (2008), Cameron (2018), Cameron and Orrell (2022), Fleming and Hay (2021), PhillipsKPA (2014)

Felton and Harrison (2017), Mackaway and Chalkley (2022), Mackaway et al. (2014), Hay and Mafile’o (2022), Mallozzi and Drewery (2019), Nolan et al. (2015), Peach et al. (2015)

Benefits for host organizations

Appropriate resources Providing appropriate support and workplace experiences when hosting a student requires organizations to allocate adequate resourcing (Atkinson, 2016; Fleming et al., 2021). Given a defining element of WIL is authentic and meaningful work-related experience (Zegwaard et al., 2022) related to the student’s study, the host needs to be able to provide appropriate relevant tasks and activities for the student. A key reason often given for declining to host students was the lack of appropriate tasks and activities (Atkinson et al., 2015; Sattler & Peters, 2012). In a study of the business sector by Jackson et al. (2017), the lack of suitable projects was considered by host organizations to be problematic and challenging. The quality of supervision and mentoring is critical to student learning outcomes (Fleming, 2015; Winchester-Seeto et al., 2022). Supervision of a student is time-consuming and may compromise the ability of staff to attend to other tasks. This is particularly challenging in smaller organizations where balancing the demands of student supervision with workplace responsibilities is difficult (Atkinson et al., 2015; PhillipsKPA, 2014). Identifying workplace staff equipped with appropriate skills in supervision or/and mentoring is often an issue (Patrick et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2014). For students from marginalized groups who frequently lack confidence and have low self-esteem, honest and constructive feedback from workplace supervisors enables opportunities to reassess learning needs and establish shared goals (Felton & Harrison, 2017; Nolan et al., 2015). Providing supervisors who understand the student’s uniqueness and can assist in achieving their learning outcomes (Shaheen, 2019) through empowering them and developing personal agency (Peach et al., 2015) is difficult for many host organizations (Mikkonen et al., 2016).

Student recruitment The timing of student placements can be problematic for host organizations. HE calendars do not necessarily align with seasonal workload demands for short-term positions suitable for WIL students. Inflexible scheduling, prescriptive policies, and bureaucratic processes are disincentives for host organizations to engage in WIL (Atkinson, 2016; Atkinson et al., 2015). This can result in students not being available for placements when organizations have the greatest need. This is further exacerbated by lengthy and burdensome processing of documentation, further delaying the recruitment process (Atkinson et al., 2015). The location of organizations in relation to the institution also inhibits student participation and potential partnerships (Atkinson et al., 2015). This is particularly problematic for industries located in regional and remote areas (Quillan & Bourke, 2021). While some see developing specific skills within the profession as a motivation, other host organizations have concerns about the caliber of students and report that WIL students do not have the skills and knowledge they need for the workplace roles (Sattler & Peters, 2012). Hosts have expressed concern that students are, at times, ill-prepared for workplace experiences and that the curriculum is outdated and focused on theoretical content (Ferns et al., 2019). Some industries perceive it to be the remit of HE institutions to adequately prepare students with the canonical concepts and occupational practices prior to a WIL placement, enabling transferability of knowledge and skills to a practice environment (Smith et al., 2014).

Student attitudes and learning requirements A challenge for realizing the benefits of having a student on placement is related to the ability and attitude of the student (McRae & Johnston, 2016). In a study on the impact of WIL 121

Jenny Fleming et al.

students on the workplace team, Fleming and Pretti (2019) highlighted the importance of the attitude and behaviors of students. Students need to be willing to learn, ask questions, develop the confidence to take on responsibility, use their initiative, and be independent workers (Helyer, 2015; Stirling et al., 2016). Employers have shared concerns about the challenges in managing poor performance and inadequate student engagement (Jackson et al., 2017), an indication that HE institutions need to better “prepare their students and provide them with adequate support during the WIL process” (p. 164). Disengaged, unmotivated, and resource-intensive students are more likely to have a negative impact on the workplace environment, thereby limiting potential benefits for industry stakeholders (Fleming & Pretti, 2019) and potentially reducing the chances for future students being placed with the same host organization. Industry highly regard assessments that evidence students’ professional capabilities, but argue that traditional assessment methodologies focus on knowledge acquisition and fail to capture the nuances of workplace learning (Ferns & Zegwaard, 2014). Assessment protocols need reshaping to evidence skill proficiency rather than knowledge recall (PhillipsKPA, 2014). Furthermore, employer involvement with the assessment of student work performance is ideal (Ferns & Zegwaard, 2014); however, a challenge exists for employers around understanding what level of performance is regarded as ‘good performance.’ This challenge is particularly significant when the institution does not provide guidance (e.g., rubrics) to assist employers with the assessment (Peach et al., 2014).

Communication The value proposition of WIL for all stakeholders needs to be clearly promoted (Coll & Zegwaard, 2011). However, differences in organizational culture, opposing priorities, and diverse languages and values between HE institutions and industry can create tension in partnerships (Ferns et al., 2019; PhillipsKPA, 2014; Reeves & Gallacher, 2005). Therefore, it is not uncommon for the host organization to be unclear about the purpose and expectations of what is required, particularly if limited information is provided for outlining the parameters for the WIL placement (Atkinson, 2016; Fleming & Haigh, 2017; Fleming et al., 2021). It is critical that “workplace supervisors understand their role and responsibilities” (Fleming et al., 2021, p. 716) in supporting students’ knowledge transfer to operational workplace tasks. Diversity in motivation, values, and workplace cultures between HE institutions and industry organizations are barriers to instilling a collaborative culture required to support students undertaking WIL placements (Ferns et al., 2019; Reeves & Gallacher, 2005). Frequently WIL relationships are created through personal connections between the organization and the HE institution, rather than a strategic initiative by the host. Organizations have repeatedly expressed concern over the difficulty of connecting with universities and locating the relevant contact person. As Jackson et al. (2017) point out, the myriad of different approaches to WIL across the HE sector, and differences in terminology (Chapter 3), may also hinder this process. Sourcing information about opportunities to participate in WIL is often problematic for industry which seeks more information, greater clarity, and improved responsiveness from HE institutions (PhillipsKPA, 2014). For host organizations, the administrative requirements and responsibilities, including processes for providing feedback and/or assessment of the student, need to be clearly outlined and manageable for the workplace supervisor (Fleming et al., 2021). It is also important that expectations and requirements are clearly communicated and understood.

122

Benefits for host organizations

Financial and legal Inducting, supporting, and guiding student learning, coupled with negotiating with the university, incur a substantial cost to industry in terms of salary, resources, and infrastructure (Smith, 2012). However, organizations are undecided about the overall monetary costs when balanced with the benefits afforded from hosting students (PhillipsKPA, 2014). Costs vary according to the abilities of the student, the student’s level of preparation for the workplace, the duration of the WIL placement, and the intensity of supervision and support required. The costs associated with hosting students is a nebulous concept as the inherent complexity of WIL and benefits to the host organization can be difficult to quantify (Bennett, 2008). Regardless, there are undoubtedly resource implications for industry in providing WIL placement opportunities for students, and there is an increasing plea from employers and peak industry bodies for the government to provide financial incentives for businesses (Atkinson, 2016; PhillipsKPA, 2014). Issues relating to industrial relations, legal implications, insurance, and intellectual property (IP) are frequently deterrents for host organizations given the potential consequences (Atkinson, 2016). Negotiating intellectual property of products developed while students are on placement is particularly complex for host organizations, as intellectual capital and physical resources are generally shared across HE institutions and industry. Risks associated with hosting students vary depending on the industry setting and the structure of the WIL experience (Fleming & Hay, 2021). Hosts may be exposed to financial risk with wage, leave, and taxation obligations, if the financial support they provide to a student is construed as remuneration indicative of an employment relationship (Cameron, 2018). Inappropriate or unprofessional student behavior (e.g., inappropriate social media use, incompetence, breach in confidentiality, or intellectual property breaches) can be a concern for some organizations, particularly if these relate to client or customer interactions (Hay & Fleming, 2021). The potential for these risks to impact the reputation of the organization in a negative way may deter the hosts from engaging in WIL (Cameron & Orrell, 2022; Fleming & Hay, 2021). Unmanaged risks potentially have serious commercial, legal, and reputational implications for host organizations (Cameron & Orrell, 2022). Mitigating risk and defining stakeholder responsibilities in risk management is a key challenge for employers when hosting WIL students. See Chapter 26 in this Handbook for more on managing risks in WIL.

Wellbeing, equity, access, and inclusion Addressing workplace issues in relation to access, equity, and social justice for students has been a recurring theme for many years (Orrell, 2011; Patrick et al., 2009). Host organizations need support, resources, and information from HE institutions to support and benefit from diversity in the workplace. Inclusive education that embraces student diversity and ensures equitable outcomes is a strategic priority for HE institutions. With the concurrent expansion of WIL along with the widening participation agenda, ensuring accessibility and equity for all students in WIL, particularly placement WIL, is challenging (Peach et al., 2015) for host organizations (Mackaway & Chalkley, 2022). Host organizations need to provide an inclusive workplace ethos with policies and practices that facilitate a positive and rewarding experience for students (Mackaway & Chalkley, 2022). Hosting students from different cultures or socioeconomic backgrounds, with varying academic abilities, and/or physical and mental disabilities, requires hosts to allocate resources, ensure appropriate expertise for supporting and supervising students, and to manage associated risks

123

Jenny Fleming et al.

(Cooper et al., 2010). Mental health and student wellness is also a growing concern, requiring targeted interventions to support students and hosts during workplace experiences, in situations where stresses and insecurities can be exacerbated (Drewery et al., 2020; Nolan et al., 2015). In many professional environments, there are also implications of safety and wellbeing for students, workplace staff, and clients (Mackaway & Chalkley, 2022; Mackaway et al., 2014) that could limit some opportunities for students with certain disabilities. Adding a further challenge, students are often reluctant to disclose a disability, thereby preventing adequate preparation and necessary allowances in the workplace (Mackaway et al., 2014; Nolan et al., 2015) to cater to their specific needs. While host organizations acknowledge the value and insights Indigenous people bring to them, providing a culturally safe environment that respects and embraces unique ways of ‘knowing and doing’ may be challenging for hosts in traditional workplace settings (Mackaway et al., 2014; Hay & Mafile’o, 2022), especially since student mobility has led to higher representation of diverse cultural groups in HE institutions. Challenges for international students, such as language proficiency and familiarity with cultural nuances, are intensified in workplace settings (Felton & Harrison, 2017; Mikkonen et al., 2016) and require host organizations to use inclusive approaches whereby cultural diversity is welcomed and socio-cultural norms unfamiliar to students are adapted. Bullying, discrimination, sexism, racism, ageism, and classism are exclusionary practices that marginalize students and prohibit active participation in WIL placement (Cooper et al., 2010). It is important for host organizations to protect students who are more vulnerable to explicit workplace biases and to inculcate a sense of belonging that avoids stigmatizing student diversity, thereby perpetuating feelings of isolation (Shaheen, 2019). Workplace culture, preferences, and selection criteria of host organizations may inadvertently exclude diverse student cohorts (Mackaway et al., 2014) and may require employers to reconsider their role in contributing to graduate employability. A study conducted by Mallozzi and Drewery (2019) found that LGBTQ+ students actively suppressed their identity to avoid detection and discrimination. While evidence suggests host organizations are striving for and progressing with diversity in the workplace (Mallozzi & Drewery, 2019), adjusting the practice to accommodate diversity can be difficult for host organizations (Nolan et al., 2015) and students do perceive some inclusive efforts as “inauthentic and ineffective” (Mallozzi & Drewery, 2019, p. 226).

Implications for practice and future research To maximize the possible benefits for the host organization, the following recommendations are provided for both the institution and the host organization (Table 7.3). The recommendations in Table 7.3 should be considered along with the quality frameworks discussed in Chapter 22, to ensure the design of the WIL program provides the structures and processes needed to ensure positive outcomes for all stakeholders. WIL is highly contextualized and there are dynamic and interdependent factors that contribute to successful WIL programs. Further discussion on these factors is outside the scope of this chapter.

Virtual and remote work-integrated learning The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rapid shift of workplaces to online spaces, likely accelerating the already existing trend towards remote working (Volini et al., 2020). The pandemic also brought on widespread use of remote/online work placements and a greater focus on non-work placement models of WIL (Dean & Campbell, 2020; Zegwaard et al., 2020). This development 124

Benefits for host organizations Table 7.3  List of recommendations for maximizing benefits and HE institution (HEI) and host organization (HO) responsibilities Recommendations for good practice

Responsibility

Maintaining good, clear, open, and regular communication that is inclusive of all three stakeholders (institution, the student, and the host organization), before, during, and post-WIL Clear understanding of the roles, responsibilities, alignment of purpose, and expectations of all three stakeholders Clarity when using different WIL terminology Good promotion of WIL opportunities, including utilizing alumni networks Simple and consistent processes for hosts to recruit students, ideally through one point of contact Appropriate, inclusive student selection and screening processes Flexibility to meet the needs of the host and the student requirements, including timing, length of placement, and support Adequate resources to be able to provide authentic and meaningful activities, and appropriate supervision Procedures in place for incident reporting and risk management Opportunities to provide feedback between the stakeholders on the process, the partnership relationship, and student performance

HEI and HO HEI and HO HEI and HO HEI HEI HO HEI and HO HO HEI and HO HEI and HO

has highlighted the benefits of the online space for both institutions and host organizations, especially as distance is no longer a barrier for host organizations accessing students. While there is a need for much research in this space, the likely benefits to host organizations will include: access to talent across national and international boundaries (Kraft et al., 2019); lower costs for physical resources such as office space; and opportunities for creating WIL student teams made up from different institutions and disciplines.

Sustainability of work-integrated learning partnerships The capability of industry to host WIL students is often dependent on fluctuations of the economic climate. Given the labor-intensive tasks associated with hosting students, a poor economic climate hinders engagement (Atkinson et al., 2015) and may impact on the ability to host WIL students. A framework of success factors for WIL relationships (Fleming et al., 2018) identifies communication, commitment, and compatibility as key areas for successful and sustainable WIL partnerships. The time requirements for liaising with university personnel, diverse practices across institutions, and sourcing appropriately skilled industry-based staff to supervise students can compromise the willingness of host organizations to sustain hosting WIL students (Atkinson et al., 2015; Edwards et al., 2015). There is limited research that explores successful partnership models that are sustainable with mutual benefits for all stakeholders (Ferns, 2018). Reliance on relationships with specific individuals within an organization can compromise the continuity of partnerships. There is a tendency for academic staff to ‘own’ relationships with external partners and be reluctant to share contacts with colleagues, limiting the relationship to the singular purpose of hosting students. While personal connections are particularly useful for developing WIL relationships and should be encouraged, transparency of these contacts through a centralized coordination process (e.g., use of a customer relationship management [CRM] system) potentially addresses challenges around sustainability. Chapter 25 explores the sustainable management of relationships. 125

Jenny Fleming et al.

Future research Many of the benefits for host organizations identified in this chapter are well accepted by WIL practitioners, institutions, and host organizations. Yet, there is still further research needed to provide more evidence and evaluation of the extent of these benefits and how these might be enhanced and sustained. While much of the research has focused on work placement models of WIL, more research is needed on the benefits of non-placement WIL or where students are working remotely for a host. Further work is also required around employer expectations and, in particular, how these could impact on student learning quality. Similarly, research into how the quality matching of students with employers/WIL-opportunities influences future staff turnover and if WIL directly or indirectly generates new or additional jobs in the workplace needs to be undertaken. Research focusing on these areas would provide insights for optimizing benefits of WIL placements for all stakeholders.

Conclusion A critical success factor for WIL relationships is the notion of reciprocity, or mutual benefits. As evidenced from the published literature summarized in this chapter, from across a wide range of models of WIL in a global context, there are significant benefits for the host organization. Along with the benefits for the other key stakeholders in WIL (i.e., students and HE institutions), it is clear there is strong evidence of the importance of reciprocity. However, it must also be acknowledged that realizing these benefits is not without challenges, and stakeholders need to work together to minimize the challenges and increase the value proposition for all parties. The involvement of an external organization with student learning is a defining element of WIL and provides unique learning opportunities for students that are difficult, perhaps impossible, to create within a classroom setting. This critical defining element provides unique benefits for the student, the HE institution, and, pertinent to this chapter, the host organization. As the practice of WIL continues to expand in response to the employability agenda, the focus on how to better engage with and involve host organizations will continue to increase in importance. It hoped that this chapter provides further understanding around the benefits, and the challenges within, for host organizations, and assists with enhancing the benefits for these organizations as well as students and HE institutions.

References Atkinson, G. (2016). Work-based learning and work-integrated learning: Fostering engagement with employers. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED568154.pdf Atkinson, G., Misko, J., & Stanwick, J. (2015). Work integrated learning in STEM disciplines: The employer perspective. NCVER. https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/sites/default/files/NCVER_WIL-employerperspectives.pdf Beard, S., Coll, R. K., & Harris, J. (2001). Student and employer reflections of an international science and technology work placement. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2(1), 6–10. Bennett, K. (2008). Managing experiential education: Work-integrated Learning in the context of a cost -benefit analysis. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 42(2), 34–44. Bennett, R., Eagle, L., Mousley, W., & Ali-Choudhury, A. (2008). Reassessing the value of work-experience placements in the context of widening participation in higher education. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 60(2), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820802042339 Billett, S. (2015). The practices of using and integrating practice-based learning in higher education. In M. Kennedy, S. Billett, S. Gherardi, & L. Grealish (Eds.), Practice based learning in higher education jostling culture (pp. 15–30). Springer.

126

Benefits for host organizations Braunstein, L. A., & Stull, W. A. (2001). Employer benefits of, and attitudes towards postsecondary cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 36(1), 7–22. Braunstein, L. A., Takei, H., Wang, F., & Loken, M. K. (2011). Benefits of cooperative and work-­integrated education for employers. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 277–286). World Association for Cooperative Education Breen, H., & Hing, N. (2001). Improving competitiveness through cooperation: Assessing the benefits of cooperative education partnerships in gaming management. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 6(1). https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/grrj/vol6/iss1/5 Cameron, C. (2018). The student as inadvertent employee in work-integrated learning: A risk assessment by university lawyers. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 337–348. Cameron, C., & Orrell, J. (2022). Governance and risk management. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 215–226). Routledge. Coll, R. K., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2011). The integration of knowledge in cooperative and work-integrated education programs. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 297–304). World Association for Cooperative Education. Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work-integrated Learning: A guide to effective practice. Routledge. Cullen, M. (2005). Environmental science cooperative education: Benefits for the student, the host organization, and the study program. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 6(2), 1–6. Dean, B. A., & Campbell, M. (2020). Reshaping work-integrated learning in a post-COVID-19 world of work. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 355–364. Drewery, D., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2020). Contributions of WIL programs to organizational talent pipelines. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(3), 275–288. Edwards, D., Perkins, K., Pearce, J., & Hong, J. (2015). Work integrated learning in STEM in Australian universities: Final report. http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/ACER_WIL-in-STEMin-Australian-Universities_June-2015.pdf Felton, K., & Harrison, G. (2017). Supporting inclusive practicum experiences for international students across the social sciences: Building industry capacity. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(1), 88–101. Ferns, S. (2018). Collaboration, cooperation and consultation: Work-Integrated Learning partnerships for enhancing graduate employability. PhD thesis. UWA. https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/ collaboration-cooperation-and-consultation-work-integrated-learni Ferns, S., Campbell, M., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2014). Work-integrated learning. In S. Ferns (Ed.), Workintegrated learning in the curriculum (pp. 1–6). Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc. Ferns, S., Dawson, V., & Howitt, C. (2019). A collaborative framework for enhancing graduate employability. International Journal of Work Integrated Learning, 20(2), 99–111. Ferns, S., Dawson, V., & Howitt, C. (2022). Professional accreditation: A partnership proposition. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.). Advances in research theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future. (pp. 60–72). Routledge. Ferns, S., Phatak, A., Benson, S., & Kumagai, N. (2021). Building employability capabilities in data science students: An interdisciplinary, industry-focussed approach. Special Issue Teaching Statistics, 43(S1), 216–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/test.12272 Ferns, S., & Zegwaard, K. (2014). Critical assessment issues in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education. Special Issue, 15(3). 179–188. Fleming, J. (2014). Exploring stakeholders' perspectives of cooperative education in sport tertiary education. [Doctoral Thesis, Deakin University]. https://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30067431/fleming-­exploring2014A.pdf Fleming, J. (2015). Exploring stakeholders’ perspectives of the influences on student learning in cooperative education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(2), 109–119. Fleming, J., & Haigh, N. J. (2017). Examining and challenging the intentions of work-integrated learning. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 7(2), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/ HESWBL-01-2017-0003 Fleming, J., & Hay, K. (2021). Understanding the risks in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(2), 167–181.

127

Jenny Fleming et al. Fleming, J., & Hickey, C. (2013). Exploring cooperative education partnerships: A case study in sport tertiary education. Asia- Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(3), 209–221. Fleming, J., McLachlan, K., & Pretti, T. J. (2018). Successful work-integrated learning relationships: A framework for sustainability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 321–335. Fleming, J., & Pretti, T. J. (2019). The impact of work-integrated learning students on workplace dynamics. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, Tourism Education, 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100209 Fleming, J., Rowe, A., & Jackson, D. (2021). Employers as educators: The role of work placement supervisors in facilitating the transfer of skills and knowledge, Journal of Education and Work, 34(5-6), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2021.1969343 Gohringer, A. (2002). University of cooperative education: The dual system of higher education in Germany, Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2002, 3(2), 53–58. Hay, K., & Fleming, J. (2021). Keeping students safe: Understanding the risks for students undertaking work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(4), 539–552. Hay, K., & Mafile’o, T. (2022). Improving work-integrated learning experiences for Pacific students. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 23(1), 279–294 Helyer, R. (2015). Learning through reflection: The critical role of reflection in work-based learning (WBL). Journal of Work-Applied Management, 7(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-10-2015-003 Jackson, D., Rowbottom, D., Ferns, S., & McLaren, D. (2017). Employer understanding of work-integrated learning and the challenges of engaging in work placement opportunities, Studies in Continuing Education, 39(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2016.1228624 Kay, J., Russell, L., Winchester-Seeto, T., Rowe, A., & Le Clus, M. (2014). External stakeholders in WIL. In S. Ferns (Ed.), HERDSA Guide: Work integrated learning in the curriculum (pp. 47–52). Higher Education and Development Society of Australasia. Kessels, J., & Kwakman, K. (2007). Interface: Establishing knowledge networks between higher vocational education and businesses. Higher Education, 54(5), 689–703. Kraft, C., Jeske, D., & Bayerlein, L. (2019). Seeking diversity? Consider virtual internships. Strategic HR Review, 18(3), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-12-2018-0100 Mackaway, J., & Chalkley, T. (2022). Student access and equity in work-integrated learning: A work in progress. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 227–238). Routledge. Mackaway, J., Winchester-Seeto, T., & Carter, L. (2014). Work-integrated learning and the ‘inclusive’ challenge of preparing a diverse student cohort for the world beyond the academy. In A. Kwan, E. Wong, T. Kwong, P. Lau, & A. Goody (Eds.), 37th HERDSA Annual International Conference proceedings (pp. 226–236). Hong Kong: HERDSA. Maertz, C. P., Jr., Stoeberl, P. A., & Marks, J. (2014). Building successful internships: Building successful lessons from the research for internships interns, schools, and employers. Career Development International, 19(1), 123–142 Mallozzi, R., & Drewery, D. (2019). Creating inclusive co-op workplaces: Insights from LGBTQ+ ­students. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(3), 219–288. Martin, A. J., Rees, M., Fleming, J., Zegwaard, K. E., & Vaughan, K. (2019). Work integrated learning (WIL) gone full circle: How prior work placement experiences influenced workplace supervisors. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(3), 229–242. McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education Special Issue: Defining and Advancing Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education, 17(4), 337–348. Mgaya, K., & Mbekomize, C. (2014). Host organizations benefits to participating in internships programs, Botswana. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(2), 129–144. Mikkonen, K., Elo, S., Kuivila, H.-M., Tuomikoski, A.-M., & Kääriäinen, M. (2016). Culturally and linguistically diverse healthcare students’ experiences of learning in a clinical environment: A systematic review of qualitative studies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 54, 173–187. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.06.004 Nevison, C., & Pretti, T. J. (2016).Exploring cooperative education students’ performance and success. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(3), 325–335. Nolan, C., Gleeson, C., Treanor, D., & Madigan, S. (2015). Higher education students registered with disability services and practice educators: Issues and concerns for professional placement. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(5), 487–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.943306

128

Benefits for host organizations Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganisational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15, 241–265. Orrell, J. (2011). Good practice report: Work-integrated learning. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/GPR_Work_Integrated_Learning_Orrell_2011.pdf Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2009). The WIL (work integrated learning) report: A national scoping study, final report. Queensland University of Technology. Peach, D., Moore, K., Campbell, M., Winchester-Seeto, T., Ferns, S., Mackaway, J., & Groundwater, L. (2015). Building institutional capacity to enhance access participant and progression work-integrated learning (WIL) Final Report. Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Peach, D., Ruinard, E., & Webb, F. (2014). Feedback on student performance in the workplace: The role of workplace supervisors. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, Special Issue, 15(3), 241–252. PhillipsKPA. (2014). Engaging employers in work integrated learning: Current state and future priorities. https:// docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/phillipskpa-wil-research-report.pdf Pretti, T. J., Drewery, D., & Nevison, C. (2016). Unpacking cooperative education from the supervisor perspective: Key issues and strategies. In K. E. Zegwaard, M. Ford, & N. McRae (Eds.), Refereed proceedings of the 2nd international research symposium on cooperative and work-integrated education (pp. 147–154). World Association for Cooperative Education. Quillan, C., & Bourke, L. (2021). Perceptions of work-integrated learning in rural health and human service under the National Disability Insurance Scheme in Australia. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(2), 121–133. Reeve, R. S. (2001). Employer’s guide to work integrated learning. WACE Inc. Reeves, F., & Gallacher, J. (2005). Employer-university ‘partnerships’: A key problem for work-based learning programmes? Journal of Education and Work, 18(2), 219–233. Rowe, A., Mackaway, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2012). ‘But I thought you were doing that’ – Clarifying the role of the host supervisor in experience-based learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(2), 115–134. Rowe, A. D., Jackson, D., & Fleming, J. (2021). Exploring university student engagement and sense of belonging during work-integrated learning, Journal of Vocational Education & Training. http://doi.org/1 0.1080/13636820.2021.1914134 Sattler, P., & Peters, J. (2012). Work-integrated learning and postsecondary graduates: The perspective of ontario employers. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Shaheen, M. (2019). But you speak great english! Challenging the dominant narratives of the international student. The Vermont Connection, 40(1), 10. Smith, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: A comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(2), 247–262. Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2014). Assessing the Impact of Work-Integrated Learning on student workreadiness. Final Report. Office for Learning and Teaching. http://www.olt.gov.au/project-assessingimpact-work-integrated-learning-wil-student-work-readiness-2011 Smith, S., Smith, C., & Caddell, M. (2015). Can pay, should pay? Exploring student and employer perceptions of paid and unpaid placements. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(2) 149–164. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1469787415574049 Stirling, A., Kerr, G., Banwell, J., MacPherson, A., & Heron, A. (2016). A practical guide for work-integrated learning. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Striukova, L., & Rayna, T. (2015). University-industry knowledge exchange: An exploratory study of open innovation in UK universities. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(4), 471–492. https:// doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2013-0098 Tanaka, Y. (2009).WIL as human capital investment; an economic analysis. In Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Cooperative Education and Work-integrated Learning. WACE. http://www.waceinc.org/ papers/vancouver/Japan/Tanaka.pdf Tran, T. (2016). Enhancing graduate employability and the need for university-enterprise collaboration. Journal of Teaching and learning for Graduate Employability, 7(1), 58–71. https://ojs.deakin.edu.au/index. php/jtlge/article/view/598/593 Volini, E., Schwartz, J., Denny, B., Mallon, D., Durme, Y. V., Hauptmann, M., Yan, R., & Poynton, S. (2020). Returning to work in the future of work. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/ focus/human-capital-trends/2020/covid-19-andthe-future-of-work.html

129

Jenny Fleming et al. Wang, Y., Kitterlin-Lynch, M., & Williams, J. (2018). Hospitality cooperative education: What are the benefits for industry partners?, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 30(2), 127–133. https://doi. org/10.1080/10963758.2018.1436970 Winchester-Seeto, T., Rowe, A. D., & Mackaway, J. (2022). Effective supervision: A key consideration in work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 85–95). Routledge. Zegwaard, K. E., Ferns, S. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2022). Contemporary insights into the practice of workintegrated learning in Australia. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning in Australia: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 1–14). Routledge. Zegwaard, K. E., & McCurdy, S. (2014). The influence of work-integrated learning on motivation to undertake graduate studies Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 13–28. Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2020). Responding to an international crisis: The adaptability of the practice of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 317–330.

130

8 BENEFITS OF WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Kerry Aprile, Ian Sladen, and James Stellar

Introduction There are many benefits to a higher education institution (HEI) that practices work-integrated learning (WIL) or cooperative education (co-op). Despite variations in practice as illustrated by the differences in our institutions, we have chosen to focus on common themes. Ferns et al. (2014, p. 2) define WIL experiences as “authentically engaged with practices and experiences of the workplace” that are “located within an intentional discipline-centered curriculum” and focus on “graduate learning outcomes and career pathways.” While co-op comprises one form of work-related experience that sits under this broad definition of WIL, it is distinguished as a “structured educational strategy” (Groenewald, 2004, p. 17), characterized by alternating periods of full-time study with full-time paid employment that contribute to a student’s experiential learning and academic credit (Haddara & Skanes, 2007). In North America, the first co-op program was started in the United States at the University of Cincinnati1 over 100 years ago and spread to Canada where the University of Waterloo2 is now the largest co-op university in the world. Outside North America these programs are often called WIL and Australia is a leading continent/country for its adoption. WIL programs there feature a strong national university organization, the Australian Collaborative Educational Network (ACEN).3 Furthermore, WIL in Australia has a recent history of support from the national government that helps to drive the partnership between HEIs and industry. There are many similar national or regional WIL/co-op operations in addition to the international association, the World Association of Co-operative Education (WACE).4 Some examples of national associations include ASET5 in England, CEIA6 in America, CEWIL7 in Canada, SASCE8 in South Africa, TACE9 in Thailand, the VILAR10 Network in Sweden, WILNZ11 in New Zealand, and the Baden-Wuerttemberg Co-operative State University in Germany (see Zegwaard et al., 2019). For these organizations, the benefits discussed here might be slightly different. Finally, we recognize many other experiential programs exist, including study abroad, community service, and undergraduate research, to name a few. Some of the benefits are similar, but the discussion will be restricted to WIL and co-op. The chapter will focus on the benefits to the HEI manifest through successful partnerships and reciprocal benefits for students and industry, with the hope that the discussion can capture some of the basic principles, forces, and outcomes that apply to all. DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-10

131

Kerry Aprile et al.

Strategic priorities aimed at embedding WIL and co-op into higher education curricula have gained traction over the last decade primarily due to stakeholder demands for an education system that enhances the employability and preparedness of graduates for work in a rapidly changing, competitive, global environment (Ferns & Lilly, 2015). The importance of recognizing (and capitalizing on) the benefits of WIL initiatives is now arguably an imperative for educational institutions given the impact of COVID-19 on the ‘business-as-usual’ delivery of higher education within the HEI sector. The enormous upheaval experienced worldwide in all facets of everyday life prompted an abrupt and almost universal shift to online delivery of higher education coursework for HEIs around the world (Crawford et al., 2020). One outcome of this new and challenging teaching and learning landscape in higher education is greater exposure of institutions to a highly competitive and geographically -dispersed student market where institutional enrolments, sustainability, and economic viability are even more important for when students make their enrolment choices. The benefits of WIL for educational institutions will be considered within this evolving context with a particular emphasis on the impact of these strategies on reputational standing, accountability, and sustainability for the higher education sector. While the contemporary field is extraordinarily complex, the benefits of WIL for educational institutions explored here will focus on four considered to be vitally important in a rapidly changing and uncertain future: 1 . Improved reputation of graduate employability by stakeholders; 2. Enhanced student experience from active engagement leading to learning maturity, self-authorship, and career clarification; 3. Partnerships with industry for engaged research and innovation; 4. Productive corporate and community engagement.

Four benefits of work-integrated learning for external stakeholders Benefit 1: Improved reputation of graduate employability by stakeholders Foundations of reciprocity and mutual benefits: Any claims about the benefits of WIL initiatives for educational institutions must take account of the tripartite relationship that exists between students, higher education providers, and workplace representatives who are stakeholders in this approach to curricula (Fleming et al., 2018). At the heart of this approach is the proposition that the employability of graduates will be enhanced through the mentorship, skill development, networking, and learning opportunities facilitated by successful WIL partnerships (Bowen, 2020). As gatekeepers to the 21st-century job market, employer demands for the work-readiness of graduates exerts a powerful influence over higher education curriculum design (Jackson, 2016). Learning for the contemporary workplace is now conceived not as the acquisition of a fixed set of skills and knowledge, but as a process of professional identity formation (Holmes, 2013; Jackson, 2016) achieved through the development of a broad set of transferable skills, capacities, and dispositions that have application in personal, community, and workplace settings (Billett & Choy, 2012; Rook & Sloan, 2021). Furthermore, an investment in higher education is expected to provide graduates with the creativity, initiative, self-direction, and agility to seek employment appropriate to their skills and capacities and to respond to the inevitability of workplace change and technological advancement throughout their working lives (Ferns & Lilly, 2015). The development of this aspirational and enviable array of graduate attributes is reliant on active approaches to learning and cannot be achieved through a higher education curriculum 132

Benefits for educational institutions

that limits students’ exposure to real-world learning opportunities or authentic problem-solving and decision-making activities in practice-based settings. It follows, then, that a higher education curriculum that incorporates WIL is necessarily predicated on the expectation of mutual benefits for all stakeholders involved in the partnership; thus: students benefit from practical experience, professional networking, and an improved understanding of their future professional work roles; employers are presented with enhanced opportunities for the selection of prospective employees from a pool of graduates who are better prepared to ‘hit the ground running’ in their profession of choice; and, educational institutions reap benefits to their reputations that emanate from the production of employable graduates (Patterson, 1999). Educational institutions reap these types of reputational benefits only when employer stakeholders and students themselves collaborate to realize the enactment of institutional WIL policy and teaching and learning practices that are recognized to be directly responsive to job market demands for their role in “educating the deliberate professional” (Cooper & Orrell, 2016, p. 111). Contexts for nurturing graduate employability: While co-op has traditionally been associated with the placement of students in the workplace, WIL strategies can take a range of forms, all of which share a common rationale for their inclusion in higher education curricula in the creation of opportunities for students to experience authentic work practices. These WIL curriculum designs span practices that extend from full immersion in workplace settings for placements of various duration to non-placement forms of WIL such as work-related projects and tasks (McLachlan et al., 2017, Dean & Campbell, 2020). Of these approaches to theory–practice integration, a 2017 scoping project of WIL activity in Australia revealed that placements were the most common approach adopted by HEIs in this country with 43% of all students experiencing a placement as part of their course of study in that year (Universities Australia, 2019). While this trend is likely to have increased over time as more Australian universities have responded to government policies, changes to funding allocations, market competition, and heightened demands for transparency and accountability for their graduate outcomes (Ferns & Lilly, 2015), it is not a trend that is isolated to WIL practices in Australia alone. For example, Drexel University, a Philadelphia-based co-op HEI that has a high level of integration of community partnerships in every aspect of service and academic delivery, has expanded its cooperative education programs to include nearly 6,000 students across 80 academic majors completing work placements in partnership with over 1,500 employers. In fact, placement forms of WIL have gained favor over non-placement or remote WIL experiences as a vehicle for enhancing graduate employability, with the latter being charged with lacking key support features that constitute a high-quality student experience of the world of work. Shortfalls identified in the corpus of the WIL literature include irregular supervision (Peach et al., 2014), a general absence of feedback that promotes deep learning (Drewery et al., 2016), and limited opportunities for student participation in professional teams (Fleming et al., 2016). Demands for new conceptions of WIL in a changed world: The advent of the current coronavirus pandemic caused enormous disruption to higher education delivery worldwide (Zegwaard et al., 2020). In Australia, the sustainability of many educational institutions was threatened by a heavy reliance on the enrolment of international students who faced travel restrictions that prevented uptake of their study commitments. Despite these immediate effects, the impact of the pandemic on the teaching and learning activities of educational institutions in Australia, and around the world, was arguably no more pronounced than on their ability to enact a curriculum reliant on WIL placements. As government regulations for enforced community lockdowns, social distancing, and isolation took hold in most countries, working from home became common practice and placements were suspended, deferred, or transferred to remote platforms where immersion in work practices was mediated by technology. In this 133

Kerry Aprile et al.

context, imminent graduates in disciplines regulated by professional accreditation requirements for experience in the workplace, such as health and education, faced extended timelines for completion of their courses and delayed graduation. While these circumstances demanded rapid, strategic responses from educational institutions that were unprecedented in their teaching and learning practices (Kay et al., 2020), their impact also resulted in the development of some WIL implementation solutions that produced mutual benefits for all participants, strengthened university and industry/community partnerships, and responded to new and changed perceptions of the capacities and attributes that comprise graduate employability in this new world of work. The flexibility, self-sufficiency, resourcefulness, and ability of workers to take control of their own learning and performance under remote working conditions grew in importance as a crucial capacity for defining employability in the COVID-19 environment (Bowen, 2020). One example of practices that supported the development of these attributes can be found in a WIL initiative enacted with final year education students in Queensland, Australia. These imminent graduates were prevented from completing scheduled placements in classroom settings as a result of state-wide school closures. While the inability to complete these mandatory requirements for graduation and subsequent professional registration caused significant stress for the students themselves, the effects were also palpable for public and private education providers themselves who faced a looming and significant shortage in the supply of qualified teachers in the future. Educational institutions, who were providers of initial teacher education, also faced the realistic possibility of being unable to fulfill their contract of timely completion of a course of study with enrolled students. A solution was created that allowed these prospective teachers to meet mandatory WIL requirements by participating in the state-wide rollout of online learning materials aimed at supporting the continuation of learning for school children and adolescents who were confined to learning at home. Under the mentorship of higher education academic staff in collaboration with supervisors from the state-run Department of Education, the graduate students created video and audio lessons that contributed to the cache of resources needed to support the learning of schoolchildren of all ages and stages at short notice. At the same time, the practices that graduates enacted mirrored the agility, initiative, and problem-solving skills required of the teaching workforce as they transitioned to new ways of delivering curricula and supporting the learning of their students in a COVID-affected world. The graduates who participated in this remote WIL activity recounted a list of professional learning benefits that included: increased awareness of the diversity of student learning needs; improved application of technology to expand curriculum learning opportunities for their assigned classes; greater self-awareness of the need for explicit, concise, and clear communication skills; the development of self-regulated processes for seeking and applying feedback to improve their practice; and enhanced opportunities for working as an integral member of a professional team. These outcomes reflect the development of criticality, the “defining concept” of a higher education (Barnett, 1997, p. 2) whereby graduates acquire the ability to exercise “critical reason, critical self-reflection and critical action” (Johnston et al., 2011, p. 69). Additionally, the metacognitive awareness shown by these graduate students with respect to their career readiness encapsulates broader understandings of the employability agenda that emphasize “students’ cognitive and social development as capable and informed individuals, professionals, and social citizens” (Bennett, 2018, p. 1). Similar examples of highly effective remote WIL experiences have emerged as higher education responded to the impact of the pandemic on their planned curriculum (Bowen, 2020). While many of these strategies were designed as emergency solutions to the cancelation of work placements, the outcomes for graduates include the development of vital attributes for 134

Benefits for educational institutions

future engagement in new and uncertain work practices in the post-COVID-19 environment. Furthermore, their acquisition through innovative WIL partnerships underpinned by a focus on reciprocal benefits for all stakeholders make a significant contribution to an educational institution’s reputation for producing highly employable graduates with dispositions committed to lifelong learning and serve as a local model with generality to WIL/co-op programs globally. Our feeling is that effective models of remote WIL practices will be important curriculum design considerations for the sustainability of educational institutions for a long time to come.

Benefit 2: Enhanced student experience from active engagement leading to learning maturity, self-authorship, and career clarification There is no question that students’ engagement in higher education is motivated by a desire for self-improvement. Recent big data studies in the USA of the economic benefit of higher education suggest differences between HEIs in producing upward mobility in graduate salary (Chetty et al., 2017). These data may affect prospective students’ choice of institution as publication of the findings becomes more widespread. Further, it is reasonable to assume that student choices could favor HEIs that integrate WIL/co-op activities into their programs with the intent of improving student learning, employability, and employment outcomes after graduation (Henderson & Trede, 2017). Assumptions aside, the fact remains that students look to HEIs for guidance on how to expand their knowledge in current areas of interest and how to shape identities that facilitate entry into their professions of choice or access to further training and development opportunities. This expectation is a primary reason why many universities maintain career centers even if they do not have significant WIL programs. To be competitive in attracting students in today’s higher education market, it is more important than ever for HEIs to have answers for prospective students about how they align their curriculum offerings with the knowledge and skills that will help them launch a career (Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017). None of this emerging desire for a career focus interferes with the historic HEI purpose of enhancing the life of the mind or becoming a well-rounded person who possesses knowledge in depth and breadth. Indeed, in a complex, rapidly changing world, the most valuable outcome of higher education is a honed, flexible, skill-informed intelligence that can apply knowledge to solve problems, create new ideas, and grow with the times (Bridgstock, 2017). When HEIs provide these opportunities through programs of WIL, our experience is that students recognize and approve of the benefits they accrue through these initiatives. They become inspired, stay at the institution, and graduate. This retention of students stabilizes the university budget and supports the faculty who teach them while also pursuing their own scholarship activities. Even more importantly for HEI reputations, when students succeed in securing satisfying employment after graduation, that fact will be detected and reported by growing national big data analytics. Because students do recognize when their desires are being met, WIL/co-op programs integrated into higher education can become a source of inspiration for students. Factors such as authenticity of the workplace experience and students’ ability to actively contribute to work practices impact the WIL program’s ability to inspire. The effects of this type of inspiration on deep learning have been described as the development of a personal epistemology that provides the basis for students’ sense-making, knowledge construction, and agency in the work practice environment (Billett, 2014), an outcome that cannot be achieved solely through engagement with the theories underpinning disciplinary knowledge. Students value WIL authenticity: The workplace is not the ivory tower. Unlike the population of a higher education environment, the workplace contains people of different 135

Kerry Aprile et al.

ages, operating together for a purpose. There is typically a culture to the workplace that is very different from students’ experience of educational institutions, student clubs, study groups, or odd jobs with which they may have engaged (Päivi et al., 2003). This workplace authenticity provides the impetus for WIL curriculum design, and student engagement with it touches on their implicit or gut-level experience of work. The work environment exerts a real-world power over students that leads to a different kind of learning than their previous classroom-based school experience. The impact of authentic learning is captured in Kolb’s cycle of experience and reflection as feed-forward for further experience (Kolb, 1981). This continuous cycle of experiential learning helps students to process what they are learning from the workplace and integrate this knowledge with what they are learning in their studies. Reflection is critical because many of the experiences are implicit, operating below the surface like the proverbial iceberg (Raelin, 1997) and this tacit knowledge needs to be made explicit to better guide the students’ further development and educational choices. The cycle of reflection and experience has the power to transform gut-level, implicit learning into valued knowledge and has even been claimed to be a natural reflection of how the brain works (Stellar, 2017). The WIL experience is best processed by students through the Kolb cycle of repeated experiences and reflection, and it is often greatly assisted by a mentor or mentors, particularly one from the university faculty who can help the student choose the best path to graduation with this new level of understanding. Students’ interactions with practicing professionals in the workplace also hold considerable potential for shaping their future employment trajectories (Tomlinson, 2017) and this process of career clarification (Jackson, 2015a) has been witnessed by academics when students change majors on the basis of their workplace experiences. Furthermore, the accounts of successful alumni often credit their WIL activities with directing them to work within their current field, even if (and sometimes especially if) their experience of work was not a good one (Martin et al., 2019). Students are engaged by making a real contribution: WIL activities may be the first opportunity that some students have had to contribute to a serious operation outside the family. It may be the first time they have had an assignment that contributes directly to the welfare of the workplace, perhaps its financial bottom line. While there are natural adjustments for their relative lack of experience, most students become absorbed in the team, the work, and their own contributions to it (Winchester-Seeto & Piggott, 2020). If the appointment is full-time and the students are alternating work and study as in co-op forms of WIL, they often seek to maintain a tie to the workplace on a part-time basis as they return to studying. If the WIL program is repeated, students may seek to return to the same workplace, perhaps in a slightly different capacity; or, they may seek to use the skills learned in another placement in the same basic industry. The development of practical workplace knowledge and confidence allows students to make a bigger contribution to authentic work practices. Additionally, if their roles attract remuneration, the idea that they must make a real contribution is reinforced and can strengthen the benefits of the cycle of experience and reflection. Students grow in confidence and maturity: The experience of work outside of the educational institution typically teaches the student to grow in confidence, maturity, and the ability to self-author their learning efforts rather than do what they have always done and learn at the feet of the teacher (Baxter Magolda, 2014). Experience of the natural uncertainty of the workplace in the presence of seasoned co-workers can be a powerful way for the young student to gain confidence (Zegwaard & McCurdy, 2014). They learn by doing as identified by Dewey (1938/1997) and learn that they can perform workplace tasks, whether the role involves dealing with customers, solving logistical problems, or working with a focused team as 136

Benefits for educational institutions

a contributing member. Schwartz and Sharpe (2010) argue that practical wisdom is invaluable at the workplace, can only be gained by direct experience, and can only be developed further through application in more such experiences. The growing student confidence resulting from the acquisition of this practical wisdom or competence propels them into deeper learning at the WIL workplace and later back at the HEI, and often prompts confirmation and fine-tuning of a mature academic pathway for students with the acquired ability to “find, create and sustain meaningful work across the career lifespan” (Bennett, 2018, p. iv). All HEIs want students to discover themselves, to be more self-aware and confident of their abilities, and to develop their professional identity, allowing them to become graduates better prepared for the future of work. WIL experiences drive maturity through confidence that is noticeable to people even outside professional education (Jackson, 2015b). Students develop skills: The student enhances and develops skills tuned to the workplace, and the development of these discipline-specific skills will make it easier to gain employment in the field upon graduation. One new trend in the higher education business is to develop and document those skills. This documentation comes in many forms, but one is digital badges that can be awarded for combinations of courses and workplace experiences. Some companies, for example Lightcast,12 analyze the market to identify the immediately salient skills in areas of professional work based on economic analysis. Other companies, particularly iQ4,13 in the cybersecurity area, provide what amounts to an electronic résumé of skills that match with industry standards from the National Institute for Cyber Education (NICE14). More interesting is the attention of national governments in documenting these skills beyond the student’s résumé or a notation on the academic transcript that such an activity occurred. In the USA, a recent push is called the Learning and Employment record.15 It features the same interaction of HEIs and industry but focuses on documentation of those skills. A skill-based learning and employment record could accompany the classic transcript and other current work documentation (e.g., résumé, letters of reference) to help all parties focus on the WIL component of higher education. The famous business quote “You are what you measure” (Drucker, 2018) applies to this proposal and it appears that HEI output in terms of skill development could well be measured alongside courses taken and grades achieved. This consequence should further drive the demand for learning discipline-specific skills in US HEIs and support the benefits discussed in this chapter. Implications of high student satisfaction for HEIs: There can be no doubt that students’ perceptions of the quality of their educational experiences have the potential for exerting powerful impacts on the reputational standing of HEIs. Increasingly, accountability measures (inclusive of statistics on graduate employment outcomes and analytics extracted from graduate satisfaction surveys) expose higher education policy, curricula, and teaching and learning practices to public scrutiny. Subsequently, the pursuit of high student satisfaction ratings is a growing preoccupation for educational institutions. The perceptions that inform these ratings are notably distinct from simple statistics that focus on the number of graduates that secure employment in the job market; rather, they extend to encompass graduates’ identification with a pathway for achieving satisfying and successful personal, work, and civic futures as an outcome of their education (Holmes, 2013). As emphasized throughout this chapter, the intentional integration of well-planned WIL activities into higher education curriculum has the potential for improving the student learning experience. Graduate surveys consistently identify WIL activities as highly valued professional learning activities that enable the development of a metacognitive awareness of how professional work roles are affected by different contexts prior to entry into a graduate’s profession of choice (Bowen, 2020). These types of outcomes contribute to the development of a graduate identity 137

Kerry Aprile et al.

whereby an individual’s ability to identify a potential fit between acquired knowledge, skills, and capacities and an employment opportunity in the competitive job market is enhanced. Educational institutions have responded to the need to develop graduate employability across the lifespan by embedding graduate attributes into curriculum design for a wide range of disciplines. These attributes range from discipline specific or work-related skills to generic attributes such as communication and technology competence and more complex attributes that include capacities for social and practical innovation and critical reflection on work practices that form the foundation of expertise. These latter attributes rely on WIL activities that are conceived as integral components of a higher education curriculum and contribute to the development of dynamic understandings of the connection between theory and practice in professional work. The benefits to educational institutions of high levels of student satisfaction are multiple. As noted, one obvious benefit is the contribution that these ratings make to a university’s ranking on league tables that publish data on every aspect of their activity. As illustrated through the example drawn from Australian teacher education at the height of the pandemic (Bowen, 2020), WIL activities cultivate students who can reflect on and articulate the relevance between their formal educational experiences and acquired disciplinary knowledge and their capacities for self-directed learning and the adoption of professional roles. These capabilities have a continuous feed-forward effect on curriculum renewal and continuous improvement at an institutional level and contribute to the strengthening of partnerships with government and industry that help to enhance the organization and design of future WIL opportunities. An additional benefit of student satisfaction with their educational experiences for institutions lies in the creation of an active, trusting, and potentially powerful alumni who are invested in the provision of WIL and can potentially open the doors to higher education for research, external funding, and development opportunities (Freudenberg et al., 2010).

Benefit 3: Partnerships with industry for engaged research and innovation As established throughout this chapter, advancements in technology, globalization, and more recently disruption to traditional work practices brought on by the coronavirus pandemic have led to rapid changes across nearly every industry and sphere of professional activity. As a result, institutions of higher education have been forced to rethink how they educate students, placing even greater emphasis on employability skills such as persistence and adaptability in response to stakeholder expectations and the conditions and challenges presented by changed and uncertain working arrangements (Bowen, 2020). Increasingly, students expect to see a tangible return on their investment in higher education given its high cost and the associated reality of increased student indebtedness. Further, employers are expanding recruitment efforts aimed directly at institutions that place a higher emphasis on career readiness, professional competencies, and entrepreneurial skills, developed through industry work experiences, particularly as they are integrated within a market-sensitive curriculum (Pretti et al., 2020). An example of institutional practices that address these demands for curriculum relevance can be found at Drexel University, which has provided co-op experiences to students. The Drexel program, established in 1919, began with 152 engineering students working with a handful of employer partners. Today, Drexel co-op offers nearly 6,000 students the opportunity to alternate classroom learning with up to three six-month industry work experiences, of which the majority are paid. Consequently, prior to graduation, Drexel’s undergraduate students can gain up to 18 months of practical work experience with three different organizations. 138

Benefits for educational institutions

At the conclusion of each six-month work cycle, Drexel’s Steinbright Career Development Center16 surveys students and their employers on work performance and career readiness. The questions included in the survey are mapped to eight essential competency areas established by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE).17 These competencies reflect the graduate attributes referred to earlier in this chapter and comprise qualities such as professionalism/work ethic, critical thinking/problem solving, oral/written communication, teamwork/ collaboration, information technology application, leadership, global/intercultural fluency, and career management.18 In addition to the standard survey questions, there are discipline-specific questions included that have been developed by faculty from 12 of the University’s colleges and schools covering technical competencies in areas such as engineering, business, science, computing and informatics, nursing, public health, and education. The survey instrument allows for both quantitative and qualitative responses providing faculty with a thorough assessment of student performance including areas of strength and career competencies that require improvement. Performance metrics are compiled and shared with faculty annually to inform curriculum renewal and enhancements that are continually responsive to rapidly changing work environments. These metrics are also used in the assessment of career preparation by regional and discipline-specific accrediting bodies, representing true collaboration in the co-op partnership arrangement. Beyond the data, co-op advisors facilitate post-co-op debriefing meetings with students and faculty from their academic departments. These group meetings allow students to reflect upon their experiences and articulate their self-perceived strengths and weaknesses related to their co-op position and overall career readiness, while learning from the experiences of their peers. Faculty benefit by listening to first-hand accounts of the employment experience leading to enhanced understanding of, and ability to respond to, the survey responses provided by students and employers. These types of practices cash in on the currency that comes from working in close partnership with stakeholders in WIL/co-op initiatives and support the delivery of a higher education curriculum that maintains relevance for students and meets the demands for graduate employability driven by the job market. Astute HEIs benefit significantly from a focus on measuring the quality and impact of WIL practices as illustrated in the Drexel example to enable maintenance of sustainable enrolments and reputational standing, and to enable benefits that flow across the entire institution from the design of a reinvigorated, empirically informed curriculum. For example, evaluation of and reflection on the outcomes of the teacher education remote WIL strategy described in this chapter revealed the importance of preparing prospective teachers for their inevitable engagement in technologically mediated teaching and learning environments and resulted in the redesign of the WIL curriculum in education to incorporate a virtual WIL experience for all future students. Research that monitors the effects of planned WIL activities on student learning has the potential to deepen the understanding of the academic community about the attributes that underpin graduate employability while also contributing to the development of policy and practical systems for the management of this complex form of curriculum (Ferns & Lilly, 2015). These benefits flow across the institution as a whole and result in a clear and integrated strategic vision aimed at accountability, high levels of student satisfaction, and future sustainability.

Benefit 4: Productive corporate and community engagement The benefits of industry engagement for HEIs consist of multiple factors (Sachs et al., 2016; Valencia-Forrester et al., 2019) related to their vision and strategic direction in research and 139

Kerry Aprile et al.

development activities. These benefits range from consultancy and the provision of customized training that harness the expertise and intellectual strength of the HEI for mutual benefit for industry partners through to applied research projects and a direct resource flow to HEIs from industry through social responsibility funding and/or grant applications. Each of these benefits depends upon a robust WIL program within the university academic structure that provides HEIs with leverage for developing a successful and potentially lucrative corporate/community engagement strategy. These benefits will be illustrated here by primarily drawing on the practices enacted by Drexel University, which has formalized its corporate engagement strategy. Corporate engagement: In recent years, HEIs have capitalized on partnerships established through WIL activities to expand their corporate engagement strategy and serve in a consulting capacity to meet the rapidly changing needs of organizations. Drexel University enacts this strategy formally through the Solutions Institute.19 The Institute operates as the university’s gateway for industry partnerships and provides organizations with top-tier talent, customized training, and development programming, as well as interdisciplinary research-based solutions that draw upon Drexel’s Carnegie Research Level 1 national classification20 and the faculty members corresponding research capabilities. Faculty (academic staff) talent can be an under-utilized resource for the HEI as a whole, even if the faculty themselves individually seek funding from industry. WIL programs provide the opportunity to deliver with faculty blessing that intellectual capability to industry through the resource support of faculty members. Talent acquisition: Over the past century, Drexel has developed a strong reputation for producing work-ready graduates. As a result, organizations are eager to develop talent pipelines by tapping into resources such as undergraduate and graduate co-op and recruitment events with graduating seniors and alumni, including on-campus or virtual information sessions, workshops, and career fairs. These engagement opportunities have helped drive high employment rates for both co-op students and graduates. Data from the 2018/2019 academic year indicate that the employment rate for co-op students was 98%, while 94% of graduates were either employed or enrolled in graduate or professional education within one year of graduation.21 In the changed work environment created by the coronavirus pandemic, these resources can be harnessed in virtual or remote platforms with the goal of improving student learning outcomes and experience of higher education. Customized training and development: The adoption of remote working arrangements as common practice in many industries has highlighted the need for learning and development for seasoned professionals. The Solutions Institute has worked with corporate partners to assess their needs and, in turn, work with faculty to design customized educational solutions that include executive education, formal degree options, and certificate programs that are either for credit or non-credit. The provision of these flexible learning options strengthens the established partnerships of universities like Drexel and contribute to their ongoing sustainability through the generation of significant revenue. Opportunities for providing customized training and development for industry partners is part of the win–win benefit arising from successful WIL partnerships. HEIs are well-placed to deliver short courses and tailored professional development that meets the needs of professional workplaces as an outcome of their engagement with WIL partners. These opportunities have potentially gained prominence in a COVID-affected world where remote working arrangements place new demands on practicing professionals for digital literacy, communication and networking skills, and dispositions for self-directed learning. This phenomenon was observed in the example of remote WIL in teacher education programs described earlier in this chapter. The abrupt transition to remote teaching arrangements and the subsequent new demands for technological competence and intercultural communication that accompanied this change presented a challenge for 140

Benefits for educational institutions

many experienced teachers who actively sought further professional development to address these demands. Research into WIL practices and the close collaboration with stakeholders engendered by these initiatives equip HEIs with up-to-date knowledge of ongoing learning needs within professional communities. That knowledge facilitates the design of professional development programs that will be attractive and valuable for members of these communities. It is also evident that these types of opportunities contribute to the economic bottom-line for HEIs. Research and development: Research is a key focus of activity for Drexel’s Solutions Institute that can also pursue research and development opportunities in partnership with companies and professional organizations. Interdisciplinary teams of faculty and students are created to provide consulting services to solve challenges facing an organization. These collaborations provide WIL opportunities in the form of project-based learning that potentially evolves into co-op experiences for students. The projects directly impact the student experience by fostering a pragmatic solutions-based approach that better prepares them for success in today’s rapidly changing society. To date, over 200 students have been involved in applied research projects for firms with industry partners spanning the fields of financial technology, agriculture, government, and telecommunications. This work is exemplified through a recent partnership between Drexel University and a major financial services company. The process began by identifying a need for an optimal end-client experience for the company’s newly designed consumer-facing wealth management web portal. This new portal provided end clients a critical vehicle to monitor financial goals and make specific investments. The company had established core design tenets and engaged in a competitive analysis and client research to build the new digital portal. After creating a new wealth management portal, the organization worked with Drexel to conduct a UX/UI study of its new client interface. An interdisciplinary team, including expert faculty, two master’s students, and three doctoral students hailing from business and biomedical engineering disciplines, designed a scientifically rigorous study based on triangulation principles that coalesced behavioral (self-reported responses) and neuro-physiological research methodologies. Conducted at Drexel’s Neurobusiness Solutions Center, this study provided objective and actionable insights that enabled the company to create a state-of-the-art user experience for its end clients while making a significant contribution to Drexel’s reputational standing as a leader in the field of innovation and entrepreneurship. Resource development: Using the access of industry through WIL programs can help the HEI with access to funding and other important resources. There are a number of ways that this can occur. First is the direct grant to the university from industry coming in the form of a partnership as outlined in the above example from the Drexel Solutions Institute. Here, the industry pays the HEI or its faculty to solve a problem. Second, if the industry partner is substantive, they may have a corporate social responsibility operation that puts money back into community-based non-profit organizations to promote good while supporting the industry brand. One past example within Drexel’s experience set includes the interaction between a large Boston Biotech company and Northeastern University where the Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department received funds to establish a master’s degree fellowship to support students with a co-op research experience in biotechnology. The third way could be the result of a direct partnership. Again, as an example, Northeastern University incubated a small biochemistry start-up company within the chemistry department in labs vacated by two senior professors. In addition to short-term rent and longer-term equity arrangements with the company, the HEI was able to get support for its core facilities and the intellectual stimulation from the company expertise and personnel. While these examples come from the field of science and could involve undergraduate research opportunities as co-op experience, 141

Kerry Aprile et al.

there is no limitation on the potential ways in which HEIs can partner with industry or gain funding support as an outcome of their close relationship in WIL/co-op programs. While these arrangements could happen at any HEI, the possibilities are more plentiful if the HEI practices WIL programs of industry integration.

Conclusions As outlined in this chapter, the HEI that integrates WIL within their curriculum gains particular benefits. Four significant broad benefits were seen: 1 . Improved reputation of graduate employability by stakeholders; 2. Enhanced student experience from active engagement leading to learning maturity, self-authorship, and career clarification; 3. Partnerships with industry for engaged research and innovation; 4. Productive corporate and community engagement. In a modern data-rich technological and competitive world, these reasons are perhaps more important than ever. We urge HEIs to keep developing their WIL/co-op offerings and combine them with their academic traditions and their intellectual power to aid students in acquiring skills and attributes (e.g., self-authoring capability) that will help them succeed after they graduate. However, we think there is even more to it than that. The primary benefit to the HEI is to be current with modern developments in a world outside their campus and to bring that back into their scholarship and teaching operation. Given the industry integration that WIL brings, HEIs can also share this knowledge with the larger world to everyone’s benefit. The WIL arrangement is thus a win–win for HEIs and that larger world; but it is really a win–win–win for the students, and that may be the best outcome of all.

Notes 1 https://ceas.uc.edu/real-world-learning/co-op.html 2 https://uwaterloo.ca/co-operative-education/ 3 https://acen.edu.au/ 4 https://waceinc.org/ 5 ASET: the UK WIL association. 6 CEIA: Co-operative Education and Internship Association. 7 CEWIL: Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada. 8 SASCE: the Southern African Society for Cooperative Education. 9 TACE: Thailand Association for Cooperative Education. 10 VILAR: Verksamhetsintegreratlarande (Swedish WIL Association). 11 WILNZ: Work-Integrated Learning New Zealand. 12 https://www.burning-glass.com/solutions/education/ 13 https://www.iq4.com/ 14 https://www.nist.gov/itl/applied-cybersecurity/nice 15 https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/t3-innovation-network/ilr-pilot-program 16 https://drexel.edu/scdc/ 17 https://www.naceweb.org/ 18 https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined/ 19 https://drexel.edu/solutions-institute/ 20 https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/index.php 21 https://drexel.edu/institutionalresearch/university-facts/post-graduate-outcomes/Undergraduate%20 outcomes%20detail/

142

Benefits for educational institutions

References Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Open University Press. Baxter Magolda, M. (2014). Self-authorship. New Directions for Higher Education, 166, 25–33. https://doi. org/10.1002/he.20092 Bennett, D. (2018). Embedding employABILITY thinking across higher education. Australian Government Department of Education and Training. https://developingemployability.edu.au/wp-content/ uploads/2018/10/Developing-EmployABILITY-final-fellowship-report.pdf Billett, S. (2014). Learning in the circumstances of practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(5), 674–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2014.908425 Billett, S., & Choy, S. (2012). Learning through work: Emerging perspectives and new challenges. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(4), 264–275. Bowen, T. (2020). Work-integrated learning placements and remote working: Experiential learning online. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 21(4), 377–386. Bridgstock, R. (2017). The university and the knowledge network: A new educational model for twenty-first century learning and employability. In M. Tomlinson & L. Holmes (Eds.), Graduate employability in context. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57168-7_16 Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2017). Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 23618. https://www.nber.org/papers/w23618 Cooper, L., & Orrell, J. (2016). University and community engagement: Towards a partnership based on deliberate reciprocity. In F. Trede & C. McEwen (Eds.), Educating the deliberate professional: Preparing for future practices (pp. 107–123). Springer. Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolp, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., Magni, P.A., & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7 Dean, B. A., & Campbell, M. (2020). Reshaping work-integrated learning in a post-COVID-19 world of work. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 355–364. Dewey, J. (1938/1997) Experience and education. Simon & Schuster. Drewery, D., Nevison, C., Pretti, T. J., Cormier, L., Barclay, S., & Pennaforte, A. (2016). Examining the influence of selective factors on perceived co-op work-term quality from a student perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(3), 265–277. Drucker, J. (2018, December 4). You are what you measure. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ theyec/2018/12/04/you-are-what-you-measure/?sh=7a19fcfe2075 Ferns, S., Campbell, M., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2014). Work Integrated Learning. In K. Zegwaard and S. Ferns (Eds.), Work integrated learning in the curriculum. (pp. 1–6) Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia. Ferns, S., & Lilly, L. (2015). Driving institutional engagement in WIL: Enhancing graduate employability. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 6(1), 116–133. Fleming, J., McLachlan, K., & Pretti, T. J. (2018). Successful work-integrated learning relationships: A framework for sustainability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 321–335 Fleming, J., Pretti, T.J., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2016). Having a student around: What is the impact on the workplace team? [Paper presentation]. New Zealand Association for Co-operative Education International Conference 2016, Takapuna, New Zealand. Freudenberg, B., Brimble, M., & Cameron, C. (2010). Where there is a WIL there is a way. Higher Education Research and Development. 29(5), 575–588. Groenewald, T. (2004). Towards a definition for Co-operative education. In R.K. Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International handbook for Cooperative education: An international perspective of the theory, research and practice of work-integrated learning (pp. 17–25). World Association for Co-operative Education. Haddara, M. & Skanes, H. (2007). A reflection on Co-operative education: From experience to experiential learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 8(1), 67–76. Henderson, A., & Trede, F. (2017). Strengthening attainment of student learning outcomes during work-integrated learning: A collaborative governance framework across academia, industry and students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(1), 73–80. Holmes, L. (2013). Competing perspectives on graduate employability: Possession, position or process? Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 538–554. Jackson, D. (2015a). Career choice status among undergraduates and the influence of work-integrated learning. Australian Journal of Career Development, 24(1), 3–14.

143

Kerry Aprile et al. Jackson, D. (2015b). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367. Jackson, D. (2016). Modelling graduate skill transfer from university to the workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 29(2), 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2014.907486 Johnston, B., Ford, P., Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Haynes, A. (2011). Developing student criticality in higher education: Undergraduate learning in the arts and social sciences (Continuum Studies in Educational Research). Continuum International. Kay, J., McRae, N., & Russell, L. (2020). Two institutional responses to work-integrated learning in a time of COVID-19: Canada and Australia [Special issue]. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 491–503. Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The Modern American college (pp. 232–255). Jossey-Bass. Martin, A. J., Rees, M., Fleming, J., Zegwaard, K. E., & Vaughan, K. (2019). Work-integrated learning gone full circle: How prior work placement experiences influenced workplace supervisors. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(3), 229–242. McLachlan, K., Yeomans, L., & Lim, K-Z-G. (2017). Exploring an approach to embedding employability skills in a work integrated learning curriculum. In R. G. Walker & S. B. Bedford (Eds.), Research and Development in Higher Education: Curriculum Transformation, 40, 241–249. Päivi, T., Välimaa, J., & Sarja, A. (2003). Pedagogical perspectives on the relationships between higher education and working life. Higher Education, 46, 147–166. Patterson, V. (1999). The employers’ guide: Successful intern/co-op programs. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 57(2), 30–34. Peach, D., Ruinard, E., & Webb, F. (2014). Feedback on student performance in the workplace: The role of workplace supervisors. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3), 241–252. Pretti, T. J., Parrott, P., Hoskyn, K., Fannon, A-M., Church, D., & Arsenault, C. (2020). The role of work-integrated learning in the development of entrepreneurs. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 21(4), 451–466. Raelin, J. (1997). A model of work-based learning. Organization Science, 8(6), 563–578. Rook, L., & Sloan, T. (2021). Competing stakeholder understanding of graduate attributes and employability in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(1), 41–56. Rowe, A. D., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2017). Developing graduate employability skills and attributes: Curriculum enhancement through work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 87–99. Sachs, J., Rowe, A., Wilson, M. (2016). Good practice report – work integrated learning (WIL). Report undertaken by the Department of Education and Training. https://research-management.mq.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/ portal/35597534/nla.obj_398424186.pdf Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. (2010). Practical wisdom: The right way to do the right thing. Riverhead Books. Stellar, J. (2017). Education that works: The neuroscience of building a more effective higher education. IdeaPress. Tomlinson, M. (2017). Introduction: Graduate employability in context: Charting a complex, contested and multi-faceted policy and research field. In M. Tomlinson & L. Holmes (Eds.), Graduate employability in context (pp. 1–40). https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57168-7_1 Universities Australia (2019). Work integrated learning in universities: Final report. https://internationaleducation. gov.au/International-network/Australia/InternationalStrategy/EGIProjects/Documents/WIL%20 in%20universities%20-%20final%20report%20April%202019.pdf Valencia-Forrester, F., Patrick, C.-J., Webb, F., & Backhaus, B. (2019). Practical aspects of service learning make work-integrated learning wise practice for inclusive education in Australia. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 31–42. Winchester-Seeto, T., & Piggott, L. (2020). Workplace or workforce: What are we preparing students preparing students for? Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 17(4), 1–8. Zegwaard, K. E., Johansson, K., Kay, J., McRae, N., Ferns, S., & Hoskyn, K. (2019). Professional development needs of the international work-integrated learning community. International Journal of WorkIntegrated Learning, Special Issue, 20(2), 201–217. Zegwaard, K. E., & McCurdy, S. (2014). The influence of work-integrated learning on motivation to undertake graduate studies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Co-operative Education, 15(1), 13–28. Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2020). Responding to an international crisis: The adaptability of the practice of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 21(4), 317–330.

144

PART III

Models of work-integrated learning

9 THE PRACTICE OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION Anne-Marie Fannon

Introduction Over 100 years since it was first introduced, the model of cooperative education has been adopted and adapted around the world. Before any substantive discussion on the benefits and challenges of the model can occur, cooperative education (co-op) must be delineated from other forms of work-integrated learning (WIL). Defining co-op is a deceptively tricky task due largely to its history, which saw it evolve from a relatively consistent model operating within a single country to a multitude of work-based educational experiences in programs around the world. Since the last publication of this handbook, WIL has been increasingly used as the umbrella term for these industry and community-engaged educational experiences. This shift in language allows for co-op to stand as a specific form of WIL and facilitates an investigation of the unique attributes, benefits, and challenges of the practice of cooperative education.

History of cooperative education The original cooperative system of education The origins of co-op are well-documented and can be traced back to the efforts of Herman Schneider, a civil engineering professor at the University of Cincinnati in the early 1900s. Schneider was concerned that his students were not prepared for a successful transition to industry solely through their classroom studies (Park, 1916; Sovilla & Varty, 2011). He was not alone in this belief. Discussion about reforms to higher education had been ongoing in the United States for decades. Rapid industrial advancement was highlighting a requirement for better-trained workers to meet the needs of industry and society (Barbeau, 1973; Ryder, 1987; Sovilla & Varty, 2011). Schneider first proposed changes to engineering education in 1899 while working at Lehigh University (Barbeau, 1973; Park, 1916; Ryder, 1987). After interviewing practicing engineers, industry, and faculty, he became increasingly convinced of the importance of integrating practical experience into education but was unsure of how to implement this training (Barbeau, 1973; Ryder, 1987). One night, while walking across campus, he heard the blast of a Bessemer converter at a nearby steel plant and realized local industry might provide the solution (Park, 1943). DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-12

147

Anne-Marie Fannon

Upon graduation, many students would work for these companies, first completing two-year apprenticeships. What if paid work experience, facilitated through cooperation between the university and industry, could be integrated into a student’s education? This model would tie together theory and practice through hands-on training that reflected the realities of the industrial workplace. Paid training could also increase access to education for students who might not be able to afford it (Park, 1916). While he was unsuccessful in convincing his colleagues at Lehigh to adopt this plan, by 1906, Schneider secured permission to trial his “Co-operative System of Education” at the University of Cincinnati (Ryder, 1987). Twenty-seven electrical and chemical engineering students participated in the initial cohort. These students alternated between one week in class and one week in industry with a three-month full-time placement over the summer (Park, 1916). Within a year, over 400 students had inquired about the program, many of whom ultimately applied for admission (Park, 1916; Sovilla & Varty, 2011). Schneider had succeeded, not only in introducing an entirely new concept in education, but in thinking of a new way to incorporate practical training within traditional education and convincing students, industry, and his academic colleagues that his plan could work.

The first 50 years of cooperative education For the first 50 years of its history, co-op saw slow but steady growth within the United States (Sovilla & Varty, 2011). In 1909, the Polytechnic School of the YMCA Evening Institute (now Northeastern University) launched a co-op program for its engineering students. Shortly thereafter, co-op also began to expand to other disciplines. The University of Cincinnati offered a co-op program to business students in 1919. Two years later, Antioch College in Ohio launched a co-op program for its liberal arts students. Modest expansion of co-op programs continued for the next 30 years. By 1956, co-op’s 50th anniversary, approximately 60 post-secondary institutions were running co-op programs (Wooldridge, 1987). Many of these programs were in engineering or technology, and most were elective. While small in scale, these pioneering programs proved that co-op was both a viable educational model and a resilient one, having survived economic recessions, a great depression, and two world wars (Sovilla & Varty, 2011).

Global expansion of cooperative education Starting in the mid-1950s, often fueled by government policy and industry needs, more applied programs, including co-op programs, emerged worldwide. In 1957, the newly formed Waterloo College Associate Faculties (now the University of Waterloo) in Canada adopted co-op for its initial cohort of engineering students. ‘Sandwich education’ programs, which integrated year-long periods of work within formal education and could be first found in England and India in the early 1900s, also began to increase (Turner & Frederick, 1987). Over the next two decades, co-op or sandwich programs were introduced around the world, with the two terms often being used interchangeably. By the mid-1970s, Mosbacher (1975) reported that out of 125 countries surveyed, 32 had reported some form of cooperative education or similar programming. In the United States, federal funding for the creation of co-op programs, which began in the late 1960s, was extended such that “almost any educational program with any type of work component was eligible for funding as a co-op program” (Sovilla & Varty, 2011, p. 6). This broadened use of the term co-op, along with the many international variations, began to make it increasingly difficult to define it, set standards and best practices, and even determine 148

The practice of cooperative education

the extent to which it was occurring around the world. Within certain practitioner communities, debates about what constituted a co-op program began to intensify. By 1982, a study undertaken at Northeastern University indicated 76 countries had “a bewildering number of combinations” of some form of cooperative education (Turner & Frederick, 1987, p. 48). Thus, the challenge in chronicling the international history of co-op ultimately becomes one of definition. Global catalogs of cooperative education programs are scarce after the mid1980s. Regional and institutional case studies, such as those found in Tanaka and Zegwaard’s Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education in Asia (2019), document the growth of WIL in specific regions. However, before these examples can be incorporated into the history of co-op, further discussion on the definition and defining elements of cooperative education is required.

Definitions and common structural elements of cooperative education Throughout the years, many definitions of cooperative education have been proposed (see Armsby, 1954; Barbeau, 1973; Cedercreutz & Cates, 2010; Groenewald et al., 2011; Park, 1916; Ryder, 1987). The definitions evolved as the model did, reflecting an increasingly broad range of experiential programs as different academic disciplines, post-secondary institutions, and countries adopted the co-op idea and then adapted it to their specific contexts. Earlier definitions, particularly those written before co-op expanded significantly in the United States and around the world, tended to reflect the elements of Schneider’s original model. For example, in 1954, Armsby described co-op as “an integration of classroom work and practical industrial experience in an organized program, under which students alternate periods of attendance at college with periods of employment in industry, business, or government” (p. 1). Just over 20 years later, in 1975, Mosbacher provided a definition of cooperative education that recognized a wide array of workplace-based training experiences: Cooperative education is that type of education which exposes the student to periods of academic study and periods of employment in business, industry and government, in which the two phases relate to one another in a planned manner, and in which the university or college takes the primary responsibility for the total education program. Terms that are often used synonymously are: Sandwich course or Plan, Work/Study Program, Internship Program, Professional Practice Program, Professional Development Program, Extra-Mural Periods, Experiential Education, Field Terms, etc. (p. 50)

The differences in these two definitions illuminate some of the challenges that exist, even today, in defining co-op. Some countries, however, have set specific standards for co-op programs. In 1979, for example, Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning (CEWIL) Canada established a definition, standards, and an accreditation process for co-op partially in response to its increasingly broadened definition (Chrichton, 2009). In other jurisdictions, such as Thailand, cooperative education is still used as an umbrella term for all types of workplace-based learning, from internships and work-integrated learning programs through to dual vocational training (Office of the Education Council, Ministry of Education, 2014, as cited in Reinhard & Gerloff, 2020). While there is no global consensus on the parameters or standards for co-op, it is increasingly seen as a distinct form of WIL with common attributes. Helpful to this discussion are 149

Anne-Marie Fannon

the many recent WIL typologies and taxonomies that situate co-op within the larger WIL umbrella (Gardner & Bartkus, 2014; Groenewald et al., 2011; Kaider et al., 2017; McRae & Johnston, 2016). These classifications and the standards set by national associations such as CEWIL and the Accreditation Council for Co-operative Education in the United States help identify some of the structural elements that can differentiate co-op from other forms of WIL.

Co-op as defined by common structural elements Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of co-op is that it involves multiple, progressive work experiences, most often in an alternating pattern of periods of study and periods of work (Gardner & Bartkus, 2014). These work experiences related to the student’s discipline or career goals are also commonly paid employment experiences. Further, co-op programs are frequently supported by dedicated staff within a co-op office and thus may be one step further removed from traditional academic programming. None of these structural elements are unique to co-op. Students in health care, social work, and education often undertake multiple practicums. Paid work experiences can occur within internships, work placements, or other WIL experiences. WIL offices are becoming increasingly common to help support the operations of many forms of WIL. When combined, however, these structural elements have significant implications for how co-op programs are operationalized and how students, faculty, and employers engage with them.

International models of cooperative education Even with this narrow definition of co-op, a wide range of implementation processes make it difficult to catalog all its permutations succinctly. Generally, there are two main models of co-op: the ‘alternating’ model where students rotate between periods of paid work and classes; and the ‘parallel’ model where students split the day between classes and work (Grubb & Villeneuve, 1995). Outside of the United States, the alternating model is more common. Advanced economies are most likely to have co-op programs with multiple paid experiences. Select international examples follow below. At Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, co-op programs are available in actuarial science, accounting, and business analytics. Students complete three placements totaling 15 months in industry. The first placement is three months long and occurs at the end of the first year of university. The second and third placements are six months each and occur over the third year. Placements are full-time and typically occur with different employers. Only accounting students are paid directly by employers. Actuarial and business analytics students receive scholarships (Macquarie University, 2021). At the Shanghai University of Engineering Science in China, co-op students complete a four-year program with three, two-month working periods. The co-op work periods occur in the summer terms following the first, second, and third years of study. Students are either paid by their employer or receive an allowance. Approximately 70% of students receive remuneration (Xu, 2019). At the Institut de Préparation à l’Administration et à la Gestion (IPAG) in France, in the Grande École Programme, business students undertake a five-year master’s degree with up to 23 months of work experience interspersed throughout the program. In the first year, students complete an eight-week placement in sales. In the second year, they complete an eight to twelve-week placement in a start-up company. In the third year, they choose between a sixmonth international placement, study abroad, or an international volunteering program. In the 150

The practice of cooperative education

fourth year, they complete a four to six-month placement in their area of specialization. The final work experience is a four to six-month placement that occurs at the end of the program of study (IPAG Business School, 2021). At the Dual Hochschule Baden-Wuerttemberg (DHBW) in Germany, students enter their studies under an employment contract with a partner company. For the duration of their program, students are employed with the same organization, alternating between three months of study at university and three months of work at the partner organization. Students receive a salary throughout their studies which the partner organization pays. The DHBW model has been successfully replicated in four Latin American countries: Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, and Mexico and has informed the development of similar programs in Thailand and China (Reinhard & Gerloff, 2020). At KOREATEACH in Korea, engineering students complete two work-based experiences totaling ten months in duration. The first work experience, in the third year of study, is six months in length. The second work experience, in the final year of study, is four months in length. This structure was chosen to provide students with two different work experiences while still maintaining a four-year degree program. The first work period provides students with more time to adapt to workplace environments. The expectation is that students will be better prepared to contribute quickly at their second placement. They need not work with the same organization for both experiences. They receive both an allowance from their employer and a scholarship from the school (Oh & Om, 2019).

Outcomes of participation in cooperative education Student learning outcomes from participation in co-op include the development of occupation relevant skills (Sattler & Peters, 2012), the development of transferable skills (Coll et al., 2009; Jackson, 2014), an understanding of how to navigate workplace cultures (Eames, 1999; Zegwaard et al., 2003), an increase in self-efficacy (Howard & Linn, 2001), increased motivation to learn (Gamble et al., 2010; Sattler, 2011), career clarity, and the development of a professional identity (Drewery, Nevison et al., 2016; Trede & Bridges, 2012). Developing these competencies can improve students’ employability (Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017; Sattler, 2011; Smith et al., 2016). Many of these outcomes, however, apply to any form of WIL, particularly those with a work-based placement. Thus, the remainder of this discussion explores some of the specific outcomes associated with multiple, paid, co-op work terms.

Benefits of multiple experiences At the most basic level, multiple work experiences provide students with more than one opportunity to develop the many outcomes associated with WIL. In co-op programs, students often work with more than one employer and can compare workplace contexts to determine the kinds of organizations where they would like to work (Dressler & Keeling, 2004; Tran & Soejatminah, 2016). Further, alternating between the classroom and the workplace provides a unique learning experience where work experience can inform a student’s engagement with the curriculum. The curriculum and prior work experiences can also inform a student’s engagement with future work experiences. Exposure to different possible occupations may also help students develop comfort with the relevance of their chosen major and confidence in the transferability of their skills across roles and organizations (Drysdale et al., 2015; Grubb, 1995). From a pedagogical perspective, this multi-experience structure aligns with educational learning theories that suggest the need for ongoing structured opportunities supported by 151

Anne-Marie Fannon

reflection to facilitate learning (Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984; Tyler, 1950). There is also evidence that multiple work experiences may better support students’ transition from learner to worker. Le Maistre and Paré (2004) contend that during a first work experience, most learners are focused on “immediate and survival-oriented” workplace needs and are thus often unable to make connections between theory and practice (Le Maistre & Paré, 2004, p. 47). Where students are provided with multiple opportunities to alternate between school and work, they can develop familiarity with the rhythms of a workplace environment, even when organizations differ. Studies have shown that with multiple experiences, student performance evaluations tend to improve over time (Cedercreutz et al., 2011; Yuheng et al., 2015). Research is scarce on the extent to which students enhance specific competencies over progressive work terms. One recent study, looking at the development of lifelong learning mindsets in co-op students, found a positive correlation between the number of work terms and evaluations of students’ lifelong learning mindsets. However, the number of co-op work terms was not directly related to employers’ perspectives on student employability. The authors note that the number of work experiences may be indirectly related to employability through employers’ evaluations of competency development (Drewery & Pretti, 2021).

Benefits of paid employment Payment alone does not denote a satisfactory WIL placement (Hoskyn et al., 2020). The structure and curricular elements of a WIL experience are imperative in determining its quality (Smith et al., 2016). However, all other things being equal, paid WIL experiences can provide several advantages, particularly concerning access to education. Paid co-op work terms, especially those that alternate throughout a student’s degree program, can provide a steady income stream, reducing the need for additional part-time employment. This ongoing source of income may allow co-op students to graduate with less debt than their peers (DeClou et al., 2013; Grubb & Villeneuve, 1995). One recent Canadian study found that even when co-op students graduated with similar or higher levels of debt than their peers, these same students had less debt three years after graduation than their non-co-op peers (Wyonch, 2020). The study attributed these lower levels of debt to the short-term labor market benefits of participation in co-op. Co-op students not only had higher wages after graduation, but they were also more likely to be employed in a position related to their field of study and to have full-time employment with benefits (Wyonch, 2020).

Challenges with the model of cooperative education Many of the challenges experienced in the operation of co-op programs are like those found in other WIL programs: obtaining recognition as an educational endeavor; finding appropriate work experiences for students; and integrating co-op work experiences back into the classroom.

Faculty support and academic legitimacy Writing in 1916 about the introduction of co-op at the University of Cincinnati, Park asserted, “it was also clear that the most difficult task would be to induce the college men to undertake the educational experiment of cooperation” (p. 9). Indeed, faculty resistance to the idea of cooperative education has been a long-standing challenge for most institutions (Nasr et al., 2004). There are numerous reasons for this. Co-op asserts that learning can occur outside of a 152

The practice of cooperative education

classroom; it often requires extra time commitments; and for some, it challenges a philosophical belief that education is about higher learning and not workforce preparation (Heinemann & DeFalco, 1990; R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., 2018). The operationalization of co-op programs through support offices is often paramount to their expansion and economic viability (Oh & Om, 2019; R. A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., 2018; Sovilla & Varty, 2011; Zegwaard & Laslett, 2011). Nevertheless, operationalizing co-op through additional support units can lead faculty to view it as merely a work placement and not an integrated curriculum component (Dressler & Keeling, 2011; Sovilla & Varty, 2011; Van der Worm, 1988). Faculty support, however, is paramount for both the success of co-op operations and for having it recognized as an integral component of a student’s education (Hartley & Smith, 2000; R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., 2018). Strengthening the ties between the co-op office and in-class learning requires the development of shared goals and a common language. Co-op staff must see themselves as educators and recognize that enhanced student learning is the primary goal of cooperative education (Sovilla & Varty, 2011; Van der Worm, 1988;). Co-op staff must be able to demonstrate how work terms enhance student learning. Thus, the articulation and assessment of learning outcomes from co-op programs is one noted strategy for increasing faculty support and increasing its prominence as integral to a student’s learning and development (Hartley & Smith, 2000). As co-op staff increase the sophistication of their data collection and reporting, an opportunity exists to explore and demonstrate potential additional benefits from participation in co-op programs including student retention, graduation rates, and impacts on social mobility. Demonstrating alignment of these outcomes with important institutional priorities is imperative for securing faculty support and legitimacy as a pedagogy.

Sourcing paid employment opportunities Employers participate in co-op programs for diverse reasons: to benefit from the fresh perspectives and enthusiasm of students, to reduce labor costs, to increase productivity, to give back to the community and the future workforce, and to attract talented students to their organization who might become future employees (Paisey & Paisey, 2010; Sattler & Peters, 2012). Despite these many benefits, the ability to source paid co-op opportunities for students varies significantly across industries and around the world. Employer awareness of co-op programs may be limited and they may not feel that they have appropriate work for students. Even in the most advanced economies, many organizations may struggle to find the funds to compensate students (Sattler & Peters, 2012). In emerging economies and areas where WIL is less established, securing even unpaid work terms can be challenging. Employers must understand that students do not represent cheap or free labor (Taylor, 2011). Legislation can also prohibit or create disincentives for employers to pay students or for students to undertake paid work (Reinhard et al., 2016; Tanaka, 2019). Throughout the history of cooperative education, government support has proven to be instrumental in setting policy that encourages the adoption of co-op, incentivizes employers to participate in it, and that removes legislative barriers that might inhibit remuneration of students on co-op work terms (Chrichton, 2009; Kay et al., 2020; Sovilla & Varty, 2011).

Integration with the curriculum Integration is commonly accepted as a fundamental component of cooperative education, and yet it remains an elusive concept for many. There is uncertainty about precisely what it 153

Anne-Marie Fannon

means, how it is achieved, and how it is measured (Zegwaard & Coll, 2011). In mandatory, discipline-specific, and cohort-based co-op programs, integration may be more easily facilitated if students are provided with opportunities to share challenges, insights, or questions as they relate to the intersection of theory and practice. Even in these programs, however, it must be recognized that the learning outcomes of co-op vary depending on the workplace rather than prescribed professional regulatory requirements, as may exist with other forms of WIL (Cooper et al., 2010). In paid co-op work terms, students undertake the critical work of the employing organization, which may or may not directly align with the learning outcomes of the academic curriculum. Further, each student brings their own personal, career, and academic goals to the workplace environment and uses these lenses to determine what can be learned in that term (Lucas, 2017). A challenge for these students is “knowing what to learn and how to learn as there is no set curriculum and what is available to be learnt may be unpredictable or even difficult for the student to see in the moment as a learning opportunity” (Lucas, 2017, p. 259). These challenges may be more acute in programs where co-op is optional or where students choose from a wide range of employment opportunities, some of which may relate to their career goals but not explicitly to their academic program. In the former example, there may be fewer opportunities for integrative activities within academic classes as not all students participate in co-op, and faculty may be reluctant to single out the experiences of co-op students. In the latter example, students may struggle to explicitly identify the learning outcomes from work experiences which, while of interest, might not relate to the concepts they are studying in class. The resulting psychological incongruence might result in lower levels of job satisfaction, engagement, and performance (Drewery, Pretti et al., 2016). In the absence of clearly defined integrative touchpoints between classroom and workplace learning, reflection which is recognized as core to enhancing student learning in co-op (Harvey et al., 2010; Lucas, 2017; McRae & Johnston, 2016) becomes even more critical. Reflective exercises before, during, and after the co-op work term can help students draw connections between their classroom learning, workplace experience, and career goals, encouraging them to be agentic and independent learners (Drewery, Nevison et al., 2016). These reflective exercises can take several different forms including formal written assessments, class dialogues, or discussions with co-op staff, all of which serve to help the learner identify meaningful outcomes from participation in the work term, even when the experience may not initially appear relevant to their career goals or academic program.

Case study: work-integrated learning at the University of Waterloo In 1957, a new Canadian university, the Waterloo College Associate Faculties (now the University of Waterloo), adopted the co-op model. In its inaugural year, 74 engineering students joined the university, becoming the first in Canada to participate in co-op (Chrichton, 2009). Today, the university runs the largest co-op of its kind, with over 23,000 students enrolled in 123 accredited programs (University of Waterloo, 2020). All undergraduate co-op students complete between four and six 4-month paid work terms, alternating between academic terms and work terms for the duration of their degree. In 2019/2020, co-op students worked in 64 different countries and with more than 7,100 employers. That same year, more than 97% were employed, earning an average salary of Can$12,700 per work term. In total, students earned more than Can$295 million in 2019/2020 (University of

154

The practice of cooperative education

Waterloo, 2020). Students pay a fee for participating in co-op that helps cover the costs of program operations. Waterloo co-op has a competitive employment process. Students apply for co-op jobs during the academic term, before the work term starts, in a series of recruitment cycles. Co-op jobs are posted in a centrally administered online recruitment system. Students review the job postings, select positions related to their academic program or career interests, and submit an online application package. Employers review applications and select the students they would like to interview. Following a cycle of interviews, students and employers rank each other. Students identify the employers they would like to work for, and employers indicate which students they would be willing to hire. These rankings are submitted to the recruitment system, and an algorithm matches students to employers for the upcoming work term. Students may also choose to find their own job or return to a previous employer for a work term. Staff vet all student-arranged jobs. During the work term itself, check-ins occur with both employers and students to ensure that the term is progressing as expected and that neither party has any concerns. When concerns are raised, staff work with the students and employers to resolve the issue or, in rare cases, to determine if the relationship should be severed. The employer assesses the student on their workplace performance through an end-of-term performance evaluation. Students are rated on a series of competencies, provided with details on strengths and areas for development, and given an overall evaluation (scale: outstanding, excellent, very good, good, satisfactory, marginal, unsatisfactory). This evaluation forms the basis for the co-op credit. Students must earn an overall evaluation of marginal or better to earn academic credit for their work term. In 2019/2020, 94.8% of students received ratings ranging from “very good” to “outstanding” (University of Waterloo, 2020). Students also have an opportunity to rate their employer through a “Rate My Work Term” survey. The average rating in 2019/2020 was 8.4/10 (University of Waterloo, 2020). Aggregated student ratings of each employer are displayed in the recruitment system to provide additional information to students when they apply for postings.

Program operations Co-op operations at Waterloo are administered centrally through Cooperative and Experiential Education (CEE), a portfolio of academic support units led by an Associate Provost. The Co-operative Education department supports students, employers, and faculties in their participation. Teams of business developers and account managers establish and maintain relationships with employers. Student advisors assist students in securing work terms and support them and employers. An international team provides support for inbound international students and for students who go abroad for work terms. A student and faculty relations team focuses on establishing strong relationships with these critical stakeholders. Other departments within CEE provide specialized support for Waterloo’s co-op programs. The Centre for Career Action develops the pre-first-work-term curriculum and supports students during their first employment search. The WIL Programs department delivers the co-op curriculum, including a series of online courses students take while on their work terms. CEE Business Services provides centralized support for technology, including the online recruitment system, business processes, finances, data analytics and reporting, and communications. The Work-Learn Institute, a research and knowledge mobilization center, uses a research and evidence-based approach in supporting innovation within co-op.

155

Anne-Marie Fannon

Securing paid employment opportunities Waterloo’s co-op program has been operationalized to encourage the continuous hiring of students. The centralized nature of the program provides employers with access to students from a broad range of disciplines, both increasing their chances of recruiting students and raising their awareness of the skill sets of students in disciplines from which they might not think to hire. Students are also available year-round for co-op work terms. As such, employers can create co-op specific roles which students can regularly fill. Many employers view co-op students as an integral component of their overall talent strategy, both in completing core tasks for their operations and as an ongoing source of new full-time talent. As one indication of the extent to which employers rely on co-op student talent, despite the great uncertainty and widespread job losses wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, 78% of Waterloo’s Canadian employers honored their co-op student hiring commitments (Kay et al., 2020). Data analysis and research, often conducted by CEE business services and the Work-Learn Institute, also help employers understand the benefits and outcomes of hiring co-op students. For example, in a study completed by the Work-Learn Institute in 2019, 93% of employers reported a positive return on investment for hiring these students, with 73% indicating that they gained more or much more in return than what they invested in training and salary expenditures. This finding is further supported through an independent analysis completed by Deloitte that found that for every dollar an employer spent in hiring and training a co-op student, they saw two dollars in economic output gain (Deloitte, 2019). These studies and statistics are used at Waterloo for program evaluation and to help recruit and retain employers.

Multiple, alternating work experiences Waterloo co-op students have multiple opportunities to develop their workplace competencies and test out different organizations and industries. Students are keen to do this exploration. In one sample of recent co-op graduates, 88% had worked for three or more organizations in their work terms, and 68% had worked in three or more industry sectors. Except for a few specific professional programs, students can apply to any job of interest, regardless of their academic discipline. The onus is on the student to convince the employer that they have the relevant skills to do the job. Students have numerous opportunities to practice skill articulation through the competitive job search process. Doing so allows them to consider how the knowledge, skills, and competencies they have developed might transfer across organizations and industries (Pretti & Fannon, 2018). Overall employment outcomes from participation in co-op at Waterloo are strong. Six months after graduation, 96% of graduates reported that they were employed in a position related to the skills they acquired at Waterloo (University of Waterloo, 2020).

Supporting student learning and facilitating integration As a centrally administered co-op program, fostering integration with faculties and academic programs at Waterloo requires continuous effort. In addition to the staff dedicated to this task, several structures have been established to facilitate partnerships and explore connections between co-op programming and academic plans. Associate Deans of Co-operative Education (or equivalent) have been established to ensure a centralized point of contact between the faculties and CEE. A Co-operative Education Council consisting of senior leadership within CEE, the Associate Deans, cooperative education, and student representatives provides a forum for information sharing, monitoring best practices, and strengthening the linkages between 156

The practice of cooperative education

academic plans and CEE (University of Waterloo, 2005). Waterloo has also introduced several significant pedagogical initiatives to ensure that student learning is supported and assessed during the work term. The Waterloo Professional Development Program (WatPD) is a series of online academic credit courses taken by all co-op students that focus on developing soft or transferrable skills. These courses are designed to be completed by students while they are engaged in WIL experiences and to provide the theory, tools, and best practices associated with the development of critical workplace skills. Each faculty determines WatPD course requirements. Course titles range from Communication and Project Management to Ethical Decision Making (University of Waterloo, 2021). Students must complete their required number of courses to earn their co-op degree. Program evaluation from the WatPD courses is shared with the faculties on an annual basis. To further improve integration between WatPD, co-op work experiences, and a student’s academic program, summative reflections are implemented at the end of each course. These reflections allow students to consider their course work, co-op terms, and WatPD courses in their career development. They reflect on skill development, values, and purpose, and plan for future co-op and work experiences. Aggregated data from the reflections will be shared with the faculties to help foster integration. In addition to the WatPD courses, some co-op students at Waterloo also write work-term reports as part of their co-op requirements. Faculties set the work-term report guidelines, which can range from technical to reflective reports. To provide further support for students in understanding, reflecting on, and articulating the knowledge, skills, and competencies they develop through co-op, the University of Waterloo has recently introduced a competency framework, known as the Future Ready Talent Framework (FRTF). The FRTF includes 12 competencies deemed critical for success in the future workforce. These 12 are sorted into four main clusters: expand and transfer expertise, develop self, build relationships, and design and deliver solutions. The complete framework is pictured in Figure  9.1. The FRTF was developed through a rigorous review of existing competency frameworks and an analysis of the literature related to the future of work. Multiple validation and testing stages with students, faculty, and employers were also completed (Pretti et al., 2021). The FRTF serves several purposes. It provides students with a research-informed lens of the skills they will need to continuously develop to navigate their future careers while providing a common language and structure for many of the touchpoints between CEE and students. For example, the student performance evaluation has been redesigned to incorporate the FRTF. Student check-ins incorporate the FRTF. The framework will also be incorporated into existing WatPD courses and used to guide future program development. The framework has also proven to be a valuable tool for furthering integration with faculties and academic programs. As one example, it has been piloted as a tool for documenting the competencies that are developed through a student’s course work. When mapped holistically across a student’s educational experience (course work and co-op terms), the FRTF can help illuminate a more comprehensive picture of student competency development across an entire academic program.

Future considerations In many ways, future considerations for co-op can be found by exploring its origins. The model emerged out of a need to prepare students for a rapidly changing world of work. In over a century of existence, co-op has shown its resilience, preparing generations of learners for careers that could never have been conceived by Schneider and his first cohort of students. As society moves swiftly into the fourth industrial revolution, an opportunity exists to explore 157

Anne-Marie Fannon

158 Figure 9.1  University of Waterloo’s Future Ready Talent Framework

The practice of cooperative education

how the co-op structure uniquely prepares students for the demands of the future workforce. More research is required to understand how multiple co-op placements might equip our students to be adaptable, lifelong learners with an understanding of how their skills transfer across roles, organizations, and contexts. These skills will prove crucial for new graduates who are expected to change jobs and careers at previously unseen rates. The accessibility of co-op, supported through recurring paid work terms, also bears mention. As lower skilled jobs are reduced or eliminated through automation, improved access to higher education, which paid work terms could facilitate, will be increasingly important. Undoubtedly, the co-op model will also continue to evolve to meet the changing needs of the future workforce. Doing so will require continued dialogue between industry and academia and the exploration of new forms of “cooperation.”

References Armsby, H. (1954). Cooperative education in the United States. Government Printing Office. Barbeau, J. E. (1973). Cooperative Education in America - Its historical development, 1906–1971. Northeastern University. Cedercreutz, K., & Cates, C. (2010). Cooperative education at the University of Cincinnati: A strategic asset in evolution. Peer Review: Emerging Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate Education, 12(4), 20. Cedercreutz, K., Cates, C., Miller, R., Newbold, T., Todd, A., Maltbie, C., & Zhou, H. (2011). Assessment of the effectiveness of engineering and engineering technology curricula in the context of student work performance: A quantitative approach. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 45(2), 63–80. Chrichton, A. (2009). Fromimpossibility to reality: Documenting the history of CAFCE in Canada. Unpublished manuscript. https://www.cewilcanada.ca/common/Uploaded%20files/Public%20Resources/ Research%20Papers/2009-CAFCEHistory-AC.pdf Coll, R., Eames, R., Paku, L., Lay, M., Hodges, D., Bhat, R., Ram, S., Ayling, D., Fleming, J., Ferkins, L., Wiersma, C., & Martin, A. (2009). An exploration of the pedagogies employed to integrate knowledge in work-integrated learning. Journal of Co-operative Education and Internship, 43(1), 14–35. Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning: A guide to effective practice. Routledge. DeClou, L., Sattler, P., & Peters, J. (2013). The University of Waterloo and work-integrated learning: Three perspectives. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Deloitte. (2019). University of Waterloo economic impact assessment. https://uwaterloo.ca/about/sites/ ca.about/files/uploads/files/university_of_waterloo_economic_contribution_analysis_2019.pdf Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Collier Books. Dressler, S., & Keeling, A. (2011). Benefits of cooperative and work-integrated education for students. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp 261–275). WACE. Dressler, S., & Keeling, A. E. (2004). Student benefits of cooperative education. In R. K. Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative education: An international perspective of the theory, research and practice of work-integrated learning (pp.217–236). WACE. Drewery, D., Nevison, C., & Pretti, T. J. (2016). The influence of cooperative education and reflection upon previous work experiences on university graduates’ vocational self-concept. Education + Training, 58(2), 179–192. Drewery, D., & Pretti, T. J. (2021). Number of work experiences and student employability. In A.S. Stirling & T. J. Pretti (Eds.), The practice of co-op and work-integrated learning in the Canadian context (pp. 28–57). Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada) and WACE. Drewery, D., Pretti, T. J., & Barclay, S. (2016). Examining the effects of perceived relevance and work-­ related subjective well-being on individual performance for co-op students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(2), 119–134. Drysdale, M. T. B., Frost, N., & McBeath, M. L. (2015). How often do they change their minds and does work-integrated learning play a role? An examination of ‘major changers’ and career certainty in higher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(2), 145–152.

159

Anne-Marie Fannon Eames, C. (1999). Learning in the workplace through cooperative education placements: Beginning a longitudinal qualitative study. Journal of Cooperative Education, 35(2–3), 76–83. Gamble, N., Patrick, C.-J., & Peach, D. (2010). Internationalising work-integrated learning: Creating global citizens to meet the economic crisis and the skills shortage. Higher Education Research and Development, 29(5), 535–546. Gardner, P., & Bartkus, K. R. (2014). What’s in a name? A reference guide to work-education experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 37–54. Groenewald, T., Drysdale, M., Chiupka, C., & Johnston, N. (2011). Towards a definition and models of practice for cooperative and work-integrated education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative & work-integrated education (pp. 17–24). Waikato Print. Grubb, W. N. (1995). The sub-baccalaureate labor market and the advantages of cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 30(2), 6–19. Grubb, W. N., & Villeneuve, J. C. (1995). Cooperative education in Cincinnati: Implications for school-to-work programs in the U.S. Technical Assistance Report. Berkeley, California. Hartley, J. L., & Smith, B. W. (2000). Strengthening academic ties by assessment of learning outcomes. Journal of Cooperative Education, 35(1), 41–47. Harvey, M., Coulson, D., Mackaway, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2010). Aligning reflection in the cooperative education curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 11(3), 137–152. Heinemann, H. N., & DeFalco, A. A. (1990). Dewey’s pragmatism: A philosophical foundation for cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 27(1), 38–44. Hoskyn, K., Eady, M., Capocchiano, H., Lucas, P., Rae, S., Trede, F., & Yuen, L. (2020). GoodWIL placements: How COVID-19 shifts the conversation about unpaid placements. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 439–450. Howard, A., & Linn, P. L. (2001). Cooperative education within a liberal arts tradition. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(2), 125–132 IPAG Business School. (2021). Grande Ecole Programme. https://www.ipag.edu/en/grande-ecoleprogramme?tab=onglet2 Jackson, D. (2014). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367. Kaider, F., Hains-Wesson, R., & Young, K. (2017). Practical typology of authentic work-integrated learning activities and assessments. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 153–165 Kay, J., McRae, N., & Russell, L. (2020). Two institutional responses to work-integrated learning in a time of COVID-19: Canada and Australia. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 491–503. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Prentice-Hall. Le Maistre, C., & Paré, A. (2004). Learning in two communities: the challenge for universities and workplaces. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1–2), 44–52. Lucas, P. (2017). Positioning critical reflection within cooperative education: A transactional model. AsiaPacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(3), 257. Macquarie University. (2021). Macquarie’s co-op programs. https://www.mq.edu.au/study/why-study-here/ employability/macquarie-co-op-programs McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 337. Mosbacher, W. (1975). Growth and development of cooperative education outside of the United States. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 12(1), 49–67. Nasr, K., Pennington, J., & Andres, C. (2004). A study of students’ assessment of cooperative education outcomes. Journal of Cooperative Education, 38(1), 13–21. Paisey, C., & Paisey, N. (2010). Developing skills via work placements in accounting: Student and employer views. Accounting Forum, 34, 89–108. Park, C. W. (1916). The cooperative system of education: An account of cooperative education as developed in the College of Engineering, University of Cincinnati. Govt. Printing Office. Park, C. W. (1943). Ambassador to industry; the idea and life of Herman Schneider. The Bobbs-Merrill Company. Pretti, T. J., Etmanski, B., & Drewery, D. W. (2021). Development and validation of a future ready talent framework. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(3), 369–383. Pretti, T. J., & Fannon, A. (2018). Skills articulation and work integrated learning. In F. Deller, J. Pichette, & E. Watkins (Eds.), Driving academic quality: Lessons from Ontario’s skills assessment projects (pp. 107–122). Queen’s Printer.

160

The practice of cooperative education R. A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. (2018). Barriers to work-integrated learning opportunities. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Reinhard, K., & Gerloff, A. (2020). Internationalizing cooperative education: Implementing the German DHBW model in Thailand and China. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(3), 289–301. Reinhard, K., Pogrzeba, A., Townsend, R., & Pop, C. A. (2016). A comparative study of cooperative education and work-integrated learning in Germany, South Africa, and Namibia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(3), 249–263. Rowe, A. D., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2017). Developing graduate employability skills and attributes: Curriculum enhancement through work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 87–99. Ryder, K. G. (1987). Social and educational roots. In K. G. Ryder & J. W. Wilson (Eds.), Cooperative Education in a new era: understanding and strengthening the links between college and the workplace (pp. 1–12). Jossey-Bass. Sattler, P. (2011). Work-integrated learning in Ontario’s post-secondary sector. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Sattler, P., & Peters, J. (2012). Work-integrated learning and post-secondary graduates: The perspective of Ontario employers. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2016). Designing work-integrated learning placements that improve student employability: Six facets of the curriculum that matter. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(2), 197–211. Sovilla, E. S., & Varty, J. W. (2011). Cooperative and work-integrated education in the U.S., past and present: Some lessons learned. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International Handbook for Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education: International Perspectives of Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 3–15). WACE. Tanaka, Y. (2019). History, present state, and future issues of cooperative and work-integrated education in Japan. In Y. Tanaka & K. E. Zegwaard, (Eds), Cooperative and work-integrated education in Asia (pp. 25–42). Routledge. Tanaka, Y., & Zegwaard, K. (2019). Cooperative and work-integrated education in Asia. Routledge. Taylor, S. (2011). Cooperative and work-integrated education in emerging economies. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (pp. 355–361). WACE. Tran, L. T., & Soejatminah, S. (2016). ‘Get foot in the door’: International students’ perceptions of work integrated learning. British Journal of Educational Studies 64(3), 337–355. Trede, R. M., & Bridges, D. (2012). Professional identity development: A review of the higher education literature. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 365–384. Turner, S. M., & Frederick, A. (1987). Comparing programs worldwide. In K. G. Ryder & J. W. Wilson (Eds.), Cooperative education in a new era: Understanding and strengthening the links between college and the workplace (pp. 45–71). Jossey-Bass. Tyler, R. W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press. University of Waterloo. (2005). Learning from experience: Enhancing cooperative education and career services at the University of Waterloo. Unpublished manuscript. https://uwaterloo.ca/hire/sites/ca.hire/files/uploads/ files/Learning_From_Experience_Report.pdf University of Waterloo. (2020). 2020 Co-operative Education Annual Report. University of Waterloo. https:// uwaterloo.ca/co-operative-education-annual-report/ University of Waterloo. (2021). Professional Development Program. https://uwaterloo.ca/professionaldevelopment-program/ Van der Worm, P. T. (1988). Response to the preliminary report of the ad hoc committee on cooperative education and the curriculum. Journal of Cooperative Education, 24(2-3), 120–124. Wooldridge, R. L. (1987). Factors influencing the recent growth and expansion. In K. G. Ryder & J. W. Wilson (Eds.), Cooperative education in a new era: Understanding and strengthening the links between college and the workplace (pp. 13–29). Jossey Bass. Wyonch. R. (2020). Work-ready graduates: The role of co-op programs in labour market success. Commentary - C.D. Howe Institute, 562, 1–30. Xu, T. (2019). Cooperative education practice in China. In Y. Tanaka & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Cooperative and work-integrated education in Asia (pp. 7–24). Routledge. Yuheng, H. J., Lee, S. W. Y., & Golab, L. (2015). Analyzing student and employer satisfaction with cooperative education through multiple data sources. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(4), 225.

161

Anne-Marie Fannon Zegwaard, K., & Coll, R. K. (2011). Exploring some current issues for cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 45, 8–15. Zegwaard, K. E., Coll, R., & Hodges, D. (2003). Assessment of workplace learning: A framework. AsiaPacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 4(1), 9. Zegwaard, K. E., & Laslett, R. L. (2011). Cooperative education in science. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (pp. 101–110). WACE.

162

10 THE PRACTICE OF BLOCK PLACEMENTS Kathryn Hay, Jo Borren, Jane Maidment, Raewyn Tudor, and Dominic Chilvers

Introduction Work-integrated learning (WIL) has a long history in the higher education sector (Cooper et al., 2010; see Chapter 2 in this Handbook). Its origins lie in professional or vocational education, primarily in disciplines where regulatory bodies determine requirements for workplace learning (Coll & Zegwaard, 2011; Sovilla & Varty, 2011). In the past three decades, WIL has gained increasing favor in higher education institutions (Crump & Johnsson, 2011; Martin, 1998; McRae & Johnston, 2016). WIL, however, comes in many models and its nomenclature may differ across countries and disciplines (Gardner & Bartkus, 2014; McRae & Johnston, 2016). This chapter will explore WIL experiences that are fully immersive in a workplace for a block of time, usually over a term, or semester. Whilst hours vary, there are often between 200 and 600 hours in one block, either part-time or full-time. This type of WIL is generally referred to as work placement, practicum, or internship. Consideration is given to the parameters of this type of WIL including the murkiness of how many days or hours are deemed necessary for adequate learning. Regulatory bodies often have significant influence on the requirements of these forms of WIL and thus contribute to the shaping of curriculum, including assessment (Dunn & Tenkate, 2011; Sovilla & Varty, 2011). Examples of their impact will be outlined. As the attributes of quality placements have been well-canvassed (e.g., Agnew et al., 2017; Campbell et al., 2019; Smith, 2012; and Chapter 22), emphasis in this chapter is given to the importance of engaging with digital technology, relationships between stakeholders, the significance of student-led theory-practice integration, Indigenous approaches to learning, and intentional strategies such as supervision. Placements have inherent challenges that require understanding from all WIL stakeholders and deliberate action from institutions. Sustainability, the roles and relationships between placement stakeholders, assessment, and curriculum development are all important considerations. A nursing case study will illustrate effective placement practice and highlight the importance of structured learning opportunities. The chapter concludes with a reflection on future directions for this type of WIL. The terminology of WIL is inconsistent across countries and disciplines with reference to internships, practicum, sandwich courses, fieldwork, field education, service learning, cooperative education, and others (Cooper et al., 2010; Patrick et al., 2009). Cooper et al. (2010) DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-13

163

Kathryn Hay et al.

usefully described the key elements of these types of WIL highlighting differences in the purpose of the experience, location of the WIL, the length of time required, whether students receive payment, and the association with a course or program. The integration of academic learning with practice knowledge in the workplace or community is the common element across the various configurations. To add to these nuances, some of these terms are used interchangeably, for example, a student undertaking ‘field education’ in a social work program in Australia will complete a 500-hour placement. Practicum and internship are also often aligned, although internships that are integral to a course should not be confused with those undertaken when a student has completed their program, and which are often, but not always, paid (Stewart et al., 2018). For the purpose of this chapter, the term ‘placement’ will be used to describe a substantive teaching and learning experience in a workplace setting which is a compulsory course requirement and occurs in a block of time (e.g., 12 weeks) (Henderson & Trede, 2017; Patrick et al., 2009). The length of a placement may be determined by the institution (Fleming & Haigh, 2018) or by a regulatory body (Hay, 2020) but is of sufficient length so the student can become immersed in the socio-cultural aspects of the organization (Fleming & Haigh, 2018). Structured supervision by an experienced practitioner is a common requirement (Cooper et al., 2010; Hay et al., 2019) and the primary purpose of the placement is for students to integrate disciplinary learning through application in relevant workplace environments (Smith, 2012).

Placements as a program and professional requirement The integration of academic study and practical experience in professional education has been evident in engineering in the United States since 1906, a date often identified as the beginning of WIL (Coll & Zegwaard, 2011). However, other disciplines, such as medicine, nursing, social work, education, or law, also have long traditions of placements that are integral to the process of becoming a recognized professional. Immersive WIL is often a component of professional degrees and, therefore, regulatory bodies frequently have a role in setting the standards that institutions must meet including the achievement of competence standards. In some disciplines, the role of the regulator is established in legislation, and registration is mandatory to practice. In other professions, a professional body establishes practice standards and may accredit education programs, but it may be possible to practice post-qualification without belonging to the professional body. Research in the UK identified 74 professional bodies (Harvey et al., 1995). In only 13 cases was membership or registration a requirement to practice though 41 associations required work experience as part of the educational qualification. In some disciplines, the professional body or regulator monitors standards by setting an examination that must be completed following graduation. In this way, the curriculum and program structure does not need to be controlled because new graduates must pass the examination. However, in other disciplines institutions are accredited by the professional body and the WIL component of the program is prescribed (Harvey et al., 1995). As Abeysekera (2006) points out, writing from an Australian accounting perspective, institutions design WIL programs that assess the standards specified by professional bodies because they want to ensure that they can attract and retain students who are primarily seeking entry to a profession. The amount of time that students are required to spend in a placement varies considerably between disciplines, and even within disciplines across geographical contexts. For example, initial teacher education programs in New South Wales, Australia must include a minimum of 80 days professional experience (New South Wales Education Standards Authority, 2017), which mirrors requirements in Ontario, Canada (National Centre on Education and the Economy, 164

The practice of block placements

2016). However, a four-year undergraduate teaching program in the UK must include a minimum of 160 days school-based experience (Department for Education, 2021). In contrast, the Teachers Council in Aotearoa New Zealand has moved away from specifying a time period that students must be on placement to a focus on providing enough practical experience for students to meet the assessment outcomes (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2019). Similar variations are evident in nursing programs internationally. In Australia, trainees must complete 800 hours of clinical experience before becoming a Registered Nurse (Australian Nursing and Midwifery Accreditation Council, 2019), whilst in New Zealand, the minimum requirement is 1,100 hours (Nursing Council of New Zealand, 2015) and 2,300 hours in the UK (Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2010). Maseko (2018) completed a review of WIL in mining engineering universities in South Africa and identified two models with different expectations for the duration students should spend working in mines, either 24 weeks or one year. These examples illustrate the lack of agreement about how much time students need to spend in a placement to develop the required competence. Very little research has examined the impact of the length of placements in professional programs, but Levett-Jones et al. (2008) found that longer block placements in nursing had a positive impact on students’ sense of belonging to the profession. The variation in WIL duration and structure across programs raises questions, therefore, about the impact on professional socialization, readiness for practice, and the transferability of professional qualifications (Fleming & Haigh, 2018). As noted, a variety of WIL requirements across geographical territories may be evident within a single profession, leading to international inconsistency. Professional bodies can specify minimum standards within their jurisdiction, but institutions may elect to provide additional WIL to appeal to students and develop their professional preparedness. However, resourcing limitations within institutions may restrict the delivery of WIL, despite the potential benefits for students (Patrick et al., 2009) and so variation between them seems inevitable. In the context of pharmacist education, Lucas et al. (2018) argue for increased standardization of assessment and feedback processes to support placement supervisors. This proposal raises broader questions about the value of standardization of placements within higher education, although further research is required to make such determinations.

Learning and teaching Learning and teaching moments occur during immersive block placements in both planned and unplanned ways. While it is ideal that placements are guided by a set of learning goals from the outset (Cooper et al., 2010; Khampirat, 2021), unpredictable practice events and learning from mistakes that occur in all organizational contexts can provide rich learning experiences for students (Beck et al., 2018). Several factors can shape a quality learning environment including: the student having an available and supportive supervisory relationship in a setting where there is a balance between structure and autonomy; opportunities to develop reflective and conceptual capacities; and provision for observation of student practice, reflective discussion, and constructive feedback (Cooper et al., 2010; Hay, 2020; Rodríguez-García et al., 2021). Learning occurs best when students perceive placement tasks as authentic and relevant to develop the knowledge and skills in their chosen profession (Campbell et al., 2019). Students can glean substantial learning from engaging with digital technology and developing the means for incorporating aspects of digital service delivery into practice (Wood et al., 2020). Engagement with digital technology during placements was significantly hastened by the emergence and subsequent spread of the COVID-19 pandemic (Bisland et al., 2020; Dean & Campbell, 2020). Nevertheless, educators and practitioners are warned about uncritically 165

Kathryn Hay et al.

accepting technology-based learning as an enhancement to more traditional forms of WIL delivery (Goodchild, 2018). In most professional programs the crucial role placements play as the nexus for bringing together discipline-specific knowledge and theory with practice is recognized (Maidment, 2021; Stenberg et al., 2016; Wright & Homer, 2017). The task of integrating theory with practice during placements is both intentional and complex. Engagement with this learning requires a clear understanding of the different forms of codified knowledge used to inform practice and capacity to recognize when the application of this knowledge is relevant. During placements, the host organization supervisor needs to have capacity to introduce and lead discussions about integration, to prompt critical reflection and help identify where practice might in turn potentially shape changes in theory. Lack of confidence among some supervisors to initiate theory-driven discussions focused on praxis has been identified (Chilvers, 2017). This reticence appears to be particularly the case in fields where the demonstration of complex technical skills takes priority (Rashid, 2017), such as in the disciplines of medicine and engineering. The application of discipline-specific knowledge is one form of learning that will be assessed during placements, as will the demonstration of discipline-specific skill sets, analysis of ethical dilemmas, and the ‘goodness of fit’ of the student with the profession. Assessment of this latter dimension often rests with the demonstration of generic ‘soft skills’ relevant to almost all workplace settings, but particularly germane to developing professional capability. These soft skills are related to organizational and relational effectiveness (Parlamis & Monnot, 2019), and include the ability to communicate well, process information effectively, think logically and critically (Chan et al., 2018), work well in a team, and exercise self-regulation (Tsalikova & Pakhotina, 2019). There are several key relationships in the placement space and the diverse ways in how these relationships are managed, which have been identified in the literature (Fleming et al., 2018). The quality of the primary relationship between the student and their supervisor is the most significant indicator in determining how satisfied students feel about their placements (Hay et al., 2019). Factors that students identify as being critical to placement success include: the supervisor having clarity in their communications and making time for regular face-to-face connections (Cooper et al., 2010); generating an environment of safety within supervision where the process of mentoring occurs (Carless et al., 2012); and students feeling they are treated with respect, observed in their practice, and provided with timely and constructive feedback (Desai & Seaholme, 2018; González-Toro et al., 2020). Satisfaction with supervision during placement influences students’ decisions around future employment in the host organization or the profession generally (Hay et al., 2019; Rodríguez-García et al., 2021). A diverse range of models for facilitating learning during immersive block placements reflect the broad scope of occupational approaches and the socio-cultural context. For example, within nursing, the preceptorship and Dedicated Education Unit (DEU) are prevalent in New Zealand (Borren & Harding, 2020). Further, nursing like most professional education programs in the country will have stated competencies for engaging with and working effectively with Māori as the Indigenous persons. This imperative is embedded within professional codes of ethics and competence standards (ANZASW, 2019; NZNO, 2019). In practical terms, for placements this means mātauranga Māori (knowledge specific to Māori) is incorporated into curriculum delivery and reflected in WIL learning priorities. In social work, the culturally responsive supervision model of Tuakana-Teina is evident (Tuakana: an older or more expert person, working with Teina: a less experienced person). Here, learning occurs within a relationship of trust and reciprocity between the Tuakana and Teina (Walker, 2012). This model is often adopted when the placement is in an Indigenous organization. While this supervisory relationship echoes 166

The practice of block placements

aspects of an apprenticeship model, the learning partnership is embedded within contemporary Indigenous values and cultural practices (see Chapters 32 and 35 on cultural practices and inclusion). Engaging with Indigenous and other models for teaching and learning during placement is evident across a range of professional disciplines (Arter et al., 2016), where the incorporation of logbooks, practice diaries, portfolios, e-journals, and reflective supervision are used to promote critically reflective practice ( Jan, 2018; Tsingos-Lucas et al., 2016).

Challenges in block placements Despite the many documented benefits of immersive block placements to facilitate applied skill development and student knowledge acquisition, there are several challenges that can impact the WIL experience. Acknowledging and identifying appropriate methods to alleviate these challenges can aid in optimizing placements for all stakeholders.

Sustainability Effective placements require ongoing management and resources to remain sustainable. While it is not uncommon for organizations to invoice education providers for student placement time, this is not always the case, and some host organizations may not be compensated for WIL (Hay et al., 2019). Students do not often receive remuneration for their placement which can impact on their ability to engage in part-time work whilst on placement (Jackson et al., 2017). While some host organizations do pay students on placement, this can have significant implications on the expectation of the student from the host organization and raises a risk of exploitation (see Chapter 26 discussing risk). Although many institutions invest considerable resources generating placement opportunities with industry providers, far less time is dedicated to sustaining current placements or ensuring host organizations are sufficiently prepared to adequately supervise students in the workplace (Jackson, 2015). A misalignment of expectations between students, institutions, and hosts can detrimentally impact on the student-learning experience (Fleming & Haigh, 2017). Workload pressure and limited time to fulfill the supervisory requirements can impact a supervisor’s ability to maximize learning opportunities for students (Hay, 2018). Supervisors may therefore engage in tasks suitable for students due to time pressures. Conversely, organizations may be challenged when finding meaningful tasks for students leading to queries about the suitability of the placement (Jackson et al., 2017).

Roles and relationships The success of placements is largely dictated by the strength of the relationships between the three key stakeholders: the student, institution, and host organization (Borren & Harding, 2020; Smith, 2012). Challenges exist when communication is inadequate and a clear understanding of the role and responsibilities of each participant within this triad is not sufficiently understood. This can be attributed in part to a discrepancy in underlying ideologies and a perceived imbalance of power within and between parties (Fleming et al., 2018). Fleming et al. (2018) identified three critical elements for creating positive relationships for WIL: compatibility, commitment, and communication. When these elements are compromised, challenges to relationships may exist that impact on the student learning experience and sustainability of the placement. Host organizations also need to understand the level of knowledge or experience of the student and the overall objectives of the placement (Fleming & Haigh, 2017). 167

Kathryn Hay et al.

When multiple students from varying levels of a program or from different institutions are in placement simultaneously, students are often relied upon to adequately communicate their learning needs (Borren & Harding, 2020). The varying expectations of different institutions can present a challenge for host organizations to understand how to meet institutionally specific requirements. Often through a sense of loyalty, host organizations may choose to engage with just one institution which may impact on the ability of others to secure WIL opportunities (Hay, 2018).

Assessment Assessing students in immersive block placements often involves multiple parties and varying assessment processes. Frequently competency based, defining what competent practice looks like and how competence is evidenced can be problematic (Levett-Jones et al., 2011). Students are often placed in several fields of practice or disciplinary areas and involved in diverse tasks. Identifying how these experiences meet assessment requirements involves a shared understanding of authentic assessment practice between the student, host organization, and institution (Ajjawi et al., 2020). Assessment requirements are usually generated by the institution and may not be aligned with professional practice. Subjectivity in placement assessment can impact on the reliability and validity of the assessment process (Cooper et al., 2010; Levett-Jones et al., 2011). Expectations of the assessors may be too high or low depending on their own level of knowledge and experience (Seldomridge & Walsh, 2006). Students may view assessment processes as being akin to a job interview and therefore experience elevated levels of assessment anxiety. This can be exacerbated by the power imbalance evident in the relationship between assessor and student with future employability dependent on the outcome of the placement (Cooper et al., 2010). Various assessment tools may be incorporated in placements and thus all parties should be familiar with and have a clear understanding of assessment requirements (Jan, 2018). Additional challenges to assessment relate to whether the assessor has observed the student in practice and if formative feedback during the placement is congruent with the final summative assessment (Borren & Harding, 2020). Supervisors may find it difficult to provide constructive feedback to students and while supervisor reluctance to fail placement students is a well-documented phenomenon (Hughes et al., 2021), student personality traits that are viewed as favorable may also influence assessment outcomes.

Curriculum development Organizations frequently expect placement students to be work-ready (Jackson et al., 2017). The notion of work-readiness and the expectation from host organizations that students can be autonomous in their practice is questionable (Levett-Jones et al., 2008). As noted above, a theory–practice gap has been described in the literature (Fleming & Haigh, 2017), whereby assimilating workplace experiences to theoretical knowledge gained can be challenging for some students as well as host organizations who may not be familiar with the program curriculum. Students can also struggle when they are presented with practice that may not align with what they have been taught in the classroom (Fleming & Haigh, 2017). In turn, host organizations might reasonably expect student learning outcomes to assist with meeting the needs of the organization (McRae & Johnston, 2016). Providing adequate education for supervisors on adult teaching and learning principles (Chilvers, 2017) and program curriculum and assessment practice (Hay, 2020) is vital, as is incorporating industry voice in curriculum development (Choy & Delahaye, 2011). 168

The practice of block placements

Case study: the Canterbury Dedicated Education Unit There are multiple models of teaching and learning to support the delivery of immersive block placements within undergraduate nursing curricula. One example is the Canterbury DEU model (Borren & Harding, 2020). The DEU model was first developed in Australia in 1997. It presented a revised structure for placements that could enhance nursing students’ integration of theory to the practice setting and more adequately prepare them for post-registration employment (Wotton & Gonda, 2004). In 2007, Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology (now Ara Institute of Canterbury, New Zealand) recognized that the preceptorship model was not adequately meeting the needs of students, clinical service providers, and the institution. Finding placements for approximately 1,200 nursing students in Canterbury (a region in New Zealand) annually and in order to meet future workforce demand was becoming increasingly challenging (KPMG Consulting, 2001). Students were often seen as burdensome and adding to the workload of clinical staff (Borren & Harding, 2020). As a response to these two significant workplace drivers, academic staff investigated several models of placement delivery and agreed upon the DEU model (Jamieson et al., 2008). In the second and third year of the degree program, nursing students undertake DEU clinical placements in a variety of settings including mental health, primary care medical/ surgical, and their final transition placement. Each placement within a DEU spans eight to ten full-time weeks with the final placement of the degree program being no less than 360 hours. In a DEU, a minimum of six nursing students are allocated to each clinical area, such as the emergency department, pediatrics, or a general medical or surgical ward. This has resulted in an increase in student numbers from the previous preceptorship model whereby clinical areas accepted one or two students (Borren & Harding, 2020). As opposed to having one preceptor, the students in the DEU work alongside any of the nursing staff employed in the specific area with student education being viewed as a collective responsibility. Students may, therefore, feel an increased sense of belonging with all members of the team contributing to their placement learning. Three key roles are essential to the functioning of the DEU. Firstly, the Clinical Liaison Nurse (CLN) is employed by the healthcare provider, with one or two CLNs in each DEU. The CLN is apportioned time within their workload to support student placements. They coordinate the allocation of students with nurses, act as a reference person for students to access when they are on placement, and collate feedback from staff members on student progression and development (Tuohy, 2011). Secondly, the Academic Liaison Nurse (ALN) is an educator in the institution who is allocated time per student per week to work in the clinical area alongside each student. The ALN observes the student in practice and facilitates reflective discussion that promotes an integration of student practice with theory (Tuohy, 2011). Attaching an ALN to each clinical placement area (as opposed to institutional staff being responsible for fewer students in multiple areas) has meant that he or she has a clearer understanding of the practice area. Together, the CLN, ALN, and student collaborate on formative and summative assessment. Thirdly, nursing leaders from both the institution and the healthcare workforce are part of a Governance Group that oversees the management of the DEU. This group assists with facilitating the day-to-day operational needs of the model ensuring that expectations of all stakeholders are being represented (Borren & Harding, 2020). Each DEU placement commences with a structured orientation day and program that is run in collaboration with both the CLN and ALN of the area. Orientation involves educating students on health and safety, introducing nursing students to the role of different health professionals who work within the area, and discussing clinical assessment requirements. Induction 169

Kathryn Hay et al.

and preparation of students for WIL has also been recognized by Smith (2012) as one of the dimensions of quality in WIL. Halfway through the clinical placement, a formative assessment is undertaken whereby the student meets with their ALN and CLN to discuss concrete examples of how they are meeting the Nursing Council of New Zealand competencies for registered nurses (Nursing Council of New Zealand, 2007). The student provides written evidence of practice and verbalizes their examples within the assessment environment, and the ALN and CLN decide the level the student is working at on the assessment form continuum for each of the competencies. The student then has the remainder of the clinical placement to further develop their practice in identified areas at the formative assessment stage. The summative assessment occurs on the final day of the clinical placement and follows the same format as the formative assessment, with the student leading the assessment process and identifying examples of how their practice is meeting the 20 Nursing Council competencies. Students from different levels of a nursing program can be placed in a DEU concurrently and senior students often act as role models and a valuable resource for other students on placement. The DEU model enhances student peer teaching and learning opportunities and students report feeling more confident asking their peers for advice and reflecting on their placement experiences (Borren & Harding, 2020). There has been a reported increase in nursing students requesting to return to DEU placement areas post-registration and recommending the placement to their peers (Borren & Harding, 2020). Since the establishment of the Canterbury DEU, there has been a reported cultural shift in clinical practice areas (Borren & Harding, 2020). Nursing students are now considered an integral part of the healthcare team; there is an increased recognition of the value of nursing students on placements, and fewer clinical areas are reporting that graduate nurses are not ‘work-ready’ (Borren & Harding, 2020). Further, the DEU model has enabled greater confidence in the forecasting of necessary placements and allowed for an increased capacity for student enrolments in the nursing program (Borren & Harding, 2020). Recognition of the benefit of nursing placement students to clinical practice areas has led to healthcare providers requesting to become DEUs and contributed to the rapid growth in DEU numbers in the Canterbury region (K. Erickson, CDHB Nurse Educator, DEU, personal communication, 26 March 2021). The DEU model provides an example of quality WIL experiences for nursing students. Students are provided with a scaffolded and transformative learning and assessment opportunity with authentic tasks, as well as access to appropriate supervision and support (Campbell et al., 2019; Smith, 2012). Further, the ongoing communication and connection between stakeholders enables responsiveness to the dynamic environment and continual improvement (Campbell et al., 2019).

Future directions Encompassing theories and practices from a diverse range of disciplines, immersive block placements are an established, yet innovative, field. This chapter has outlined an indicative range of insights, challenges, and examples of contemporary approaches to this type of WIL that we have generically labeled “placement.” The chapter concludes with some recommendations for the future development of immersive block placements. Firstly, there is scope to offer students opportunities to prepare for the complexities of practice. Students undertake placements in contexts influenced by economic, political, and social drivers, necessitating broad disciplinary knowledge and interpersonal and professional skills. Moving beyond forms of placement that connect individual students to a host organization relevant to their discipline, immersive block placements could be designed to bring together students from different disciplines to share ideas, problem-solve, make holistic, ethical 170

The practice of block placements

decisions, and develop competencies in teamwork and communication. Interdisciplinary practice is crucial in many professions. For example, in clinical health settings, teamwork is not only the norm but is also crucial for responding to the complex medical, cultural, social, and psychological needs of patients. Banister et al. (2020) adapted the DEU model to bring together nursing, physiotherapy, and speech-language therapy students, demonstrating how interdisciplinary placements can be positive learning experiences. Secondly, the issue of resourcing for placements needs to be addressed. Despite a consensus on the benefits of WIL and the emphasis on graduate employability, funding for immersive block placements remains limited and inconsistent. The levels of funding provided for placements vary markedly between different professional groups, for example, medical placements generally receive more funding than those for nursing (Verma et al., 2018). The increase in postgraduate internships instead of employment post-qualifying is also a concerning development. Unpaid and paid graduate internships in the UK are now common practice in creative and media fields (Hunt & Scott, 2020). The growth in these kinds of precarious arrangements is concerning particularly given the significant financial toll and time commitment borne by graduates during their study. Additionally, there is little evidence that participation in post-graduation internships offer the same quality of learning or employment outcomes as placements (Hunt & Scott, 2020). Strong relationships between institutions and host organizations facilitate open dialogue, not only about student learning but also graduate skill requirements and thereby contribute to workforce development. A post-qualifying internship structure does not allow for an emphasis on integration of theoretical learning with relevant practice or a strong reflexive pedagogy. That said, placements by nature are resource-intensive and, therefore, additional government funding in individual jurisdictions may increase current support of students and aid host organizations’ capacity to supervise students. Thirdly, the utilization of technology and simulation in placements is of increasing importance (Wood et al., 2020). Simulated or virtual work has not generally been accepted as in-work placements particularly in education programs with professional accreditation or registration requirements. However, in the post-COVID-19 climate, this preference may be unsustainable (Dean & Campbell, 2020). Many host organizations have needed to engage in remote and online service delivery during the pandemic restrictions. Remote work is likely to be an ongoing facet of professional practice, and students require the digital capabilities to function in these modern contexts. Institutions need to work with host organizations and regulatory bodies to ensure that the curricula, graduate attributes, and placement arrangements address these contemporary workplace demands. Finally, not only can placements enable students to develop work proficiency, they can also lead to advanced and/or specialized forms of graduate practice. Continuing professional development (CPD) standards are usually set by professional associations and regulatory bodies and tend to focus on minimum competencies for practice. However, specialization requires deeper, adaptive learning that directly interfaces with the context of practice and work (Calway & Murphy, 2011). Incorporating the dimensions of quality placements into CPD involves the graduate in contextualized, active learning processes that address their interests, the needs of the profession, and workplace requirements. These career transitions can be facilitated in several ways. E-portfolios initiated within education programs can be made accessible post-graduation as CPD platforms support skill development, theory-practice integration, and critical reflection in the workplace (Jan, 2018). Postgraduate qualifications or micro-credentials can support graduates to further develop their technical, ethical, legal, organizational, and theoretical knowledge and skills. The success of these courses is in their ability to attend to evolving demands of practice. Given their relationship with alumni, employers, and professional bodies, 171

Kathryn Hay et al.

tertiary institutions are ideally positioned to offer graduate placement programs that hone the expertise required for the different levels and scopes of professional practice. Immersive block placements are an integral component of higher education curricula. These learning experiences contribute to the development of student competency in a disciplinary area as well as enhance personal and professional capabilities. Regulatory bodies can have considerable influence over the nature and structure of placements, at times creating a tension with institutional requirements. Although variation in the length of placements is common across disciplines and jurisdictions, many similarities in this type of WIL are apparent. The areas highlighted in this chapter, including the suggested future developments, offer WIL stakeholders a reflective opportunity to enhance and shape current practice in professional programs.

References Abeysekera, I. (2006). Issues relating to designing a work-integrated learning program in an undergraduate accounting degree program and its implications for the curriculum. Asia Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 7(1), 7–15. Agnew, D., Pill, S., & Orrell, J. (2017). Applying a conceptual model in sport sector work-integrated learning contexts. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(3), 185–198. Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Huu Nghia, T. L., Boud, D., Johnson, L., & Patrick, C.-J. (2020). Aligning assessment with the needs of work-integrated learning: The challenges of authentic assessment in a complex context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938. 2019.1639613 Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Work (ANZASW). (2019). Code of Ethics. https://anzasw.nz/ anzasw-publications-2/#1603861557636-3fd32272-1d61 Arter, M. L., Wallace, L. N., & Shaffer, T. L. (2016). The use of reflective journals to stimulate critical thinking in the academic internship. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 27(1), 140–156. https://doi. org/10.1080/10511253.2015.1109132 Australian Nursing and Midwifery Accreditation Council. (2019). Registered nurse accreditation standards 2019. https://www.anmac.org.au/sites/default/files/documents/registerednurseaccreditationstandards2019_0.pdf Banister, G., Portney, L. G., Vega-Barachowitz, C., Jampel, A., Schnider, M. E., Inzana, R., Zeytoonjian, T., Fitzgerald, P., Tuck, I., Jocelyn, M., Holmberg, J., & Knab, M. (2020). The interprofessional dedicated education unit: Design, implementation, and evaluation of an innovative model for fostering interprofessional collaborative practice. Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, 19. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.xjep.2019.100308 Beck, J. B., McGrath, C., Toncray, K., & Rooholamini, S. N. (2018). Failure is an option: Using errors as teaching opportunities. Pediatrics (Evanston), 41(3), e20174222. https://doi.org/10.1542/ peds.2017-4222 Bisland, C., Nagy, H., & Smith, P. (2020). Virtual internships and work-integrated learning in hospitality and tourism in a post-COVID-19 work. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 425–437. Borren, J., & Harding, T. (2020). Evolution of the Canterbury dedicated education unit model. Nurse Education in Practice, 46, 102802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102802 Calway, B. A., & Murphy, G. A. (2011). A work-integrated learning philosophy and the educational imperatives. In P. Keleher, A. Patil & R. E. Harreveld (Eds.), Work-integrated learning in engineering, built environment and technology: Diversity of practice in practice (1–24). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-547-6 Campbell, M., Russell, L., Smith, L., McAllister, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., & Barrett, M. (2019). A framework for the institutional quality assurance of work integrated learning. Final Report. Carless, S. A., Robertson, K., Willy, J., Hart, M., & Chea, S. (2012). Successful postgraduate placement experiences: What is the influence of job and supervisor characteristics? Australian Psychologist, 47(3), 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.2012.00085.x Chan, S., Beatty, B., Chilvers, D., Davies, L., Hollingworth, A., & Jamieson, I. (2018). Work-Integrated Learning in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Diversity, Biculturalism and Industry-Led. In S. Choy, G. B. Wärvik, & V. Lindberg (Eds.), Integration of vocational education and training experiences. technical and vocational education and training: Issues, concerns and prospects (pp. 165–187), Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981-10-8857-5_9

172

The practice of block placements Chilvers, D. (2017). Social work field educator practice: expanding the vision (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10092/15038 Choy, S., & Delahaye, B. (2011). Partnerships between universities and workplaces: Some challenges for work-integrated learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 158037X.2010.546079 Coll, R. K., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2011). International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). World Association of Cooperative Education. Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning: A guide to effective practice. Routledge. Crump, S., & Johnsson, M. C. (2011). Benefits of co-operative and work-integrated education for educational institutions. In Coll, R. K. & Zegwaard, K. E. (Eds.), International handbook for work-integrated education (2nd ed.), (pp. 287–296). World Association for Cooperative Education Inc. Dean, A. B., & Campbell, C. (2020). Reshaping work-integrated learning in a post-COVID-19 world of work. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 21(4), 356–364. Department for Education. (2021, January 22). Initial teacher training: Criteria and supporting advice. https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/initial-teacher-training-criteria/initial-teacher-training-ittcriteria-and-supporting-advice Desai, F., & Seaholme, T. (2018). Examining the impact of strength and conditioning internships on exercise and sport science undergraduate students. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(1), 81–91. Dunn, L., & Tenkate, T. (2011). Cooperative and work-integrated education in environmental health. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard, (Eds.), International handbook for work-integrated education (2nd ed.). (pp. 157–164). World Association for Cooperative Education. Fleming, J., & Haigh, N. (2018). Using sociocultural insights to enhance work-integrated learning, Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 8(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1108/ HESWBL-09-2017-0071 Fleming, J., & Haigh, N. J. (2017). Examining and challenging the intentions of work-integrated learning. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 7(2), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/ HESWBL-01-2017-0003 Fleming, J., McLachlan, K., & Pretti, T. J. (2018). Successful work-integrated learning relationships: A framework for sustainability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 321–335. Gardner, P., & Bartkus, K. R. (2014). What’s in a name? A reference guide to work-education experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 37–54. González-Toro, C., Cherubini, J., Doig, S., & Fernández-Vivó, M. (2020). Supervisor feedback: Perceptions from physical education teacher candidates. The Physical Educator, 77(3), 553–574. https:// doi.org/10.18666/TPE-2020-V77-I3-10051 Goodchild, T. (2018). Does technology really enhance nurse education? Nurse Education Today, 66, 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.04.005 Harvey, L., Mason, S., & Ward, R. (1995). The role of professional bodies in higher education quality monitoring. University of Central England Quality in Higher Education Project.http://www.qualityresearchinternational. com/Harvey%20papers/_Harvey%20and%20Mason%20Professions%201995%20%5B2014%5D.pdf Hay, K. (2018). “There is competition”: Facing the reality of field education in New Zealand. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 30(2), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol30iss2id507 Hay, K. (2020). What is quality work-integrated learning? Social work tertiary educator perspectives. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(1), 51–61. Hay, K., Maidment, J., Ballantyne, N., Beddoe, L., & Walker, S. (2019). Feeling lucky: The serendipitous nature of field education. Clinical Social Work Journal, 47(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615018-0688-z Henderson, A., & Trede, F. (2017). Strengthening attainment of student learning outcomes during work-integrated learning: A collaborative framework across academia, industry and students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(1), 73–80. https://www.rcn.org.uk/ retrieved 28 February 2021 Hughes, L. J., Mitchell, M. L., & Johnston, A. N. B. (2021). Moving forward: Barriers and enablers to failure to fail – A mixed methods meta-integration. Nurse Education Today, 98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nedt.2020.104666 Hunt, W., & Scott, P. (2020). Paid and unpaid graduate internships: Prevalence, quality and motivations at six months after graduation. Studies in Higher Education, 45(2), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 3075079.2018.1541451

173

Kathryn Hay et al. Jackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842221 Jackson, D., Rowbottom, D., Ferns, S., & McLaren, D. (2017). Employer understanding of work-­integrated learning and the challenges of engaging in work placement opportunities. Studies in Continuing Education, 39(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2016.1228624 Jamieson, I., Hale, J., Sims, D., Casey, M., Whittle, R., & Kilkenny, T. (2008). Establishing dedicated education units for undergraduate nursing students: Pilot project summation report. Jan, A-D. (2018). Investigating ePortfolios from teacher training to the workplace. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, The Open University, UK). https://doi.org/10.21954/ou.ro.0000e47a Khampirat, B. (2021). The impact of work-integrated learning and learning strategies on engineering students’ learning outcomes in Thailand: A multiple mediation model of learning experiences and psychological factors. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3055620 KPMG Consulting. (2001). Strategic review of undergraduate nursing education: Report to nursing council of New Zealand. KPMG Consulting. Levett-Jones, T., Gersbach, J., Arthur, C., & Roche, J. (2011). Implementing a clinical competency assessment model that promotes critical reflection and ensures nursing graduates’ readiness for professional practice. Nurse Education in Practice, 11(1), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2010.07.004 Levett-Jones, T., Lathlean, J., Higgins, I., & McMillan, M. (2008). The duration of clinical placements: A key influence on nursing students’ experiences of belongingness. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(2), 8–16. Lucas, C., Williams, K., Tudball, J., & Walpola, R. L. (2018). Community, hospital and industry preceptor perceptions of their role in experiential placements: The need for standardization of preceptor responsibilities and evaluations of students. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10, 1447–1455. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.08.002 Maidment, J. (2021). Mapping theory-practice integration: A model from Aotearoa New Zealand. British Journal of Social Work, 52(4), 1820–1836. http://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab136 Martin, E. (1998). Conceptions of workplace university education, Higher Education Research and Development, 17(2), 191–205. Maseko, L. A. (2018). A review of work-integrated learning in South African mining engineering universities. The Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 118(12), 1315–1323. https:// dx.doi.org/10.17159/2411-9717/2018/v118n12a10 McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 337–348. National Centre on Education and the Economy. (2016). Empowered educators: How high-performing systems shape teaching quality around the world, Canada: Diversity and decentralization. http://ncee.org/wp-­ content/uploads/2017/02/CanadaCountryBrief.pdf New South Wales Education Standards Authority. (2017). NSW supplementary documentation: Professional experience in initial teacher education. https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/wcm/connect/6807e5d6b810-4e57-bc32-1a3155fd115e/professional-experience-in-ite-policy.pdf?MOD=AJPERES& CVID= New Zealand Nurses Organisation. (2019). Guideline – Code of Ethics. https://www.nzno.org.nz/Portals/ 0/publications/Guideline%20-%20Code%20of%20Ethics%202019.pdf?ver=19LQpYx8wspprjb TNt9pWw%3D%3D Nursing and Midwifery Council. (2010). Standards for pre-registration nursing education. https://www.nmc. org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/standards/nmc-standards-for-pre-registration-nursing-education. pdf Nursing Council of New Zealand. (2007). Competencies for registered nurses. https://www.nursingcouncil.org.nz/ Public/Nursing/Standards_and_guidelines/NCNZ/nursing-section/Standards_and_guidelines_for_ nurses.aspx Nursing Council of New Zealand. (2015). Education programme standards for the registered nurse scope of practice. https://www.nursingcouncil.org.nz/Public/Education/Standards_for_programmes/NCNZ/ Education-section/Standards_for_programmes.aspx?hkey=52a51787-905a-481b-a4f7-4007742cbdbe Parlamis, J., & Monnot, M. J. (2019). Getting to the CORE: Putting an end to the term “soft skills”. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(2), 225–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492618818023 Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2009). The WIL (Work Integrated Learning) report: A national scoping study – Australian Learning and Teaching Council [ATLC] final report. Queensland University of Technology.

174

The practice of block placements Rashid, P. (2017). Surgical education and adult learning: Integrating theory into practice [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000 Research, 6, 143–143. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10870.1 Rodríguez-García, M. C., Gutiérrez-Puertas, L., Granados-Gámez, G., Aguilera-Manrique, G., & Márquez-Hernández, V. V. (2021). The connection of the clinical learning environment and supervision of nursing students with student satisfaction and future intention to work in clinical placement hospitals. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15642 Seldomridge, L. A., & Walsh, C. M. (2006). Evaluating student performance in undergraduate preceptorships. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(5), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20060501-06 Smith, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: A comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 247–262. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/072943 60.2011.558072 Sovilla, E. S., & Varty, J. W. (2011). Cooperative and work-integrated education in the US, past and present: Some lessons learned. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for work integrated education (2nd ed., pp. 3–16). World Association for Cooperative Education. Stenberg, K., Rajala, A., & Hilppo, J. (2016). Fostering theory-practice reflection in teaching practicums. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 470–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598 66X.2015.1136406 Stewart, A., Owens, R., Hewitt, A., & Nikoloudakis, I. (2018). The regulation of internships: A comparative study. International Labour Office. Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2019). ITE programme approval, monitoring and review requirements. https://teachingcouncil.nz/professional-practice/ite-providers/programme-requirements-andapproval/ Tsalikova, I. K., & Pakhotina, S. V. (2019). Scientific research on the issue of soft skills development (review of the data in international databases of scopus, web of science). Obrazovanie i Nauka, 21(8), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2019-7-187-207 Tsingos-Lucas, C., Bosnic-Anticevich, S., Schneider, C. R., & Smith, L. (2016). The effect of reflective activities on reflective thinking ability in an undergraduate pharmacy curriculum. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(4), 65. Tuohy, C. (2011). Collaborative work with industry: Implementation of dedicated education units. Whitireia Nursing Journal, 18, 25–38. Verma, P., Nankervis, A., Priyono, S., Mohd Salleh, N., Connell, J., & Burgess, J. (2018). Graduate work-readiness challenges in the Asia-Pacific region and the role of HRM. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion an International Journal, 37(2), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2017-0015 Walker, S. (2012). The teaching of Māori social work practice and theory to a predominantly Pākehā audience. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 24(3–4), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswjvol24iss3-4id125 Wood, Y., Zegwaard, K. E., & Fox-Turnball, W. (2020). Conventional, remote, virtual and simulated work-integrated learning: A meta-analysis of existing practice. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 331–354. Wotton, K., & Gonda, J. (2004). Clinician and student evaluation of a collaborative clinical teaching model. Nurse Education in Practice, 4(2), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1471-5953(03)00033-7 Wright, S., & Homer, M. (2017). Addressing the theory-practice gap in assessment. Perspectives on Medical Education, 6(1), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0323-z

175

11 THE PRACTICE OF SANDWICH DEGREES Julie Udell, Vicki O’Brien, Sarah Flynn, Helen Hooper, and Francesca Walker-Martin

Introduction This chapter explores the origin of undergraduate sandwich degrees in universities. Exploring over 40 years of development, we acknowledge the sandwich degree placement (referred to as a placement) as an established and valuable part of the wider practice of work-integrated learning (WIL). We explore the question of duration, whether placements should be long or short, and the challenges and benefits to key stakeholders in a dynamic global environment, before moving on to reviewing the demand for and response to the growth in postgraduate placements. This latter element is explored through a UK case study. We then invite the reader to consider the future of placements, which we conclude are here to stay.

Origins of sandwich degrees The term ‘sandwich degree’ is used to describe a university work placement model that is well-defined and involves a course that has an extended continuous full-time work placement within the academic curriculum. Sandwich placements are usually optional, competitive, market-led, and, when undertaken, lead to the award of a ‘sandwich’ degree title that provides clear differentiation in award for the student and formally recognizes the experiential learning gained while on work placement on the degree transcript. This established position, whereby work is integrated with learning, has come a long way from its original concept. It can be argued that sandwich courses commenced with the medieval guilds who integrated work with learning, but it was in 1906 at the University of Cincinnati (Guidera, 2006) where Herman Schneider conceived the idea of improving engineers’ education by combining theory and practice through involving industry with their education. Initially just for one year, Schneider was given permission by the University to develop a cooperative education program and to experiment with his ideas (Barbeau, 1973; Moore, 1978). The idea quickly became so popular that the number of programs rose exponentially to over 1,400 institutions across North America by 1979 (Moore, 1978). The United Kingdom (UK) was a little slower in its

176

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-14

The practice of sandwich degrees

development of these programs, which really only came into their own from the 1950s (Davies, 2003). Due to concern about post-war shortages of scientific manpower at that time, Diplomas in Technology of the National Council for Technological Awards were introduced by Colleges of Advanced Technology (CATs). The Diplomas included a sandwich element of learning, in that students either undertook a ‘thin’ placement (short periods of study and industry experience) or a ‘thick’ placement (just one or two longer periods of study and industry experience). On the recommendation of the Robbins Report in 1963, the CATS became universities and sandwich year courses continued to rise in number (Cotgrove, 1973).

How practice has evolved Work experience ‘sandwiched’ into a degree program is variably described in the literature, which can cause some confusion. It is important, therefore, to review the definitions of key terms and vocabulary to achieve a clear understanding of what is meant by the current practice of sandwich degrees with illustrative evidence and examples being drawn predominantly from UK practice. Sandwiched work experience is generally referred to as either internship or work placement; however, both internship and work placement are terms which also have variable meanings dependent on context. The term ‘internship’ in the USA is a catch-all term that describes a broad range of work experience that can vary in duration; is the position(s) in which it occurs within the program of study; can involve paid or unpaid positions; and may or may not involve formal academic supervision, leading to some academic credit that contributes towards the degree award. In the UK, the meaning of ‘internship’ is a much narrower focus and is typically used to describe short period(s) of self-arranged, ad hoc, and unstructured work experience that are not accredited, therefore do not involve formal academic supervision nor earn academic credit that contributes to the degree (Brennan & Little, 1996). Sandwich degrees are a widespread component of contemporary higher education curricula focused on improving student employability. The main objective is to consolidate and complement the students’ prior academic learning, knowledge, and skills with relevant experiential work through placement learning. The National Council for Industry and Commerce concisely captures the ethos of the sandwich degree model as ‘an interaction of academic study and practical applications such that each serves to illuminate and stimulate the other’ (Brennan & Little, 1996, p. 4). The UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for Higher Education (2018) definition of a sandwich degree highlights the typical and generally expected duration of a sandwich placement as “a programme of study that includes a significant time – normally a year – spent studying away from the University or College (typically in a work-based setting)” (p. 34). This definition also further explains the origin of the term ‘sandwich degree’ being shorthand for the work placement year, being sandwiched in between academic years of study. Gaining the formal award of a sandwich degree depends on the inclusion of a work placement lasting a minimum of 24 weeks that results in a continuous absence from the program of study over at least one academic year. Such sandwich degrees are sometimes prefixed ‘thick’ sandwich courses to differentiate them from degrees that include multiple shorter work placement periods (rather than an unbroken year) that are prefixed ‘thin’ sandwich degrees (Higher Education Statistics Agency, n.d.; Little & Harvey, 2006). The sandwich year usually occurs between the penultimate year and final year of study, which for bachelors degrees means the sandwich year will occur in the third year of study

177

Julie Udell et al.

(and the duration of the degree program is, therefore, extended from the normal three years to four). The sandwich year is usually aligned with the academic calendar, enabling students to transition smoothly between academic years of study and the work placement year. Prior to the sandwich year commencing, the work placement is formally approved by the university to confirm: the relevance of the learning experience; a safe working environment for the student; and the availability of a work-based line manager, or equivalent, to provide appropriate training and day-to-day supervision. A formal contract between the student and employer must also be signed off. During their placement, the student remains enrolled and retains their ‘student status,’ therefore receiving formal academic supervision and support in addition to access to university resources and facilities, such as the library. The student also continues to pay tuition fees, which are normally reduced, with the specific reduction varying between universities (Reilly, 2019). After a period of declining interest, current information from the UK Higher Education Statistics Agency shows a significant increase in new enrollments onto sandwich degrees over the past decade. However, the proportion of students graduating having completed a sandwich placement was comparatively low and relatively static, with 8.2% for the 2005/2006 cohort and 8.6% for the 2014/2015 cohort (Department for Education, 2019a). In many sectors and regions, employer demand is the limiting factor, as there is no direct link between demand in the market and the actual number of students enrolling onto sandwich courses. Delivering on expectations can, therefore, prove a significant challenge for specialized professional support teams tasked with sourcing relevant placements and supporting student aspirations.

Duration and benefits of sandwich placements From the early developments, the integration of work and learning through sandwich placements, whether related to the students’ studies or not, has been found to improve graduate outcomes and ease the transition from university to the workplace (e.g., Blasko et al., 2002; Crebert et al., 2004; Reddy & Moores, 2006). However, it is important to understand for what purpose the student needs to gain work experience, and how this will be integrated into the curriculum, as this is the basis for deciding which model of WIL should be adopted (Cooper et al., 2010; Patrick et al., 2008). Fanthome (2004) suggested that one of the main differences between the various approaches to WIL is the overall duration of the placement as this can impact upon the quality and depth of the student’s learning (see also Dunn et al., 2018). Interestingly, although there is some research that explores the effect of WIL duration, this is an important aspect that is not always evaluated (Inceoglu et al., 2019). It does seem common sense that a longer placement can offer the student additional benefits, as they will be exposed to the work environment for a longer time period. For example, Blasko et al. (2002) found that the biggest gains in graduate outcomes were linked with course-related work experience of more than eight months. The benefits to graduates linked to undertaking this longer placement included less likelihood of unemployment and they were less likely to be in a job that they felt overqualified for. Interestingly, the male participants were more likely to be in a graduate job, have a higher salary, and greater job satisfaction. Many benefits for longer placements (12+ weeks), such as increased skills and experience, better professional understanding and team integration, greater cultural awareness and confidence, have also been identified when compared to shorter placements (see Barry, 2009; Button et al., 2005; Zorn, 1996). Longer placements are reported to be preferred by students and employers alike (Huyton, 1991). Blackwell et al. (2001) found that 68% of graduates who had undertaken a placement of more than 45 weeks during their degree had found the placement useful, compared to only 178

The practice of sandwich degrees

24% of graduates whose placement had lasted for less than six weeks. Additionally, the more the work experience was related to the graduates’ current work, the higher they rated the placement as useful. Managers surveyed by Brown and Ahmed (2009) reported that it took at least three months for students to have adequate workplace knowledge to the point they could usefully contribute to the work. As such, managers preferred work placements of at least one year, as these enabled the student enough time to learn what was necessary and for the company to gain benefit. As encouraging as these findings are, there must be care taken not to overstate the benefits of longer placements over shorter placements, or indeed no placement at all, as there may be factors other than duration that could be important. Interestingly, this not a new standpoint (see Smith, 1971; Smith & Wilson, 1992) but the debate continues. Recently, Smith et al. (2019) identified six employability outcomes: life-long learning, integration of theory and practice, overall work-readiness, informed decision-making, collaboration, and professional practice and standards, and found that placement students had higher scores on these variables than those who had not undertaken a placement. However, there were no differences in the graduate outcomes whether the placement was part-time (nine weeks, totaling 337.5 hours) or full-time (capped at 13 weeks, a total of 487.5 hours). As suggested by Rowe (2015), it seems logical that placements would provide positive benefits that have not been rigorously researched yet and, as such, more research needs to be carried out. Attention must also be given to other aspects of placements beyond duration, such as quality and if the work is paid or unpaid. There may be many differences between those students who choose to undertake a work placement and those who do not, for example, personality, age, socioeconomic background, ethnicity, and family responsibilities. These differences are likely to impact placements and the benefits that students can achieve and, therefore, it is important that these variables are examined more thoroughly to better understand the gains of WIL for students (Rowe, 2015; Thompson et al., 2016).

Benefits to sandwich placement providers The ubiquity of sandwich degree provision in the UK, like many other countries, has been driven by the impact of employability outcome measures on the position of universities, such as league tables and the ongoing government initiatives like the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) and inclusion of Institutional Graduate Employment Outcomes in the publicly available Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) dataset. The methodology of leading league tables such as the Complete University Guide include measures of graduate prospects (The Complete University Guide, 2018). Gibbons (2015) concluded that a 10% improvement in university league table position leads to an average increase of 2% in applications, that is, enhanced graduate outcomes directly promote league table position and increased new student applications rates. The TEF assessment process is also metric driven, with two of the six metrics used to measure performance focused on employment outcomes (Bagshaw, 2017; Department for Business Innovation & Skills, 2015). The publicly available LEO reports correlate university course data (bachelor’s courses, all subject areas, regardless of completion) and graduate tax records to highlight the employment outcomes over a ten-year reporting period (Department for Business Innovation & Skills, 2016). The LEO reports state that sandwich degree graduates are more likely to gain graduate level employment, gain postgraduate employment, and earn significantly more (than their non-sandwich degree counterparts) during their first year in the workforce, with the initial salary premium being maintained for at least the first ten years of employment (Department for Education, 2017). Another driver for sandwich degrees is 179

Julie Udell et al.

employer experience expectations, with a third of the top 100 graduate recruiters reporting that they would be very unlikely to progress an application lacking work experience in their recruitment process (High Fliers, 2018).

The challenges of the sandwich placement Despite a consensus of understanding as to what the sandwich placement model generally entails, there is considerable dynamism in practice and culture, not just between institutions across the sector, but also between departments within the same institute (Barry, 2009; Bullock et al., 2009). This can promote (local) innovation but may lead to inconsistency in student experience and complicates research into best practice, as direct comparison between sandwich degrees is often not straightforward (Bullock et al., 2009). A successful placement involves an effective three-way partnership involving student, HE provider, and employer, and practical advice and guidance being available (ASET, 2013; QAA, 2018). Any partnership member may initiate a sandwich placement; students often make independent and speculative applications; employers may advertise schemes; and universities can source projects. The support provided to students also varies, but typically involves specialized professional support staff who are pivotal in establishing effective partnerships by briefing and supporting students and liaising with both prospective employers and academic departments. These staff can provide support to students while on placement and debrief or assess the placement where a credit-bearing assignment is required. The challenges of delivering a placement in this dynamic tripartite environment are significant: student engagement, fluctuating job markets, students’ lack of understanding of job roles, funding reductions in higher education, and students with multiple responsibilities are all contributors. But despite the challenges, higher education practitioners across the world who understand and are committed to placements, continue to develop new and interesting approaches to ensure that this practice continues and thrives. A study by Diver (2019) brought together a wide range of developing practices to evidence the challenges and innovative approaches to student support, including assessment, and student and employer engagement.

Work-integrated learning and the global skills shortage Skills shortages and employability initiatives dominate the international literature discussing sandwich degree placements and WIL. Whilst the language around WIL differs between countries, the themes remain the same, namely, WIL is of benefit to learners and immediate action is needed to tackle skills shortages. This is represented in the focus of government policy and research within many countries, such as, but not limited to: Singapore (SkillsFuture Singapore, SSG, 2021); the USA (Clark, 2020); New Zealand (Skill Shortage List Checker – Immigration New Zealand, n.d.); the United Kingdom: see Post Study Work Visa (British High Commission New Delhi, 2019) and International Education Strategy: Global Potential, Global Growth (Department for Education, 2019b); Australia Temporary Graduate Visa Australia (Department of Home Affairs, n.d.); and European countries (European Commission, 2020). Of relevance to the discussion regarding WIL is the increase in demand from international students who wish to study and work globally (Calderon, 2018; Jackling & Natoli, 2015). With a wider choice of study destinations, students carefully consider their options for international study. Of significant importance to them is the ability to engage in work experience in their study (International Education Association of Australia, 2012). In 2017, a 32% increase in 180

The practice of sandwich degrees

demand was observed from international students seeking programs that included training and practical experience (Dattagupta, 2018). The demand for work experience from international students is so significant that governments must carefully consider migration policy changes that prevent international students from working. A decline in student enrollments was attributed to the change in migration policy in the USA (Graduate Management Admission Council, 2019) and can also be viewed with the UK’s changing migration policies. However, whilst students demand courses offering work training and practical experience, advisory committees call on higher education institutes to ensure adequate support is in place to help international students succeed (Department for Education and Training, 2016; Universities UK International, 2020).

The rise of remote work experience In the academic year 2020/2021, universities globally faced the challenge of the COVID19 pandemic. The pandemic disrupted on-campus activities and had far-reaching impact on placement programs. Some students experienced the cancelation of their sandwich placements mid-way through, and students working overseas were recalled home, posing significant challenges for universities (Ang, 2020; Beltaji, 2020). Students who were about to commence their sandwich placements found programs canceled or postponed indefinitely. In the UK, The Guardian reported that 61% of employers canceled work placement opportunities for students (Weale, 2020). The Office for National Statistics in the UK reported that a fall in job vacancies was bigger than that of the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 (ONS, 2021). The cancelation of work placements led to many institutions reviewing how they could develop programs that did not involve travel. Virtual work experience programs (also known as remote experience) grew in popularity, with global names including Deloitte, EY, JP Morgan, KPMG, and Latham and Watkins all offering virtual work experiences in 2020 (Smith, 2020). Other alternatives included business simulations, such as Sim Venture or ‘Live’ client projects, that can be delivered through video conferencing software. It is too early to predict whether face-to-face work placement opportunities will return to pre-COVID-19 levels, or if the alternative forms of work placements provided will remain a popular choice with students, employers, and universities.

Case study: postgraduate placements at the University of Central Lancashire, UK Focusing on the growing demands of international postgraduate students, this case study will discuss the challenges faced by a UK higher education institution to support postgraduate student placements.

Background In 2015, the University of Central Lancashire, a university in the Northwest of England, introduced a Master of Business Administration (MBA) with Professional Placement. This was the first postgraduate course in the Lancashire School of Business and Enterprise (LSBE) to offer extended work placements as part of the study program. The program recruited 15 students in the first intake, the majority of whom were southern Indian students. In 2016, the program introduced two entry points (September and January). 181

Julie Udell et al.

Students were all international, mostly from India, with a small number of Nepalese and African students. The course has grown significantly in the last five years, with over 1,000 students enrolled on the program in 2021.

Program structure The MBA with professional placement is a two-year program that includes a work placement in the second year of study, when students can take a paid placement of at least 600 hours (eight months) linked to their field of study. The placement is self-sourced with the support of employability professionals. Importantly, students must have completed and passed all their first-year modules to be eligible to undertake the placement. Initially course level employability support for the first year of the program was noncredit bearing, and thus received less focus from students who prioritized assessed classes over extracurricular support sessions. Students were less likely to complete activities, such as CV development, interview, and assessment skills, without a ‘credit’ being attached to the module. In 2016, a course review introduced a 20-credit professional development module (with a typical academic year consisting of 120 credits) to support students’ employability and placement applications.

Challenges preparing for work placements International students’ expectations are high (Lawrence, 2014), with many expecting to work for large multinationals. The same was found from this program of students: the course had no prerequisites regarding employment, and as such, many of the students often had little or no work experience. Expectations were high regarding the availability of work including around salary payment, level of position (senior manager, director), and how many applications to submit to secure a positive outcome. As with undergraduates, postgraduate students needed to develop resilience in placement applications and develop their knowledge of the labor market in their desired sector. Those with industry experience often included revisiting misconceptions about the job role in a new country. Students needed to work on upskilling themselves during the first years of study to meet recruiters’ expectations in the country of study. Many were unprepared for this and were often surprised at how competitive the UK job market is and how the recruitment process differs from their home country. Some of these expectations are now better managed by integrating the professional development module and pre-departure talks. From an employer position, particularly a local small or medium sized enterprise (SME), the degree title MBA comes with connotations of the student’s work level. Local employers felt that the placement work or projects would be better suited for undergraduate students with less experience. By talking to employers at business breakfasts and one-to-one calls, employers better understood the local area as to what an MBA student could provide. Nationally, placements are typically tailored to undergraduate students (see Prospects, n.d.; Rate my Placement, n.d.; Target Jobs, n.d.). Whilst there is work to be done at a national level to adjust employers’ perceptions, students have found success in approaching these companies directly. Issues have arisen with employers who needed clarity and guidance regarding the regulations and working conditions of international students. Some employers are reluctant to hire students on a student visa due to concerns around legal compliance. Similar findings are also reported internationally with IEAA (2012), who also comment that domestic students are easier to hire with less cumbersome recruitment processes. 182

The practice of sandwich degrees

From a program delivery team perspective, challenges arose with the availability of resources to support students, particularly as student numbers increased rapidly. Providing comprehensive preparation for students before work placement is a labor-intensive task. Once students had secured a placement, they were allocated an academic supervisor to support their work. This required additional training for staff who had traditionally supported dissertations.

Strategies for enhancing the employability of students pre-placement As the student numbers grew, one-to-one support for seeking placement was less readily available. The teaching team had to look at alternative ways to provide students with employability development. The following are examples of initiatives that the course team introduced: • • • •

Three-day experiential learning residential; Careers day; Careers events; Drop-in sessions.

Three-day experiential learning residential While initially developed for team building, the residential has shown to have positive benefits on students seeking a placement. Jackson and O’Brien (2021) found that students who took part in the residential felt the experience had helped them gain employment; respondents also commented on increased confidence. One student participant said: Before my residential I was somewhat timid and shy, but after the residential I have gained confidence in my skills and learnt that skills can be developed with practice and the feedback was very helpful to understand from an expert point of view. (Jackson & O'Brien, 2021, p. 56)

Careers day A bespoke MBA careers day facilitated by the careers team was developed in which students undertook workshops and lectures, such as developing their online presence, CV development, and exploring and exploiting their personal networks. These were delivered by a series of employment specialists to aid students in their search for a placement. A highlight of the event was an employer panel of five local SMEs.

Careers events Students were encouraged to attend careers fairs in local cities, with the university providing transport for students to these events.

Drop-in sessions Throughout the year, lecturing staff held extra drop-in sessions for students seeking a placement to answer queries and to check CVs and applications. 183

Julie Udell et al.

Position to date The course remains increasingly popular, with the program now offered at satellite campuses. As student numbers continue to increase, resources to support this is a challenge to maintain. On average, one in three students secure a work placement, spending a minimum of six months on placement. Students who opt-out of work placement or fail to secure a placement transfer over to an alternative program of study. Alumni students and those on placements are now included in the approach for sourcing placement opportunities through ‘talking heads’ (short videos showcasing prior experience), interviews, and case studies. Employers are now more familiar with student visa requirements and the university also provides supporting documents to help with visa questions. Students are using the university alumni and their peers to seek out work placement opportunities with employers, with the largest employer of students recruiting several hundred each year.

The future for sandwich placements As noted above, WIL, and in particular the sandwich placement model, has a long, well-established history. Sandwich placements remain a critical part of UK education due to the benefits for students, universities, and employers. For students, the sandwich placement is a well-known learning experience that they can work towards in their first two years at university, supported by structured learning activities and careers support designed to assist them with the application and recruitment process. It offers an opportunity to have an immersive, extended experience of work, typically paid and usually within an industry related to their degree or their career aspirations. For universities, integrating a sandwich placement into a degree program is achievable, allows student cohorts to stay together in study and when on placement, and enables a carousel of students to cycle into roles with employers who go on to form long-standing working relationships with the universities. In some disciplines, the tradition of the sandwich placement is key and can often be the beginning of a journey toward professional registration or recognition. For employers, the sandwich placement offers a strong affinity with the recruitment year, and for many employers it will be a critical part of talent recruitment, with the work placement providing a pipeline of graduates for future recruitment. With its well-established history and strong provision of placements in business, science, technology, and engineering disciplines, the sandwich degree will likely remain an integral part of the UK higher education sector. However, it is important to remain mindful of the rapidly changing world of work, the evolving needs for relevant skills of the workplace, and the emerging emphasis of the UK government on devolved administration and equitable outcomes for students. The Future of Work: Jobs and Skills in 2030 report (UK Commission for Employment and Skills, 2014) points towards an extended working life, the influence of generational waves in career choices, and an increase in virtualization and remote working. It would appear that much work is required to prepare graduates for a future where they will likely require digital capabilities at every stage of their career. Furthermore, the call for greater flexibility and learning from the gig economy brings an enhanced need for personal responsibility, self-management, agility, and resilience at a time of increased demand for mental health support for students (The Guardian, 2021). Working remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic has escalated exponentially the earlier predicted changes for the future world of work. Locations and methods of work have shifted with a requirement for increased digital literacy, competencies, and capability. Digital 184

The practice of sandwich degrees

employability has sometimes been neglected or treated as a separate skills development activity and not directly linked to the acquisition of work experience. The pandemic has highlighted the need to shift away from thinking purely about the role of technology in recruitment. According to Redmond (2018), employment across numerous sectors is being automated, and this applies to the recruitment process too where there has been a significant increase in the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Recruiters now record videos of applicants responding to gamified interview questions. These can then be assessed by a computerized complex algorithm with companies looking for candidates who can show that they are passionate, enthusiastic, and committed. It is important to demonstrate behavioral characteristics that match the employer’s desired skill sets. Whilst universities have started to think more about how to support students through these recruitment processes, the pandemic has exposed that the world of work for students has changed so rapidly that a rethink on the emphasis of digital literacy and working is needed.

Developing new skills in a changing world In 2018, the World Economic Forum predicted that the job landscape in 2022 would be heavily dominated by new roles with a strong focus on data analysis, AI, software development, and digital transformation, whilst roles that can be automated would rapidly decline (World Economic Forum, 2018). Some of these roles are common to work placements, such as clerking, administration, customer service roles, auditors, and manufacturing workers. Therefore, the many roles students are expected to take up for placement will be likely to change, expand, and look different. The Future of Work: Jobs and Skills in 2030 (UK Commission for Employment and Skills, 2014) acknowledges the demographic changes with an aging and a more diverse workforce and offers a prediction of an ecosystem of partnership across organizations particularly in relation to innovation, virtualization, and flexible workforces. The research emphasizes that technology will pervade every work environment, and there will be an increased need for interconnectivity and collaboration in addition to increased individual responsibility. It is important to ensure that sandwich placements in the future will support students to reflect on the work completed, the manner in which the work was undertaken, the digital tools used, and the ways in which the collaboration took place.

Emerging changes for sandwich placements From these experiences of seeing innovation in practice from across the UK, what changes might be ahead for the sandwich placement? •

•

•

Different levels doing sandwich: Placements are typically taken in the penultimate year (between years three and four), but the UK is already observing significant growth in their inclusion in postgraduate programs as noted in the case study above. Different disciplines doing sandwich: Whilst there is a long tradition in the disciplines of business, science, technology, and engineering, there is emerging development of sandwich placements in the creative arts, humanities, and social sciences. Embracing enterprise education and entrepreneurship: Placements are typically taken at established host companies and organizations, but there is growth in freelance and self-employment spaces, and these will likely increase in number. 185

Julie Udell et al.

•

•

•

•

Specific support for students from non-traditional backgrounds: With an increased focus on successful outcomes for all students in UK higher education, closer attention is now given to the differentiated outcomes for discrete groups of students. This would lead to positive action programs providing additional incentive and support. Greater flexibility and composition: It is likely that the sandwich placements become a composite model, comprising multiple work opportunities of shorter duration that may support industries in, for example, the creative sector where longer employment terms are less common. The university as employer for service-learning partnership: This would have students employed by their university but ‘loaned out’ (contracted out) on a project basis to the voluntary sector, charities, and local partnership organizations as part of the university’s corporate and social responsibility activities. This model could particularly support more team-based and interdisciplinary opportunities. Post-graduation sandwich placements: With a long-term view of becoming a retention model for employers, a placement could occur after graduation usually following shorter periods of work experience on a program, acting as a bridge to a company-supported/sponsored work-based learning program or apprenticeship. This could be the ultimate talent pipeline in developing higher-level skills for the workforce, combining placement with further work-based learning.

Conclusion This chapter has explored the origins of the sandwich degree, revealing a long tradition of providing a range of work placements and WIL learning opportunities in universities. It has explored the benefits to the university, the employer, and the students, and also the challenges of delivery in a dynamic world. We have explored the current global skills shortage and the increasing demand for placements, particularly the rise of the postgraduate placement which was highlighted through a UK case study. Finally, we have considered the future for sandwich placements, which has had a long-standing and proud history in the tradition of higher education, concluding that these placements will continue to remain an important part of the UK higher education sector.

References Ang, P. (2020, March 16). Students on overseas placements to be recalled as soon as possible. https://www. straitstimes.com/singapore/students-on-overseas-placements-to-be-recalled-as-soon-as-possible ASET. (2013). ASET Good Practice Guide for Work based and Placement Learning in Higher Education. https:// www.asetonline.org/resources/aset-publications/ Bagshaw, A. (2017). A beginner’s guide to the teaching excellence framework. Wonkhe. https://wonkhe.com/ blogs/a-beginners-guide-to-the-teaching-excellence-framework/ Barbeau, J. E. (1973). Cooperative education in America-its historical development, 1906–1971. Education Resources Information Center. Institute of Education Sciences. US Department of Education. Barry, P. (2009). A critical analysis of theatre as a learning environment in relation to placement duration. Journal of Perioperative Practice, 19(12), 433–435. Beltaji, D. (2020, August 24). Coronavirus: Covid-19 cuts short students' year abroad studying. BBC. https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53860682 Blackwell, A., Bowes, L., Harvey, L. E. E., Hesketh, A. J., & Knight, P. T. (2001). Transforming work experience in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 269–285. Blasko, Z., Brennan, J., Little, B., & Shah, T. (2002). Access to what: Analysis of factors determining graduate employability. HEFCE.

186

The practice of sandwich degrees Brennan, J., & Little, B. (1996). A review of work based learning in higher education. Quality Support Centre, The Open University, Department for Education and Employment. http://oro.open.ac.uk/11309/ British High Commission New Delhi. (2019). UK announces 2-year post-study work visa for international students. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-announces-2-year-post-study-work-visa-forinternational-students Brown, G., & Ahmed, Y. (2009). The value of work placements. Enhancing the Learner Experience in Higher Education, 1(1), 19–29. Bullock, K., Gould, V., Hejmadi, M., & Lock, G. (2009). Work placement experience: Should I stay or should I go? Higher Education Research and Development 28(5), 481–494. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07294360903146833 Button, L., Green, B., Tengnah, C., Johansson, I., & Baker, C. (2005). The impact of international placements on nurses’ personal and professional lives: Literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(3), 315–324. Calderon, A. (2018). Massification of higher education revisited. RMIT University. Clark, S. (2020). Closing the Skills Gap. https://www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/closing-theskills-gap Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning: A guide to effective practice. Routledge. Cotgrove, S. F. (1973). Sandwich courses: Myth and reality. Paedagogica Europaea, 8, 114–121. Crebert, G., Bates, M., Bell, B., Patrick, C.-J., & Cragnolini, V. (2004). Developing generic skills at university, during work placement and in employment: graduates’ perceptions. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(2), 147–165. Dattagupta, I. (2018). Why Indian students are now looking beyond the US. The Economic Times https:// economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/why-indian-students-are-now-looking-beyond-the-us/ articleshow/66897233.cms Davies, L. (2003). Experience-based learning within the curriculum – A synthesis study. Association for Sandwich Education and Training, Sheffield Department for Business Innovation & Skills. (2015). Fulfilling our potential: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Department for Business Innovation & Skills. (2016). Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice. HM Government. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523396/bis-16-265-success-as-a-knowledge-economy.pdf Department for Education (2017). Graduate outcomes (LEO) Employment and earnings outcomes of higher education graduates by subject studied and graduate characteristics in 2017/18 https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874410/2020_03_HE_LEO_main_ text.pdf Department for Education. (2019a). International education strategy: Global potential, global growth. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/799349/International_Education_Strategy_Accessible.pdf Department for Education. (2019b). Graduate outcomes (LEO): Employment and earnings outcomes of higher education graduates by subject studied and graduate characteristics in 2016/17. https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/.uploads/attachment_data/file/790223/ Main_text.pdf Department for Education and IFF Research Limited. (2018). Employer skills survey 2017: Research report. HM Government. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/746493/ESS_2017_UK_Report_Controlled_v06.00.pdf Department for Education and Training. (2016). Strategy for international education 2025. Canberra Department of Home Affairs. (n.d.). Temporary graduate visa – Subclass 485. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov. au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/temporary-graduate-485 Diver, A. (2019). Employability via higher education: Sustainability as scholarship. Springer. Dunn, L., Nicholson, R., Ross, K., Bricknell, L., Davies, B., Hannelly, T., Lampard, J. L., Murray, Z., Oosthuizen, J., Roiko, A., & Wood, J. (2018). Work-integrated learning and professional accreditation policies: An environmental health higher education perspective. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(2), 111–127. European Commission. (2020). Analysis of shortage and surplus occupations 2020. https://op.europa.eu/en/ publication-detail/-/publication/22189434-395d-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en Fanthome, C. (2004). Work placements-A survival guide for students. Macmillan International Higher Education.

187

Julie Udell et al. Gibbons, S. (2015). The effect of NSS scores and league tables on student demand and university application rates is relatively small. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/11/10/student-satisfactionleague-tables-and-university-applications/ Graduate Management Admission Council. (2019). Early warning signals: Winners and losers in the global race for talent. https://www.gmac.com/-/media/files/gmac/research/talent-mobility/gmac-white-paperearly-warning-signals.pdf Guidera, S. (2006). Integrating study abroad and cooperative education: A case study. Association for Engineering Education – Engineering Library Division Papers, 2006 p.11.793.1 High Fliers. (2018). The graduate market in 2018. Annual review of graduate vacancies & starting salaries at the UK’s leading employers. https://www.highfliers.co.uk/ Higher Education Statistics Agency. (n.d.). Sandwich. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/collection/student/ datafutures/a/course_sandwich Huyton, J. R. (1991). Industrial placements in hospitality management courses. International Journal of Educational Management, 5(1). https://doi.org/10/1108/EUM0000000001967 Inceoglu, I., Selenko, E., McDowall, A., & Schlachter, S. (2019). (How) Do work placements work? Scrutinizing the quantitative evidence for a theory-driven future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 317–337. International Education Association of Australia. (2012). Internships and work placements opportunities for international students in Victoria. Melbourne. Jackling, B., & Natoli, R. (2015). Employability skills of international accounting graduates. Education + Training, 57(7), 757–773. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-08-2014-0093 Jackson, V., & O’Brien, V. (2021). Enhancing Indian MBA Students’ employability through and experiential and inclusive learning residential: an accessible and inclusive approach. In S. Norton & R. Dalrymple (Eds.), Employability: Breaking the mould. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/ knowledge-hub/employability-breaking-mould Lawrence, R. (2014). International higher education student satisfaction with opportunities for work experience and employment in Australia. Department of Education. Little, B., & Harvey, L. (2006). Learning through work placements and beyond. Higher Education Careers Service Unit (HECSU). 2016. https://www.hecsu.ac.uk/assets/assets/documents/Learning_through_ work_placements_and_beyond.pdf Moore, J. (1978). ‘Sandwich and co-operative education: World-wide appraisal in 1979’. Industrial and Commercial Training, 10(11), 453–454. http://doi.org/10.1108/eb003701 Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2021). Coronavirus: A year like no other. https://www.ons. gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/ coronavirusayearlikenoother/2021-03-15 Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). The WIL (Work Integrated Learning) report: A national scoping study [final report]. Australian learning and teaching council. Queensland University of Technology. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/44065/1/WIL-Report-grantsproject-jan09.pdf Prospects. (n.d.). https://www.prospects.ac.uk/ QAA (Quality Assurance Agency). (2018). UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Advice and Guidance for Work-based Learning. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code/advice-and-guidance/ work-based-learning Rate My Placement. (n.d.). https://www.ratemyplacement.co.uk Reddy, P., & Moores, E. (2006). Measuring the benefits of a psychology placement year. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(5), 551–567. Redmond, P. (2018, July 9). How to remain employable in the 21st century, The Guardian. https://amp. theguardian.com/education/2018/jul/09/how-remain-employable-21st-century-graduates? Reilly, C. (2019). Sandwich courses explained. Rate my placement. RMP Enterprise. https://www. ratemyplacement.co.uk/blog/sandwich-courses-explained/ Robbins, L. (1963). Higher education report of the committee appointed by the Prime Minister under the Chairmanship of Lord Robbins. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Rowe, P. M. (2015). Researchers’ reflections on what is missing from work-integrated learning research. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(2), 101–107. Skill Shortage List Checker – Immigration New Zealand. (n.d.). https://skillshortages.immigration.govt.nz/ SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG). (2021). https://www.skillsfuture.gov.sg/

188

The practice of sandwich degrees Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2019). Placement quality has a greater impact on employability than placement structure or duration’. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 15–29. Smith, D., & Wilson, H. (1992). The development and assessment of personal transferable skills during work-based placements. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 17(3), 195–208. Smith, E. V. (1971). The industrial sandwich. education+ Training, 13(6), 199–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/ eb001695 Smith, J. (2020). Virtual work experience | Prospects.ac.uk. https://www.prospects.ac.uk/jobs-and-workexperience/work-experience-and-internships/virtual-work-experience Target Jobs. (n.d.). https://targetjobs.co.uk/ The Complete University Guide. (2018). Methodology. https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/ league-tables/methodology. The Guardian. (2021, January 20). Mental Health: A University crisis. https://www.theguardian.com/ education/series/mental-health-a-university-crisis Thompson, C. M., Bates, L., & Bates, M. (2016). Are students who do not participate in work-integrated learning (WIL) disadvantaged? Differences in work self-efficacy between WIL and non-WIL students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(1), 9–20. UK Commission for Employment and Skills. (2014). The future of work: Jobs and skills in 2030. HM Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jobs-and-skills-in-2030 Universities UK International. (2020). Supporting international graduate employability: Making good on the promise. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2020/Supportinginternational-graduate-employability.pdf Weale, S. (2020, July 29). Majority of UK employers have had to cancel work experience due to Covid-19. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/jul/29/majority-employers-cancel-workexperience-students-graduates-covid-19 World Economic Forum. (2018). Future of Jobs Report 2018. https://www.weforum.org/reports/ the-future-of-jobs-report-2018 Zorn, C. R. (1996). The long-term impact on nursing students of participating in international education. Journal of Professional Nursing, 12(2), 106–110.

189

12 THE PRACTICE OF SHORTTERM AND PART-TIME WORK PLACEMENTS Anna D. Rowe, Sonia J. Ferns, Patricia R. Lucas, Leanne Piggott, and Theresa Winchester-Seeto Introduction With increasing demand for work-integrated learning (WIL) opportunities from students and graduate employers across a widening range of disciplines and professions, universities have expanded their WIL offerings beyond traditional long-term and full-time placement models to include more flexible approaches that provide greater equity of access while also achieving quality outcomes. This chapter examines short-term and part-time work and field placements (referred hereafter as short and p/t placements) to provide a case for their value and importance in the range of WIL activities available to diverse student cohorts and partner organizations. Here, ‘short-term’ refers to placements that are up to six months in duration and do not exceed 400 hours, while ‘part-time’ refers to placements that are undertaken on a part-time basis with variable hours and duration. The chapter first outlines the scope of the study, discussing the features of short and p/t placements, and then provides a review of the literature that identifies the benefits and challenges of both. This is followed by a significant contribution of the chapter, which is a framework of quality parameters for WIL, also applicable to short and p/t placement offerings. The latter is informed by both the literature review and our expertise as experienced practitioners and researchers in WIL. It is intended that by identifying the quality parameters relevant to short and p/t placements, and evidencing these through a case study analysis, the chapter will assist in how best to integrate these types of placements into the wider curriculum to support student learning and enhance partner relationships. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the future direction of short and p/t placements within the world of work.

Defining short-term and part-time placements Work placements are the most common model of WIL in Australia (Universities Australia, 2019) and elsewhere (Helyer & Lee, 2014; Kennedy et al., 2015; Osborne et al., 2014). Placements can be undertaken within physical or remote work environments, although traditionally full immersion experiences have been conceptualized as taking place in a physical workplace (Fincher et al., 2004). Examples include internships, clinical placements, teaching 190

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-15

Short-term and part-time work placements

practicums, and various forms of professional practice. Like other models of WIL, placements are undertaken for academic credit, involve meaningful engagement with external organizations (e.g., industry, government, community), and typically involve hours in situ (physical or virtual) that equates to full-time work over a number of weeks for vocationally oriented degrees (e.g., nursing, education) (Melacarne, 2018). Increasingly, for degrees that do not have a clearly defined professional pathway (e.g., journalism, arts), placement WIL has been adopted with more flexible timeframes (Kennedy et al., 2015). While definitions of WIL placements vary, two characteristics of WIL pedagogy – ‘integration’ and ‘intention’ – are prominent in the literature (Coll et al., 2009; Orrell, 2011; Patrick et al., 2008; Sachs et al., 2017; Zegwaard et al., 2020). Increasing demand for WIL and greater pressure on workplaces has triggered interest in transitioning from traditional WIL placement models to more flexible approaches that achieve equitable outcomes (Withers et al., 2016). Numerous typologies of WIL have been developed over the past 15 years (e.g., DeClou et al., 2013; Fincher et al., 2004; Rowe et al., 2012; Sattler & Peters, 2013). Discussions have explored various WIL placement models, but few have defined short or p/t placements. Earlier definitions of WIL (Fincher et al., 2004; Rowe et al., 2012) distinguished different types of it largely on the basis of the physical location where it was undertaken (e.g., on campus or in a workplace). Rowe et al. (2012) noted that while “off-campus activities have a higher degree of obvious community engagement … that does not mean that on-campus activities do not. There are many activities on-campus that can and do involve a high degree of community engagement” (p. 248). Fincher et al. (2004) similarly differentiated WIL types on the basis of physical location distinguishing between ‘full immersive’ experiences and ‘half-way houses’ (p. 113). Immersive experiences (undertaken mostly within a workplace) were characterized by “a high level of educational intent and by a low level of educational and institutional control,” while in half-way houses “work was normally located within the academic institution, but performed to the requirements, timelines, and standards of the ‘customer’” (i.e., the industry/community organization). The latter is now more commonly referred to as project-based WIL (which may include on-campus clinics). In both examples, there was no attempt to specify timeframes. More recently, there has been an attempt to specify timeframes associated with different WIL models. Kay et al. (2019) defined micro-placements as activities that typically involve “short periods in the workplace ranging from two to ten days where students work individually or in teams on highly focused projects. Micro-placements occur in a diverse range of sectors, usually in small to medium companies and startups” (p. 405). The definition of micro-placements can help inform understanding of short and p/t placements given that it reflects greater flexibility in terms of duration than traditional placements. According to the examples of short and p/t placements reviewed here (sourced from academic papers, e.g., Bleicher, 2011; Ulvund & Mordal, 2017), in the gray literature (e.g., Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN) (n.d.) (https://acen.edu.au/)), and on Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL) (n.d.) (www.cewilcanada.ca/) websites), these placements can span from 80 to 300 hours. No other defining features were explored. Drawing on WIL practice (including the case studies presented) and our experience, the scope/parameter of WIL activities and their definitions in this chapter include: •

Short-term placements that are versatile and flexible in structure and timeframe. Case studies show the possible arrangements but generally placements in this category are up to six months in duration and do not exceed 400 hours. 191

Anna D. Rowe et al.

•

Part-time placements that are undertaken on a p/t basis. The number of days and duration is variable and dependent on specified learning requirements. For example, the structure of a p/t placement may be one day a week for a year, or two days a week for six months. They can entail variable hours and duration.

In both placement types above, there are other possibilities that may fit within these categories, and there are also combinations of these. While the two types of placements covered in the chapter have different characteristics, they are not mutually exclusive. That is, some will share features of both – for example, a short placement of two weeks duration that is p/t (2.5 days a week). The types of experiences included are broad and could range from twoweek ‘micro-placements’ to 399-hour or term/semester-long placements. This approach is thus inclusive, and not limited by any particular ideology. Short and p/t placements promote versatility enabling WIL to be responsive to the needs of students, partners, universities, and professions.

Benefits of short-term and part-time placements The benefits of placements broadly are well-documented (Coll et al., 2009; Dean et al., 2020; Reddy & Moores, 2012; Smith et al., 2014). For example, through exposure to workplace practices and environments, students build confidence and develop employability and transferable skills (Ferns et al., 2019; Jackson, 2013; Jackson et al., 2019; Rowe et al., 2021). However, the specific benefits of short and p/t placements are yet to be fully understood and acknowledged. There is not a substantial body of literature on this topic – references to short and p/t placements are buried in other literature, and hence can be difficult to find. Related to this, short and p/t placements are rarely distinguished or differentiated in the WIL literature, although some examples were found in this review (e.g., Bleicher, 2011; Wright et al., 2014) with several based on international placement models (e.g., CantaliniWilliams & Tessaro, 2011; Ulvund & Mordal, 2017). The distinct advantages of short and p/t placements over long-term placements are thus difficult to determine. More research is needed, as evidenced by the call for further research in this area (e.g., Reddy & Moores, 2012; Sattler & Peters, 2013). Despite this ambiguity, the flexibility offered by these types of placements is important to cater for diverse students and partner organizations. Specifically, flexibility in WIL is needed to meet “contemporary challenges and opportunities of changing workplaces, workspaces, resources and schedules” (Sachs et al., 2017, p. 28). Short and p/t placements offer particular benefits to certain types of students, for example, those with carer responsibilities or paid employment commitments. Similarly, some workplaces prefer these types of placements because they enable the completion of short projects (Jackson et al., 2017). In an attempt to accommodate industry needs, there has been a recent move by universities to adopt more flexible WIL models in terms of duration, timing, and location of placements (Kay et al., 2019). The quality features of short and p/t placements are also yet to be determined. While a number of quality frameworks have recently been developed for WIL (e.g., Campbell et al., 2019; McRae & Johnston, 2016; Winchester-Seeto, 2019), which identify quality indicators such as student preparation, debriefing, and integration of theory and practice, it is interesting that in all these frameworks, duration of placement never appears as a determinant of quality. A recent study by Smith et al. (2019) found placement quality to have a greater impact on employability than placement structure (p/t or full-time) or duration (number of weeks). Although only one study, it provides evidence in support of short and p/t placements for promoting effective 192

Short-term and part-time work placements

student learning and is supported by other research showing that short placements develop competencies and change perceptions (e.g., Bleicher, 2011; Wright et al., 2014). While the focus of this chapter is predominantly on placements, student learning and the student experience, a related area of interest is the importance of university–industry/community partnerships when actuating the placements. In WIL, a partner organization refers to those external to the university, such as industry and community, who actively contribute to the WIL experience, and support student learning through constructive interaction and feedback, and role model workplace behaviors (Ferns et al., 2019). Given that in WIL the focus is often on mutual cooperation and, ideally, joint venture collaborative endeavors (Winchester-Seeto & Mackaway, 2017), questions to ask might be: What advantages do short and p/t placements offer industry and community partners in WIL? What challenges do they pose?

Framework of quality parameters in work-integrated learning The framework presented in Table 12.1 was developed by us and outlines quality parameters in WIL (referred to as ‘the Framework’). These are informed by recent literature on quality in WIL (e.g., Campbell et al., 2019; McRae & Johnston, 2016; Winchester-Seeto, 2019) and our experience (as experienced practitioners and researchers in WIL). The quality parameters provide a useful construct for appraising the case studies presented in the chapter. Quality parameters comprise quality outcomes and the processes and enablers that afford those outcomes: •

•

•

Quality outcomes (e.g., student agency, evidencing capabilities) are the intended outputs/ benefits of WIL for students and industry/community organizations (note: we have not covered institutional outcomes here as it is beyond the scope of this chapter). Processes describe the practices and strategies employed to ensure optimal outcomes for students and partners. The processes identified in Table 12.1 support the realization of quality outcomes for stakeholders through engagement in WIL activities. Selected examples of enablers that support and facilitate enactment of the processes are also presented. Enablers are conditions and features that underpin the processes deemed central to quality outcomes in WIL. While an attempt has been made to distinguish between processes and enablers, there is some interchangeability. For example, a process for one outcome might be an enabler for another outcome.

Case studies The use of case studies is a popular and useful methodology in WIL research (Lucas et al., 2018). As WIL is such a broad and diverse form of practice, case studies can demonstrate its range and scope and the unique solutions to different contexts. For this chapter, case studies are a way of providing an overview of international practice by giving examples of diverse approaches. They are also an ideal platform to provide data for analysis of real-world examples of practice. Case studies 1 to 3 are original contributions from three of us and case study 10 was written in collaboration with a WIL practitioner. Each author was asked to highlight what they viewed as important and valued within their own programs rather than a prescriptive brief. The other case studies 4–9 are summaries of relevant material sourced from websites that host short exemplars of practice from Canada and Australia. Selection criteria was based on the relevance of the WIL model, while aiming for a range of disciplines and countries. 193

Anna D. Rowe et al. Table 12.1  Framework of quality parameters in work-integrated learning Processes Quality outcome: student agency • Scaffolding learning to develop student capabilities • Quality supervision and feedback • Student autonomy in WIL experiences • Personalized learning outcomes • Meaning making through reflection, debriefing, and shared experiences • Gathering evidence of capabilities • Developmental/progressive/scaffolded assessment tasks

Enablers (selected examples) • Staff with the skills to develop quality curricula • Available, willing, and able workplace supervisors • Flexible institutional policies and processes • Responsive teaching to suit individual learning needs • Students take responsibility for their learning journey • Quality curriculum design • Flexible assessment where tasks are connected, developmental, and meaningful

Quality outcome: evidencing capabilities • Relevant, developmental, and meaningful • Flexible assessments assessments • Opportunities and support for students to • Alignment of learning outcomes, WIL evidence professional capabilities and personal experiences, learning activities, assessment attributes • Brokering and maintaining strong relationships • Workplace supervisors involved in assessment with stakeholders • Authentic assessment tasks • Students evidencing and articulating professional capabilities and personal attributes Quality outcome: student engagement and achievement • Authentic WIL experiences reflecting the real • Flexible institutional policies and processes world • Responsive teaching to suit individual learning • Scaffolding learning to develop student needs capabilities • Willing industry and community partners • Sustaining meaningful and supportive • Quality curriculum design relationships with stakeholders • Staff with the skills to develop quality • Quality supervision and feedback curriculum • Alignment of learning outcomes, WIL • Partnerships with students experiences, learning activities, and assessment • Embedded WIL experiences across the • Connecting WIL experiences and curriculum curriculum to employability • Designing authentic assessment Quality outcome: career learning and development, enhanced employability • Authentic WIL experiences reflecting the real • Immersion and enculturation into the world workforce • Quality curriculum focused on career • Strong sense of belonging to the workforce development and employability • Meaningful engagement in the workforce • Scaffolding learning to develop student • Available, willing, and able workplace capabilities supervisors • Relevant, developmental, and meaningful • Staff with the skills to develop quality assessment curricula

(Continued)

194

Short-term and part-time work placements Table 12.1  (Continued) Processes

Enablers (selected examples)

Quality outcome: inclusive practice in WIL • Incorporate flexible WIL practices that cater for diversity • Assessment caters for diversity

• • • •

Partners willing to embrace diversity Flexible institutional policies and processes Staff awareness of inclusivity, equity, and access Longstanding partnerships with industry/ community • Assessment informed by principles of universal design

Quality outcome: reflective practitioner • Development of student reflective capabilities • Staff with capabilities in reflection • Scaffolding learning to develop student • Reflective skills embedded in curriculum capabilities • Assessments incorporate reflective activities Quality outcome: strong and sustainable partnerships • Negotiating cooperatively with stakeholders • Students engaged and well prepared • Establishing a shared understanding of the • Supportive workplace and supervisors purpose and expectations of WIL • Flexible institutional policies and processes • Defining clear expectations, roles, and • Staff capacity to develop and maintain responsibilities for stakeholders relationships with external stakeholders • Communicating benefits for stakeholders • Workload associated with partnerships is • Streamlined governance and communication recognized processes Quality outcome: workplace productivity • Scaffolding learning to develop student • Students engaged and well prepared capabilities (curriculum design) • Supportive workplace and supervisors • Clear expectations, roles, and responsibilities • Quality curriculum design • Managing expectations of stakeholders • Adequate time allocated for students to • Communicating benefits for stakeholders complete work • A shared understanding of the purpose and • Clearly defined and scoped student deliverables expectations of WIL

Case Study 1: The Co-NNECTIONS placement program for Indigenous and low socio-economic status (SES) students, the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia Discipline:  Interdisciplinary, offered as a general education elective in all single degree programs Model:  Short-term part-time (40 days over 8–12 weeks) Seeking WIL opportunities can be intimidating for students from a low socio-economic (SES) background due to limited personal and professional capital (Godina, 2008), and existing external responsibilities that often leave them time poor (Patrick et al., 2008). In 2018, UNSW launched the Co-nnections (CONX) program to provide professional and leadership development for undergraduate students from Indigenous and low SES backgrounds, often ‘first in family’ at university. The program aims to develop students’ professional skills alongside their academic degree, enabling them to develop confidence in establishing and engaging in professional networks. Near the end of the program, students are invited to apply for a part-time,

195

Anna D. Rowe et al.

minimum 40 days, CONX placement with an existing co-op partner organization. Shortlisted candidates are interviewed by respective partners to identify the ‘best fit’ for their organization. Successful students enroll in the interdisciplinary CONX WIL for-credit course and receive an equity award provided by the partner. The award is vital for these students to be able to support themselves while continuing their university study and undertaking their placement. Before starting their placement, students receive training to prepare them for the workplace (physical and/or virtual) including professional capabilities and skills development workshops. Assessment tasks are designed to enhance students’ retention of key professional learnings. At the outset of the WIL course, students develop a series of SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-based) that are aligned with assessed reflective practice exercises and give a presentation to their academic and partner supervisors at the end of the placement. In 2021, the CONX placement was in its fourth year of operations. Feedback from partners has been consistent in highlighting the value of the interdisciplinary nature of the program, providing them with access to students from a broad variety of disciplines who bring a diverse range of skills, perspectives, and life experiences, their “new ideas and diverse backgrounds, making a positive contribution to [the] workplace culture” (UNSW Co-NNECTIONS, n.d.). In turn, the short-term CONX placements continue to provide valuable opportunities for students to develop their professional capital and prepare effectively for the future work. As one student noted: I am sure I speak for everyone when I say it means a lot that this program gave students like us an opportunity. This program and placement have really helped me develop my self-awareness, professionalism, and confidence. It has instilled a self-belief that was missing before! I loved every part of it, thank you so much and I will be eternally grateful. (Unpublished CONX Program Review Report, 2019) For each year of the program to date, more than a third of the students undertaking a CONX placement have received an ongoing employment offer, either casually or through an existing partner employment program or pathway.

Case study 2: Bachelor of Sport and Recreation (BSR), Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Discipline:  BSR offers majors in coaching, exercise science and nutrition, health and physical education, outdoor education, sport and exercise science, and sport management Model:  Flexible part-time, 35-hour placements and 350-hour placements Consultation with industry partners at the inception of the BSR, some 20 years ago, identified a preference to have student placements as p/t offerings. This arrangement complemented the seasonal variation of sport and recreation, the volunteer nature of the industry, the not-forprofit, or community-funded placement organizations with fewer full-time paid employees (Fleming & Eames, 2005) available for student supervision, and enabled more opportunities for integration of theory and practice. WIL is embedded across the BSR curriculum and is credit bearing. Placement opportunities are advertised for student applications. Alternatively, students find their own placements within their local communities. This flexibility enables students to determine the logistics of their placements through negotiation with an industry supervisor. 196

Short-term and part-time work placements

These arrangements are formalized for each placement through an approval process and learning agreements containing details of the placement, university, and student constructed learning outcomes, and the responsibilities of all three parties. Second-year students undertake two 35-hour placements, one per semester, with different organizations of the student’s choice. Preparing students for their 35-hour placements occurs within a theory-based module where they construct a career plan, are guided in the process of securing placements, and reflect on their workplace learning experiences in an evidence-based e-portfolio. These practices assist students with developing the skills (applications, interviews, self-presentation, etc.) required for gaining a year-long part-time 350-hour placement in the third year. The consolidation of these processes across the degree improves student confidence to seek work as they qualify. These short flexible placements provide a ‘gateway’ for students to secure their third-year placement and an opportunity for organizations to try-before-you-buy prior to committing to the year-long placement. The third-year placement must align with the students’ academic major, for example, coaching, exercise science, or outdoor education. Each student has the support of an academic and industry supervisor. A key academic focus in the third year is the planning and implementation of an action learning project aimed at identifying a workplace issue to be resolved in some way through the project. The final assessment is a structured written report based on the project plan, its outcomes, and reflections on the process. Through this extended process, students develop time management, communication, and research skills while the organizations may get work done that would otherwise not be completed. In addition, regular reflective journal entries are maintained in the e-portfolio Mahara platform. At the conclusion of each semester the students submit a reflective journal and undertake further reflection as part of an evidence-based e-portfolio. Reflecting on the semester-long journal as double loop learning highlights professional and personal growth over time, encourages a review of earlier reactions and responses for future action, and encourages developing multiple perspectives.

Case study 3: Bachelor of Advanced Science (Honors) Curtin University, Australia Discipline:  Interdisciplinary STEM Model:  Industry-based projects involving short-term opportunities in industry settings The Bachelor of Advanced Science (Honors) is designed to accelerate technical learning and develop attributes beyond discipline-specific knowledge through a core of scientific professional practice, leadership, and entrepreneurship. Students require an Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR) of 95+ for admission to the degree and must maintain a semester weighted average of greater than 70%. The degree is in its fourth year of operation with the first cohort of students having completed in 2021. The program aims to deliver the next generation of scientific and industry leaders who can apply their knowledge intelligently and creatively to real-world issues of global significance. The intent of the WIL opportunities is to provide interdisciplinary and sophisticated discipline-specific technical skills and learning experiences within research or workplace environments. The capacity of the students and hours committed means it is beneficial to the workplace/research area with which students engage. Dedicated year-long core units involve immersive learning experiences within industry or academic projects. Flexibility within the unit structure is key to the success of these projects to ensure the nuanced needs of the discipline/project area are accommodated and students 197

Anna D. Rowe et al.

continue to acquire complex discipline knowledge. While students are strongly encouraged to develop their own industry partnerships or research projects, academic staff also connect students with industry partners. A project is initiated by a brief description of the industry-based problem, followed by a conversation between industry partner, student, and academic to clarify the problem, agree on expectations, and negotiate time commitments. Students complete up to 250 hours of industry-based or research-focused problem-solving. Weekly workshops address topics including employability, networking, industry engagement, evidencing skill development, providing feedback, reflective practice, career development, dealing with uncertainty, and project planning. These sessions are supplemented with an online portal for regular communication and individual meetings as required. The interdisciplinary student cohort enables cross-fertilization across science areas, collaborative decision-making, and an inclusive approach to problem-solving. To facilitate personalized learning outcomes, students are encouraged to pursue either industry-based or research-focused projects depending on their area of interest. The nature of the project and negotiation with partners informs the time spent in situ. While expanding their discipline expertise, students gain confidence in decision-making and increased autonomy. Additionally, they expand networks, develop professional identity, build scientific leadership, self-reflect on personal skill development, and gather evidence of their increasing employability capacity. Academic staff work collaboratively across disciplines to provide guidance on technical skills, discipline-specific requirements, safe working procedures, communication skills, teamwork, problem-solving, and assessment requirements. The year culminates in an industry showcase event hosted by Advanced Science students, providing the opportunity to consolidate capabilities and knowledge acquired through their year-long projects and share experiences with industry partners, academic staff, and fellow students. Students prepare a dynamic digital poster to present the aims, methodologies, and outcomes of their project. Students also provide a succinct overview of projects, respond to impromptu questions, network with a range of stakeholders, respond to feedback, and provide feedback to peers.

Mini case studies The following mini case studies (Table 12.2) are drawn from the CEWIL Canada Resource Hub, the ACEN Good Practice Case Studies site, and a collaborative conversation with a WIL practitioner.

Analysis The case studies present an overview of short and p/t WIL and provide data to determine approaches and practices, as well as the aims of the course designer and teachers. Thematic analysis of the case studies yielded a number of themes that were scrutinized against the outcomes and processes in the framework of quality parameters in WIL (Table 12.1). This provided an overview of short and p/t WIL and how well it aligned with recognized quality indicators for all modes of WIL. The themes correspond to many of the concepts apparent in the extant literature on WIL. When compared to the quality outcomes featured in the Framework (Table 12.1), the most frequent matches were related to “student agency,” “student engagement and achievement,” and “evidencing capabilities.” The outcomes “strong partnerships” and “workplace productivity” featured far less. Thus, the quality outcomes are well represented across the dataset, but 198

Table 12.2  Mini case studies Description

Features

Study 4: Field Placement at Mohawk College, Ontario, Canada Health, wellness, fitness CEWIL Resource Hub (Amanda Malkiewich)

Short-term placement 100–300 hours Location: premises of retirement or longterm care facility Provide massage therapy, physical therapy, and social work services to residents Short-term placement Two three-week, full-time placements = 210 hours total Location: network of libraries in Saskatoon Optional out-of-province placement

Pre-placement preparation classes Embedded classrooms within the same community for extended learning support Assessment varies with accreditation needs Requires students to demonstrate employability skills

Study 5: Field Placement Saskatchewan Polytechnic, Canada Library and information technology CEWIL Resource Hub (Chasity Berast)

199

Study 6: Digital Painting and Expanded Animation OCAD University, Toronto, Canada CEWIL Resource Hub (Zev Farber) Study 7: Global Health Practicum Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Science York University, Canada CEWIL Resource Hub (Anda Petro)

Short-term placement 120 hours Students design an animation for annual performance of Toronto Youth Wind Orchestra Involves collaborative design and feedback sessions Short-term placement Local or international 11 weeks (250 hours) Either program-based or research-based

Placement manual to orient students 30-hour placement in their first year Placements at two sites Grading is Pass/Fail Supervisor and program coordinators assess students Students write a reflection at the end of the placement, with follow up in-class discussion The Centre for Emerging Artists and Designers provides student support as industry mentor Personal learning plans track progress and develop reflective skills Midpoint and final evaluation Reflective exercises throughout the experience (e.g., online or short written reflections around milestones) Three preparatory workshops including cultural sensitivity Student alumni panels support preparation and reflection phases Handbooks have additional resources Students create learning plans Webinars with university staff occur throughout Post-placement workshop and two-week research capstone course to share learning with peers Reflection embedded throughout in webinars, assessment tasks, and in subsequent course

(Continued)

Short-term and part-time work placements

Program

Table 12.2  (Continued) Description

Features

Study 8: Community Internship Course Griffith University, Australia Multidisciplinary ACEN Case Studies (Carol-joy Patrick)

Short or part-time placements 50-hour internship for a not-forprofit or community organization (with marginalized and disadvantaged communities) Local and international Options include: onsite f2f; online/virtual; single or team-based Short-term and part-time placements Over eight weeks (total 15–16 days) with News Corp Student pairs include: journalism with analytics, statistics and operations research Produce articles with student bylines

Flexible options: students attend in person, or use online options, especially rural and remote students Preparation includes information session, online support, and one-onone consultations Just-in-time scaffolds include: lectures/workshops, online self-paced modules and reflective practice, with pastoral support Assessment: self-assessment of learning objectives and reflection

Short-term and part-time placement Final year last semester Total 300 hours: either 25 hrs x 12 weeks or 20 hrs x 15 weeks; flexible to suit student and organization Event students often have irregular hours Organizations: accommodation, food and beverage, arts and recreation, tourism, retail, events, and education

Pre-WIL preparation integrated with university employability lab workshops, preparatory forms and information sessions, including regular ‘drop-in’ times, virtual and f2f, to foster connections before the final semester; intensive support for students the month before and first two weeks of semester Project with four assessments: planning, industry project with academic report, reflection, poster presentation Weekly lectures connect learning and assessments Supervision: weekly meetings with industry and university academic supervisor

Study 9: RMIT News Corp Data Journalism Interdisciplinary Project RMIT University, Melbourne Australia Journalism, data analytics, and statistics ACEN Case Studies (Sonja Heydeman) Study 10: HOSP797 Hospitality work integrated learning Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand Bachelor of International Hospitality Management (Yvonne Wood)

Students mentored by News Corp staff and senior journalists Assessment is tailored to the student’s course; includes background briefs on the partner and daily logbooks Student and host feedback forms for formal reflection and debriefing

Anna D. Rowe et al.

200

Program

Short-term and part-time work placements

the focus seems to be squarely on students, and aligns closely with the learning and teaching offered by higher education providers. Analysis of quality processes showed the most commonly used ones in the case studies are: ‘scaffolding learning before, during and after WIL experiences to develop student capabilities,’ followed by ‘facilitated personalized learning for students,’ ‘students identifying, evidencing and articulating professional capabilities and personal attributes,’ and ‘equipping students with the means to make sense of their experience through reflection, debriefing, and shared experiences.’ The strong emphasis on these four processes characterizes the practices and focus of the short and p/t placements represented in the case studies cited in this chapter which are drawn from three countries and across a variety of disciplines.

Discussion This chapter has provided a valuable, unique, and much-needed investigation and analysis of short and p/t placements, which tend to fall between 80 and 100 hours. They are undertaken in a variety of disciplines, and with a variety of partners. An extensive overview of the literature, and the collective knowledge of highly experienced practitioner-authors, were used to inform development of a framework of quality parameters in WIL (Table 12.1). The framework is intended for WIL practitioners to use in the design and delivery of all modes of WIL, including quality short and p/t placements, specifically for planning and evaluation, but also for inspiration and innovation. Analysis of the case studies has identified four key processes incorporated in the design approaches and practices of WIL practitioners in delivering short and p/t placements. These are: • • • •

Scaffolded learning; Personalized learning; Evidencing professional and personal capabilities; Reflection/debriefing.

Scaffolded learning enables progressive skill development and discipline knowledge expertise before, during, and after WIL experiences to ensure a connected and cohesive curriculum design and student experience. Personalized learning is afforded through curriculum design and learning experiences that enable flexibility for students to pursue areas of interest and focus on developing personally relevant capabilities within established parameters. Evidencing professional and personal capabilities refers to opportunities and support for students to identify, articulate, evidence, and reflect on their evolving development. Finally, reflection/debriefing are strategies that equip students with the means to make sense of their experience through self-reflection or sharing of experiences. Incorporating these four key processes within intentional design and structure is a key feature and advantage of short and p/t placements, as exemplified by the case studies presented in this chapter. That is, appropriately structured and supported short and p/t placements incorporate the quality parameters and provide quality experiences and outcomes for students. These findings are significant because short and p/t placements are less well-defined and understood than longer term WIL placements. The effectiveness of the four key processes is supported and promoted by the enablers identified in Table 12.1. It is the synergy of the processes and enablers which supports the quality outcomes. Accordingly, all aspects, quality outcomes, processes, and enablers should be considered when planning or evaluating short and p/t placements. 201

Anna D. Rowe et al.

Important themes were identified through the analysis that highlights the unique benefits of short and p/t placements, including flexibility, inclusivity, diversity, appeal to small–medium enterprise partners, and career development.

Flexibility and inclusivity Short and p/t placements are flexible WIL models enabling equity of opportunity for students, that is, those who cannot commit to extended placements, such as caregivers or those with employment responsibilities. P/t placements are also a worthy option when there is a shortage of students in relation to the number of placement opportunities available and can provide an alternative for students whose long-term placements are canceled. Finally, students can utilize multiple short and p/t placements to personalize their learning and align with their career aspirations, gathering evidence of their professional development across various environments. Ongoing research is needed to better understand the effectiveness of varied approaches to WIL in meeting the needs of diverse student cohorts and employers, extending previous work by Kay et al. (2019). Flexibility also refers to the need for flexible institutional policies and processes to enable innovative and creative approaches to WIL, including interdisciplinary and cross-institutional experiences (Rowe et al., 2022).

Diversity of work-integrated learning experiences Short and p/t placements provide numerous approaches for enabling diversity of WIL experiences. For example, undertaking multiple short placements will expose students to diverse workplace practices and supervisory approaches than a single, longer placement, thus providing valuable learning opportunities. Whilst long-term placements might enable a deeper experience of a single workplace culture, several short placements potentially enable students to experience a broader set of workplace cultures over their degree program. Exposure to various organizations strengthens students’ capacity to integrate into organizations upon graduation. Supervision in WIL placements can be of varying quality and therefore impact on student learning (Aprile & Knight, 2020), especially if a student only has one workplace supervisor. Inadequate supervision can also be a barrier to learning, and potentially lead to the replication of poor work practices (Trede, 2012). These concerns can be addressed by the diversity afforded by shorter placements that offer students more professional learning opportunities, engagement with different supervisors and mentors, and the opportunity to reflect on both positive and challenging experiences.

Appeal to small–medium enterprise partners Short and p/t placement WIL caters to a wider range of partner organizations and is particularly appealing to small–medium enterprises (SMEs). In SMEs resources are limited and personnel have multiple responsibilities, thereby compromising their ability to host, support, and mentor students on long-term placement (Kay et al., 2019). Hence, short and p/t placements may be more attractive than longer placements.

Student learning and engagement It is important for students in short and p/t placements to have sufficient time to digest and reflect in a safe place, which promotes consolidation and reinforcement of competency 202

Short-term and part-time work placements

development (Ulvund & Mordal, 2017). Focused projects within the workplace, that is, those that focus on specific learning tasks and work-based problem solving, enable students to have responsibility for specific resolutions rather than open ended tasks or practices such as shadowing (Orrell, 2011). This can be a useful approach for nurturing confidence and resilience, both of which have been found to influence student engagement and performance in practice settings (e.g., Brown et al., 2020; Rowe et al., 2021).

Careers As career pathways diversify and morph into different entities, so should the experiences provided at universities (Kay et al., 2019; World Economic Forum, 2020). Short and p/t placements provide less intense tasters of workforce contexts and dynamics (e.g., rural, corporate, public), which can offer clarity around career aspirations and development (Wright et al., 2014). This has the potential to influence subsequent career and employment outcomes, although more research is needed to test this assumption (Wright et al., 2014). There are a number of important considerations relating to this analysis. Firstly, it is imperative to consider the content of the case studies in the light of their authorship. The case studies, which formed the basis of the analysis, are authored by WIL practitioners, many of whom do not have direct responsibility for sourcing partnership and placements. This likely explains the stronger focus on the student experience and learning and teaching, with less emphasis on other aspects, including partnerships. An interesting and related question is whether a focus on partnerships might be more prominent in long term placements. Given university–industry partnerships take time to establish and build ( Jackson et al., 2017), it seems probable, although further investigations are needed to support this claim. Secondly, the analysis is based on a small sample of case studies. Nonetheless, given the lack of literature on this topic it provides a useful starting point for understanding the quality features of short and p/t placements. The conclusions drawn from the analysis can be used to inform future research on the benefits and challenges of different placement models.

Conclusion This chapter has provided a curated set of case studies and a framework of quality parameters for WIL. The evidence validates that short and p/t placements offer valuable learning opportunities for university students. Given the resonating need for greater flexibility in WIL models that minimize resource and time intensity for all stakeholders, short and p/t placements are emerging as a viable and important option for enhancing student employability. A strong alignment is evident between the literature on quality WIL and the case studies reported here. The analysis demonstrates that short and p/t WIL has the same quality features as other, more established modes of WIL, and has many benefits for students and partners. Further research and scholarship is needed to more firmly establish distinct advantages of short and p/t placements over long-term placements in areas such as student learning, career and employment outcomes, graduate employability, as well as benefits to industry and community within the context of shifting workforce dynamics.

References Aprile, K. T., & Knight, B. A. (2020). The WIL to learn: Students’ perspectives on the impact of work-integrated learning placements on their professional readiness. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1695754

203

Anna D. Rowe et al. Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN). (n.d.). Good practice case studies. https://acen.edu. au/case-studies-2020/ Bleicher, E. (2011). Parsing the language of racism and relief: Effects of a short-term urban field placement on teacher candidates’ perceptions of culturally diverse classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1170–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.001 Brown, T., Yu, M-L., Hewitt, A. E., Isbel, S. T., Bevitt, T., & Etherington, J. (2020). Exploring the relationship between resilience and practice education placement success in occupational therapy students. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 67, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12622 Campbell, M., Russell, L., McAllister, L., Smith, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., & Barrett, M. (2019). A framework to support assurance of institution-wide quality in work integrated learning. Queensland University of Technology. https://research.qut.edu.au/wilquality/wp-content/uploads/sites/261/2019/12/FINALFRAMEWORK-DEC-2019.pdf Cantalini-Williams, M., & Tessaro, M. L. (2011). Teacher candidates’ perceptions of an international practicum experience in Italian schools: Benefits of a short-term placement with faculty support. Canadian and International Education, 40(3), 45–60. Coll, R., Hodges, D., Fleming, J., & Martin, A. (2009). An exploration of the pedagogies employed to integrate knowledge in work-integrated learning. Journal of Cooperative Education & Internships, 43(1), 14–35. Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada). (n.d.). CEWIL Canada resource hub. https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-advancement-co-operative-education/cewil-resource-hubfield-placements Dean, B., Yanamandram, V., Eady, M., Moroney, T., & O’Donnell, N. (2020). An institutional framework for scaffolding work-integrated learning across a degree. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(4), Article 6. DeClou, L., Sattler, P., & Peters, J. (2013). The University of Waterloo and work-integrated learning: Three perspectives. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. https://heqco.ca/pub/theuniversity-of-waterloo-and-work-integrated-learning-three-perspectives/ Ferns, S., Dawson, V., & Howitt, C. (2019). A collaborative framework for enhancing graduate employability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(2), 99–111. Fincher, S., Clear, T., Petrova, K., Hoskyn, K., Birch, R., Claxton, G., & Weick, M. (2004). Cooperative education in information technology. In R. Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative education: An international perspective of the theory, research and practice of work integrated learning (pp. 111–121). WACE. Fleming, J., & Eames, C. (2005). Student learning in relation to the structure of the cooperative experience. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education 6(2), 26–31. Godina, H. (2008). Cultural capital. In J. Gonzalez (Ed.), Encyclopedia of bilingual education. (pp. 198–201). Thousand Oaks. Helyer, R., & Lee, D. (2014). The role of work experience in the future employability in higher education students. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(3), 348–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12055 Jackson, D. (2013). The contribution of work-integrated learning to undergraduate employability skill outcomes. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(2), 99–115. Jackson, D., Ferns, S., Rowbottom, D., & McLaren, D. (2017). Improving the work-integrated learning experience through a third-party advisory service. International Journal of Training Research, 15(2), 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2016.1259005 Jackson, D., Fleming, J., & Rowe, A. (2019). Enabling the transfer of skills and knowledge across classroom and work contexts. Vocations and Learning, 12(3), 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12186-019-09224-1 Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., Smith, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). Innovative models of work-integrated learning: Features, enablers and challenges. In K. Zegwaard & M. Ford (Eds.), Refereed proceedings of the 3rd international research symposium on cooperative and work-integrated education (pp. 95–103). Stuttgart. Kennedy, M., Billett, S., Gherardi, S., & Grealish, L. (2015). Practice-based learning in higher education: Jostling cultures. In M. Kennedy, S. Billett, Silvia Gherardi, & L. Grealish. (Eds.), Practice-based learning in higher education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9502-9_1 Lucas, P., Fleming, J., & Bhosale, J. (2018). The utility of case study as a methodology for work-integrated learning research. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(3), 215–222.

204

Short-term and part-time work placements McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 337–348. Melacarne, C. (2018). Supporting informal learning in higher education internships. In V. Boffo & M. Fedeli (Eds.), Employability & competences: Innovative curricula for new professions (pp. 51–64). Firenze University Press. Orrell, J. (2011). Good practice report: Work-integrated learning. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/GPR_Work_Integrated_Learning_Orrell_2011.pdf Osborne, S., Fischer, V., & Hosokawa, D. (2014). Importance of real work experience before graduation: Internship in Southeast Asia. Insight Report. Number 1. Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). The WIL [Work Integrated Learning] report: A national scoping study [Final report]. Queensland University of Technology. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/grants_project_wil_finalreport_jan09.pdf Reddy, P., & Moores, E. (2012). Placement year academic benefit revisited: Effects of demographics, prior achievement and degree programme. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10 .1080/13562517.2011.611873 Rowe, A., Mackaway, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2012). That’s not really WIL! – Building a typology of WIL and related activities. In Campbell, M. (Ed.), Collaborative education: Investing in the future – Proceedings of the 2012 ACEN National Conference (pp. 246–252). Geelong, Australia. Rowe, A. D., Ferns, S., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2022). The future of work-integrated learning: Vision and insights. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 251–268). Routledge. Rowe, A. D., Jackson, D., & Fleming, J. (2021). Exploring student engagement and sense of belonging during work-integrated learning. Journal of Vocational Education & Training. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 3636820.2021.1914134 Sachs, J., Rowe, A. D., & Wilson, M. (2017). Good practice report – WIL. Report undertaken for the Office for Learning and Teaching. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/WIL_Report.pdf Sattler, P., & Peters, J. (2013). Work-integrated learning in Ontario’s postsecondary sector: The experience of Ontario graduates. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. https://heqco.ca/pub/work-integrated-learningin-ontarios-postsecondary-sector-the-pathways-of-recent-college-and-university-graduates/ Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2019). Placement quality has a greater impact on employability than placement structure or duration. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 15–29. Smith, C., Ferns, S., Russell, L., & Cretchley, P. (2014). The impact of work integrated learning on student work-readiness. Office for Learning and Teaching. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/SI11_2139_Smith_ Report_2014.pdf Trede, F. (2012). Role of work-integrated learning in developing professionalism and professional identity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(3), 159–167. Ulvund, I., & Mordal, E. (2017). The impact of short term clinical placement in a developing country on nursing students: A qualitative descriptive study. Nurse Education Today, 55, 96–100. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.05.013 Universities Australia. (2019). Work-integrated learning in universities: Final report. https://bit.ly/3jsyw3z UNSW Co-NNECTIONS. (n.d.). What our partners have to say. Accessed at: Industry Partners | CoNNECTIONS – UNSW Sydney. Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). Quality and standards for work integrated learning (Issue March). ACDS Teaching and Learning Centre and Higher Education Program Management Governance Quality and Access Branch Higher Education Group Australian Government Department of Education and Training. https://www.acds.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/Winchester-Seeto-Literature-Review-Quality-andStandards.pdf Winchester-Seeto, T., & Mackaway, J. (2017). Threesome, fivesome or more: Navigating stakeholder relationships in the delivery of work-integrated learning. In K. Zegwaard & K. Hoskyn (Eds.), New Zealand Association of Cooperative Education, 2017 Conference Proceedings (pp. 47–51). Withers, G., Gupta, N., Curtis, L., & Larkins, N. (2016). Australia’s comparative advantage. https://acola.org. au/wp/PDF/SAF01/SAF01%20full%20lo%20res.pdf World Economic Forum. (2020). The future of jobs report 2020. https://www.weforum.org/reports/thefuture-of-jobs-report-2020

205

Anna D. Rowe et al. Wright, J. R., Bourke, L., Waite, C. J., Holden, T. A., Goodwin, J. M., Marmo, A. L., Wilson, M. L., Malcolm, H. E., & Pierce, D. (2014). A short-term rural placement can change metropolitan medical students’ knowledge of, and attitudes to, rural practice. Medical Journal of Australia, 201, 106–108. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja13.11329 Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2020). Responding to an international crisis: The adaptability of the practice of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 21(4), 317–330.

206

13 THE PRACTICE OF APPRENTICESHIPS AS WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING Sally Smith, Ella Taylor-Smith, Khristin Fabian, and David Klotz

Introduction The term ‘apprentice’ is used to describe an employee who is learning in order to fulfill a future job role, with this learning largely encompassing on-the-job training and learning by doing (Fuller & Unwin, 1998). Conventionally, apprenticeships were associated with learning a trade. However, many employers now recognize the value of a degree-level apprenticeship as a way of meeting the demands for a highly skilled workforce. As such, apprenticeships are a feature of higher education provision in an increasing number of countries, whereby the traditional on-the-job model is adapted to include a degree awarded by a university, which incorporates and recognizes both on-the-job training and academic study. As an example of work-integrated learning (WIL), the apprenticeship represents a model that, while drawing from the principles of WIL, establishes the workplace as a significant learning context. This can be considered as a move from integrating work into traditional learning to integrating traditional learning into work. In other words, where many examples of WIL are focused on pushing learners off campus and into workplaces, the apprenticeship pulls learners onto the campus from their workplaces. The apprentice is employed by an organization that enrolls them on a degree apprenticeship. This is not simply a part-time degree; rather, the degree is structured to recognize a significant element of on-the-job learning through academic credit. Typically, 80% of time is spent in the workplace and 20% on campus; and WIL can make up as much as 50% of course credits. As such, the length of time taken to achieve the degree is generally the same as for on-campus delivery. This chapter presents a brief history of apprenticeships in higher education then explains how they work in practice. Themed empirical apprentice interview data from Scotland is presented that captures motivations to select an apprenticeship, how work and study are reconciled, how learning is integrated in the workplace, and how peer support is identified by apprentices. Two case studies showing implementations in the UK and Germany are introduced, before future directions and challenges are presented.

A history of apprenticeships in higher education Apprenticeship roots can be traced back to both Eastern and Western ancient civilizations. Early forms of bipartite agreements between the master and apprentice can be found as far DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-16

207

Sally Smith et al.

back as Imperial Rome, where the master promised to teach in exchange for the apprentice’s labor, with the contract including stipulations for food, clothing, and sometimes wages (Westermann, 1914). In the UK, apprenticeships can be traced back to the craft guilds in the Middle Ages. Guilds regulated the standards of training, professional conduct, and compliance of their members; apprenticeship was the passage to guild membership (Gessler, 2017). Since its inception, the apprenticeship system has undergone several reforms and regulations. In the UK, a 1563 statute, which continued for two centuries, introduced regulations to improve apprenticeship standards, specifying a maximum number of apprentices per master and regulating the length of the apprenticeship. The Health and Morals of Apprentice Act 1802 required better working conditions for apprentices, including a condition that they be taught reading, writing, and arithmetic. While the guilds surrounding apprenticeships may have been dissolved, throughout the centuries apprenticeships have survived as a meaningful educational approach for the development and transfer of occupational skills, knowledge, and understanding (Fuller & Unwin, 1998). While trade apprenticeships lost popularity following periods of industrial change in the 1960s, recent reforms in the UK, Europe, and elsewhere have rekindled government support for them to improve aspects of employability and social mobility. In the UK, degree apprenticeships were introduced in 2015 to address the problems of previous forms of apprenticeship such as academic progression, inconsistent standards, low pay, and the stigma that they are a “second-best alternative to the academic pathway” (Hogarth et al., 2012, p. 53). Following expansion of higher education, apprenticeship models lost popularity in favor of fully taught degrees in the UK and elsewhere. In some parts of Europe, apprenticeships continued to flourish in the “dual system” form, following national and Europe-wide reforms. “Dual” refers to learning both in a university setting and in a workplace. In France, for example, a 1987 law allowed apprenticeship programs in higher education (Hahn, 2012) and in 1992 a law was extended to facilitate delivery of higher education degrees via apprenticeships (Rouvrais et al., 2020). In Switzerland, there is equal recognition of vocational and academic education pathways, with clear progression routes from work-based learning vocational education to professional degree programs at colleges (Hoeckel et al., 2009). The various forms of higher education apprenticeship in Europe, organized and managed in cooperation between educational institutions and employers, can be classified in three types, (Davy & Frankenberg, 2018): 1. 2. 3.

Institution and employer shared governance (50–50) where the learner spends equal amounts of time in the workplace and educational institution; Institution led governance (curriculum-integrated) where the work-based element is a smaller proportion of the program, typically in the form of an internship; Employer led governance (work-based) where the majority of the learning happens in the workplace and about 20% off-the-job (i.e., at the educational institution).

Different approaches to higher education apprenticeships are taken by various European nations (Table 13.1). This overview of the history of apprenticeships shows that this model of WIL has appeared in various forms, in different countries, for centuries. Aspects of the employer/apprentice relationship have, at times, necessitated regulation to ensure protection for apprentices, in particular, that apprentices’ opportunities (and time) for learning must be central.

208

The practice of apprenticeships Table 13.1  Examples of apprenticeships Country and name of program

Length of program (years)

Balance of education and work

Germany Dual Study Programs UK Degree Apprenticeship

3–5

Spain Dual Program Itinerario Dual en ingenieria Austria Integrated Study Program

3

Variable (either alternating between periods of work and employment or allocation of days of study) 80% of learning is through work and 20% of learning off-the-job Three days at university and two days at work

3–4

3

Work is full-time and study program is either at weekends or in the evenings

Source: Adapted from Davy & Frankenberg (2018).

The “how” of apprenticeships for education providers The most significant feature of degree apprenticeships is the recognition by employers and education providers that credit-bearing learning takes place in the workplace (on-the-job training). Time spent on academic study is referred to as ‘off-the-job training.’ To meet such a balance, this model lends itself to vocational disciplines, such as engineering and information technology (IT). The curriculum is designed to bridge skills gaps and teaching content and delivery models are usually influenced by employers or groups of employers. The form of WIL adopted by apprenticeships combines experience, learning, theory, and practice (Helyer, 2015). It has also been described as “embodied action” whereby academic learning is enacted through workplace activity (Linn, 2015, p. 308). In the context of further and higher education, this WIL can be defined as learning, agreed by the education provider and employer, undertaken in a workplace (Boud & Solomon, 2001). Recognition of on-the-job training is generally achieved through a negotiated approach to identifying learning outcomes. The negotiation takes place between the employing organization, the education provider, and the apprentice. Such learning outcomes are individualized and contextualized. In many implementations, for each apprentice recruited by an employing organization, there is a workplace mentor (who may or may not be the apprentice’s line manager) and an academic tutor. The learning outcome negotiations are conducted through a tripartite model of apprentice, workplace mentor, and academic tutor (Figure 13.1). The WIL is defined as an agreement between all three parties about what the nature of the workplace learning will be and how it will be assessed (Basit et al., 2015). The workplace mentor makes recommendations related to the context of learning, for example locating relevant and available project activity and identifying new skills which are required. This is not a trivial task and mentor training should be provided (Mulkeen et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2019). The academic tutor is based at the university and advises on academic standards, the level and quantity of work required, and shapes the learning outcomes appropriately. The apprentice enacts and evidences the learning. As the work progresses, regular meetings are scheduled to ensure the agreement is well-understood and the apprentice is making progress towards successful completion of the learning outcomes. Achievement of negotiated learning outcomes generally consists of practical experience, gathering related knowledge, and reflecting on their interaction (Lester & Bravenboer, 2016; Linn, 2015; Siddoo et al., 2018), as expressed by Kolb’s “experiential learning” cycle (1984). Smith et al. (2020) found the role of the apprentice in navigating these relationships to be

209

Sally Smith et al.

Figure 13.1  The tripartite model of apprenticeships.

substantial, and such negotiation revealed “a tension between work and study, in terms of balancing commitments” (p. 16). Workplace learning is highly contextual, an interplay between the individual learner (embodying identity, history, and learning preferences) and the work environment (comprising both organizational and social context) (Illeris, 2004). Learning involves change, both for the apprentice and their organization. The extent of such change has been expressed as an Expansive Restrictive Framework (Fuller & Unwin, 2010), where ‘expansive’ characteristics support the apprentices’ learning and development. Expansive characteristics include planned time away from day-to-day work, encompassing time for knowledge-based courses and reflection. Characteristics of a ‘restrictive’ approach act to constrain apprentices’ learning and development. Such features include reliance only on on-the-job learning with few opportunities for reflection. Although this framework refers to the development of the apprentices themselves, employing organizations should be awake to the opportunity of bringing new skills and knowledge in via the apprenticeship and the advantages of subsequent close working with a university as a means of developing their organizations including their workforce planning and implementation.

Experiences of apprentices Degree frameworks detailing knowledge and skills required for apprenticeship degrees were first published in Scotland in 2016 and universities were invited to bid for apprenticeship places. Edinburgh Napier University offered three frameworks in computing in 2017, the first year of the initiative. Between 2018 and 2021, 33 apprentices were interviewed, approximately six months into their first year. Semi-structured, narrative interviews asked the apprentices to describe their routes into the apprenticeship, primarily in terms of education and employment, and their early experience of the degree apprenticeship. For these apprentices, their first year comprised four days in the workplace and one day on campus. During the interviews, apprentices spoke about their reasons for choosing an apprenticeship; how they reconciled competing priorities of work and study; their experiences of integrating university and workplace learning; and whether they had received support from work colleagues and peers. Some of the interview data has previously been published, for example 210

The practice of apprenticeships

the policy implementation of apprenticeships (Smith et al., 2020), apprentices’ social mobility (Smith et al., 2021), and how to understand identity and a sense of belonging among apprentices (Taylor-Smith et al., 2019). The apprentices’ context was recorded in attributes including how long they had been with their employer, age, gender, and previous experience of tertiary education and apprenticeships. Degree apprentices in Scotland tend to diverge from the traditional profile of undergraduate students who enter university soon after leaving school. Apprentices tend to be older, with diverse experiences of employment, previous apprenticeships, and tertiary education (Smith et al., 2021). For example, most interviewees were in their 20s and a quarter were over 30 years old; over half had either started but left a higher education course or had already completed a degree in a different subject. Reflecting the figures for degree apprenticeships in Scotland and England, only a third had been recruited directly into their apprenticeship; most were already working for their employer when they started the apprenticeship and were effectively upskilling (Taylor-Smith et al., 2019). These factors strongly influenced their attitudes towards, and experience of, the apprenticeship.

Choosing the degree apprenticeship The apprentices chose the apprenticeship because they identified it as “too good an opportunity to turn down.” It was an opportunity to learn and to get a qualification, which did not discriminate against those who had not succeeded in their first attempt to get a degree, or who had a degree in a different subject. The financial opportunity was crucial: some apprentices noted that they could not have afforded to go to university otherwise; others were pleased to avoid student debt and the difficulties of juggling studying for a degree and working in an unrelated part-time job; finally, having their fees paid was stated as being essential by apprentices who had previously started degrees. The apprentices were also motivated by the advantages of working throughout: gaining experience; learning through practice; and, for many, being able to keep jobs they enjoyed. “I would say that was the big thing, yeah, earning money and getting experience, as well as actually studying – getting the apprenticeship, essentially” (spoken by a first-year apprentice in the UK). Work experience was recognized as advantageous in career terms, but also more specifically as a good way to learn: apprentices identified themselves as people who learned better through practice and application, rather than theory alone. “I’m more practical, hands-on, do the job, than learning the theory.”

Reconciling work and study Those who were recruited into their jobs as degree apprentices, and those who had not been in their roles for long, tended to have fewer responsibilities in the workplace and could spend some worktime on their studies, with their employers’ support, whereas those who had been with their employers for longer had accrued responsibilities which filled their worktime: they needed to schedule their study in the evenings and/or weekends. If they felt content and valued in their role, they were comfortable with this and able to reconcile the competing priorities of work and study. Some apprentices experienced specific challenges in ring-fencing their university study day, perhaps needing to deal with work phone calls, or miss important client visits, or return to work sleep-deprived due to working nights. Some apprentices worried about having to catch up on work the next day or leaving colleagues with additional work. A few apprentices who had been recruited directly into their role felt both over-busy and under-valued. These apprentices reported that their employers did not actively support their 211

Sally Smith et al.

learning opportunities by giving them study time or asking about their studies or helping to align their work tasks with their learning outcomes (Fabian et al., 2022).

Integrating university and workplace learning and the support of work colleagues The support of work colleagues affected how the apprentices perceived their experience, so the third and fourth analysis themes were entwined. Those with positive support from their colleagues, including their mentor or their boss, had a positive outlook on the apprenticeship. They identified links between what they were learning at university and what they did in their job, in both directions. Their colleagues asked them about what they were learning, and some helped out by discussing theoretical concepts from university in their workplace context or by helping with skills such as learning coding. “If we’re struggling with something, it is quite handy having extremely qualified and experienced developers just behind you all the time”; “I got to speak to my colleague, who does a lot of our Java work here, and he was helping me out … And explaining what things were in a work context, rather than just out of books and things like that” (Computing apprentices in the UK). Flexible and supportive managers offered apprentices experience of different departments to help achieve learning outcomes, which furthered integration between university and workplace learning: “the way it wraps into work as well is really, really good, instead of just the usual course, it’s a lot around how this course kind of fits into your workplace as well.” Those apprentices who had extensive responsibilities, and also felt well-respected at work, quickly integrated new knowledge into their jobs: “last trimester was really good, because I finally got the reason why half the things I’ve been doing were being done”; “normally I would’ve done a bit of code this way, and now I’m starting to think broader and just stopping a wee bit, thinking the thing out better, instead of just automatically going down that route.” However, apprentices who did not get positive support from their managers or mentors, tended to see their work as divorced from their study. This was compounded by restricted and repetitive roles, without strategies for professional development.

Support of peer apprentices Finally, an unexpected outcome of the program for the apprentices was new friendships. Core groups of apprentices quickly banded together, bound by their perceived difference from on-campus students and their similar work environments (Taylor-Smith et al., 2019). These apprentices helped each other with their coursework, often communicating every day via social media. A few of the employer organizations employed more than one apprentice and they were often able to book space at their workplace to study together, or provide moral support to each other if their employers did not allow them to study during worktime. The lived experiences, shared through interviews, provide an insight into the implementation of degree apprenticeships and reveal challenges (and opportunities) for apprentices, but also surface realistic expectations of employers and universities to ensure a successful outcome for the apprentice.

Case study 1: graduate apprenticeships in the UK In 2017, a national apprenticeship scheme was rolled out in the UK following calls from employers to improve the alignment of graduates’ skills and employers’ needs (BIS, 2016; 212

The practice of apprenticeships

Lambert, 2016). The legislation was introduced at a time when public opinion of apprenticeship models of education and training was favorable (Hodgson et al., 2017), spurred on by the introduction of significant fees for university study in parts of the UK. An apprenticeship levy (a tax on larger organizations) was introduced across the UK from April 2017 to fund the study fees of these employer-led apprenticeships. Apprentices were to obtain a degree rather than an ‘equivalent, qualification (Policy Connect, 2019). This case study focuses on the devolved Scottish apprenticeship, referred to as a “graduate apprenticeship,” which was rolled out in 2017. Apprenticeship frameworks were designed in collaboration with employers, with the initial focus on IT and engineering. These frameworks defined broad curriculum areas on which the university-designed degree was to be based. Universities designed appropriate teaching content, incorporating significant WIL opportunities, and using delivery models recommended by the employers. In most cases these are day release, but some teaching occurs as block release with apprentices released from their workplaces for a block of time (between one and eight weeks). Universities request apprenticeship places each year from the government agency overseeing the funding and then seek to work with employers to either recruit apprentices or to identify existing employees interested in an apprenticeship as a means of upskilling. Following representation from industry sectors establishing demand, frameworks have been introduced across engineering, information technology, health and social care, accounting, and business disciplines. Universities bid for places based on the level of demand they have identified, generally within their geographical area. There is, as a result, some overlap of provision and a level of competition, without necessarily opportunities for universities to make distinctive offers because of the need to comply with published frameworks. From the university perspective, the framework approach is one of the strengths of the model. Although it limits the extent of direct influence over the curriculum by a single employer (Hordern, 2014), it does mean there is a broad pool of potential employers, and universities are, therefore, not reliant on a single large employer to fill places. It also means curriculum development of apprenticeship and on-campus degrees do not necessarily significantly diverge to the detriment of either apprentices or students. The apprentices apply their new knowledge and skills to their workplaces. They acquire specific skills (those valued by employers) during their ‘off-the-job‘ training, and are able to draw on their workplace contexts, potentially creating a close alignment between study and work needs. The policy aim was to increase the numbers of skilled workers, perhaps appealing to learners with a preference for applied rather than theoretical learning, and supporting wider participation from disadvantaged groups (SDS, 2019). However, advertisements for apprenticeships generally use standard university admission qualifications (Fabian et al., 2023) and there are concerns that they are not yet acting to bring new groups of learners to degree study. The advertising also plays up an “earn while you learn” mantra, which rather underplays ongoing efforts in universities to ensure (traditional) students have access to relevant paid placements. This apprenticeship policy implementation was relatively new and employers, universities, and funders are still learning and evaluating its success; however, demand for apprenticeship places is high, showing enthusiasm for the model from learners.

Case study 2: the German dual-degree model In Germany, earlier concerns about the gap between a university education and the need for workers with specific skills led to the emergence of the German Dual Apprenticeship System, following legislation in the form of the 1969 Vocational Training Act (Gessler & Howe, 2015). The dual system is now considered an exemplar for WIL systems worldwide 213

Sally Smith et al.

(López-Guereñu, 2018). A strong partnership between the universities offering dual degrees and their dual partners (the companies with whom they collaborate) defines curricula and standards. As with the Scottish framework approach, such aggregation of employers’ skills serves to manage multiple employer voices and ensures no single workplace dictates the work-based learning activity. The dual degrees are offered in a wide range of applied subjects. Employers determine the recruitment and selection processes. They recruit based on applicants’ school-level qualifications, which are generally sufficient to get into university. Most apprentices (or dual students) start a dual degree on leaving school, and it is unusual to join as a mature apprentice (Protsch & Solga, 2016). The employer pays the apprentices’ wages, training, and equipment costs, while the government funds their study in specialist universities (known as Duale Hochschulen or Berufsakademien). The dual degree comprises phases of time spent in the workplace and time spent at university, with workplace phases generally full-time. The dual degree consists of significant work-based learning, allowing apprentices to become key players within their organizations while completing their degree education (Weich, 2008). The apprentices’ salaries are paid by employers during both work and study phases. Although the salary is only approximately 50% of the regular entry-level salary for graduates, it is quite unique in the sense that students receive money while studying. No other German university programs provide such financial support, and scholarships are rare in Germany. So, a dual degree provides a certain level of financial independence that strongly attracts people from lower income groups and is often chosen by people who are the first to pursue a university-level education in their families (Protsch & Solga, 2016). For dual degree apprentices, practical skills, knowledge, and networks come together to allow for a smooth transition from school to work and strong labor market outcomes for graduates (Ryan, 2001). As such, these dual degrees are highly regarded internationally and the German model has influenced implementations elsewhere, including China, Russia, South Korea, Ukraine, and the USA. Indeed, anecdotal evidence indicates that many vocational education and training (VET) systems across Europe, including the UK degree apprenticeships, have been inspired by the German dual system. Alternative implementations enjoy varying measures of success as the social and economic contexts and the reactions of employers, educators, and potential applicants must all be considered carefully (Valiente & Scandurra, 2017). The dual degree model has grown in Germany; however it still represents less than 5% of degree-level students in 2021 (Destatis, 2021). It remains popular for applicants as it provides a relatively smooth transition to graduate-level employment for the majority of apprentices who are taken on permanently (Krone, 2019). Furthermore, employers are favorable about the quality of the degrees because of the close alignment of theory and practice that enables apprentices to work independently and exhibit high levels of motivation (Goeser & Isenmann, 2011). Where a single employer dictates too much of the teaching content, the apprentice may find it more difficult to move to another employer due to the very specific nature of the learning, so sectoral aggregation is preferable. As mentioned, the dual system was established to build a skilled workforce and minimize youth unemployment, while recognizing the need for a more practice-oriented academic education. This skills gap was especially true for employers in the manufacturing industry (e.g., automotive). Overall, applied universities are considered to be less prestigious than traditional universities and the former are favored by working-class applicants even when they have sufficient qualifications to choose a traditional university. However, applied universities still provide

214

The practice of apprenticeships

a route to a relevant degree, thus facilitating access to highly paid, highly skilled jobs. In 2020, a new “bachelor professional” award was introduced in Germany to serve traditional trades. This is a new development and there are concerns about such an award offering an alternative to a dual degree for candidates. Increasingly, traditional universities in Germany are turning their attention to the employability of their graduates, leading to a “growing overlap” of applied and traditional universities (Ertl, 2020, p. 92) and moves towards increased transition opportunities for individuals between traditional university study and dual degrees (Wolter & Kerst, 2015). However, tensions in the educational system remain, as PhD programs are almost exclusively the domain of the traditional universities, thus research has also mainly been undertaken by them.

Future directions and challenges A recent report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Kuczera, 2017) highlights the benefits and challenges of national apprenticeship programs. The report notes that, if well-designed, they will be attractive to both apprentices and employers. Both countries used for the case studies in this chapter have shown long-term commitment to this model of WIL; however in each case, there is significant government backing together with cultural acceptance. It is anticipated that, as the costs of higher education continue to increase, apprenticeship degrees will be popular for individuals. However, without additional government-level support to pay or subsidize study fees, expansion of apprenticeship degrees would not be economical for universities. There is no doubt that the wide range of stakeholders, including policy makers, employing organizations, universities, trades unions, professional bodies, and taxpayers, adds complexity to the development and delivery of the degree apprenticeships/dual degrees. In both the case study implementations, the introduction of apprenticeships was driven by a nationally identified higher-level skills gap combined with ideological support for WIL. Higher education institutions with a mission to respond to such skills needs could lobby at governmental level for the introduction of apprenticeships to combine high-quality education with practical skills, though financial incentives must be carefully considered in the national context (Kuczera, 2017).

Conclusion Degree apprenticeships and dual degrees have for many years been offering opportunities for apprentice, employer, and university to work together to provide a rich WIL experience that recognizes the workplace as a location for learning. The model enables apprentices to meet the twin goals of gaining valuable, relevant work experience while studying towards a degree. The model has also proved popular with employers. Although there are challenges, the apprenticeship/dual degree model also offers real opportunities for universities. Academic staff acting as tutors have close contact with industry through the tripartite working required by apprenticeships. These close industry links can help identify other opportunities, such as student placements, joint research, or consultancy work. There are also benefits of this close working in ensuring the on-campus degree curriculum remains relevant and industry-focused, as new workplace practices and technologies can feed back into course developments. Employer organizations benefit from developing their workforce in a way that meets their skills needs. Finally, through considering the perspectives and experiences of apprentices, there is clearly real personal value in this educational model for the individuals themselves.

215

Sally Smith et al.

References Basit, T. N., Eardley, A., Borup, R., Shah, H., Slack, K., & Hughes, A. (2015). Higher education institutions and work-based learning in the UK: Employer engagement within a tripartite relationship. Higher Education, 70(6),1003–1015 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9877-7 BIS. (2016). Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student /choice (White Paper). Department for Business Innovation and Skills. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ higher-education-success-as-a-knowledge-economy-white-paper Boud, D., & Solomon, N. (2001). Work-based learning: A new higher education? McGraw-Hill Education. Davy, N., & Frankenberg, A. (2018). Typology of apprenticeships in higher vocational education. https:// apprenticeshipq.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/08/Typology-of-Apprenticeships-inHVET_v4.pdf Destatis. (2021). Institutes of higher education. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/ Education-Research-Culture/Institutions-Higher-Education/_node.html;jsessionid=576BC5C9 CE777AC91DB30D79E00A5BA7.live712 Accessed 29th November, 2021. Ertl, H. (2020). Dual study programmes in Germany: Blurring the boundaries between higher education and vocational training? Oxford Review of Education, 46(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498 5.2019.1687438 Fabian, K., Taylor-Smith, E., Smith, S. & Bratton, A. (2023). Signalling new opportunities? An analysis of UK job adverts for degree apprenticeships. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, [ahead-ofprint]. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-02-2022-0037 Fabian, K., Taylor-Smith, E., & Smith, S. (2022). An exploration of degree apprentice perspectives: A Q methodology study. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1897094 Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (1998). Reconceptualising apprenticeship: Exploring the relationship between work and learning. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 50(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13636829800200043 Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2010). Knowledge workers as the new apprentices: The influence of organisational autonomy, goals and values on the nurturing of expertise. Vocations and Learning, 3, 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-010-9043 Gessler, M. (2017). The lack of collaboration between companies and schools in the German dual apprenticeship system: Historical background and recent data. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 4(2), 164–195. https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.4.2.4 Gessler, M., & Howe, F. (2015). From the reality of work to grounded work-based learning in German vocational education and training: Background, concept and tools. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET), 2(3), 214–238. https://doi.org/10.13152/ IJRVET.2.3.6 Goeser, J., & Isenmann, M. (2011). AusbildungPlus Betriebsumfrage 2011 [Apprenticeship Plus company survey 2011]. Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung. https://lit.bibb.de/vufind/Record/DS-160499 Hahn, C. (2012). Apprenticeship in higher education in France: An experimental device to help apprentices to link academic knowledge and work experience. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 64, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2011.622446 Helyer, R. (2015). Learning through reflection: The critical role of reflection in work-based learning (WBL). Journal of Work-Applied Management, 7(1), pp. 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM10-2015-003 Hodgson, A., Spours, K., & Smith, D. (2017). Future apprenticeships in England: The role of mediation in the new model. Journal of Education and Work, 30(6), 653–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080 .2017.1349299 Hoeckel, K., Field, S., & Grubb, W. (2009). OECD reviews of vocational education and training: A learning for jobs review of Switzerland 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264113985-en Hogarth, T., Gambin, L., & Hasluck, C. (2012). Apprenticeships in England: What next? Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 64(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2011.590221 Hordern, J. (2014). Workforce development, higher education and productive systems. Journal of Education and Work, 27(4), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2012.758357 Illeris, K. (2004). A model for learning in working life. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(8), 431–441. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Krone, S. (2019). Duales Studium aus der Perspektive der Studierenden. In B. Hemkes, K. Wilbers, & H. Heister (Eds.), Durchlässigkeit zwischen beruflicher und hochschulischer Bildung (pp. 462–478). BIBB.

216

The practice of apprenticeships Kuczera, M. (2017). Striking the right balance: Costs and benefits of apprenticeship. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 153, OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/995fff01-en Lambert, S. (2016). Are current accountability frameworks appropriate for degree apprenticeships? Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 6(4), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL05-2016-0027 Lester, S., & Bravenboer, D. (2016). Work-integrated degrees: Context, engagement, practice and quality. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). Linn, P. (2015). A lifespan perspective on cooperative education learning: A grounded theory. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(4), 301–326. López-Guereñu, N. (2018). Exploring VET policy making: The policy borrowing and learning nexus in relation to plurinational states—the Basque case, Journal of Education and Work, 31(5–6), 503–518, http://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2018.1534227 Mulkeen, J., Abdou, H. A., Leigh, J., & Ward, P. (2019). Degree and higher level apprenticeships: An empirical investigation of stakeholder perceptions of challenges and opportunities. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1365357 Policy Connect. (2019). Degree apprenticeships: Up to standard? Higher Education Commission. https:// www.policyconnect.org.uk/research/degree-apprenticeships-standard Protsch, P., & Solga, H. (2016). The social stratification of the German VET system. Journal of Education and Work, 29(6), 637–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2015.1024643 Roberts, A., Storm, M., & Flynn, S. (2019). Workplace mentoring of degree apprentices: Developing principles for practice. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 9(2), 211–224. https://doi. org/10.1108/HESWBL-10-2018-0108 Rouvrais, S., Remaud, B., & Saveuse, M. (2020). Work-based learning models in engineering curricula: Insight from the French experience. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(1), 89–102. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1450846 Ryan, P. (2001). The school-to-work transition: A cross-national perspective. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(1), 34–92. SDS. (2019). Graduate apprenticeships early activity and progress. Skills Development Scotland. http://www. skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/media/45882/ga-report-2019.pdf Siddoo, V., Janchai, W., & Sawattawee, J. (2018). A systematic review of work-integrated learning for the digital economy. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 385–398. https://www.ijwil. org/files/IJWIL_19_4_385_398.pdf Smith, S., Caddell, M., Taylor-Smith, E., Smith, C.F., & Varey, A. (2020). Degree apprenticeships - a winwin model? A comparison of policy aims with the expectations and experiences of apprentices. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2020.1744690 Smith, S., Taylor-Smith, E., Fabian, K., Zarb, M., Paterson, J., Barr, M., & Berg, T. (2021). A multi-­ institutional exploration of the social mobility potential of degree apprenticeships. Journal of Education and Work, 34(4), 488–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2021.1946494 Taylor-Smith, E., Smith, S., Fabian, K., Berg, T., Meharg, D., & Varey, A. (2019a). Bridging the Digital Skills Gap: Are computing degree apprenticeships the answer? In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’19). ACM. https://doi. org/10.1145/3304221.3319744 Taylor-Smith, E., Smith, S., & Smith, C. F. (2019b). Identity and belonging for graduate apprenticeships in computing: The experience of first cohort degree apprentices in Scotland. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’19). ACM. https:// doi.org/10.1145/3304221.3319753 Valiente, O., & Scandurra, R. (2017). Challenges to the implementation of dual apprenticeships in OECD countries: A literature review. In M. Pilz (Ed.), Vocational education and training in times of economic crisis: Lessons from around the world. (pp. 41–57). Springer International Publishing. Weich, M. (2008). Das duale Studium in Bayern – hochschule digital. In H. Loebe & E. Severing (Eds.), Berufsausbildung im Umbruch: Ansätze zur Modernisierung des dualen Systems. (49), pp. 99–110. Bertelsmann Verlag GmbH. Westermann, W. L. (1914). Apprentice contracts and the apprentice system in Roman Egypt. Classical Philology, 9(3), 295–315. Wolter, A., & Kerst, C. (2015). The ‘academization’ of the German qualification system: Recent developments in the relationships between vocational training and higher education in Germany. Research in Comparative and International Education, 10(4), 510–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499915612188

217

14 THE PRACTICE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND START-UP CREATION Alon Eisenstein Introduction Work-integrated learning (WIL) is a structured educational pedagogy grounded in experiential education philosophy. As a pedagogy, WIL relies on a triad model that includes the student, the academic institution, and the host partner (Fleming & Zegwaard, 2018; Gardner & Bartkus, 2014; Stirling et al., 2016). WIL has gained both the attention and recognition of education institutions across the world, leading to increasingly diverse and innovative WIL offerings at a global scale (Dorland et al., 2020; Kay et al., 2019). At the same time, the proliferation of entrepreneurship education across higher education has been marked by a growing consensus about the value and importance of experiential education in the delivery of entrepreneurship education (Mandel & Noyes, 2016; Schindehutte & Morris, 2016). In a survey of 321 universities across 60 countries, high frequencies of the use of WIL practices were reported, specifically practicum (30.7%) and internship (36.3%) (Winkel et al., 2013, p. 10) offerings within academic entrepreneurship programs. However, a discussion about the applicability and compatibility of WIL pedagogy within experiential entrepreneurship education has only recently emerged in the literature (Eisenstein & Raz, 2021), as will be exemplified with a few key examples. The purpose of this chapter is, therefore, to consider the application of WIL pedagogy to entrepreneurship education, and will hereafter be referred to as entrepreneurial WIL (EWIL). First, the state of entrepreneurship education is presented with particular attention to its use of experiential learning. Second, a case study based on my experience within a Canadian university will be shared as an example of the application of EWIL pedagogy for the delivery of an internship-based entrepreneurship course. Finally, various elements and considerations of EWIL pedagogy will be explored through the examination of the case study and through the examination of recent published work that explores the connection between entrepreneurship education and WIL pedagogy.

Experiential entrepreneurship education While entrepreneurship has a long history in society (Casson & Casson, 2014), the introduction of it into higher education is a relatively modern addition, which has only become globally meaningful in scope in the last half-century (Barnard et al., 2019; Mei & Symaco,  2020; 218

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-17

Entrepreneurship education and start-up creation

Sá et al., 2014). As the offerings of entrepreneurship courses and programs gradually increased across institutions, the academic debate that followed centered on the question of whether entrepreneurship can be taught, or if it is an innate characteristic that individuals are born with (Dickson et al., 2008; Henry et al., 2005; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). By the early 2000s, entrepreneurship education had gained a foothold in higher education, leading to the now often cited assertion by Kuratko (2005) that “the question of whether entrepreneurship can be taught is obsolete … the more relevant question regarding entrepreneurial education: What should be taught and how should it be taught?” (p. 580). Since then, entrepreneurship education research has centered on two aspects: content and pedagogy (Pittaway & Edwards, 2012). While the past decade has seen a convergence towards experiential learning as the preferred pedagogy (Haase & Lautenschläger, 2011; Krueger, 2007; Mason & Arshed, 2013), discussions regarding the content of entrepreneurship education have uncovered a deeper question, which is to determine the purpose of it. In recent years it has been increasingly acceptable to categorize its purposes as having students learn about, for, or through entrepreneurship (Pittaway & Edwards, 2012), although other categorizations have since been proposed as amendments and expansions (Hoppe et al., 2017), which are beyond the scope of this chapter. The importance of distinguishing the purposes of entrepreneurship education lies in how such purposes inform the different teaching practices that are commonly used in it (Sá, 2018). When students learn ‘about’ entrepreneurship, this is understood to be a disciplinary body of knowledge, much like most traditional disciplines in higher education, that is meant to be transmitted. When students learn ‘for’ entrepreneurship, the latter is seen as a profession much like other vocations, therefore, students are expected to acquire and master the relevant essential professional skills, commonly referred to as entrepreneurial skills (Obschonka et al., 2011; Stuetzer et al., 2013). Finally, when students learn ‘through’ entrepreneurship, they are expected to engage in entrepreneurial activities to develop and embrace an entrepreneurial attitude and mindset that is considered as the most critical element of entrepreneurship (Pittaway & Edwards, 2012). Whether a particular program seeks to teach about, for, or through entrepreneurship, experiential learning becomes the dominant pedagogy of choice (Mason & Arshed, 2013). Examples of the use of experiential learning pedagogy include examining start-up business case studies when teaching ‘about’ entrepreneurship, developing and pitching new business ideas when teaching ‘for’ entrepreneurship, and creating new businesses when teaching ‘through’ entrepreneurship (Mandel & Noyes, 2016; Rideout & Gray, 2013; Russell et al., 2008). The often-cited rationale for the use of experiential learning in entrepreneurship education is the affordance of a real-world or an authentic experience (Daly, 2001; Vincett & Farlow, 2008) with its associated benefit of acquiring tacit knowledge, one that cannot be conceptualized and transmitted through traditional pedagogy (Honig, 2004; Malach & Malach, 2014). However, such claims typically leave readers with neither clarification nor qualification of what is meant by such terms and can be equally interpreted to mean active learning rather than experiential learning (Fayolle, 2013). Indeed, the discussion on how to conceptualize such real-world experiences (Eisenstein & Raz, 2021), specifically in the context of experiential entrepreneurship education and EWIL, is still in its infancy.

Internship-based EWIL: a case study Between 2013 and 2020, an undergraduate level entrepreneurship course (taught as either one 12-week term or two terms spanning 24 weeks) was offered in a major Canadian university 219

Alon Eisenstein

(see Eisenstein et al., 2021; Eisenstein & Raz, 2021), in which I was involved in its design and delivery. Briefly, as part of the course, students from a wide range of sciences, social sciences, humanities, and business disciplines were introduced to entrepreneurship through a combination of bi-weekly lectures and weekly placement working hours with early-stage start-up companies. At the placement companies, students worked under the direct supervision of start-up founders, thereby benefitting from entrepreneurship-focused internships that were closely linked to the curriculum discussed in lectures. Throughout the course’s offerings, a total of 380 students participated in cohorts ranging in size from 9 to 45 students. Over 80 start-up companies participated in the program, offering placement experiences to the students, which spanned either 12 or 24 weeks in length across the autumn, winter, and summer terms. As part of the course, students acquired an introductory-level understanding of concepts relating to entrepreneurship. At the same time, students’ placement experiences afforded them the opportunity to learn through participation in entrepreneurial activities within existing start-up companies. However, it is important to distinguish between the interpretation of learning through entrepreneurship as is commonly used to imply the expectation for students to adopt an entrepreneurial attitude (Pittaway & Edwards, 2012), and the course described here, wherein students acquired knowledge about entrepreneurship through their active participation in entrepreneurial activities (Eisenstein et al., 2021). This distinction comes from the course’s explicit and purposeful design to avoid placing expectations on students to assume the role of an entrepreneur, but rather to maintain an active participant role as observer of an existing start-up company with its founding entrepreneurs as a living case study. In order to support the course’s purpose of learning about entrepreneurship, placement companies were purposefully selected to be early-stage start-up companies (Eisenstein et al., 2021). In this case, “early-stage” refers to the stage a company is at in identifying a reproducible and scalable business model (Blank, 2010), which in turn is often correlated with the company’s size as determined by the number of full-time employees, and whether it has a physical working environment. In the case of the course described herein, companies typically had a limited number of employees, and at times only founders were involved with the venture full-time. Moreover, most participating companies were recruited from on-campus incubator programs, which commonly correlated with them working within the incubators’ shared co-working spaces ( Jackson et al., 2021). As a result of the course’s focus on early-stage start-up companies, a few challenges presented themselves in relation to the supervisor’s role. One such challenge is associated with the limited or lack of supervisory experience of the entrepreneurs (Eisenstein & Raz, 2021). As first-time founders, entrepreneurs find themselves in a constant state of learning new skills, some of which relate to their supervisory role, which most commonly is manifested in their lack of awareness about the importance of onboarding (Klein & Polin, 2012; Meyer & Bartels, 2017). Due to the importance of effective guidance and supervision for students while participating in internships (Maaravi et al., 2021; Ryan et al., 1996), the course’s staff supported students’ wellbeing and work performance at their internships, as well as supported the entrepreneurs in their role as supervisors, providing resources and guidance to develop their supervisory skills. The specific design of the course, targeting early-stage start-up companies as placement sites for students, provided several unique benefits such as students working proximity to start-up founders, the potential for meaningful impact on the new venture, and the diversity of functionality offered to students (Eisenstein & Raz, 2021). The affordance of these benefits was confirmed by students through their oral presentations and final reflective reports. 220

Entrepreneurship education and start-up creation

Discussion A consideration of EWIL pedagogy, including the use of internships, must reflect its triad nature, namely the student, the academic institution, and the place of experience. The potential application of internships and apprenticeships was suggested by Meldrum (2008) following multiple in-depth interviews with several New Zealand entrepreneurs. The importance of an experience, such as an internship, rests on the need for students to actively participate in and engage with a community of entrepreneurs. Through such participation, students can acquire the community’s values, pattern of relationships, and practical knowledge, all crucial factors for business success. The importance of social participation in the process of entrepreneurial learning has been suggested to relate to both contextual learning as well as personal and social emergence (Rae, 2005). Whereas contextual learning is afforded by students’ immersion in the start-up community where they acquire the relevant skills and knowledge, personal and social emergence relates to students constructing their entrepreneurial identity. One of the first attempts to explore WIL pedagogy in relation to entrepreneurship education was in a conceptual paper by Dhliwayo (2008). In this proposed model, two foundational propositions were made with the first considering entrepreneurship education as a professional education, comparable to vocational training, and the second claiming the program’s aim is to produce practicing professionals who are entrepreneurs, rather than simply professionals who are knowledgeable about entrepreneurship. The model identifies the relevant stakeholders, which include the student as apprentice entrepreneur, the entrepreneur as guide and mentor, small and medium business as the learning environments, the academic institutions in creating the structured learning process, and additional external stakeholders, all of which are considered to be interconnected. The main WIL activity, as suggested by Dhliwayo (2008) to achieve the above-mentioned objectives, is an entrepreneurship-focused internship through which the author “assumes that the student will learn from the successful entrepreneurs and established businesses” (p. 337). The EWIL pedagogy is, therefore, proposed in order to support students’ learning through entrepreneurship (Pittaway & Edwards, 2012), with clear and explicit reference to students acquiring entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, and the mindset for the purpose of creating their own ventures. The model of Innovation-Focused Internships (IFI), as introduced by Ranabahu et al. (2020), is defined as “work-integrated learning opportunities that allow students to grow personally and professionally by experiencing activities associated with the innovation process within an industry setting” (p. 236). As is accepted for other forms of internships, students, university, and industry are identified as the primary stakeholders for IFI, consistent with the triad of WIL pedagogy. The authors provide a theoretical framework for IFI where student-interns act as ‘consultants’ for established companies who seek to innovate an aspect of their operation. In their work, the authors make explicit reference to the use of WIL pedagogy and innovation literature, although in their publication entrepreneurial skills are only mentioned in reference to the definition of innovation. While not stated explicitly, the proposed IFI framework can be interpreted as a form of “intrapreneurship” (Calisto, 2018), a term used for individuals exhibiting entrepreneurial behavior within established corporations. While the utility and relevance of IFI to all industries is clear, as innovation is now recognized as an imperative, the focus of the paper falls short on aligning it with the broader field of entrepreneurship education. Grounded in effectual experiential entrepreneurship pedagogy, de Villiers Scheepers et al. (2018) proposed an experiential entrepreneurship WIL model (EEWIL) that “provides a framework for developing an entrepreneurial mindset through a scaffolded set of entrepreneurial experiences” (p. 306). In their model, the authors contrast the EEWIL model with traditional 221

Alon Eisenstein

WIL models, such as internships, by replacing the employer in the WIL triad with a supportive professional community. Owing to its social constructivist approach, a greater importance is placed on students’ ability to cultivate “professional relationships with a wide range of mentors, potential team members and other role players in a professional community” (p. 308). The EEWIL approach is said to support the development of an entrepreneurial mindset, a goal consistent with students’ learning through entrepreneurship (Pittaway & Edwards, 2012), and is exemplified with an intensive weekend experience in an Australian university where students work in teams to create new ventures, together with community members. Most recently, the outcomes of The Edge Project were reported (Smith et al., 2021), where EWIL practices in four Australian institutions were studied and reported on. With a focus on enterprise skills acquisition, the purpose of the study was to identify potential gaps to inform further curricular development. In all of the four institutions, students worked within interdisciplinary teams to develop and pitch a solution in the form of a business idea, with the intention of developing students’ enterprise skills. A common theme across the programs included recognizing the importance of the participation of external stakeholders, including industry and community partners, acting as either mentors, coaches, or pitch judges. Using the Enterprise Capability Framework to study and compare the various EWIL practices, the authors identified the need for supporting interdisciplinary teamwork, process-focused design for both curriculum and assessment, and engaging industry and community partners. On this final point, it was noted that in EWIL “industry and community partners are often involved as problem-owners, co-designers and coaches rather than as supervisors” (p. 153), which is contrasted with the above-mentioned examples where EWIL is manifested in the use of entrepreneurs as supervisors within entrepreneurship-focused internship programs. The distinction regarding the roles of entrepreneurs in EWIL programs will be further explored in the following section.

Defining entrepreneurial-work-integrated learning The discussion about EWIL pedagogy must first begin by clearly defining what is meant by ‘entrepreneurial’ WIL. As mentioned above, entrepreneurship education includes a range of purposes, commonly summarized as teaching about, for, and through entrepreneurship (Pittaway & Edwards, 2012). Therefore, and in order to adhere to the core pedagogical framework of WIL pedagogy, the definition for EWIL pedagogy is proposed as: a model that informs the application of WIL pedagogy in the pursuit to achieve the desired entrepreneurship education learning outcomes. With the above definition, it is clear that in order to design a EWIL activity, determining the entrepreneurship education goals must be followed by considering the elements of WIL pedagogy. Most importantly, consideration should be made for the stakeholders and their interconnectivity, namely the student, the academic institution, and the external partner, with the latter affording or supporting the ‘real-world’ working environment. While often used in reference to experiential entrepreneurship education, what constitutes a real-world working environment, as it relates to entrepreneurship, is chronically absent. This has been exacerbated because, although initially the concept of entrepreneurship was centered on creating new ventures or start-ups (Kobia & Sikalieh, 2010), it has since evolved to include entrepreneurial activities within existing organizations, now commonly referred to as intrapreneurship (Calisto, 2018). Even more so, entrepreneurship has been further expanded to include entrepreneurial 222

Entrepreneurship education and start-up creation

skills in a general sense, even in the absence of entrepreneurial intentions (Smith et al., 2021). It is, therefore, imperative to clearly define how entrepreneurship education is conceptualized in each particular case of a new proposed EWIL program, due to its implication for the meaning of what constitutes a real-world working environment.

Self-directed entrepreneurial-work-integrated learning As is commonly understood for EWIL programs, students are expected to assume the role of an entrepreneur as they pursue the creation of a new venture for themselves (de Villiers Scheepers et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2021) or a new business idea for a client (Smith et al., 2021). Selfdirected EWIL is, unsurprisingly, the natural choice for programs that pursue the goal of having their students learning through entrepreneurship (Neck & Greene, 2011; Pittaway & Edwards, 2012). This means that unlike traditional forms of WIL, where the working environment is used as the context for learning, in self-directed EWIL students are creating their own working environment as part of their learning experience (Malach & Malach, 2014). This, in turn, adds complexity to the EWIL design, since through their creation of their own businesses, students assume the leadership role of their venture, thereby occupying the traditional role of the placement supervisor. Within WIL pedagogy, work supervisors fulfil several roles, most notably for professional guidance, supervision of work (Maaravi et al., 2021), and performance evaluation, whose quality “is usually the most important factor in determining the quality of the experience” (Ryan et al., 1996, p. 372). However, in the absence of such on-site supervision, as is the case for self-directed EWIL, the void is commonly filled by either the course instructor, program coordinator, or external stakeholders (Pretti et al., 2020). As noted above, industry and community partners are commonly recruited as mentors and coaches (Bandaranaike et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2021). However, neither reporting to the academic supervisor nor to the industry mentor recreates the power dynamics and accountability that is inherent in a traditional WIL model between students and their workplace supervisors. Beyond the challenge of accountability, the difference between self-directed EWIL and traditional WIL programs manifests itself in the affordance of performance evaluation for the students’ work. While performance evaluation plays a crucial element in WIL programs (Maaravi et al., 2021), the challenges for receiving quality performance assessment for students’ work with host organizations has been recognized (Jackson, 2018). However, under the circumstances of a self-directed EWIL program, students would typically report to either an academic faculty or staff or to an industry mentor. And while in traditional WIL models students’ supervisors will have opportunities to directly observe their work performance, in the self-directed EWIL model both academic and industry mentors are limited to receiving students’ self-reporting of their work as the basis for their work performance evaluation. While not necessarily of lesser quality, students’ self-reporting must be solicited and assessed within a different context than the traditional performance evaluation, most commonly considered as self-reflection (Bandaranaike et al., 2020).

Supervised entrepreneurial-work-integrated learning Much as in traditional WIL programs, students in supervised EWIL programs work within an existing host organization, where they report to a workplace supervisor. However, differing from traditional WIL, in order to maintain its relevance to the goals of entrepreneurship education, the host organization must be able to provide an entrepreneurial working environment, 223

Alon Eisenstein

typically found in start-up companies (Eisenstein & Raz, 2021; Maaravi et al., 2021). With its reliance on a host organization, supervised EWIL can be manifested through several traditional WIL program structures including cooperative education and internships. Within a supervised EWIL program, students can learn about, for, or through entrepreneurship (Pittaway & Edwards, 2012), determined by the way in which the learning is contextualized to the work experience within the host company. One of the main features of a start-up company is the uncertainty of the organization as it relates to its products or services, its customers or markets, and hence its revenues (Blank, 2010). Therefore, it is not surprising to find start-up companies with little to no full-time employees (Maaravi et al., 2021) and without a fixed physical location. In fact, many early-stage start-ups operate from the founders’ personal dwellings, public and co-working spaces (Jackson et al., 2021), as well as from start-up incubators (Bruneel et al., 2012; Zehr, 2016). This stands in stark contrast to established corporations which operate from a fixed physical location and with an organizational structure that include a significant number of full-time employees. Under such considerations, defining the start-up working environment for EWIL programs can prove to be challenging (Eisenstein & Raz, 2021), in particular, for early-stage start-up companies. Directly following from the nature of uncertainty that defines start-up companies is the dynamic nature of work. This dynamic is seen mostly in two ways. First is the lack of clear organizational structure that characterizes early-stage start-up companies, where the roles and duties of the people working within them can be highly fluid and versatile. Second is the fast-paced nature of early-stage start-ups, which can lead to workers’ tasks shifting significantly over a short span of time. Under such working environments, students are faced with a significantly greater sense of uncertainty about their place in the company (Maaravi et al., 2021), as compared with working within well-established organizations. Put together, the characteristics of an early-stage start-up company can prove challenging for students who are ill-prepared or have false expectations about their EWIL experience. However, it was reported that “the work environment characteristics seem to be the stronger predictors of internship satisfaction” (Maaravi et al., 2021, p. 268), with the affordance of learning opportunities for students being the strongest predictor, closely followed by the affordance of a supervisor’s support. As noted above, supervised EWIL programs should be aware of, and pay particular attention to, the selection of EWIL placement hosts, as their ability to provide learning opportunities and to support students’ work will prove critical to students’ success and satisfaction.

Conclusion The purpose of using any particular pedagogy in education is to enable students to meet the desired and predetermined learning outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of EWIL pedagogy is to enable students to meet the desired learning outcomes of entrepreneurship education successfully and effectively by utilizing WIL pedagogy. In the first step in determining how to apply EWIL pedagogy to a particular entrepreneurship course or program, the desired learning outcomes must clarify whether students are expected to learn about, for, or through entrepreneurship. While these learning goal categories are not mutually exclusive, they are used to indicate whether students are expected to acquire knowledge about entrepreneurship, skills for succeeding in entrepreneurship as professionals, or to embrace an entrepreneurial attitude and mindset through active participation in entrepreneurial activities. EWIL pedagogy can be successfully applied to any of these stated goals, with adequate contextualization and adaptation of the various dimensions of WIL pedagogy. 224

Entrepreneurship education and start-up creation

Due to the importance of the real-world working environment in EWIL pedagogy, the nature of the working environment within the context of entrepreneurship education must be explicitly defined, as it will have implications for the available learning goal. Within such consideration, two main modalities can be distinguished, based on existing EWIL programs presented in this chapter, namely ‘self-directed’ and ‘supervised’ EWIL. For each of the modalities, emerging research and publications on their practice highlight particular attributes that should be noted and taken into consideration as one prepares new, or wishes to improve on, existing EWIL programs. In self-directed EWIL, students assume the role of the entrepreneur as they pursue a new venture idea, either for their own interest or for the benefit of a client. In such programs, it is important to consider how to engage external stakeholders, specifically industry and community members, who can then act as problem co-owners, coaches, and mentors (Smith et al., 2021). It is also important to consider ways in which students’ interactions can be diversified, thereby enriching their learning experience. This is true in relation to students’ teamwork, with preference to interdisciplinary teams (Smith et al., 2021), as well as in relation to students’ engagement with a community of mentors rather than an individual mentor (de Villiers Scheepers et al., 2018). In supervised EWIL, students work under the guidance and supervision of an entrepreneur within an existing start-up company, typically as part of an internship (Eisenstein et al., 2021; Maaravi et al., 2021). In such programs, the characteristics of the working environment play a strong predictor to students’ learning and satisfaction (Maaravi et al., 2021). Placing students within start-up companies is important to maintain the pedagogical relevance to the entrepreneurial learning, even though the nature of a start-up working environment, with its uncertainty and potential lack of supervisory experience (Eisenstein & Raz, 2021), raises concerns for the quality of the EWIL experience. Program managers and students are, therefore, encouraged to carefully select those start-up companies that can provide ongoing supervision and feedback, while allowing for autonomy and freedom to learn (Maaravi et al., 2021). Entrepreneurship education as well as WIL pedagogy are both still evolving fields of research and practice. The categorization of entrepreneurship education as being structured towards learning either about, for, or through entrepreneurship has already been suggested to be insufficient (Hoppe et al., 2017). The interpretation of entrepreneurship as being referred to the process of creating new ventures has already evolved to include intrapreneurship (Calisto, 2018), and more recently expanded to include a more general application of entrepreneurial skills beyond entrepreneurship. Clearly, the EWIL model is only in its infancy and is expected to evolve together with its underlying foundational bodies of knowledge, at the place where entrepreneurship education and WIL intersect. The rapidly changing world of work, coupled with the rapid adoption of new technologies, will continue to increase the importance of entrepreneurial capabilities in higher education graduates as they transition into the workforce of tomorrow.

References Bandaranaike, S., Orozco Quijano, E. P., & Navarrete-Baez, F. E. (2020). A COVID-19 work-integrated learning strategy for entrepreneurial mindset reflections: Case study in Mexico. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 467–489. Barnard, A., Pittz, T., & Vanevenhoven, J. (2019). Entrepreneurship education in U.S. community colleges: A review and analysis. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26(2), 190–208. https://doi. org/10.1108/JSBED-06-2018-0178

225

Alon Eisenstein Blank, S. (2010, January 25). What’s A Startup? First Principles. Retrieved October 23, 2020, from https://steveblank.com/2010/01/25/whats-a-startup-first-principles/ Bruneel, J., Ratinho, T., Clarysse, B., & Groen, A. (2012). The evolution of business incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations. Technovation, 32(2), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.11.003 Calisto, M. d. L. (2018). Do intrapreneurs learn by doing? In D. Hyams-Ssekasi and E. F. Caldwell (Eds.), Experiential learning for entrepreneurship: Theoretical and practical perspectives on enterprise education (pp. 185–203). Springer. Casson, M., & Casson, C. (2014). The history of entrepreneurship: Medieval origins of a modern phenomenon. Business History, 56(8), 1223–1242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2013.867330 Daly, S. P. (2001). Student-operated Internet businesses: True experiential learning in entrepreneurship and retail management. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1177 %2F0273475301233006 de Villiers Scheepers, M. J., Barnes, R., Clements, M., & Stubbs, A. J. (2018). Preparing future-ready graduates through experiential entrepreneurship. Education + Training, 60(4), 303–317. https://doi. org/10.1108/ET-11-2017-0167 Dhliwayo, S. (2008). Experiential learning in entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 50(4), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910810880560 Dickson, P. H., Solomon, G. T., & Weaver, K. M. (2008). Entrepreneurial selection and success: Does education matter? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 239–258. https://doi. org/10.1108/14626000810871655 Dorland, A., Finch, D. J., Levallet, N., Raby, S., Ross, S., & Swiston, A. (2020). An entrepreneurial view of universal work-integrated learning. Education + Training, 62(4), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1108/ ET-11-2019-0260 Eisenstein, A., Goh, C., & Istrate, E. (2021). Supervised entrepreneurial work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(3), 413–422. Eisenstein, A., & Raz, N. (2021). Entrepreneurial work-integrated learning. In T. Gerhardt and P. J. Annon (Eds.), Applications of work integrated learning among Gen Z and Y Students (pp. 119–136). IGI Global. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6440-0 Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7–8), 692–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2013.821318 Fleming, J., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2018). Methodologies, methods and ethical considerations for conducting research in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(3), 205–213. Gardner, P., & Bartkus, K. R. (2014). What’s in a name? A reference guide to work-education experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 37–54. Haase, H., & Lautenschläger, A. (2011). The ‘Teachability Dilemma’ of entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7, 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0150-3 Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I, Education + Training, 47(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910510586524 Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle. 2004.14242112 Hoppe, M., Westerberg, M., & Leffler, E. (2017). Educational approaches to entrepreneurship in higher education. Education + Training, 59(7/8), 751–767. Jackson, D. (2018). Challenges and strategies for assessing student workplace performance during work-­ integrated learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(4), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1 080/02602938.2017.1378618 Jackson, D., Shan, H., & Meek, S. (2021). Enhancing graduates’ enterprise capabilities through work-integrated learning in co-working spaces. Higher Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-021-00756-x Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., Smith, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). The emerging future: Innovative models of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 401–413. Klein, H. J., & Polin, B. (2012). Are organizations on board with best practices onboarding? In C. R. Wanberg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Socialization (pp. 267–287). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199763672.013.0014 Kobia, M., & Sikalieh, D. (2010). Towards a search for the meaning of entrepreneurship. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(2), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591011023970

226

Entrepreneurship education and start-up creation Krueger, N. F., Jr. (2007). What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1540-6520.2007.00166.x Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00099.x Maaravi, Y., Heller, B., Hochman, G., & Kanat-Maymon, Y. (2021). Internship not hardship: What makes interns in startup companies satisfied? Journal of Experiential Education, 44(3), 257–276. https://doi.org/ 10.1177%2F1053825920966351 Malach, S. E., & Malach, R. L. (2014). Start your own business assignment in the context of experiential entrepreneurship education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 18(1), 169–186. Mandel, R., & Noyes, E. (2016). Survey of experiential entrepreneurship education offerings among top undergraduate entrepreneurship programs. Education + Training, 58(2), 164–178. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/ET-06-2014-0067 Mason, C., & Arshed, N. (2013). Teaching entrepreneurship to university students through experiential learning: A case study. Industry and Higher Education, 27(6), 449–463. https://doi.org/ 10.5367%2Fihe.2013.0180 Mei, W., & Symaco, L. (2020). University-wide entrepreneurship education in China’s higher education institutions: Issues and challenges. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.202 0.1735330 Meldrum, R. (2008). New Zealand entrepreneurs’ views of business success: Curriculum implications. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 9(2), 81. Meyer, A. M., & Bartels, L. K. (2017). The impact of onboarding levels on perceived utility, organizational commitment, organizational support, and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 17(5), 10–27. Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R. K., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2011). Successful entrepreneurship as developmental outcome: A path model from a lifespan perspective of human development. European Psychologist, 16(3), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000075 Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0266242607080656 Pittaway, L., & Edwards, C. (2012). Assessment: Examining practice in entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 54(8), 778–800. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211274882 Pretti, T. J., Parrott, P., Hoskyn, K., Fannon, A. M., Church, D., & Arsenault, C. (2020). The role of work-integrated learning in the development of entrepreneurs. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 451–466. Rae, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial learning: A narrative-based conceptual model. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(3), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000510612259 Ranabahu, N., Almeida, S., & Kyriazis, E. (2020). University-led internships for innovative thinking: A theoretical framework. Education + Training, 62(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2019-0031 Rideout, E., & Gray, D. (2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12021 Russell, R., Atchison, M., & Brooks, R. (2008). Business plan competitions in tertiary institutions: Encouraging entrepreneurship education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800801938739 Ryan, G., Toohey, S., & Hughes, C. (1996). The purpose, value and structure of the practicum in higher education: A literature review. Higher Education, 31(3), 355–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128437 Sá, C. (2018). What does success look like for entrepreneurship education? International Journal of Chinese Education, 7(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1163/22125868-12340097 Sá, C., Kretz, A., & Sigurdson, K. (2014). The state of entrepreneurship education in Ontario’s colleges and universities. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Schindehutte, M., & Morris, M. H. (2016). The experiential learning portfolio and entrepreneurship education. In M. H. Morris and E. Liguori (Eds.), Annals of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy–2016. Edward Elgar. Smith, J., Russell, L., Bliemel, M., Donnet, T., Elkington, R., & Larkin, I. (2021). Developing university learners’ enterprise capabilities through entrepreneurial work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, and K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning, (pp. 145–156). Routledge.

227

Alon Eisenstein Stirling, A., Kerr, G., Banwell, J., MacPherson, E., & Heron, A. (2016). A practical guide for work-integrated learning: Effective practices to enhance the educational quality of structured work experiences offered through colleges and universities. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Stuetzer, M., Obschonka, M., Davidsson, P., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2013). Where do entrepreneurial skills come from? Applied Economics Letters, 20(12), 1183–1186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851. 2013.797554 Vincett, P. S., & Farlow, S. (2008). “Start-a-Business”: An experiment in education through entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 274–288. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14626000810871673 Winkel, D., Vanevenhoven, J., Drago, W. A., & Clements, C. (2013). The structure and scope of entrepreneurship programs in higher education around the world. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 16(1), 15. Zehr, S. M. (2016). Student Internship Experience and Learning Opportunities: A Mixed Methods Study. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, United States.

228

15 THE PRACTICE OF SERVICE LEARNING AS WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING Faith Valencia-Forrester

Introduction This chapter explores the history and practice of service learning (SL), as one of the models of work-integrated learning (WIL). SL is contextualized through three case studies developed by an Australian higher education institution’s SL course to incorporate SL philosophy within curricula, to support disadvantaged students to obtain quality WIL experiences, and to scale SL as we move toward work in the fourth industrial revolution. While SL is well established within secondary schooling curricula within some countries, such as the United States, this chapter focuses on SL within higher education institutions. WIL has become the widely accepted definition of the ‘integration of academic and industry learning’ within the curriculum and assessment of a course, program, or project (Patrick et al., 2008). The critical factor in a successful (paid or unpaid) WIL placement is weaving academic learning with professional conduct and skills in preparation for the workforce (Jackson, 2015; Patrick et al., 2008; Smith, 2012). Increasingly, industry and community organizations require higher education institution graduates to have more than classroom knowledge, expecting them to be practical and creative, work with diverse people, be critical thinkers, problem solvers, decision-makers whilst being professional, and ethical. SL further pushes experiential education to produce well-rounded graduates with a strong sense of civic values, alongside their professional and academic knowledge (Mabry, 1998). The SL experience not only provides opportunities for higher education institutions to engage with and support communities, but improves graduate employability, increases cultural competence, and incorporates a stronger sense of civic responsibility (Cress et al., 2010; Eyler et al., 2001; Valencia-Forrester, 2019). An extensive body of research has covered the benefits of SL for students, community organizations, and industry over the past several decades. However, like WIL, there is difficulty defining SL, contributing to confusion about what it is and is not. Earlier descriptions categorized SL as community-based internships for students considering public service (Furco, 2003). Scott and van Etten (2013), who bounce between terms including ‘WIL,’ ‘service learning,’ and ‘environmental volunteering,’ highlight that students’ substantial volunteer hours are highly valued by organizations who recognize the importance of student contributions towards their operations (Scott & van Etten, 2013). The varied and contextual nature of SL experiences

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-18

229

Faith Valencia-Forrester

also contributed to confusion around what was and was not SL. This made it challenging to develop a consistent suite of methodologies, units of measurement, and data analysis approaches that capture the full range of multiple outcomes of SL for students and the communities they serve (Furco & Billig, 2002; Gray, 1996). SL’s goals, processes, and outcomes exist on a continuum and range from addressing social justice issues to supporting charitable causes (Kahne & Westheimer, 1996). SL is essentially experiential, practice-based learning for credit within an academic learning program or initiative that helps higher education students develop professional skills and prepare them for the workforce (Jackson, 2015; Patrick et al., 2008). Through the practice of community service, SL has encapsulated the critical factors of an ideal WIL experience, emphasizing personal and professional skills, facilitating the students’ self-view, and their existence in this world while addressing community needs (Patrick et al., 2019). Like other models of WIL, there are various definitions of SL, with no one model recognized as defining it (Butin, 2010). SL is seen as both a pedagogy and a philosophy. However, most agree that SL involves practical experience, is integrated within the student’s program of study, includes reciprocal relationships between stakeholders, and is purposely organized to extend student learning beyond the academic curriculum while meeting community needs (Furco, 1996, 2003). Reciprocity, along with critical reflection on the experience, are key elements of SL (Jacoby, 1996). SL is often mistakenly categorized by the ‘service,’ but it is not limited to simply volunteering. Confusion exists because volunteers often undertake this ‘work.’ While unpaid placements are technically ‘volunteering,’ issues of paid/unpaid work placements are discussed in more detail in Chapter 34 in this Handbook. Students are often introduced to volunteering through SL experiences, where they engage in relevant work-aligned tasks with communities or charitable organizations. Unlike volunteering activities such as community service, SL is a WIL pedagogy that integrates service to, or in, the community (the external stakeholder) with academic coursework (Butin & Seider, 2012). Despite some debate surrounding SL as WIL, the focus remains on student learning through providing service to the community and the disadvantaged. Some practitioners prefer the term ‘community-engaged learning’ to differentiate these experiences, particularly where they are focused more on the outcomes for the community than for the student’s learning and development. In contrast, SL experiences, including volunteering, can comfortably be categorized as WIL, providing they: are relevant to the student’s program of study; are for credit within the curriculum; include authentic and meaningful tasks involving the practice of work; and engage with an external stakeholder (e.g., employer, host, association, community). In addition to providing students with opportunities for practical experience, SL requires them to critically reflect on their experience and consider their role as professional citizens beyond graduation and their long-term commitment to their communities (Levkoe et al., 2014). The partnership between students, communities, and higher education institutions results in positive outcomes (Shek et al., 2019, 2021). SL allows students to consider and develop personal values and professional identities within the context of their experience with community (Figure 15.1). Community service moves students beyond the experiential side of a WIL experience and provides space for consideration of meaningful and authentic work (Boyer, 1983). SL is becoming more recognized for its potential as a high impact practice (HIP), an active learning practice tested widely and found to be transformative for a wide range of students, enhancing their engagement and increasing success (Kuh, 2008). Myers et al. (2019) report undergraduate students carry learnings from HIP experiences into their post-college transitions, including remaining engaged in their communities. Kilgo et al. (2015) note that students participating in HIP courses reported greater leanings toward the need for cognition, 230

Service learning as work-integrated learning

Figure 15.1  S ervice learning supports students to develop personal and professional identities within the context of their community service. Source: Modified from Valencia-Forrester (2019).

intercultural effectiveness, and socially responsible leadership. Eyler et al. (2001) demonstrate the intrinsic value of SL in their thorough study of the literature on it in the USA, with a common theme that SL is WIL that makes a difference to the student and the community. SL relies on a reciprocal relationship between students and partners where students can engage in a professional experience while at the same time contributing to community needs. Students participate in meaningful ‘work’ experience beyond their discipline, which is pragmatic and conducive to personal growth and professional identity.

Service learning in the curriculum SL provides an elegant solution to the Western education model where educating citizens represents one of the oldest aims of learning (Hutchings & Huber, 2010). As Scobey (2010) argues, there is no citizenship without education for citizenship, and higher education institutions serve to develop students as ‘citizens’ with ‘important human qualities’ (Bok, 2009, p. 66). SL assists students in developing professional skills and enhancing their academic learning while embedding a solid sense of civic values and responsibility such as honesty, racial tolerance, and good citizenship (Berry, 1987; Bok, 2009; Mabry, 1998; Nussbaum, 1997). However, developing students as citizens should be achieved through the purposeful integration of service and learning instead of simply adding ‘service’ to an existing curriculum (Howard, 1998). In addition to citizenship, students develop leadership skills, self-confidence, critical thinking, and conflict resolution skills (Pickus & Reuben, 2010). Educators have developed a range of SL practices as WIL models within academic programs, including but not limited to internships, placements, practicums, projects, global SL, higher-education-institution-led WIL projects, capstone WIL courses, and online internships. SL, alone or in combination with other forms of WIL, can be scaffolded throughout degree programs (Valencia-Forrester & Backhaus, 2018). SL may be included, for example, as an offering of WIL when several such offerings are within a degree, a sole WIL offering within a degree, a component of a unit of study, or a compulsory offering within a degree. These ‘service’ experiences include, but are not limited 231

Faith Valencia-Forrester

to, internships and placements with community organizations in local or global communities, to address community-based, issues-based, or service projects (Furco, 2010). Despite the variety of formats, the most common forms of SL involve spending a certain number of hours in the community and completing assessments incorporating critical reflection on contributions (Butin, 2010). Scott and van Etten (2013) detail a natural science practicum including two practical placements throughout the degree: five days of volunteer work (SL) in the first year and a more formal ten-day work experience (WIL) in the third year. Other models follow traditional internship placement models, placing students with community partners, not-for-profits, NGOs, government organizations, and environmental agencies. An SL internship can sometimes include a for-profit partner when students work on public engagement or outreach projects addressing disadvantages for the organization.

Global service learning More recently, international service learning (ISL), also known as global service learning (GSL), has seen considerable growth in offerings in line with the demand for higher education institutions to internationalize their programs, not only in the USA but internationally (Crabtree, 2008). Before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, there was rapid and increasing popularity within higher education programs for international travel to obtain practical experience. This also resulted in growing numbers of third-party providers in this space. On the surface, ISL/GSL offered students opportunities to develop global awareness, international travel, intercultural understanding, and leadership skills. It also brought in problems and criticisms of the practice. Much has been written about the positive and negative impacts of GSL (Hartman & Kiely, 2014; Kiely, 2005). This chapter does not allow for this to be discussed in detail; however, it should be noted that GSL programs should be reviewed and evaluated in the context of the experiences, communities, and organizations students embed with during their ISL/GSL experience. For example, short-term volunteer tourism has a negative impact on children within orphanages in third-world countries by ISL/GSL and third-party providers (Freidus, 2017; Mostafanezhad, 2014). To combat this, several organizations have worked to develop guidance around GSL programs to ensure fair and ethical outcomes for both students and members of the international communities. One such framework is the Fair Trade Learning Framework for Ethical and Global Partnerships (2015). In summary, there are many different models of SL as WIL, indicating that SL can be a flexible pedagogy. The remainder of the chapter discusses three specific SL case studies from one Australian university.

Contemporary issues in service learning through collective case studies The multidisciplinary SL course Community Internship and Partnerships for Sustainable Development Goals (CIPSDGs), offered by Griffith University in Australia, is available to undergraduate and master’s-level students and presents a series of collective case studies highlighting various SL approaches. Offered as a core course in some programs and a free-choice elective in 80% of the university’s programs of study, most students enrolled in the course through free-choice electives. The course is composed of academic lectures, workshops, and assessments combined with a voluntary internship of 50–80 hours of community work with a relevant community partner. The course is designed to support and develop reflective student 232

Service learning as work-integrated learning

learning as both the internship and academic components progress, affording students multiple opportunities to assess and reinforce their understanding. The course ensures that students are involved in SL experiences and projects that are “inclusive, locally relevant, sustainable, respectful, flexible, pragmatic and encompassing all worldviews, and [considering] historical, societal, cultural and environmental factors” (Petrucka et al., 2016, p. 181). The academic components require students to consider significant social issues within the context of a human rights framework and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015), examining how they impact their communities, locally, nationally, and globally. Students are asked to consider their own privilege, how structural systems affect the rights of marginalized groups, and what actions they can take to contribute to a more equitable society while considering humankind’s environmental impact. Delivered by the Service Learning Unit at the University, partnerships are limited to not-for-profits, NGOs, environmental agencies, and organizations dealing with disadvantage (e.g., Australian Red Cross, Endeavour Foundation, St Vincent De Paul). The team also works with for-profit organizations to set up and deliver community service and social impact projects with students. Master’s students also complete a small research project that will benefit the organization and their internship as part of their service requirement. The CIPSDGs course encourages what Mestre (2002) defined a ‘far transfer,’ that is, “the ability to use what was learned in one setting to a different one as well as the ability to solve novel problems that share a common structure with knowledge initially acquired” (p. 3). An experiential learning space allows students to understand, experience, and critically reflect through reciprocal and engaged interactions between supervisors, lecturers, or colleagues (Boud et al., 1993). These engaged interactions can form an authentic experience with universal skills transferable in future workplaces (Boud et al., 1993). For example, in the CIPSDGs Global Internship program, a group of midwifery students were accepted at a village in Tanzania. During this internship, one student had an opportunity to assist in the safe labor and delivery of a baby in an environment that is very different to Australia. The student group collaborated with midwives of that village working to support the clinic through sharing practices and other skills. At this point, authentic WIL and SL happens when the student’s awareness broadens from the discipline of midwifery to global citizenship by acquiring world-class practical experience, deepening their understanding of their academic knowledge, and becoming a contributing member of the community. To further enhance student learning, an equal opportunity is given to both the student and supervisor for feedback on the SL placement. This reflection is an opportunity to improve the SL experience for employers within the community and students undertaking it. It is critical for an authentic SL experience to align curriculum design, assessment activities, and workplace practice (Ajjawi et al., 2020), as these are hallmarks of a strong WIL pedagogy. Incorporating the students’ personal goals within the curricular design allows them to construct meaning and establish learning goals leading to a more authentic experience (Biggs, 2003; Ferns & Zegwaard, 2014). Having delivered the course over several years and established partnerships with a significant number of organizations offering over 1,000 internship positions each year, staff also critically reflect on their own practice. There has been a refocus of attention on the academic content sitting alongside the internships to ensure it modeled the concepts advocated within the course. With this in mind, a number of research projects were conducted as part of a larger collective case study investigating ways to improve the course and ensure they practiced the learning outcomes they were advocating. The case studies included embedding First Peoples’ knowledge and perspectives (Synot et al., 2021), and United Nations (2016), within the academic 233

Faith Valencia-Forrester

component of the course. In addition, a range of supported WIL experiences/internships were developed to ensure all students, such as international students and students with disability, had equal access to quality internships (in 2018 and 2019 respectively). In addition, when organizing placements, the team has also tried to ensure adherence to the ‘Free Trade Learning Principles’ since 2020. The next three sections report on three of these individual case studies.

Case study 1: service learning as curriculum – including First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives The motivation to include First Peoples’ knowledge and perspectives within academic content was not only to counter the historical role institutions have played in excluding and denying Indigenous peoples (Pridham et al., 2015; Rigney, 2012), but to ensure students understand that First Peoples’ knowledge and perspectives represent legitimate ways of knowing, being, and doing. In this way, it addresses the critical community aspect that defines SL as a separate WIL model. Given the criticism of previous attempts at ‘Indigenizing’ or ‘decolonizing’ learning content (Collins-Gearing & Smith, 2016; Nakata et al., 2012), and SL’s requirement for reciprocity, it was necessary to embed the First Peoples’ knowledge and perspectives in a way that was authored and guided by them to ensure that teaching practices and content incorporated their ways of knowing and learning (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2012; Nakata et al., 2012; Rigney, 2012). From a human rights perspective, an important aspect of introducing students to First Peoples’ perspectives and experiences was how these experiences impacted the lives of individuals and communities (Battiste & Henderson, 2009; Nakata et al., 2012). A First Peoples’ Reference Committee, consisting of Traditional Owners, members of the University Council of Elders, and other Indigenous academic staff, was established to create a platform for First Peoples to authorize and direct the decision-making processes beyond mere inclusion. This approach ensured their knowledge and perspectives integrated throughout the course utilized their methodologies to influence the course design. Space within the curriculum was created for content to be included according to First Peoples’ terms of reference. It was essential to teach their content and do so under a First Peoples’ pedagogy. Rather than limit educational possibilities by tokenistic inclusion of Indigenous content (Nakata et al., 2012), the research team wanted to incorporate strategies to enhance them. Weaving First Peoples’ knowledge and perspectives throughout the course program provided students with an opportunity to engage this knowledge and these perspectives in an ongoing reflexive practice as they moved through the WIL experience. The assessment was also designed to include place-based knowledge and to guide students to develop practical understandings of relational beings. The non-Indigenous educators involved with the delivery of the learning content were enthusiastic about engaging with the process, contrary to Giovanangeli and Snepvangers’s (2016) suggestion that non-Indigenous Australian educators have limited desire and ability to engage with Indigenous topics. The Reference Committee did not want to pit Western philosophies and worldviews against Indigenous philosophies and worldviews and attempted to factually address traditional knowledge and power relationships between Indigenous peoples and educational institutions (Carey, 2015; Carlson & McGloin, 2013; Nakata et al., 2012). To include First Peoples’ knowledge and perspectives within the SL theoretical frameworks, it was essential for students to understand the relational links between the law, land, and people (Kwaymullina & Kwaymullina, 2010; Kwaymullina, 2016; Maduro, 2012). Like most cultures and traditions, First Peoples’ theoretical frameworks are informed by the way that they produce 234

Service learning as work-integrated learning

Figure 15.2  S ervice learning curriculum provides an opportunity to consider professional and personal identities through a lens beyond a student’s own experience. Source: Valencia-Forrester (2019).

and understand knowledge about themselves and the world that they live in through “Ways of Knowing, Ways of Being, and Ways of Doing” (Martin & Mirraboopa, 2003, p. 208). First Peoples’ teaching staff share ‘Aboriginal philosophy’ with students to help teach a deeper understanding of the complex relational systems described by Aboriginal scholars Kwaymullina and Kwaymullina (2010) as being “a pattern comprised of other patterns, of systems inside systems” (p. 196). Emphasis is placed on the understanding that everything in these systems is interrelated and interdependent, and the interrelated nature of ‘place’ (often described as country) and ‘being’ from a First Peoples’ point of view (Graham, 2008, 2014). In the series of lectures weaving First Peoples’ knowledge and perspectives within the SL curriculum, Traditional Owner and Associate Professor Mary Graham (2019) describes SL as providing the foundation between students’ professional and personal identities. She explains to students during her lecture that it is “not just about what you are going to be, but who you are going to be and how you are going to do it” (Figure 15.2). To evaluate student perceptions of weaving First Peoples’ content through the SL curriculum (ethics approval HERC 2018/725) students completed a self-evaluation of their awareness of First Peoples before participating in the course; 75% of students rated their awareness as either ‘Low’ or ‘Neutral.’ Data collected post-completion of the course suggest the content and delivery was well received and contributed to more culturally aware students when working with First Australians. Three-quarters of the students responding to the post-survey agreed that First Peoples’ content should form part of their study program, irrespective of discipline. There has been an increase in students disclosing their cultural identity as First Peoples, and internships with First people partner organizations. While more research is required, these promising results indicate an appreciation and an identified need for more cohesive First Peoples’ content woven 235

Faith Valencia-Forrester

throughout the broader curriculum. They also show that this SL approach succeeded in helping these students to recognize the need for more First Peoples’ perspectives in their wider higher education institution’s community.

Case study 2: service learning supporting students – students with disability and work-integrated learning According to Australia’s Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT, 2016, 2020), fewer Australian higher education graduates are working full-time within four months of completing their undergraduate degree compared to previous years (85% in 2008, decreasing to 71% in 2016 and 69% in 2020). The full-time employment rate for undergraduate students with disability is approximately 10% lower than individuals without disability (QILT, 2016). This is despite research highlighting the benefits of employing individuals with disabilities, such as improved profitability, increased competitive advantage, and establishing a more inclusive work culture (Lindsay et al., 2018). Employment outcome disparity has been attributed to the person’s condition hindering work performance, difficulty in finding appropriate employment, discouragement from previous failed attempts, skill limitations, and potential discrimination from employers (Ameri et al., 2018; Anand & Sevak, 2017). A recent report identified that graduates with disabilities were facing barriers in the recruitment process (e.g., during job interviews), and employers were reluctant to make reasonable accommodations (Harvey et al., 2017), and there appear to be differences in the hiring practices of employers (Ameri et al., 2018; Bricout & Bentley, 2000). When surveyed on hypothetical job applicants with differing disability conditions, employers rated job applicants without disabilities more employable than those with a disability (Bricout & Bentley, 2000). Furthermore, Dalgin and Bellini (2008) reported that individuals who disclosed a psychiatric history were significantly less likely to have a successful job application than those with a physical condition, despite having identical qualifications (Hipes et al., 2016). Subsequently, individuals with disabilities have reported experiencing challenges disclosing their condition and were concerned with workplace stigma and discrimination (Lindsay et al., 2019). Interestingly, Bricout and Bentley (2000) found no significant differences between physical and non-visible conditions on employability ratings. These findings suggest that stigma may continue in the job sector despite anti-discriminatory legislation (Mitra & Kruse, 2016; Schur et al., 2009). There are mixed findings between individuals with physical and non-visible conditions. Research on the experiences and perspectives of tertiary students with disability and SL is limited. Existing literature on disability and SL ranges from topics such as inclusion to attitudes towards high-school students with disability from the viewpoint of non-disabled individuals (e.g., Burns et al., 1999; Dymond et al., 2008). For instance, Burns et al. (1999) explored the effects of integrating students with severe disabilities and non-disabled students in a shared SL project. Thus, rather than acting as recipients of a service, the students with disability shared equal SL responsibilities as students without disabilities. Subsequently, Burns et al. (1999) found that, compared to an experimental group where students with disability were not equal co-contributors, being able to co-contribute and share tasks was associated with more positive attitudes from non-disabled students towards students with disability. In 2019, a pilot research project was undertaken (ethics approval HERC 2019/518) involving students completing CIPSDGs to understand and enhance the experience of students with disabilities. The research team included a person with disability as part of the analysis phase of the study. SL students 18 years or older were requested to complete a survey. A total of 76 students voluntarily completed it, with 62 identifying as not having a disability and the 236

Service learning as work-integrated learning

remaining 14 identifying as having a disability. These numbers are aligned with the national representation of disability. The questionnaire measured self-efficacy on the General SelfEfficacy (GSE) (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) scale and the Personal Resilience Questionnaire (PRQ) (Organizational Development Resource, 1996). The study suggests that SL students with disabilities scored lower in all metrics relating to a sense of purpose, positive mental attitude, connecting with others, and determination. Two of the 14 students identifying as having a disability accepted a request for an extended interview via Zoom. The interviews contained a series of semi-structured questions based on themes drawn from the GSE scale and the PRQ. Interview questions focused on the student’s experiences throughout the course and their internship, barriers and perceived employability, general and specific challenges, issues with resources and support, and future recommendations, thereby investigating both the WIL pedagogy and the SL focus on making a difference to students. Findings suggest that medical issues cause SL students to be unwilling or unable to express their needs whilst undertaking their SL experience. Supervisors on placement are often not aware of, or consider, the needs of students with disabilities. Community and a strong support network should also be a consideration for students on placement. Being able to check-in and share their experiences contributed to a more positive experience for students. Having to manage their energy, expectations, and experiences placed an additional cognitive load on students with a disability during their SL experience, causing a significant issue for them. As our data show, students with varying disabilities can, and indeed, have successfully completed work placements; however, there are still significant issues able-bodied students do not encounter. Relatively minor adjustments (such as checking in with a student) and providing greater awareness and support for internship partners (such as realizing that a student with a disability might not be able to stand for a 20-minute meeting) can positively change the SL experience for such students. These provisions within SL and other WIL models can allow for more equitable, universally designed WIL strategies to accommodate the needs of all students of all abilities.

Case study 3: scaling service learning – future directions creating inclusive online spaces with multiple community partners A more recent requirement from the university to enable virtual and online offerings of courses resulted in the online Social Impact Project (SIP). As part of that project, a series of Innovative Design Sprints provided an immediate solution to moving SL internships online during the COVID-19 global pandemic by enabling the SL Unit to meet and work rapidly to solve the issues of redesigning the WIL pedagogy of SL for a fully online experience. The goal was to reduce the impact on external partners and ensure continuity in student study programs while providing internships that would develop the top skills the future workforce would need for the fourth industrial revolution as identified in The Future of Jobs Report by the World Economic Forum (2020). These include: analytical thinking and innovation; active learning; complex problem solving; critical thinking and analysis; creativity, originality, and initiative; leadership and social influence; emotional intelligence; resilience and flexibility; and reasoning, problem solving, and flexibility (World Economic Forum, 2020). Previously, to provide students with inclusive online internships, the online SIP model was initially designed as a small pilot project for 50 SL interns to test the validity of an inclusive online internship space that did not require payment to third-party providers and was available to all students. COVID-19 provided the opportunity to test and scale the model when researchers were asked to accommodate an additional 600 SL students. Case study evaluation of the online SIPs (ethics approval HERC 2019/200) incorporated participatory action research (PAR) as a methodology 237

Faith Valencia-Forrester

to design, deliver, and reflect on the development of the SIPs. Data were collected throughout the project: facilitators completed daily reflective diaries, the students were invited to submit their reflections anonymously after the project, and they were also interviewed and completed surveys about their experiences. The five SIP Design Sprint internships were delivered entirely online in a hybridized space, using Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and a purpose-built project website. The SIP involved 89 community partners and nearly 650 students working collaboratively on five separate projects. Students elected to join one of five teams working to address complex social justice issues, including mental health and wellness, digital inclusion, homelessness, environmental sustainability, and finally empowering people of all abilities. The design of the SL internships focused on creating inclusive, high-impact experiences for student SL interns, distributed around South East Queensland and internationally (India and China), to work with multiple partners. Team sizes ranged from 18 students for ‘Digital Inclusion’ to 100 for ‘Mental Health,’ with 240 students completing the internship asynchronously as the ‘Observer’ team. Due to timing, work, and family commitments, some students were unable to attend the live sessions. The Observers, therefore, watched video recordings of each of the sessions for their selected project and recorded their observations and insights. Observer students then joined the teams for implementation of the solutions developed by the teams. Diversity and inclusion were important considerations when creating the virtual work environment online (Valencia-Forrester & Stewart, 2022). Inclusive work practices and support for mental and physical wellbeing formed the basis of the SL internship structure. It was important that the co-design process went beyond consultation. For this reason, the project incorporated people with ‘lived experience,’ community partners, and the proposed solutions designed by the interns. All parties were involved as active participants in the design process within an inclusive, ethical space. People with lived experience were recognized as ‘experts’ along with community partners and people who were working with those most closely impacted by the issue worked alongside students – situating the project within the community as the place where the students’ learning and transformation occurred. The five sprints were conducted concurrently with each project running one day per week for five weeks. Facilitated by academic leads, alongside community partners, the project aimed to come up with viable solutions and had four key outcomes: 1 . 2. 3. 4.

Published project report; Project report and overview video; Social media campaign; Website content.

The model proved effective in allowing large numbers of students to work collaboratively with various community partners. The research study focused on: (i) student satisfaction with the online internship; (ii) community partner insights into the effectiveness of working with interns and guiding the innovative sprint design process in the online space; and (iii) reflecting project team insights into the sustainability of delivering the model in repeat iterations. Results suggest students were initially overwhelmed by the experience but were “quick to embrace the opportunity and described the experience as life-changing in terms of their learning and how they engaged with the world” (Valencia-Forrester & Stewart, 2022. In the same vein, project partners, including people with lived experience and community partners, appreciated an opportunity to continue to provide internship opportunities to students and engage with them about the key issues. As a WIL experience, therefore, this case study evidenced the 238

Service learning as work-integrated learning

extend of the difference an SL approach can have for students and the broader community they were serving.

Conclusion The three case studies presented here have contextualized different elements of SL and shown that it can create positive differences in communities and for students, both locally and globally. Case study 1 showed how First Peoples’ perspectives and approaches can be embedded in SL experiences. Case study 2 explored the needs and experiences of SL students with disabilities, and how the organizations that they are placed with can be more inclusive to enable both the organization’s and the student’s needs to be met. Case study 3 described the innovative design sprint process for redeveloping SL into an online virtual offering that enabled ongoing and positive community engagement. The future provides ever-increasing opportunities for SL offerings as graduates face careers where the nature of work is sure to continue to change. Beyond community organizations, not-for-profits, NGOs, and environmental organizations, many leaders and managers are looking to shift their organizations toward more socially aware and sustainable business models (Quinn et al., 2022), thereby providing more opportunities for the community-building focus of service learning. SL develops skills identified as increasingly valued in future workplaces, as employers want work-ready engaged graduates with a suite of social and technological skills and a deeper understanding of the world and their place in it, including experience of working with First Nations peoples, people with disabilities, working across and with diverse global communities, and in innovative and increasingly normalized online and asynchronous ways. SL provides students with opportunities to: develop these skills as they work collaboratively with community partners and gain a deeper understanding of their roles as citizens, contribute to their personal and professional development, and enhance their confidence as graduates and citizens.

Acknowledgments The author acknowledges Samia Ahmad for her research assistance that has helped to shape this chapter. I also thank Karsten Zegwaard, Judene Pretti, and Elizabeth Shoostovian and the two anonymous reviewers for their comments, and Dr Abigail Winter for her help editing and wordsmithing this chapter. I would also like to acknowledge each of the Case Study Project research team members. For Service Learning in Curriculum (including First Peoples’ knowledge and perspectives), Eddie Synot, Mary Graham, John Graham, Catherine Longworth, and Bridget Backhaus. For Service Learning supporting students (students with disability and WIL), William Ngyn, Louise Albert, Dr Abbe Winter, and Lisa Cox. For Scaling Service Learning (future directions creating inclusive spaces online with multiple community partners), Heather Stewart, Samia Ahmad, and the Service Learning Unit Team at Griffith University.

References Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Huu Nghia, T. L., Boud, D., Johnson, L., & Patrick, C. (2020). Aligning assessment with the needs of work-integrated learning: The challenges of authentic assessment in a complex context. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938. 2019.1639613 Ameri, M., Schur, L., Adya, M., Bentley, F. S., McKay, P., & Kruse, D. (2018). The disability employment puzzle: A field experiment on employer hiring behavior. ILR Review, 71(2), 329–364.

239

Faith Valencia-Forrester Anand, P., & Sevak, P. (2017). The role of workplace accommodations in the employment of people with disabilities. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 6(1), 1–20. Battiste, M., & Henderson, J. Y. (2009) Naturalizing Indigenous knowledge in Eurocentric education. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 32, 5. Berry, W. (1987). The Loss of the University. In Home economics. North Point Press. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Aligning Teaching for Constructing Learning. The Higher Education Academy. https:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/id477_aligning_teaching_for_constructing_ learning.pdf. Bok, D. (2009). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton University Press. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (1993). Using experience for learning. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. Harper & Row Bricout, J. C., & Bentley, K. J. (2000). Disability status and perceptions of employability by employers. Social Work Research, 24(2), 87–95. Burns, M., Storey, K., & Certo, N. J. (1999). Effect of service learning on attitudes towards students with severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 58–65. Butin, D. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagement in higher education. Springer. Butin, D., & Seider, S. (Eds.). (2012). The engaged campus: Certificates, minors, and majors as the new community engagement. Springer. Carey, M. (2015). The limits of cultural competence: an Indigenous studies perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 34, 828–840. Carlson, B., & McGloin, C. (2013). Indigenous studies and the politics of language. Journal of University Teaching & Learning, 10, 1–10. Collins-Gearing, B., & Smith, R. (2016). Burning off: Indigenising the discipline of English. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 45(2), 159–169. Crabtree, R. D. (2008). Theoretical foundations for international service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 15(1), 18–36. Cress, C., Burack, C., Giles, D., Elkins, J., & Stevens, M. (2010). A promising connection: increasing college access and success through civic engagement. Campus Compact. https://communityengagement. uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/A_Promising_Connection_Campus_Compact.pdf Dalgin, R. S., & Bellini, J. (2008). Invisible disability disclosure in an employment interview: Impact on employers’ hiring decisions and views of employability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 52(1), 6–15. Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., & Chun, E. J. (2008). Inclusive high school service learning programs: Methods for and barriers to including students with disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43(1), 20–36. Eyler, J., Giles, D. E. Jr, Stenson, C. M., & Gray, C. J. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions and communities, 1993–2000 (3rd ed.). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Ferns, S., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2014). Critical assessment issues in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3),179–188. Freidus, A. L. (2017). Unanticipated outcomes of voluntourism among Malawi’s orphans. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(9), 1306–1321. Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In B. Taylor (Ed.), Expanding boundaries: Service and learning (pp. 2–6). Corporation for National Service. Furco, A. (2003). Issues of definition and program diversity in the study of service-learning. Studying Service-Learning: Innovations in Education Research Methodology, 13–33. Furco, A. (2010). The community as a resource for learning: An analysis of academic service-learning in primary and secondary education. The Nature of Learning. Using Research to Inspire Practice (pp. 227–250). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086487-12-en. Furco, A., & Billig, S. H. (Eds.). (2002). Service learning: The essence of the pedagogy. IAP. Giovanangeli, A., & Snepvangers, K. (2016). Spaces of multiplicity: Rethinking Indigenous perspectives in Australian tertiary education through altering teacher beliefs and practices. Commonwealth Essays and Studies, 2016(38.2), 39–52. Graham, M. (2008). Some thoughts about the philosophical underpinnings of Aboriginal worldviews. Australian Humanities Review, 45, 181–193.

240

Service learning as work-integrated learning Graham, M. (2014). Aboriginal notions of relationality and positionalism: A reply to Weber. Global Discourse, 4, 17–22. Graham, M. (2019, March 19). First People’s Knowledge and Perspectives [Guest Lecture] presented Gold Coast. Lecture Learning@Griffith. https://my.griffith.edu.au/ Gray, M. J. (1996). Reflections on evaluation of service-learning programs. NSEE Quarterly, 21(3), 8–31. Hartman, E., & Kiely, R. (2014). Pushing boundaries: Introduction to the global service-learning special section. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 21(1), 55–63. Harvey, A., Andrewartha, L., Edwards, D., Clarke, J., & Reyes, K. (2017). Student equity and employability in higher education. https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/792222/La-Trobe-NPPEmployability-Research-Report-1-February-2017.pdf Hipes, C., Lucas, J., Phelan, J. C., & White, R. C. (2016). The stigma of mental illness in the labor market. Social Science Research, 56, 16–25. Howard, J. P. (1998). Academic service learning: A counternormative pedagogy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 73, 21–29. Hutchings, P., & Huber, M. T. (2010). Citizenship across the curriculum: Indiana University Press. Jackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367. Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. Jossey-Bass. Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (1996). In the service of what? The politics of service learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(9), 593–599. Kiely, R. (2005). Transformative international service-learning. Academic Exchange, 9(1), 275–281. Kilgo, C. A., Sheets, J. K. E., & Pascarella, E. T. (2015). The link between high-impact practices and student learning: Some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69(4), 509–525. Kuh, G. D. (2008). Excerpt from high-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 14(3), 28–29. Kwaymullina, A. (2016). Research, ethics and Indigenous peoples. AlterNative, 12(4), 437–449. Kwaymullina, A., & Kwaymullina, B. (2010). Learning to read the signs: Law in an Indigenous reality. Journal of Australian Studies, 34, 195–208. Levkoe, C. Z., Brail, S., & Daniere, A. (2014). Engaged pedagogy and transformative learning in graduate education: A service-learning case study. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(3), 68–85. Lindsay, S., Cagliostro, E., Albarico, M., Mortaji, N., & Karon, L. (2018). A systematic review of the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 28(4), 634–655. Lindsay, S., Cagliostro, E., Leck, J., Shen, W., & Stinson, J. (2019). Disability disclosure and workplace accommodations among youth with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 41(16), 1914–1924. Mabry, J. B. (1998). Pedagogical variations in service-learning and student outcomes: How time, contact, and reflection matter. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5(1), 32–47. Maduro, O. (2012). An (other) invitation to epistemological humility: Notes toward a self-critical approach to counter-knowledges. In A.M. Isasi-Daz and E. Mendieta (Eds.), Decolonizing Epistemologies: Latina/o Theology and Philosophy (pp. 87–106). Fordham University Press. Martin, K., & Mirraboopa, B. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous and Indigenist re-search. Journal of Australian Studies, 27, 203–214. Mestre, J. (2002). Transfer of learning: issues and research agenda. Report of a workshop held at the National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?/nsfo3212 Mitra, S., & Kruse, D. (2016). Are workers with disabilities more likely to be displaced? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1550–1579. Moreton-Robinson, A. M., Singh, D., Kolopenuk, J., Robinson, A., & Walter, M. (2012). “Learning the Lessons? Pre-service teacher preparation for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students” A Report prepared for the Division of Indigenous Education and Training Futures–Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment, Indigenous Studies Research Network, Queensland University of Technology. Mostafanezhad, M. (2014). Volunteer tourism and the popular humanitarian gaze. Geoforum, 54, 111–118. Myers, C. B., Myers, S. M., & Peters, M. (2019). The longitudinal connections between undergraduate high impact curriculum practices and civic engagement in adulthood. Research in Higher Education, 60(1). Nakata, M., Nakata, V., Keech, S., & Bolt, R. (2012). Decolonial goals and pedagogies for Indigenous studies. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1, 120–140. Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity. A classical defence of reform in liberal education. Harvard University Press.

241

Faith Valencia-Forrester Organizational Development Resource. (1996). Criterion-referenced validity of the personal resilience questionnaire. Conner Partners. Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). Work-integrated learning: A national scoping study. Final report. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Patrick, C.-J., Valencia-Forrester, F., Backhaus, B., McGregor, R., Cain, G., & Lloyd, K. (2019). The state of service-learning in Australia. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 23(3), 185. Petrucka, P., Bassendowski, S., Goodwill, W., Wajunta, C., Yuzicappi, B., Yuzicappi, L., Hackett, P., Jeffery, B., & Rauliuk, M. (2016). Positive leadership, legacy, lifestyles, attitudes, and activities for Aboriginal youth: A wise practices approach for positive Aboriginal youth futures. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 11(1), 177. Pickus, N., & Reuben, J. A. (2010). Debating moral education: Rethinking the role of the modern university. Duke University Press. Pridham, B., Martin, D., Walker, K., Rossengren, R., & Wadley, D. (2015). Culturally inclusive curriculum in higher education. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 44, 94–105. Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching. (2016). Graduate Outcomes Survey: National Report. https:// www.qilt.edu.audocs/default-source/gos-reports/2016/gos-national-report.pdf?sfvrsn=423de23c_12 Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching. (2020). Graduate Outcomes Survey: National Report. https:// www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source-gos-reports/2020-gos-national-report.pdf?sfvrsn=be0bec3c_2 Quinn, F., Zegwaard, K. E., Taylor, S., & Taylor, N. (2022). Learning, work and education for sustainability. In M. Malloch, K. Evans, B. O’Connor, & L. Cairns (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of learning and work (pp. 512–529). Sage. Rigney, L. I. (2012). Review of Indigenous higher education consultancy: Indigenous higher education reform and Indigenous Knowledges. Report commissioned for the Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/ indigenous-higher-education-reform-and-indigenous-knowledges. Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 48(3), 381–410. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-Nelson. Scobey, D. (2010). Across: Heterogeneity of Civic Education. In B. Smith, R. S. Nowacek, & J. L. Bernstein (Eds.), Citizenship Across the Curriculum (pp. 185–198). Indiana University Press. Scott, R. H., & van Etten, E. (2013). Environmental and conservation volunteering as workplace integrated learning for university students. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 242–257. Shek, D. T., Yang, Z., Ma, C. M. S., & Chai, C. W. Y. (2021). Subjective outcome evaluation of service-learning by the service recipients: Scale development, normative profiles and predictors. Child Indicators Research, 14(1), 411–434. Shek, D. T. L., Ma, C. M. S., & Yang, Z. (2019). Transformation and development of university students through service-learning: A corporate-community-university partnership initiative in Hong Kong (project WeCan). Applied Research in Quality of Life. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-09738-9 Smith, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: A comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360. 2011.558072 Synot, E., Graham, M., Graham, J., Valencia-Forrester, F., Longworth, C., & Backhaus, B. (2021). Weaving First Peoples’ knowledge into a university course. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 50(2), 222–228. United Nations. (2015). https://sdgs.un.org/goals. United Nations. (2016). The sustainable development goals report. United Nations. https://unstats. un.org/sdgs/report/2016/The%20Sustainable%20Development%20Goals%20Report%202016.pdf Valencia-Forrester, F. (2019). Inclusive work-integrated learning in journalism education: A wise practice framework. PhD Thesis, Griffith University. Valencia-Forrester, F., & Backhaus, B. (2018). Project safe space: Wise practice in journalism education for advocacy and social change. Australian Journalism Review, 40(1), 93–108. Valencia-Forrester, F., & Stewart, H. (2022). Creating a fourth space for social impact collaborations across boundaries: Active project-based learning and internships for GC education. In S. Stanlick & W. Szmodis (Eds.), Perspectives on lifelong learning and global citizenship. Sustainable development goals series (pp. 57–76). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00974-7_4 World Economic Forum. (2020). The future of jobs report 2020. World Economic Forum.

242

16 THE PRACTICE OF NONPLACEMENT WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING Laura Rook and Bonnie Amelia Dean

Introduction Work-integrated learning (WIL) is largely distinguished amongst higher education pedagogies for including collaboration with external partners and the physical relocation of learners outside the classroom. Traditional conceptions of WIL describe placement-based activities, where significant resourcing commitments underpin the organization and administration functions of the program, promoting the visibility of WIL in the curriculum (Dean et al., 2020a). However, over recent years, the tripartite model of WIL – learner, educator, and industry/community partner – has been showcased in a plethora of class-based or project-based activities. These alternative WIL activities are known as non-placement WIL, authentic educational experiences that integrate theory with expanding practices and notions of work, but without extended time inside a physical workplace (Dean et al., 2020a). Examples may include industry projects, creative studio work, remote/virtual WIL, or simulations with industry engagement (Wood et al., 2020). Research has demonstrated the benefits of these non-placement WIL (NPWIL) approaches on student learning outcomes, employability, career readiness, and stakeholder engagement (Dean et al., 2020a; Kay et al., 2018; Rook & McManus, 2020; Zegwaard et al., 2020). Further, such models enable greater flexibility and support course-wide approaches to embedding WIL across degree programs (Dean et al., 2020b). Given the rapid move to remote WIL in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been greater uptake in work-related projects and NPWIL, where WIL has not been required to be a full immersion into a physical workplace. Recent research during this time demonstrates that students have gained self-management skills, new learning opportunities, and exposure to new skills through online WIL activities (Hodges & Martin, 2020). Technology-mediated and simulated experiences have also increased and shown positive outcomes in the replacement of learning inside the physical work environment (Bilsland et al., 2020; Carmody et al., 2020; Tezcan et al., 2020). Additionally, other forms of innovative WIL have been employed as part of diversifying beyond placement models, such as start-ups and programs developing entrepreneurial skills (Pretti et al., 2020). Researchers suggest the greater attention to NPWIL has enormous potential for transforming WIL curricula (Dean et al., 2020a). The increased use of NPWIL enables WIL pedagogy to become more closely aligned with shifts in the way work is performed (Dean & Campbell, DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-19

243

Laura Rook and Bonnie Amelia Dean

2020), regarding becoming more mindful of preparing students for the workforce rather than the workplace (Winchester-Seeto & Piggott, 2020). Removing the requirement for extended time in a physical workplace to achieve WIL opens opportunities for greater alignment with various forms of online, remote, hybrid, or consultancy models of work. When physical location is no longer a barrier to accessing opportunities to WIL, diverse or even global partnerships are possible. Further, recent research shows that students from diverse equity backgrounds benefit from WIL opportunities facilitated online (Bell et al., 2021). Emerging NPWIL models enable greater flexibility and engagement with new industry partners (Kay et al., 2018) and offer alternatives given increasingly restricted budgets (Zegwaard et al., 2020). Essentially, “it is now time to focus on further developing and expanding non-placement forms of WIL and subject the practice to critical scholarly research and discussion” (Zegwaard et al., 2020, p. 324). This chapter opens with a discussion on the prevalence of NPWIL and offers a description to assist with framing NPWIL within the larger WIL landscape. It provides illustrative examples of NPWIL models that can be integrated into curricula through activities that are authentic, meaningful for student learning, and which provide a platform for career development learning. The chapter offers a discussion on the benefits and challenges of NPWIL models over placement WIL. It closes with reflective prompts to enable educators to consider what type of NPWIL might best align with their vision, strategies, and access to partners and available resources for implementing WIL.

Advancing and framing non-placement work-integrated learning Several large national data sources have captured the prevalence of WIL in higher education. In Canada, for example, the National Graduates Survey (NGS) reported in 2015 that 50% of post-secondary students (from 251,590 survey respondents) participated in a placement-based WIL experience (Statistics Canada, 2020). Comparably, in Australia, the Graduate Outcomes Survey reported 40.2% of students (from 81,238 responses to the question item) participated in workplace-based WIL (ACEN, 2020). From this volume of data, it can be determined that placement-based WIL, that is, those experiences completed within a workplace such as internships and practicums, are well-integrated into university curricula. In the 2020 Graduate Outcomes Survey, 14.3% of students reported participating in a NPWIL experience (ACEN, 2020). In the updated 2021 Survey, this percentage increased to 16.2% (ACEN, 2020). While only a slight increase, two points can be gleaned here. First, there is a movement to monitor and measure activities other than placements as WIL, and second, there are significant numbers of students participating in NPWIL activities across higher education institutions. While in the Australian literature the focus has increasingly shifted to NPWIL activities (ACEN, 2020; Universities Australia, 2018), internationally, there is evidence of smaller pockets of research being conducted on NPWIL. There are potentially two reasons for this. Firstly, activities deemed as forms of NPWIL are not consistent in different countries. Secondly, governmental priorities and incentives influence the types of WIL activities being developed and how WIL is being defined. In Canada, for example, cooperative education (a work placement model of WIL) is defined as occurring within a workplace or practice setting with students alternating between periods of academic learning and periods of workplace learning (Johnston et al., 2016). Here, government funding supports co-op, placement-based models through programs such as the ‘Student Work Placement Program’ offering paid work experience related to their field of study (Government of Canada, 2021). However, the move to broaden models and concepts of WIL is also happening in Canada, with the national association for co-op 244

Non-placement work-integrated learning

(Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada; CEWIL Canada), shifting its mandate in 2018 to include nine types of WIL (CEWIL, 2022). In Bangladesh, the government is introducing initiatives to support higher education providers to increase their placements for students (Chowdhury, 2020). Given the increasing focus of Australian literature on NPWIL and the alternative classifications of NPWIL in the international literature, there remains scope for a more global examination of NPWIL practice. Although the genesis for this chapter emerged within an Australian context, the illustrative examples presented here can be broadly applied. Before moving forward, it is helpful to articulate where NPWIL fits into the wider WIL landscape. The following description of NPWIL is offered: NPWIL is a sub-set of the umbrella term WIL, where WIL is considered along two broad branches: placement and non-placement WIL. Here, placement refers to immersion within an established workplace or community organization for a substantial and planned period of time, to learn and apply learning by participating in authentic work practices. NPWIL is the broad term describing educational activities that engage students in authentic experiences that integrate theory with expanding practices and notions of work that do not require a physical location in the workplace of the learner over a sustained period of time. As with all models of WIL, NPWIL must include an external stakeholder; the work must be authentic (something expected from a worker within the profession), meaningful, and purposeful for the external stakeholder in their workplace. NPWIL removes the requirement of being physically located in the workplace and the duration spent in that location in its definition while maintaining the integrity of practicing as work (Dean et al. 2020a). Importantly, this description aligns with the defining elements of WIL pedagogy in that it must involve three stakeholders: the student, the university, and the workplace/community (Zegwaard et al., 2020; Chapter 3 in this Handbook). WIL engages students in meaningful work tasks appropriate for the discipline being studied, and has been referred to as an ‘umbrella’ term to capture these diverse, but purposefully designed work activities (Patrick et al., 2009). NPWIL can, therefore, be summarized as comprising the following elements: • NPWIL includes tripartite collaborators: learner, educator, and industry/community partner. • NPWIL includes various collaboration activities by industry or community partners (designing, providing feedback to students, mentoring, supervising, advising, evaluating). • NPWIL engages students in meaningful and purposeful work-related tasks for an organization. • NPWIL occurs across any space: classroom, international locations, community settings, or online. However, the defining element of NPWIL from placement WIL is the lack of location (for an extended time) in the workplace.

Illustrative examples of non-placement work-integrated learning In order to comprehend the range of NPWIL strategies, this section offers an outline of typical examples of NPWIL models. These examples are drawn from across a range of disciplines and highlight how diverse student engagement can be in authentic work and in industry collaboration, without being a placement model. Table 16.1 below offers nine broad examples 245

Laura Rook and Bonnie Amelia Dean Table 16.1  Examples of non-placement work-integrated learning models Term

Description

Consulting

Engaging with stakeholders through the provision of feedback or recommendations on a specific industry or community issue. Drawing on discipline skills to produce authentic artifacts that represent the artists’ creative expression and made available for public exhibition. If not made available to external stakeholders, then it is not considered NPWIL. An event or competition involving collaborative efforts in student teams to design solutions to an issue for an industry partner. Development of entrepreneurial and enterprise capabilities through activities to design innovative solutions to a community or business need.

Creative studio work Hack-a-thon Incubator, start-up, entrepreneurial programs Industry or community project Practice clinics Simulated WIL Performances Commissioned work

Applying discipline knowledge and skills to a specific community or industry problem or issue, with co-design and ongoing input from the partner, and commonly facilitated in multidisciplinary student teams. Services provided to the community with supervision by experts or educators and by students typically in health disciplines. Immersion in a simulated environment to practice typical work tasks designed with input by discipline experts and with feedback from an external stakeholder, and facilitated under the guidance of an educator. Common in the acting and music disciplines, acting performances or music shows in a public setting, including unpaid public performances, commenced performances, and acting/music tours. Where students are commissioned to undertake specific work such as logo design, art work, or community consultation for an external stakeholder.

of common NPWIL models drawn from a range of contemporary sources (e.g., Draper & Hitchcock, 2006; Jackson & Meek, 2020; Kay et al., 2018; Universities Australia, 2018; Wood et al., 2020). Each of these examples may be common to specific disciplines; however, they can be adapted to suit a range of learning outcomes and contexts. Table 16.2 features a small selection of real examples of different types of NPWIL in action at institutions around the globe.

Benefits of non-placement work-integrated learning With the increased demand for WIL and significant time invested in establishing placements, it is necessary to find avenues to both significantly scale and sustain WIL opportunities (Kay et al., 2018; Rook, 2017). Considering this, there is a range of benefits of NPWIL activities in curricula, one of which is the flexibility offered. NPWIL enables industry or community partners to contribute in more flexible ways that will work for them and their organization. Without the need for students to spend time in physical workplaces and to allocate daily work, partners can engage in ways that add benefit for them, their organizations, and their business schedules. NPWIL may also help reduce the risks of participation, with partners contributing to shaping their level of commitment or duration of involvement. They can propose challenges, problems, or tasks that address real organizational needs and receive multiple and/or innovative, focused solutions from people outside their organization, who can bring fresh ideas. NPWIL can offer benefits for educators who can design these activities into existing curricula and enhance the authenticity of student assessments. Many NPWIL strategies engage students in teams either within their discipline or across disciplines, to address and find solutions 246

Non-placement work-integrated learning Table 16.2  Examples of non-placement work-integrated learning in action NPWIL activity

Example

Consulting

In New Zealand, colleagues at Massey University designed an on-campus exercise prescription clinic to combat the challenges of placing large numbers of students in workplaces/clinics. In 2020, this clinic moved online and allowed students and clients to continue to connect with real clients in a safe environment. For more information, see Hodges and Martin (2020). Once a year at the Tasmanian agricultural festival, students across health disciplines provide healthcare to the public. HealthStop@Agfest is an inter-professional student-led health promotion program partnering with industry such as the Cancer Council and Pharmaceutical Society of Australia to provide a range of healthcare consultations over this three-day event. For more information, see Holman et al.’s (2020) case study on the ACEN website. At the University of Wollongong, Australia, Electrical Computer and Telecommunication Engineering students develop core design thinking skills from the beginning of their degree that culminate in final year industry-based projects. These projects can lead into advanced programs for start-up companies. For more on this course-wide approach to WIL, see Rajan et al.’s (2020) case study on the ACEN website. In the School of Architecture, at Taylor’s University, Malaysia, students are exposed to learning through ‘place-making,’ by characterizing and understanding a specific place and context in order to draw inspiration for architectural design. Creative teaching techniques are used to stimulate student’s thinking to design and solve real design issues, rather than abstract concepts. See more in Ng (2013). RMIT in Melbourne, Australia, has developed a multi-disciplinary program for postgraduate STEM students to engage in concepts around sustainability and the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2022). Working with partners from government (e.g., Victoria Water Authorities) and nongovernment, students tackle contemporary sustainability projects and provide tailored solutions to the industry client. For more details, see Nguyen and Anastassiou’s (2020) case study on the ACEN website. Across three Australian institutions, Swinburne University of Technology, the University of Queensland, and Western Sydney University, a national competition for advertising university students was founded. Named the Advertising Capstone Challenge, student teams work on a ‘client brief ’ provided by industry partners such as Deloitte Digital and Suzuki Australia, who judge and deem an overall winner. For more information on this competition, see Reid et al.’s (2020) case study on the ACEN website. At Iowa State University, USA, students studying either textile, apparel, events, or hospitality, are given a real-world problem from a leading large US shoe company, Payless Shoesource. Projects require student teams to redesign product packaging by investigating the product and its competitors, developing concepts, and producing a prototype. Their final products are reviewed by the industry partner. For more details, see Karpova and Marcketti (2013). Performances are the product of creative processes and capture the professional practice of performing artists. Yeo and Rowley (2020) at the University of Sydney describe that the learning journey leading up to the performance for creative arts students can be facilitated through e-portfolio reflections. This reflective process can build self-efficacy, minimize the effects of performance anxiety, and build professional competencies.

Creative studio work

Project-based WIL

Performances

(Continued) 247

Laura Rook and Bonnie Amelia Dean Table 16.2  (Continued) NPWIL activity

Example

Simulations

Tezcan et al. (2020) provide an account of simulated WIL within the area of design at the University of New South Wales. The simulated WIL experience is unique as it “incorporates a series of experiences and activities already embedded within studio project briefs that authentically mirror the phases of a real-world design project” (p. 525). Critical review and feedback on student work is garnered from an external stakeholder or client, allowing students to be exposed to new perspectives. Tezcan et al.’s (2020) preliminary findings of the project include “the ability to develop skills and personal attributes such as confidence, presentation, communication, and teamwork” (p. 526) and “a sense of agency and ownership in tackling a design project brief ” (p. 527). In the discipline of business, Cotter et al. (2019) report on a collaborative partnership between student, council, and industry to set up a student office in the city center of Napier in New Zealand. The studio was designed to simulate a business-working environment for students. The success of the simulation is described by the authors as “creating opportunities” through the development of a creative space that “broke down barriers between staff and students” and “facilitated interactions of students from different schools” (p. 9).

to real-world issues. One approach may have all teams working on the same problem, or alternatively many groups may have a theme or issue they work on within their team. Working alongside other students has benefits for collaboration and teamwork development. For the educator, student group work may decrease workloads by sourcing fewer industry partners and projects, managing student groups instead of individuals, and assessing fewer outputs. NPWIL models may also be considered more cost effective and less resource intensive (Kay et al., 2018; Rowe et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2014). For students, NPWIL strategies are less of a resource burden as they have no need to travel to placements, relocate cities, or organize workplace attire. For educators, NPWIL may reduce the time spent on sourcing placements and organizing legal and administrative processes typical of placement models. Given the current restricted budgets of universities (Zegwaard et al., 2020), NPWIL models offer viable alternatives for universities looking to sustain connections with industry through authentic real-world related learning and will be an important strategy for developing ‘institutional WIL resilience’ (Zegwaard et al., 2020). NPWIL models may also afford more time for consideration and reflection (Ogilvie & Douglas, 2007). Reflection is supported in the WIL literature as being critical for enhancing or capturing learning during the WIL experience (Hayes & Cejnar, 2020). As students engage in WIL, carefully designed reflection tasks can assist students to make links between theory and practice. Rook and McManus (2020) made reflection a critical component of their embedded NPWIL project on improving students’ responsible leadership competencies. Reflection was key to all stakeholders (e.g., students, the educational institution, and industry partner) in being able to achieve the outcomes of the project. Ogilvie and Douglas’s (2007) research highlights NPWIL models, such as the project described in Rook and McManus’s (2020) recent research, are beneficial to students’ reflection. NPWIL strategies have been found to align with positive student outcomes. The literature is replete with studies finding links between WIL placements and an increase in a student’s work readiness, skill development, and employability (Jackson et al., 2017; McLennan & Keating, 2008; Patrick et al., 2009; Pilgrim, 2012; Smith et al., 2009). NPWIL models can improve 248

Non-placement work-integrated learning

student competency development (Rook & McManus, 2020), increase student skill development (Lipinge et al., 2020), and improve employability competencies (Hayes & Cejnar, 2020; Lawson et al., 2011). NPWIL also provides opportunities to develop transferable skills, network with others, develop critical thinking, digital literacy, teamwork, and problem-solving skills (Kay et al., 2018; Rook & McManus, 2018; Rowe et al., 2012). Hayes and Cejnar (2020) describe a unique NPWIL approach whereby students reflected on their WIL experience and were asked to write a letter to future students with their advice for ‘surviving and thriving’ on the course. A thematic analysis of the letters revealed many of the skills and behaviors the students attributed to success align with transferable skills often stated as being required to develop one’s employability (Hayes & Cejnar, 2020). Unique practices such as this provide further evidence that NPWIL initiatives are valuable in assisting students to develop a repertoire of transferable skills and/or competencies relevant to their future careers. NPWIL can provide scalability of access and opportunity (Dean et al., 2020a). Placements and practicums serve students on an individual basis and with many universities increasing their commitment to WIL. This places a large burden on the local community to provide time and resources for these opportunities. With larger cohorts, particularly in disciplines where placements are not a professionally accredited requirement, the logistical requirements for managing such placements can be challenging. Emerging NPWIL models such as those described in Table 16.1 can be scaled to suit larger numbers of students by overcoming the constraints to engagement often faced by small and medium size enterprises and community organizations (Kay et al., 2019). Finally, personal and pre-professional identity development can be seen as a benefit of NPWIL models. Reyneke and Botha’s (2020) professional orientation program (non-placement campus-based program) developed for student teachers in South Africa had a positive influence on the development of students’ personal and pre-professional identities, while creating an awareness of the challenges posed by the teaching profession. An outcome of the program was the interaction of the students from diverse cultural backgrounds enrolled in the course. This interaction promoted a sense of community of practice and contributed to students attaining graduate attributes (Reyneke & Botha, 2020). Reedy et al. (2020) found that their NPWIL model that included problem solving of authentic industry problems in an engineering program was helpful for developing students’ professional identity and motivation and employability skills through a structured and supportive environment.

Challenges and drawbacks of non-placement work-integrated learning Perhaps the most obvious drawback of NPWIL is that there may be a reduced level of direct engagement with industry or community partners. External partners are key to NPWIL models; however student access to their support may be reduced compared to placement-based models of WIL. Students participate in NPWIL with greater independence where they create, construct, design, or evaluate solutions for real problems or aspects of work for a community or industry partner. In some NPWIL models, the partner may come in either initially to establish or co-design this type of activity, or at the end where students deliver a performance or showcase the things they have designed and developed. These NPWIL models each have merit in preparing students for the workforce and require careful consideration of learning outcomes. Another challenge presented in the literature is the more innovative NPWIL models (e.g., Hackathons, industry, or community projects). Kay et al. (2019) highlight that academics may be unfamiliar with, or lack the flexibility themselves to engage with, the newer ways 249

Laura Rook and Bonnie Amelia Dean

of working with industry partners. These authors go on to state “co-designing WIL activities requires a mindset that goes beyond the focus on mutual benefits in traditional models, to a more involved and complex interaction, where clearly articulating and negotiating the scope and purpose of the activity is critical” (Kay et al., 2019, p. 16). There are new ‘rules of engagement’ to understand when working with under-resourced smaller community groups. This interaction requires skill and sensitivity and, in some cases, long-term partnerships need to be built. Therefore, good ongoing negotiation skills may be required for these partnerships to be successful and sustainable (Kay et al., 2019). The scholarly WIL literature continues to debate the quality of different WIL activities, with some of it signaling that placements are the most effective or appropriate activity for WIL experiences (Rowe et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2009). Rowe et al. (2012) provide a table for delineating the benefits and drawbacks of placement versus NPWIL models. Drawbacks of NPWIL include: fewer opportunities for networking, professional socialization, potential employment, and career exploration; fewer opportunities to develop tacit knowledge; and limited capacity to capture the ambiguity/complexity of workplaces or organizations (Rowe et al., 2012). However, NPWIL also has some significant benefits including more control of scaffolding learning environments, greater inclusivity, and a greater choice of activities in fields where there is more competition for placements.

Reflective prompts for practitioners Given these broad benefits and challenges, there are many reasons for embedding NPWIL into curricula. The following reflective prompts may be useful to assist conceptualizing and planning embedding NPWIL into programs: •

• •

Consider the contexts and authentic work practices for professionals in the discipline you teach. What do professionals do in this particular discipline and context? Draw on a variety of activities and be mindful of common areas of activities and the nuances of practice across contexts. Consider both the processes of the practice as well as the products of the practice. What processes do professionals engage in and what is the product of their work? Consider the degree to which an industry partner may contribute to various stages of the curriculum, for example the design stage, facilitation of activity, feedback, teaching topics, review, and evaluation/scholarship as judges, panels, or audiences of student work.

Use these three reflective areas to conceptualize an NPWIL strategy for your context. Once you have a model in mind, the design of the strategy then follows quality WIL curriculum design (see Chapter 2).

Future directions for non-placement work-integrated learning The descriptions and examples presented in this chapter provide an important contribution to the understanding of NPWIL in higher education. However, research on NPWIL more broadly is still in its infancy. Further research should be undertaken to understand the impact of NPWIL activities for students and the other stakeholders. This could include investigating how external partners contribute to the design of NPWIL activities or the degree to which students could be involved in the co-design of NPWIL. Discipline differences would be intriguing to explore, to highlight examples and practices that could be more broadly shared. This may 250

Non-placement work-integrated learning

also extend into looking at NPWIL strategies globally to understand the influencing factors for NPWIL development across countries. Finally, the uptake and sustainability of any WIL is largely dependent on resourcing and workloads, which presents an opportunity to research various NPWIL strategies and resourcing and sustainability implications.

Conclusion This chapter has highlighted the value and contributions of embedding NPWIL into curricula. It has offered a description of NPWIL, outlined examples, and provided reflective prompts for practitioners. These are designed to help educators think through various learning objectives for using NPWIL in their curriculum. Importantly, educators need to prioritize what the student does, and the degree to which external partners have the capacity to engage when designing an NPWIL strategy. This chapter applies broadly to disciplines in higher education; however, it also notes there are nuances and preferences for certain NPWIL activities within specific disciplines. We hope the chapter will inspire WIL educators to try new innovative approaches to work-based learning to support learning in their programs and prepare their students for the workforce, not just the workplace (Winchester-Seeto & Piggott, 2020).

References ACEN. (2020). Australian Collaborative Education Network - Summary report for graduate outcomes survey items 2020. Australian Collaborative Education Network. Bell, A., Bartimote, K., Mercer-Mapstone, L., Moran, G., Tognolini, J., & Dempsey, N. (2021). Exploring the benefits and challenges of online work integrated learning for equity students. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. Bilsland, C., Nagy, H., & Smith, P. (2020). Virtual internships and work-integrated learning in hospitality and tourism in a post-COVID-19 world. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 425–437. Carmody, C., Duffy, S., Brown, L., & Del Fabbro, L. (2020). Preparing for work-integrated learning during COVID-19: How a new virtual orientation tool facilitated access for all. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 545. CEWIL. (2022). Co-operative Education and Work-integrated Learning Canada, leading work integrated learning in Canada. https://cewilcanada.ca/ Chowdhury, F. (2020). Work integrated learning at tertiary level to enhance graduate employability in Bangladesh. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(4), 61–68. Cotter, R., Skelton, D., & Hartley, T. (2019). City Student Studio: A student/industry/council studio collaboration. In K. E. Zegwaard & K. Hoskyn (Eds.), New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education 2019 conference proceedings (pp. 7–9). New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education (NZACE). Dean, B., Eady, J., & Yanamandram, V. (2020a). Advancing non-placement work-integrated learning across the degree. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(4), 1–6. Dean, B. A., Yanamandram, V., Eady, M. J., Moroney, T., O’Donnell, N., & Glover-Chambers, T. (2020b). An institutional framework for scaffolding work-integrated learning across a degree. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(4), 1–14. Dean, B. A., & Campbell, M. (2020). Reshaping work-integrated learning in a post-COVID-19 world of work. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 355–364. Draper, P., & Hitchcock, M. (2006). Work-integrated learning in music technology: Lessons learned in the creative industries. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 7(2), 24–31. http://www.apjce.org/ Government of Canada. (2021). Employment and social development Canada: Student work placement program. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/student-workplacement-program.html#shr-pg0 Hayes, M., & Cejnar, L. (2020). Evaluating alternative work-integrated learning opportunities: Student perceptions of interdisciplinary industry-based projects. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(4), 7.

251

Laura Rook and Bonnie Amelia Dean Hodges, L., & Martin, A. (2020). Non-placement WIL: The case of an exercise prescription clinic. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(4), 1–8. Holman, M., Ogden, K., Ray, J., Todd, G., Todd, A., & Eyles, H. (2020). HealthStop@Agfest: Student-led health promotion at a community event. ACEN Case Study. https://acen.edu.au/resources/ healthstopagfest-student-led-health-promotion-at-a-community-event/ Jackson, D., Rowbottom, D., Ferns, S., & McLaren, D. (2017). Employer understanding of work-integrated learning and the challenges of engaging in work placement opportunities. Studies in Continuing Education, 39(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2016.1228624 Jackson, D., & Meek, S. (2020). Embedding work-integrated learning into accounting education: the state of play and pathways to future implementation. Accounting Education. 30(1), 63–85. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09639284.2020.1794917 Johnston, N., McRae, N., & Maclean, C. (2016). The development of a comparative matrix of forms of work-integrated learning and work-integrated education (WIL/WIE) within the Province of BC, Canada. World Association for Cooperative Education (WACE), 77. Karpova, E., & Marcketti, S. (2013). Getting real: A student perspective on benefits and challenges of incorporating industry projects in the classroom. Proceedings of the International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference (Vol. 70, No. 1). Iowa State University Digital Press. Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., & Smith, J. (2018). Expanding work integrated learning (WIL) possibilities: enhancing student employability through innovative WIL models. https://acen.edu.au/innovative-models/ wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ATN-Final-Report-Expanding-Work-Integrated-Learning-WILPossibilities-October-2018.pdf Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., Smith, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). The emerging future: Innovative models of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 401–413. Lawson, R., Fallshaw, E., Papadopoulos, T., Taylor, T., & Zanko, M. (2011). Professional learning in the business curriculum: Engaging industry, academics and students. Asian Social Science, 7(4), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v7n4p61 Lipinge, S. M., Batholmeus, P. N., & Pop, C. (2020). Using simulations to improve skills needed for work-integrated learning before and during COVID-19 in Namibia. International Journal of WorkIntegrated Learning, 21(5), 531. McLennan, B., & Keating, S. (2008). Work-integrated learning (WIL) in Australian universities: The challenges of mainstreaming WIL. In ALTC NAGCAS National Symposium. Ng, V. (2013). Values of learning through ‘place-making’ in the design studio. International Journal of Architectural Research. 7(1), 86–98. Nguyen, N., & Anastassiou, M. (2020). RMIT Greenhouse and Sustainability Program: Developing Employability Skills for Sustainable Development Goals. ACEN Case Study. https://acen.edu.au/resources/ rmit-greenhouse-and-sustainability-program-developing-employability-skills-for-sustainabledevelopment-goals/ Ogilvie, A., & Douglas, K. (2007). Online role plays and the virtual placement: Aiding reflection in work-integrated learning. Proceedings, ASCILITE (780–785) http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/ singapore07/procs/ogilvie.pdf. Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2009). The WIL [Work Integrated Learning] report: A national scoping study. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. https:// eprints.qut.edu.au/44065/1/WIL-Report-grants-project-jan09.pdf Pilgrim, C. (2012). Industry and university perspectives of work integrated learning programs in ICT degrees. Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems. http://hdl.handle. net/10536/DRO/DU:30049068 Pretti, T. J., Parrott, P. A. W., Hoskyn, K., Fannon, A. M., Church, D., & Arsenault, C. (2020). The role of work-integrated learning in the development of entrepreneurs. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 451–466. Rajan, G., Raad, R., Pugh, L., & Vickers, R. (2020). From skills to start-ups: A pathway for career-ready engineering graduates through innovative WIL approaches. ACEN Case Study. https://acen.edu.au/resources/ from-skills-to-start-ups-a-pathway-for-career-ready-engineering-graduates-through-innovative-wilapproaches/ Reedy, A. K., Farías, M. L. G., Reyes, L. H., & Pradilla, D. (2020). Improving employability skills through non-placement work-integrated learning in chemical and food engineering: A case study. Education for Chemical Engineers, 33, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2020.09.002

252

Non-placement work-integrated learning Reid, D., Pontes, N., & Greig, J. (2020). Building authenticity through the Advertising Capstone Challenge. ACEN Case Study. https://acen.edu.au/resources/building-authenticity-through-the-advertising-capstonechallenge/ Reyneke, M., & Botha, C. (2020). The professional orientation of first year student teachers in a non-placement work-integrated learning program. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(3), 303–316. Rook, L. (2017). Challenges implementing work-integrated learning in human resource management university courses. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(3), 199–212. Rook, L., & McManus, L. (2018). Work-integrated learning design for undergraduate business degrees: Stakeholders’ perspectives. Journal of International Business Education, 13, 33–54. Rook, L., & McManus, L. (2020). Responding to COVID-19: Enriching students’ responsible leadership through an online work-integrated learning project. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 601–616. Rowe, A., Winchester-Seeto, T., & Mackaway, J. (2012). That’s not really WIL!: Building a typology of WIL and related activities. Proceedings of the ACEN 2012 National Conference. http://acen.edu. au/2012conference/proceedings Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2014). The impact of work integrated learning on student work-­ readiness. Office for Learning and Teaching. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/337518. Smith, M., Brooks, S., Lichtenberg, A., McIlveen, P., Torjul, P., & Tyler, J. (2009). Career development learning: Maximising the contribution of work-integrated learning to the student experience. Final project report. University of Wollongong. https://eprints.usq.edu.au/5401/3/Smith_et_al_ALTC_Report_2009_PV.pdf Statistics Canada. (2020). Table 37-10-0187-01 Work-integrated learning participation of post-secondary graduates, by province of residence at interview, level of study, field of study and sex. https://doi.org/10.25318/ 3710018701-eng Tezcan, N., Durakovic, I., Lloyd, E., & D’Arcy, S. (2020). Scaffolded, simulated work-integrated learning in design education: Beyond the live project. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 521–529. United Nations. (2022). Do you know all 17 SDGs? https://sdgs.un.org/goals Universities Australia. (2018). Work integrated learning in universities: Final report. Universities Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2019-04/apo-nid242371.pdf Winchester-Seeto, T., & Piggott, L. (2020). Workplace or workforce: What are we preparing students for? Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(4), 11. Wood, Y. I., Zegwaard, K. E., & Fox-Turnbull, W. H. (2020). Conventional, remote, virtual, and simulated work-integrated learning: A meta-analysis of existing practice. International Journal of Workintegrated Learning, 21(4), 331–354. Yeo, N., & Rowley, J. (2020). ‘Putting on a show’ non-placement WIL in the performing arts: Documenting professional rehearsal and performance using eportfolio reflections. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 17(4), 1–19. Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2020). Responding to an international crisis: The adaptability of the practice of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 317–330.

253

17 THE PRACTICE OF SIMULATIONS AS WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING Belinda Judd, Jennie Brentnall, Anna Phillips, and Melanie Aley

Introduction Simulation aims to replicate aspects of the real world for the purpose of learning. Simulation has long supported the early study of anatomy and been prevalent in training in the military and aviation fields (Bradley, 2006). More recently, simulation-based education has become embedded in WIL in a variety of professional training programs, particularly in healthcare (Zhang et al., 2019). In simulation-based education, learners are provided with the opportunity for experiential learning through practice in a safe environment dedicated to learning scholarship. Simulation is often characterized as a learning tool that enables active participation of learners immersed in learning tasks. The spectrum of realism or fidelity of the learning tasks, environment, and technology range from peer role plays and rudimentary part-task trainers through to high-fidelity immersive real-world environment simulations including in situ simulations carried out in the workplace (Bradley, 2006). Simulation, by intention to replicate real-world practice (i.e., a place of professional practice outside the physical learning context of an educational institution), inherently needs to be both connected to the real world and informed by real-world experiences. External stakeholders are therefore integral to best-practice simulation for this learning modality to contribute to quality WIL. External stakeholders inform what skills, behaviors, and attributes learners need to thrive in a real work environment (Wood et al., 2020) and, therefore, need to be partners in simulation design and development and co-creators of content and curricula. This chapter will provide the reader with a comprehensive overview of simulation in WIL. It opens with the theoretical foundations of simulation. Next, the reader will be presented with a range of modalities of simulation in WIL to provide insight into the diversity of designs and applications with a focus on external stakeholder influence and engagement. The different design features unique to simulation in WIL are then explored, incorporating external stakeholders and enriched with a mini case study and examples. Internal and external factors relating to simulation engagement are discussed. The chapter concludes with a pondering of future directions of simulation in WIL including the increasing importance of human factor simulation, interprofessional WIL simulation, and simulation’s place amongst the demands for greater accountability for quality education. 254

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-20

Simulations as work-integrated learning

Theoretical foundations of simulation Simulation has been defined as “a technique, not a technology, to replace or amplify real experiences with guided experiences, often immersive in nature, that evoke or replicate substantial aspects of the real-world in a fully interactive fashion” (Gaba, 2004, p. 126). There is no single educational theory that provides the foundations for designing and developing simulation-based education. Rather, a multitude of theories can be applied to help educators develop simulated learning activities as a pedagogical strategy. In fields such as medical education and aviation, simulation-based education has been criticized for not being situated in robust educational theory, tending to focus more on fidelity and realism (Fenwick & Dahlgren, 2015; Salas et al., 1998). Salas et al. (1998) called for a shift in focus from the designing of simulation for realism (and hope that learning occurs) to the design of human-centered training systems that support the acquisition of complex skills. We will briefly examine a range of theories that can be applied as the foundations for simulation-based education in WIL. Educational theories describing how learning occurs incrementally and is constructed from previously acquired knowledge can be applied to simulation-based education. Constructivism theorizes that learners create new understanding through the process of actively constructing upon previous information and experiences (Schunk, 2012). Rather than learning activities happening by chance, by applying this theory, simulation activities can be constructively aligned across units of study and curricula to facilitate student learning (Zenios, 2020). The constructivist concept of scaffolding can be used to support learners through complex learning activities, by progressively increasing difficulty and decreasing support as learning goals are achieved. Yoders (2014) has described how scaffolding underpinned the use of a high-fidelity 3D heart simulator in an existing medical ultrasound curriculum, developing increasingly difficult learning outcomes that link to simulated learning activities and scaffolded instructor support, culminating in a learner-produced portfolio of work. The five-stage model of adult skills acquisition (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980; Dreyfus, 2004) posits that students learn skills incrementally through five distinct stages: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. As the learner moves from a more detached decision-making process to an involved understanding, they attain proficiency, and as this thinking becomes intuitive, mastery is achieved (Dreyfus, 2004). Benner (1982) later applied Dreyfus’s model to nursing education, using the theory to make sense of the complexity of skill acquisition in nursing practice. Either theory can be applied to simulation design, ensuring educators consider the level of skill acquisition required for learning. For example, in dentistry, a novice would learn about simple motor skills (e.g., drilling a tooth) using part-task trainers and proceed to more complex tasks as an advanced beginner (e.g., more complex cavity preparations, with decreasing supervision), achieving pre-determined competencies before proceeding to patient care. Kolb et al. (2001) provide a more holistic view of learner development in their theory of experiential learning. This theory conceives that the concrete learner experience is central to the learning process and creation of knowledge, describing a four-stage model whereby a new learning activity (stage one, concrete experience) is deliberately reflected upon (stage two, reflective observation), understanding based on this reflective observation is developed (stage three, abstract conceptualization), culminating in students planning for new activities and experiences to test their understanding (stage four, active experimentation) (Kolb et al., 2001; Botelho et al., 2016). Given the holistic nature of Kolb and colleagues’ experiential learning theory, it has been applied across a multitude of disciplines and educational issues. In engineering for example, simulation activities provide hands-on experience in order to understand 255

Belinda Judd et al.

abstract concepts such as modeling techniques (Botelho et al., 2016). In health profession education, the cycle can be observed in simulated patient scenarios whereby students provide care to medical ‘actors’ and then receive feedback and reflect on their performance through debriefing practices (Zenios, 2020). Simulation-based education can also be designed according to the principles of Cognitive Load Theory. Given the limited capacity and duration of the working memory, this theory conceives that learning is compromised if students are overloaded with too much new information to process (Sweller et al., 2011). Given this, when designing simulated learning activities, educators should aim to provide explicit guidance and instructions on essential curricula (Fraser et al., 2015; Sweller et al., 2011). Further, simulation-based education should be scaffolded, building upon information organized in the long-term memory, including previously acquired knowledge and skills (Fraser et al., 2015). Learning activities that are poorly structured, provide too much new information, or are exceedingly difficult, can result in cognitive overload for students (Reedy, 2015). The principles of cognitive load theory can be applied when briefing students for simulated WIL experiences by following a standard format, providing pre-reading materials and including an orientation to new environments, limiting information overload (Fraser et al., 2015).

Modalities, designs, and applications In this section, we present a range of modalities of simulation in WIL and provide insight into the diversity in designs and applications of simulation in WIL. The section introduces key concepts for simulation in WIL including external stakeholder influence and engagement, strategies for targeting specific learning outcomes, and skill development and student remediation. We give an explanation of how simulation in WIL supports the transition to the workforce and can be used to replace portions of and enhance existing WIL experiences. The section concludes with a discussion of how simulation can be effective for students at all levels, from novice learners developing new skills to more expert learners building on existing skill sets. With the ever increasing and competitive demands of the workforce combined with employers’ expectations that newly graduated professionals will be equipped to enter the workforce as ‘work ready’ employees, the integration of learning opportunities that prepare and immerse learners in the work environment such as placement-based WIL are critical. However, placement-based WIL opportunities can pose challenges in terms of access and be resource intensive to run. Simulated WIL, as described earlier: allows students to immerse in the work environment and participate in placement-based activities while posing minimal risks to themselves and stakeholders (Gaba, 2004), allows equity of learning opportunities (Chad, 2020), and can be tailored to suit the individual level of the learners and their specific learning requirements (Chad, 2020; Gaba, 2004; Stirling et al., 2012).

The role of stakeholders and external partners Stakeholder involvement is critical to inform and shape the design, development, and evaluation of the learning objectives, curriculum, and expected outcomes for simulated WIL. To facilitate best practice, relationships must be sought and established between all relevant and key stakeholders in WIL, including the learners and end users – the clients, employees and consumers in industry, the workplace, and community. Involvement of external stakeholders, including those working in industry and potential future employers and co-workers, are ideally placed to inform the context, requisite skills, behaviors, and attributes the learners must master to ensure a safe 256

Simulations as work-integrated learning

and successful transition from the classroom into the workforce. Stakeholder engagement has been described as ‘a defining element’ for WIL, one that requires the involvement of three key stakeholders, the student, the university, and the workplace/community (Wood et al., 2020). The benefits of stakeholder consultation include: narrowing the gap in expectations between the employers and industry, academia, and students (Leong & Kavanagh, 2013); reducing the risks associated with WIL (Effeney, 2020); increasing accessibility and availability of learning for students; and promoting equity in learning and enabling work ready graduates who are able to work successfully in a rapidly changing work environment (Leong & Kavanagh, 2013).

Modalities of simulation Modalities that can be adopted for simulated WIL encompass a spectrum of innovative, immersive learning opportunities, ranging from relatively simple and inexpensive activities that can be undertaken in the classroom such as peer role plays, games, teamworking tasks, and problem-­ based learning activities (Handby, 2021; Wood et al., 2020), through to highly complex, realistic, and immersive tasks undertaken in simulated or real workplace environments (Chen et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2018; Silvestri et al., 2017). The work by Oliver (2015) and Kaider et al. (2017) introduced the criteria of authenticity and proximity that allowed for the development of a framework that informs the overview of simulation modalities used in WIL as presented in Figure 17.1.

Increasing authenticity of learning task to professional practice

In situ simulation

Simulated workplace

   

Simulated clients

Mannequins/models

  

Laboratory

Classroom

  

  

   

  

events workflow team roles

mock facilities augmented reality environment emergency/disaster simulations student-led companies/start-up ventures

peer role play actors/standardized patients industry mentors/supervisors virtual reality

task/part-task trainers full body mannequins virtual reality

wet labs experiments augmented reality

role plays games problem-based learning

Increasing proximity of learning task to professional workplace

Figure 17.1  Overview of simulation modalities used in work-integrated learning.

257

Belinda Judd et al.

In a classroom setting, learning activities such as peer role plays, problem-based learning, and gaming can provide effective, flexible, and inexpensive experiential learning modalities that can be incorporated into the curriculum. In the laboratory setting, simulation modalities including experiments and wet lab activities using models can be used to enable self-paced specific and targeted student learning activities. Other modalities including mannequins and task trainers are purposefully designed equipment simulating a person or part of a person (e.g., arm, torso) and can be used for training simple, discrete technical tasks such as taking blood pressure or suturing, through to mock emergency situations requiring resuscitation. To simulate workplace activities and WIL, modalities such as simulated patients, using a trained or skilled person to act in the role of the patient, provides students with the opportunity to practice requisite skills for workforce learning. Authentic workplace environments can be simulated using simple workplace equipment (e.g., hospital bed, boardroom desk, and chairs) as well as a range of technologies and equipment. Finally, in situ simulation replicates tasks or events, workflows, or team roles within the environment in which they typically take place, providing opportunities for massed or targeted practice with safety provisions and scaffolded opportunities for briefing and debriefing that enhance learning whilst minimizing the need to transfer learning between environments. With the introduction of virtual reality and augmented reality technologies, highly authentic, immersive, complex, and dynamic environments and activities can be replicated or augmented for learning through various applications of simulations and computer modeling. The modalities used for simulation in WIL can be used both as standalone learning opportunities and in combination with other modalities to enable flexible, fit-for-purpose learning opportunities. Choosing which modality will best fit the purpose for simulation for WIL can be a complex task, one that requires consideration of many factors including the level of the learner, the intended learning outcomes, the evaluation objectives, and the resources and expertise available. Further, detailed information to guide this decision-making process is provided under simulation design considerations and application.

Simulation for specific learning outcomes The flexibility and adaptability afforded by simulation enables a spectrum of learning outcomes to be addressed using a stepwise approach, from foundational knowledge, skills, and behaviors through to highly complex, sophisticated, employability-focused simulated tasks and environments which can challenge the learners with complex uncertainty. Discrete, technical skills are well suited to simulation, where learning results from repeated and deliberate practice in a safe, standardized environment for students to rehearse until the desired level of competence is achieved (Gaba, 2004). Many technical skills have been taught successfully using simulation ranging from discrete skills such as intravenous catheter insertion (Herrmann-Werner et al., 2013) to more advanced, complex skills of firefighting training in enclosure fires, considered one of the most dangerous tasks for firefighters (Grabowski, 2021). As learner confidence and self-efficacy are strongly linked with work-related performance, simulation in WIL is also suited to addressing non-technical skill development (Hough et al., 2019). Non-technical skills have been previously defined as comprising the cognitive and interpersonal domains of team working, situational awareness, decision making, and task management (Patey et al., 2005), with each factor serving to complement technical efficiency and remaining critical to attaining safe and effective professional practice. Simulation has been

258

Simulations as work-integrated learning

used extensively to address learning outcomes for non-technical skills including confidence and self-efficacy (Hough et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2018), professional communication (Wright et al., 2018), interprofessional practice (Dennis et al., 2017; Koo et al., 2014), teamwork in high stress environments in the military forces (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998) and in health (Figueroa et al., 2013, Flin & Maran, 2015; Flin & Patey, 2011), clinical reasoning for medical students (Jawaid et al., 2019), problem solving skills in the dragons’ den (Feng et al., 2020), managing difficult conversations (Dennis et al., 2017), and unprofessional behavior in medical residents and faculty (Guerrasio & Aagaard, 2018). Embracing an employability perspective, learning outcomes must also address the skill set required for the workforce, which blurs the technical and non-technical skill boundary and requires a seamless transition and amalgamation of these skills and their application in the performance of the dynamic, complex, and highly specialized procedures of a real work environment. Simulation modalities can be ‘dialed up’ to effectively simulate highly complex and dynamic scenarios to achieve the learning objectives required for competence and safe practice in these situations and workplaces. Examples of successful simulations using a combination of modalities such as virtual reality, simulated clients, and simulated work environments include military operations and exercises like SIMNET, where large-scale immersive simulated combat can be dynamically created (Ceranowicz, 1994), virtual surgical procedures undertaken in an operating theatre (Alaker et al., 2016), field-based mass casualty simulations (Silvestri et al., 2017), and simulated coordination of international disasters (Kim & Lee, 2011).

Simulation as replacement or adjunct to work-integrated learning Simulation is often employed to provide university level students with experience and preparation for work-based placements. In this way, simulation can be used to supplement or support student learning in preparation for work-based placements, so students are ready to maximize their learning and development opportunities while on placement. Simulated work-based placements can also be used as a standalone learning experience to replace a proportion of work-based placements. Replacing a portion of placement time with simulation has been successfully achieved in health professional education programs with simulated clinical placements and simulated patients incorporated into health professional education for many years (Gaba, 2004). Initially developed in response to dwindling placement opportunities for health professional students, simulated clinical placement learning using simulated workplaces and clients has been employed to support student learning and recreate clinical placement experiences. Over the past decade, research has confirmed comparable student learning outcomes are achieved when up to 25% of physiotherapy student placement time (Blackstock et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2012) and as much as 50% of nursing practicum time (Hayden et al., 2014) is replaced with simulated clinical placements when compared with students attending traditional clinical placements. In Occupational Therapy, a replacement of 40 hours of placement with simulation produced comparable student performance (Imms et al., 2018). Similarly, replacing 20% of a placement in Speech Pathology did not impact negatively on student performance (Hill et al., 2020). Positive learning outcomes for foundational simulation placements were reported by Wright et al. (2018) demonstrating an 18-day full-time immersive simulation-based introductory clinic placement improved student confidence during their transition to clinical placement and resulted in significant improvements in clinical competence in subsequent placements compared with students who completed the traditional industry-based placement.

259

Belinda Judd et al.

Simulation uses: from novice to expert learners From a learner’s perspective, simulation for WIL can be used from the ‘cradle to grave’ (Gaba, 2004), that is, from novice learners through to experts. The focus of the simulation can be scaffolded and dialed up or down to meet the learning outcomes and needs of the learner, with more novice learners embarking on foundational learning activities and intermediate and expert learners requiring increasing complexity, sophistication, and uncertainty to meet their learning needs. One example of this scaffolded approach, as used in combat simulation in the military, is where early stage learning commences at an individual level with foundation skills, which are incrementally graduated to progress into large-scale simulated combat, dynamically composed from the earlier, lower-level simulations of component forces (Ceranowicz, 1994). In medical and nursing education, part-task trainers and mannequins can be used in a classroom or laboratory environment to introduce foundational skills for novice learners. Complexity can then be introduced with the addition of simulated patients and simulated work environments as learners progress to intermediate skill levels, and finally into simulated clinical environments including simulated patients, augmented with virtual reality. The addition of complex and dynamic environments supports the development of expertise and clinical reasoning through the immersive practice of medical or surgical procedures.

Simulation for remediation of underperformance Learners who are struggling with their performance and are unable to meet or maintain the milestones expected in their knowledge, skills, attitudes, or performance may be offered remediation, in the form of support, correction, and guidance. Simulated WIL is ideally placed to provide remediation opportunities for learners as the modality allows for a flexible, personalized, stepwise approach with learning opportunities created to address any specific concerns or competency deficits. Successful remediation requires partnership with the learner to ensure strategies for remediation are undertaken in a safe and supported environment and that the learning experience is a positive one (Guerrasio & Aagaard, 2018). Simulated WIL also allows students to learn without exposing clients, patients, or the workplace to the risk of harm. In the health professional education of allied health and medical students and practitioners, remediation has been used to address underperforming students (Stirling et al., 2012), unprofessional behaviors, and practice in medical residents and faculty (Guerrasio & Aagaard, 2018), and for allied health students struggling with clinical communication and overall clinical competency.

Simulation design considerations Considering the purposes and theoretical foundations of simulation, it is clear from the above modalities, designs, and applications that the potential uses of simulation for WIL are diverse, and each application involves a multitude of design considerations. This section will overview a range of considerations to simulation design: the learning situation in terms of learners and curriculum; the simulation approaches and environments utilized; the learning process; the interactions between learners; and the engagement with and connection to external stakeholders. These considerations interact and together enable the creation of comprehensive simulation designs that are fit-for-purpose (Figure 17.2). A major and early consideration in designing simulation is the learning situation. As with any instructional design, the stage of the learner and curriculum context will determine the 260

Simulations as work-integrated learning

Figure 17.2  Interacting considerations in comprehensive simulation design.

knowledge, skills, and attitudes learners bring to simulation, and the outcomes that are desirable and attainable (Astbury et al., 2020; Thomas, 2020). Achieving constructive alignment, the intended learning outcomes, the simulation and any other learning activities, and the assessment and evaluation of achievement should be explicated and should complement each other and assist learners to understand the purpose, process, and applicability of their learning (Biggs, 2014). For example, scenarios may be scripted to replicate important stepwise procedures to master, or scenarios may be responsive to learner actions and inputs and tailored to become more difficult with success or less challenging to enable attainment after an unsuccessful attempt. Engagement with external stakeholders at this early stage of simulation design can maintain and strengthen the connection between simulation for WIL and the work situations the simulation aims to (partially) replicate and prepare students for success. Simulation design also needs to consider the wide range of approaches collectively referred to as ‘simulation.’ There has been a tendency early in simulation development to focus on the technology of modalities offering the best replication of the real world, but it is imperative that design focuses on learning outcomes and considers evidence supporting resource use (Monteiro & Sibbald, 2020; Petrosoniak et al., 2018). The simulation approach will be informed by the learning situation and intended learning outcomes, but the reverse is also true in that the available approaches may inform the learning outcomes that are possible to achieve. For example, a low-resource role play may provide the opportunities for immersion, interaction, and guidance that enable novice learners to develop foundational skills in an applied and contextualized situation. For the same learner, an immersive virtual reality scenario with advanced technologies may be too novel and challenging to process and therefore not afford the additional benefits that a more advanced learner may gain from the additional ‘environmental’ cues and emotional involvement whilst not exceeding their cognitive load. The environment in which the simulation occurs is also an important consideration with a similar bi-directional relationship with learning outcomes. In situ simulation can turn low resource role plays into complex, involved, and realistically immersive workplace learning opportunities, whether the context is the office of an architect, the clinic of a health professional, the field site of an engineer, the crisis scene of an emergency responder, or the online platform of a business person. 261

Belinda Judd et al.

Scenario design builds directly on the parameters of the situation and intersects with the selection of simulation approaches. The aim in scenario design is to create a storyline for participants that: provides an appropriate, though not necessarily perfect, representation of a real-life situation or possibility; balances the resource capacities; but most importantly provides opportunities for participants to achieve the intended learning outcomes (Huffman et al., 2016; Thomas, 2020). Complexity will match the situation and scenarios may be brief or extended, involve multiple events, be constrained and predictable, or evolving and surprising. Scenario designs may stipulate the environments involved and objects available, one or more events and triggers to those events, the plausible actions and outcomes, and perhaps even storyline distractions for the purposes of training prioritization skills or allowing the main storyline events to unfold. Every element should support the engagement of learners and maintain the safe container of learning. Bringing this all together, the competence of educators and others involved in the simulation (e.g., confederates) is influential through planning and executing simulations, facilitating learning and maintaining a safe learning environment, modeling, and debriefing (Astbury et al., 2020). Educator training is thereby regarded as essential to best practice (Cheng et al., 2020). Peer training may provide an accessible option for educator training (Cheng et al., 2017). Again, the engagement of diverse stakeholders through simulation scenario development can assist to ensure the alignment of priorities and their representation through simulation-based learning activities as well as supporting authentic role-play representation (e.g., Edwards & Tuttle, 2019; Maar et al., 2020; Stanley et al., 2018). The learning process is a key feature that can be foregrounded when using simulation rather than real-life situations and should be a key design consideration. By consciously designing and foregrounding learning, simulation is flipped from being real life to being dedicated to learning. A comprehensive learning cycle includes preparation, pre-briefing, learning experiences, feedback, reflection, debriefing, and evaluation. ‘Preparation’ is for the learners and providers to ensure that, prior to crossing the threshold from reality to simulation, the requisite knowledge, skills, attitudes, and resources are in place so that the simulation can proceed unimpeded for the intended learning. For learners, preparation increases knowledge and confidence, readying them for application and reflection (Tyerman et al., 2019). ‘Pre-briefing’ before a learning experience aims to prime learners to make the most of their experience and increases their confidence and learning, especially novice learners (Tyerman et al., 2019). In simulation, it may be important to convey not only the instructions for, and expectations of, the learner, but also how the simulation promotes a safe learning environment and maximizes engagement; for example, balancing realism against the consequences of errors for learners and stakeholders and outlining the conditions under which feedback and reflection will occur (RutherfordHemming et al., 2019). During and following the ‘learning experience,’ learners develop and transform their understanding and skills through experiential learning. Learning may be promoted by repeated practice opportunities, incorporation of multiple learning strategies including modeling, and feedback (Astbury et al., 2020). ‘Debriefing’ has been the subject of much discussion in the literature with limited consensus on what makes for optimal success (Astbury et al., 2020). It appears, however, that debriefing does enhance learning from experience to improve subsequent performance; facilitated, structured debriefing is likely to be most effective (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013). Important considerations to achieving the aims and benefits of debriefing are the implicit and explicit strategies used to create and maintain a safe environment for learning (Kolbe et al., 2020). Finally, ‘evaluation’ comprises a review of both the attainment of outcomes by learners, and the implementation of the simulation as intended. Lastly, the peer, near-peer, interdisciplinary, and other stakeholder learning interactions that may be feasible (given the ability to create simulations for specified times and places) should be 262

Simulations as work-integrated learning

considered to support specific learning outcomes. Same-level peers might support the development of teamwork and confidence, while interactions between learners of different levels (nearpeers) might support peer learning and the development of leadership. Engaging learners from multiple disciplines who may be engaged in common activities in the workplace supports realistic learning regarding their respective roles and the development of shared decision-making capabilities. The design of peer learning activities in simulation follows the design of other aspects, and peer interactions are suited to meeting specific learning outcomes (e.g., Levin & Flavian, 2020).

Learner engagement in simulation Engagement in simulation-based education is purported as necessary to optimize and support meaningful, student learning (Bernard, 2015; Levett-Jones et al., 2015). Learner engagement is a dynamic, reiterative process that interplays behavioral, cognitive, and affective elements in the pursuit of deep learning (Bernard, 2015). A learner who is ‘engaged’ in simulation is said to be immersed and ‘in flow’ which maximizes learning and preparation for real-world practice and WIL. Three constructs interplay in engagement: behavioral engagement describes the learner’s level of involvement in an activity; affective engagement encapsulates the emotional impacts of the task; and cognitive engagement is the commitment one applies in order to understand and complete the simulation tasks (Fredricks et al., 2004). It is self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) that attempts to explain the variance in learner motivation and engagement, rationalizing the fact that it is related to intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. This theory can be used to explore the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may impact on learner engagement in simulation in WIL and seek to offer opportunities to mitigate these influences (Figure 17.3).

Figure 17.3  Engagement of learners in simulation

263

Belinda Judd et al.

Although simulation-based education has been clearly demonstrated to promote good learning, it is stressful for learners (Levine et al., 2013) and, at times, can be perceived by them as more stressful than learning in a real clinical setting (Judd et al., 2016). Anxiety influences a person’s ability to perform at cognitive, affective, and psychomotor levels. It affects learners’ ability to concentrate and retain information (Stephenson Wilson, 2006). Simulation-based education is learner-focused (not patient or client focused), predominantly with direct supervision models, and often involves peer group learning and observation. This education model can contribute to learners in simulation feeling under great scrutiny. Learners have also reported that the expertise of simulated patients can detect underperformance more than actual patients, which further increases anxiety (Yardley et al., 2013). Much like the Yerkes–Dodson Law (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908), a moderate amount of learner stress or anxiety is hypothesized to be good for engagement. But there is a tipping point to the curve where excessive stress becomes detrimental to performance and learning. It is, therefore, important to consider learner stress, and if required minimize it. Anxiety can be reduced by adopting a thorough orientation to the simulation environment and adequate briefing. In this briefing, educators can foster a safe space for learning where learners understand that mistakes are inconsequential and peer ridicule is discouraged. These actions also assist in managing cognitive load and thus further facilitate learning. Briefing needs to address the limitations of the simulation for learners to process and accept the limitations for suspension of disbelief to occur. For example, a brief explanation is given of the capabilities of the mannequin in a scenario, and participants are informed that aspects of the patient case (such as changes to skin color with changing vital signs) will not be able to be observed on the mannequin, but rather learners should pay attention to the patient monitors for these observations. As with too much stress, too little interest and engagement can also impede learning. Learners may not always perceive the benefit or relevance of the simulation program to WIL and their professions. Simulation design and quality briefing with clear expectations and learning objectives can highlight the relevance to enhance interest and engagement. Immersive technologies such as virtual or augmented reality may provide for greater engagement since they may be more authentic to real-world practice and approximate to workplace environments (Figure 17.1), thereby making it easier for learners to suspend disbelief. Learners may even use these technologies for self-paced, self-directed learning. Careful consideration to the level of authenticity of the simulation, or fidelity (the degree to which a simulation replicates reality) (Alessi, 2000), will thereby help to maximize engagement, enabling learner ‘buy-in’ to the simulation. However, not all simulation in WIL needs to be high fidelity for engagement. There is a minimal relationship between higher fidelity and the transfer of learning (Norman et al., 2012). The fidelity needs to complement the desired learning outcomes, the stage of the learners, and their experience levels with both the topic area and with the simulation itself. Relevance for the learner, and thereby engagement, is also enhanced when stakeholders are integral to the simulation program. Stakeholder integration may incorporate scenario co-­ design with practicing clinicians and people with lived experience of the medical conditions; a dragon’s den type simulation can be set up to specifically replicate ‘communicating the pitch’ at a major company in advertising or creative product design; or a simulation-based assessment can be co-created by learners ensuring it reflects their language. In these examples, maximizing learner engagement in simulation-based education in WIL requires the optimization of internal and external factors that may affect the engagement. Many of these factors can be mitigated with careful simulation design and development alongside external stakeholders. 264

Simulations as work-integrated learning

Work-integrated-learning case study: ‘simulation for success’ The following case study presents a remediation program where simulation-based education was the modality through which identified students could further prepare for WIL. The intent was to scaffold students through immersive authentic experiences with external stakeholder contribution. Background and design: The Simulation for Success program was created for allied health students who were identified by educators as requiring additional support to succeed in clinical placements. The students (n = 25) from physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and speech pathology participated in a week-long intensive multidisciplinary simulation program in a purpose-built dedicated health simulation facility at the University of Sydney. The facility includes a six-bed acute hospital ward, rehabilitation gym, outpatient waiting area, and breakout rooms. Participation forms part of each student’s formal, personalized, learning support plan, with most goals addressing significant performance gaps in communication and/or clinical reasoning. Considering this learning situation, the scenarios are designed for ‘moderate’ complexity, which acknowledge the students have previous clinical experience, but respect that they are still developing expected competencies. Simulated patients are portrayed by professional actors. Clinicians experienced both in clinical education and simulation are employed as clinical educators from design to implementation, ensuring external stakeholders are central to the program. Students with similar needs are grouped, irrespective of their discipline, and the simulation design and schedule incorporate flexibility to work on individual areas of underperformance. The case and task complexity are also negotiated between actor and educator according to the individual level and needs of each student. Implementation: On entering the program, students complete a scaffolded individual goal-setting task on performance feedback and assessments of a previous clinical placement. This goal setting assists in determining the students’ learning outcomes for the week, enhances engagement, and is used to evaluate success. The week incorporates activities which reflect clinical practice requirements including the development of professional identity and working in multidisciplinary teams. These tasks include patient interviewing, assessment and treatments, discharge planning, case conferences, patient documentation, and oral and written handovers. Students are provided with feedback from peers, educators, and simulated patients through formal and informal debriefing, and receive formative ‘readiness for placement’ competence evaluation at the program’s conclusion. Students complete a ‘learning experience reflection questionnaire’ and self-assessments to encourage deep reflection and provide program evaluation and learning outcome attainment. For quality and safety, educators need to create interprofessional training for health professional students to learn interpersonal and technical skills in safe, simulated environments (Kohn et al., 2000). Feedback from educators indicates that students are commonly struggling with their place in the healthcare system, their professional identity, what other professions do, and communicating in multi-disciplinary teams. Impact: Evaluation forms part of every program, but formal evaluation of one iteration (n = 23 consenting students), including external review, demonstrated that the structured learning environment, goal-centered program, and peer and interprofessional learning all supported success, but factors supporting acculturation required further investigation. Educators rated 63–90% of students’ goals as ‘achieved’ at the end of the week, with the highest attainment for communication, and the lowest ratings for information gathering skills. Students were overwhelmingly positive about the program, including its value in recognizing the nature and 265

Belinda Judd et al.

extent of their difficulties. It was described as providing relevant, goal-oriented practice in a supportive environment with a just-right level of challenge that was, in the words of one participant, “perfectly helpful.”

Future directions for simulation in work-integrated learning Simulation is a complex educational approach, supported by a range of educational theories and inclusive of multiple modalities, designs, and applications. This diversity creates limitless opportunities for wider implementation of simulation-based WIL, and further exploration and research could highlight how external stakeholders are included to shift some of what is known as ‘simulation’ into simulated WIL and simulation as preparation for WIL. The world of work is continually changing, and as such higher education must evolve and adapt to prepare graduates for these changes. In 2020, the top five skills that employers are looking for include complex problem solving, critical thinking, creativity, people management, and coordinating with others (World Economic Forum, 2020). While much of the current evidence on simulation supports the development of technical skills (such as in the health professions, engineering, and aviation), there is further opportunity for simulation-based learning activities to develop the non-technical, human factors critical for employability. Increased engagement with employers in designing simulated WIL opportunities focused on human factors will further assist in developing work-ready graduates. Changes to work were magnified during the COVID-19 global pandemic, and when traditional work-based placements were no longer possible, the higher education sector turned to simulation. This increased interest and rapid development of simulation-based learning activities has raised the profile of simulation as a recognized WIL strategy. Advances in technology will continue to broaden the application of simulation in a range of disciplines and professions. The increasing capabilities and decreasing unit costs for augmented reality, virtual reality, and haptics (feedback through vibrations, forces, or motions) will continue to expand possibilities for simulated WIL. These technologies now provide core simulated learning experiences, and as they improve and remodel these computer-generated environments and even newer technologies are created, educators must also be poised to use these innovations to assist students to bridge the gap between theory and work-based practice. The scholarship and research of simulation-based education is evolving, and so there is further work that needs to be done to shift the focus from levels of technological fidelity to human-centered systems entrenched in robust educational theory and frameworks. This progress begins by ensuring that simulation educators are appropriately trained and qualified in simulation-based education. We should be advocating that all simulation educators complete and engage in ongoing postgraduate professional development. Credentialing of simulation educators can help to achieve this, and the emergence can be seen of multiple national and discipline-specific global organizations focused on supporting such educators and recognizing scholarship in simulation, though globally more needs to be done to support and upskill the simulation community of practice. Finally, very little is known about the career development and pathways for simulation educators and technicians. Exploring their identity construction, enablers and barriers to career progression, opportunities for professional development, and career satisfaction would all be worthwhile future endeavors to support and develop the workforce to deliver high quality, sustainable simulation in WIL.

266

Simulations as work-integrated learning

References Alaker, M., Wynn, G. R., & Arulampalam, T. (2016). Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review & meta-analysis. International Journal of Surgery, 29, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijsu.2016.03.034 Alessi, S. (2000). Simulation design for training and assessment. In H. F. O’Neil & D. H. Andrews (Eds.), Aircrew training and assessment (pp. 197–222). Routledge. Astbury, J., Ferguson, J., Silverthorne, J., Willis, S., & Schafheutle, E. (2020). High-fidelity simulation-based education in pre-registration healthcare programmes: A systematic review of reviews to inform collaborative and interprofessional best practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care. https://doi.org/ 10.1080.13561820.2020.1762551 Benner, P. (1982). From novice to expert. American Journal of Nursing, 82(3), 402–407. Bernard, J. S. (2015). Student engagement: A principle-based concept analysis. International journal of nursing education scholarship, 12(1), 111–121. Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5–22. Blackstock, F. C., Watson, K. M., Morris, N. R., Jones, A., Wright, A., McMeeken, J. M., Rivett, D. A., O’Connor, V., Peterson, R. F., Haines, T. P., Watson, G., & Jull, G. A. (2013). Simulation can contribute a part of cardiorespiratory physiotherapy clinical education: Two randomized trials. Simulation in Healthcare, 8(1), 32–42. Botelho, W. T., Marietto, M. D., Ferreira, J. C., & Pimentel, E. P. (2016). Kolb’s experiential learning theory and Belhot’s learning cycle guiding the use of computer simulation in engineering education: A pedagogical proposal to shift toward an experiential pedagogy. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 24(1), 79–88. Bradley, P. (2006). The history of simulation in medical education and possible future directions. Medical education, 40(3), 254–262. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (Eds.). (1998). Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training. (pp. 271–297). APA. Ceranowicz, A. (1994). Modular Semi-Automated Forces. Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference of the ACM (pp 755–761). New York, NY: IEEE. Chad, P. (2020). Equitable work-integrated-learning: Using practical simulations in university marketing subjects. Australasian Marketing Journal, 2, 119–127. Chen, F. Q., Leng, Y. F., Ge, J. F., Wang, D. W., Li, C., Chen, B., & Sun, Z. L. (2020). Effectiveness of virtual reality in nursing education: Meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res, 22(9), e18290. https://doi. org/10.2196/18290 Cheng, A., Eppich, W., Kolbe, M., Meguerdichian, M., Bajaj, K., & Grant, V. (2020). A conceptual framework for the development of debriefing skills. Simulation in Healthcare, 15(1), 55–60. https://doi. org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000398 Cheng, A., Grant, V., Huffman, J., Burgess, G., Szyld, D., Robinson, T., & Eppich, W. (2017). Coaching the debriefer. Simulation in Healthcare, 12(5), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000232 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. Dennis, D., Furneed, A., & Parry, S. (2017). Challenging conversations with simulated patients. The Clinical Teacher, 14, 397–400. Dreyfus, S. E. (2004). The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(3), 177–181. Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Storming Media. Edwards, S., & Tuttle, N. (2019). Using stakeholder input to inform scenario content: An example from physiotherapy. Advances in Simulation, 4(Supplement 1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077019-0102-0 Effeney, G. (2020). Risk in work integrated learning: A stakeholder centric model for higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(4), 388–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X. 2019.1701852 Feng, Y., Audy, J., Rönnqvist, M., & D’Amours, S. (2020). An educational game with dragons’ den experiences for supply chain management training. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 21(1), 13–29.

267

Belinda Judd et al. Fenwick, T., & Dahlgren, M. A. (2015). Towards socio-material approaches in simulation-based education: Lessons from complexity theory. Medical Education, 49(4), 359–367. Figueroa, M. I., Sepanski, R., Goldberg, S. P., & Shah, S. (2013). Improving teamwork, confidence, and collaboration among members of a pediatric cardiovascular intensive care unit multidisciplinary team using simulation-based team training. Pediatric Cardiology, 34, 612–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00246-012-0506-2 Flin, R., & Maran, N. (2015). Basic concepts for crew resource management and non-technical skills. Best Practice and Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, 9(1), 27–39. Flin, R., & Patey, R. (2011). Non-technical skills for anaesthetists: Developing and applying ANTS. Best Practice Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, 25(2),215–227. Fraser, K. L., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2015). Cognitive load theory for the design of medical simulations. Simulation in Healthcare, 10(5), 295–307. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1), 59–109. Gaba, D. M. (2004). The future vision of simulation in health care. BMJ Quality & Safety, 13(suppl 1), i2–10. Grabowski, A. (2021). Practical skills training in enclosure fires: An experimental study with cadets and firefighters using CAVE and HMD-based virtual training simulators. Fire Safety Journal, 125, 103440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2021.103440. Guerrasio, J. G., & Aagaard, E. M. (2018). Long-term outcomes of a simulation-based remediation for residents and faculty with unprofessional behavior. J Grad Med Educ, 10(6), 693–697. Handby, E. (2021). Classroom games to teach contemporary political theory, Journal of Political Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2021.1914640 Hayden, J. K., Smiley, R. A., Alexander, M., Kardong-Edgren, S., & Jeffries, P. R. (2014). The NCSBN national simulation study: A longitudinal, randomized, controlled study replacing clinical hours with simulation in prelicensure nursing education. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 5(2), C1–S64. Herrmann-Werner, A., Nikendi, C., Keifenheim, K., Bosse, H. M., Lund, F., Wagner, R., Celebi, N., Zipfel, S., & Weyrich, P. (2013). “Best Practice” Skills Lab Training vs. a “see one, do one” Approach in undergraduate medical education: An RCT on students’ long-term ability to perform procedural clinical skills. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e76354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076354 Hill, A. E., Ward, E., Heard, R., McAllister, S., McCabe, P., Penman, A., … & Walters, J. (2020). Simulation can replace part of speech-language pathology placement time: A randomised controlled trial. International journal of speech-language pathology, 23(1), 1–11. Hough, J., Levan, D., Steele, M., Kelly, K., & Dalton, M. (2019). Simulation-based education improves student self-efficacy in physiotherapy assessment and management of paediatric patients. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 463. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1894-2 Huffman, J., McNeil, G., Bismilla, Z., & Lai, A. (2016). Essentials of scenario building for simulationbased education. In V. Grant & A. Cheng (Eds.), Comprehensive healthcare simulation: Pediatrics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24187-6_2 Imms, C., Froude, E., Chu, E. M. Y., Sheppard, L., Darzins, S., Guinea, S., … & Mathieu, E. (2018). Simulated versus traditional occupational therapy placements: A randomised controlled trial. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 65(6), 556–564. Jawaid, M., Bakhtiar, N., Masood, Z. & Mehar, A. K. (2019). Effect of paper- and computer-based simulated instructions on clinical reasoning skills of undergraduate medical students: A randomized control trial. Cureus, 11(11), e6071. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.6071 Judd, B. K., Alison, J. A., Waters, D., & Gordon, C. J. (2016). Comparison of psychophysiological stress in physiotherapy students undertaking simulation and hospital-based clinical education. Simulation in Healthcare, 11(4), 271–277. Kaider, F., Hains-Wesson, R., & Young, K. (2017). Practical typology of authentic work-integrated learning activities and assessments. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 153–165. Khan, R., Plahouras, J., Johnston, B. C., Scaffidi, M. A., Grover, S. C., & Walsh, C. M. (2018). Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 17(8), CD008237. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858 Kim, H., & Lee, J. (2011). A critical review of current crisis simulation methodology. International Journal of Contents, 7(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.5392/IJoC.2011.7.1.058 Kohn, L., Corrigan, J., & Donaldson, M. (2000). To err is human: Building a safer health system. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America.

268

Simulations as work-integrated learning Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, 1(8), 227–247. Kolbe, M., Eppich, W., Rudolph, J., Meguerdichian, M., Catena, H., Cripps, A., Grant, V., & Cheng, A. (2020). Managing psychological safety in debriefings: A dynamic balancing act. BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning, 6, 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2019-000470 Koo, L., Layson-Wolf, C., Brandt, N., Hammersla, M., Idzik, S., Rocafort, P. T., Tran, D., Wilkerson, R. G., & Windemuth, B. (2014). Qualitative evaluation of a standardized patient clinical simulation for nurse practitioner and pharmacy students. Nurse Education in Practice, 14(6), 740–746. Leong, R., & Kavanagh, M. (2013). A work-integrated learning (WIL) framework to develop graduate skills and attributes in an Australian university’s accounting program. Asia-Pacific Journal of Co-operative Education, 149(1), 1–14 Levett-Jones, T., Andersen, P., Reid-Searl, K., Guinea, S., McAllister, M., Lapkin, S., … & Niddrie, M. (2015). Tag team simulation: An innovative approach for promoting active engagement of participants and observers during group simulations. Nurse Education in Practice, 15(5), 345–352. Levin, O., & Flavian, H. (2020). Simulation-based learning in the context of peer learning from the perspective of preservice teachers: A case study. European Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1 080/02619768.2020.1827391 Levine, A. I., DeMaria Jr., S., & Schwartz, A. D. (Eds.). (2013). Comprehensive textbook of healthcare simulation. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5993-4 Maar, M., Bessette, N., McGregor, L., Lovelace, A., & Reade, M. (2020). Co-creating simulated cultural communication scenarios with indigenous animators: An evaluation of innovative clinical cultural safety curriculum. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 7. https://doi. org/10.1177/2382120520980488 Monteiro, S., & Sibbald, M. (2020). Choosing wisely: Clinician educators’ guide to high-value simulation-based education. Archives of Medicine and Health Sciences, 8(2), 302–305. Norman, G., Dore, K., & Grierson, L. (2012). The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Medical education, 46(7), 636–647. Oliver, B. (2015). Redefining graduate employability and work-integrated learning: Proposals for effective higher education in disrupted economies. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 6(1), 56–65. Patey, R., Flin, R., Fletcher, G., Maran, N., & Glavin, R. (2005). Developing a taxonomy of anesthetists’ nontechnical skills (ANTS). In K. Henriksen, J. B. Battles, E. S. Marks, & D. I. Lewin (Eds.), Advances in patient safety: From research to implementation (Vol. 4: Programs, Tools, and Products). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Petrosoniak, A., Brydges, R., Nemoy, L., & Campbell, D. M. (2018). Adapting form to function: Can simulation serve our healthcare system and educational needs? Advances in Simulation, 3(2018), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-018-0067-4 Reedy, G. B. (2015). Using cognitive load theory to inform simulation design and practice. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 11(8), 355–360. Rutherford-Hemming, T., Lioce, L., & Breymier, T. (2019). Guidelines and essential elements for prebriefing. Simulation in Healthcare, 14(6), 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000403 Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Rhodenizer, L. (1998). It is not how much you have but how you use it: Toward a rational use of simulation to support aviation training. The international journal of aviation psychology, 8(3), 197–208. Schunk, D. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Pearson Education. Silvestri, S., Field, A., Mangalat, N., Weatherford, T., Hunter, C., McGowan, Z., Stamile, Z., Mattox, T., Barfield, T., Afshari, A., Ralls, G., & Papa, L. (2017). Comparison of START and SALT triage methodologies to reference standard definitions and to a field mass casualty simulation. American Journal of Disaster Medicine, 12(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2017.0255 Stanley, C., Lindsay, S., Parker, K., Kawamura, A., & Samad Zubairi, M. (2018). Value of collaboration with standardized patients and patient facilitators in enhancing reflection during the process of building a simulation. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 38(3), 184–189. https://doi. org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000198 Stephenson Wilson, J. T. (2006). Anxiety in learning English as a foreign language: Its associations with student variables, with overall proficiency, and with performance on an oral test. Doctoral Dissertation. Universidad de Granada. Stirling, K., Hogg, G., Ker, J., Anderson, F., Hanslip, J., & Byrne, D. (2012). Using simulation to support doctors in difficulty. Clinical Teacher, 9, 285–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-498X.2012.00541.x

269

Belinda Judd et al. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812448394 Thomas, W. (2020). A framework for the selection and design of serious games. Proceedings of the European Conference on Fames Based Learning (pp. 613–619). https://doi.org/10.34190/GBL.20.034 Tyerman, J., Luctkar-Flude, M., Graham, L., Coffey, S., & Olsen-Lynch, E. (2019). A systematic review of health care presimulation preparation and briefing effectiveness. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 27, 12–25. Watson, K., Wright, A., Morris, N., McMeeken, J., Rivett, D., Blackstock, F., Jones, A., Haines, T., O’Connor, V., Watson, G., Peterson, R., & Jull, G. (2012). Can simulation replace part of clinical time? Two parallel randomised controlled trials. Medical Education, 46(7), 657–667. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04295.x Wood, Y., Zegwaard, K., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2020). Conventional, remote, virtual, and simulated work-integrated learning: A meta-analysis of existing practice. International Journal of Work Integrated Learning, 21(4), 331–354. World Economic Forum. (2020). The Future of Jobs Report 2020. World Economic Forum. Wright, A., Moss, P., Dennis, D. M., Harrold, M., Levy, S., Furness, A. L., & Reubenson, A. (2018). The influence of a full-time, immersive simulation-based clinical placement on physiotherapy student confidence during the transition to clinical practice. Advances in Simulation, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/ s41077-018-0062-9 Yardley, S., Brosnan, C., & Richardson, J. (2013). The consequences of authentic early experience for medical students: creation of mētis. Medical education, 47(1), 109–119. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18(5), 459–482. Yoders, S. (2014). Constructivism theory and use from 21st century perspective. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 4(3). Zenios, M. (2020). Educational theory in technology enhanced learning revisited: A model for simulation-based learning in higher education. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1). https://doi. org/10.20428/8c225f6e.1cf4dde8 Zhang, H., Mörelius, E., Goh, S. H. L., & Wang, W. (2019). Effectiveness of video-assisted debriefing in simulation-based health professions education: A systematic review of quantitative evidence. Nurse Educator, 44(3), E1–E6.

270

18 THE PRACTICE OF ONLINE INTERNSHIPS Joy Perkins and Amy Irwin

Introduction In this chapter, an online internship is defined as a work placement with an employer, which is carried out virtually and at a physical distance, rather than in-person at the organization (NACE, 2020; TargetJobs, 2020). This recent model of work-integrated learning (WIL) is not a substitute for place-based learning, but an alternative novel way of amalgamating work and curriculum-based learning for students in the higher education sector (Dean & Campbell, 2020). In the educational and practitioner literature, these types of internships are also known as virtual, hybrid, remote, or e-internships, and the terms are used somewhat interchangeably (Bayerlein & Jeske, 2018; Jeske & Linehan, 2020; Kraft et al., 2019). In order to present a cogent chapter, the term ‘online internship’ was selected, as it is self-descriptive and helps to remove any doubt or confusion with the internship terminology. Since the 2020 global health pandemic, online internships have grown in popularity (Dean & Campbell, 2020). Universities have transitioned at short notice to an online internship provision, as an alternative to the traditional, in-person, work-based internship (Briant & Crowther, 2020). This alternative internship model requires the intern to work from home or anywhere in the world, as long as the student has a stable internet connection and laptop. The perceived value of this approach is that online internships are, therefore, more inclusive and equitable for students compared to traditional internships, as they help breakdown geographical location and social capital barriers (Jisc, 2020; Kraft et al., 2019). Access to technology is critical for the student during the internship, as the intern communicates and collaborates with their colleagues, line manager, or mentor through a range of channels, such as Microsoft Teams®, Zoom, email, phone, or text (Bowen, 2020; National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2020). These internship opportunities are typically curated for a 2–12-week period or even longer, and can either be part-time or full-time, paid or unpaid. All offer students the opportunity to undertake a period of structured and valuable WIL, while supporting students to develop their employability (Billett, 2009; Jackson, 2015). Online internships are offered in different employment sectors and organizational sizes, as illustrated by the business start-up and global business case studies presented later in this chapter (Boxes 18.2 and 18.5). Examples of employment sectors offering online internships include, but are not restricted to, marketing, business consultancy, fashion management, and accountancy. DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-21

271

Joy Perkins and Amy Irwin

The triangulated, real-world case studies, which emerge later in the chapter (Boxes 18.3–18.5), exemplify the important role of employer supervision and academic support in students’ online internship learning. These case studies have been authored by the primary online internship stakeholder, namely the student, employer, or academic. Reassuringly, the pedagogic literature concurs with the case study findings in this chapter and highlights the central role academic staff assume across both educational and workplace settings, specifically in terms of their assessment of learning, monitoring student progress, and pastoral support (Wenham et al., 2020; Winchester-Seeto et al., 2016).

The changing landscape of internships The disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 has impacted on education, work, and economies across the world (World Economic Forum, 2020). Prior to 2019, the number of workers engaging in remote work was relatively low, but this changed dramatically with the pandemic, which led to millions of workers moving online during 2020 and 2021 (Wang et al., 2021). This process of change, and emphasis on remote working, particularly accelerated in the early pandemic stage (Bilsland et al., 2020), is likely to remain post-pandemic (Sytch & Greer, 2020), thereby highlighting the need for educators to adapt and prepare students for the increasingly digital world of work. This rapid change led to the term ‘panic-gogy,’ which describes the rapid need to understand the methods of student learning and engagement during online internships at the onset of the pandemic (Dean & Campbell, 2020). It is now time for educators, practitioners, and researchers to reflect on and understand this newer mode of online internship learning as part of the changing WIL landscape. The way individuals work is changing: The Future of Jobs Report (World Economic Forum, 2020) highlights that automation in tandem with COVID-19 has amplified disruption for workers alongside the emerging fourth industrial revolution – Industry 4.0 (Forbes Technology Council, 2020). Many of the proposed Industry 4.0 changes will lead to increasing work flexibility and utilization of mobile technology, paired with the expectation that multiple job roles and activities will move into a remote, online format. These projected ways of working will impact further and transform the internship landscape. Higher education institutions, therefore, must work to encompass these relevant competencies, related to Industry 4.0, within both the curriculum and WIL opportunities (Pejic-Bach et al., 2020). A review of worker readiness models indicates that students require preparation for working with geographically dispersed work groups and for utilizing digital skills (Blayone & VanOostveen, 2021). The combination of these new competencies, the changing view of work readiness in relation to Industry 4.0, and the COVID-19 pandemic have combined to emphasize further the need to integrate theoretical learning with online internship practice.

Quality and standards for online internships Professional association roles Implementing WIL quality and standards is a multi-level endeavor, which occurs in universities at three distinct levels: institutional, degree program, and educator. Policies, procedures, frameworks, and management structures are required at these levels to ensure a high-quality student learning experience and effective WIL curriculum design, while also fostering external employer partnerships and compliance with regulatory requirements. Online internships are an  emerging type of work experience within the diverse WIL landscape (Kay et al., 2019). 272

The practice of online internships Table 18.1  Twelve facets for online work-integrated learning: plan, create, support (ACEN, 2020, p. 2) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Establish the value proposition of online WIL. Determine the type of online WIL experience to be offered to students. Foster or redefine relationships between host organizations and academic institutions. Employ good pedagogical practice to design online WIL. Design experience-oriented and student-centered assessments. Debrief, integrate, and evaluate placements and projects. Prepare students for working with host organizations. Encourage social networking with the host organization, with students’ peers, and externally. Employ functional and user-friendly technology. Guide students on workplace etiquette and working safely from home. Assist students in managing information and becoming cybersecurity-smart. Look to the experience of others.

To assist WIL practitioners who are unfamiliar, or completely new to online internships, an interim guide, Online Work-Integrated Learning: Placements and Projects Guide, has been published by the professional association, the Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN, 2020). This guide was authored by Deakin University, RMIT University, and the University of Tasmania. It covers the characteristics of quality WIL practice and explores 12 facets for online internship provision via three themes: plan, create, and support (Table 18.1). The ACEN-funded tripartite guide provides an excellent starting point to determine the quality of geographically dispersed, online WIL experiences, including online internships.

Designing online internships It is critical that online internships provide students with the opportunity to combine academic learning with guided workplace learning to help sharpen their career thinking and to prepare students with the capabilities for the ever-changing and increasingly digital employment landscape (Irwin et al., 2022). There are three essential components in designing any form of practical WIL, including online internships. First, students must undergo effective preparation before the experience. Second, they must receive support and guidance during the WIL period at academic/employer levels, enabling them to meet the module learning outcomes. Third, students must have time to assess and reflect on their WIL strengths and development needs (Smith et al., 2010). Intended learning outcomes for these assessed WIL units of study have focused historically on the following areas: demonstration of skills and workplace competencies; integration of academic knowledge and skills in applied contexts; and reflection upon wider learning of workplace duties. Ajjawi et al. (2020) describe the challenges in aligning learning outcomes and workplace activities with the assessments prescribed by universities. Given the complexities that surround remote working (Wang et al., 2021), and the prominence in online internship growth, further research is much needed to devise practical pedagogies and assessments for this distinctive online WIL model. Smith et al. (2016) detail the need for adequate student preparation before and during the placement period to enable individuals to reach their learning potential. A novel approach to help students to make the transition from university to the online workplace is this innovative, student-centered, infographic guide (Figure 18.1). This resource is designed to convey key online internship guidance in a concise, practical, and memorable format for students. It exemplifies curricular standards and practice for those who are transitioning to the online workplace in a clear and accessible format. 273

Joy Perkins and Amy Irwin

274 Figure 18.1  O  nline internship infographic. University of Aberdeen, Scotland. https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffnet/teaching/online-study-employability-skillsinfographics-14223.php

The practice of online internships

The next section shows two online internship case studies from the organization EY and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Both case studies detail the practicalities involved in designing online internships from both academic and business perspectives. Interestingly, the case studies exemplify many quality learning and support standards highlighted in the 12 features for online WIL in the ACEN 2020 guidance covered at the start of this section (Table 18.1), including pedagogical practice, support mechanisms, and technological considerations.

Effective practice case study: University of Adelaide, Australia Overview Undertaking an internship is mandatory for undergraduate students studying the Bachelor of Commerce degree at the University of Adelaide. In 2018, the degree program embraced the new virtual workplace and started to offer online internships to complement traditional, workbased internships. Students complete 120 hours for academic credit with their internship host over a ten-week period. During this period, students maintain a reflective ePortfolio; undertake a range of ‘authentic learning tasks,’ including résumé and cover letter construction; and set goals for their internship. Being receptive to online internships has opened up opportunities for students to engage with organizations they would not usually be able to access due to their geographical location. This approach has been especially beneficial for individuals with family commitments or who are carers, as online internships have the potential to address issues of diversity and inclusion. Box 18.1 illustrates the key effective practice features of the University of Adelaide case study.

How online internships work in practice The online internships are completed each semester; approximately 50 students select this WIL option. Compared with the employer-based internship students, much more consultation time is spent discussing students’ concerns and perceptions about online internships. There is a weekly, online, lunchtime drop-in for students and interns to debrief, ask questions, and generally feel that they are not alone. In the drop-in sessions, there is often a student perception that online internships are not as advantageous on their résumé and lack the professional networking that they are hoping for. Nevertheless, with the disruptive events due to COVID-19, online internships have been extremely advantageous, for example, they have removed barriers for overseas students who remained in their home country and studied online. Online internships have also provided a multitude of benefits and opportunities for students to adapt to working in different time zones, to hone their digital communication skills, and to enhance their ability to work independently.

Box 18.1  Effective practice features of the University of Adelaide case study • • •

Unlocking geographical barriers to access new internship experiences. Providing targeted, informed student/intern consultation support. Extending the accessibility of internships to previously unengaged groups of students.

275

Joy Perkins and Amy Irwin

The rationale for online internships Employability is a substantive and critical component of the University’s teaching and learning provision. The online internship experience is, therefore, designed to help students develop work-readiness, as the world of work is becoming extensively digital. It particularly helps students to make better-informed decisions about their motivations, interests, and skills, as part of their career planning. Often the students have not had much knowledge of what it means to be an accountant, marketer, and so on, so the online internship helps them to have direct experience. This leads students to feel more motivated about their studies and helps them to see that what they are studying has direct relevance to their future professional field.

The next steps for online internships Online internships are not new to the BA Commerce degree, but given the global health pandemic, their prominence has increased, making them more normalized. Due to the changing nature of the workplace, many of the in-person internship hosts are also enquiring about ‘blended internships,’ where students work remotely for part of their internship. There are some challenges to overcome here, such as ‘internship creep’ with students keen to work online beyond what was originally agreed. Online internships also need to be supported to benefit the intern’s learning, therefore research into the most effective nature of this supervision would be helpful going forward.

Effective practice case study: EY Global Limited1 Overview The EY organization is a global multinational professional services employer, which operates in 150 countries with over 300,000 employees, across 700 offices, with internships based in most locations. Traditionally, all internships have been based on-site. In 2020, due to the impact of COVID-19, the EY organization moved to an online internship model for both the summer internship and 12-month internship programs. This online pivot has revealed new ways of working, which is helping them to re-evaluate their EY placement offering, post-pandemic. Box 18.2 illustrates the key effective practice features of the EY global case study.

How online internships work in practice The summer 6-week internship and 12-month industrial placement programs were migrated online in the summer of 2020. The UK was the first to make the move into this virtual space. The EY organization then shared their initial online-transition learnings and supported EY

Box 18.2  Effective practice features of the EY Global Limited case study • • •

Providing accessible and supportive online internships, which are inclusive and flexible. Making use of technology to connect with students for internship searches, recruitment, and onboarding. Ensuring effective actions from intern feedback for future student cohorts.

276

The practice of online internships

teams across the globe including in the USA, Canada, South America, Australia, and across the organization’s European, Middle Eastern, Indian, and African regions. In the run up to this online internship experience, the EY organization provided interns with guidance on protocols, timelines, and organizational etiquette. Students also practiced meeting online to help familiarize themselves with the platform and to demystify what online internship entails. The EY organization wanted to prepare students to work with professionals and provide a solid induction plan to help improve their learning and internship success. Having established protocols for students to check-in, for example, having multiple EY professionals for the interns to reach out to, ensured visibility and supported ongoing evaluation of the internship provision.

The rationale for online internships The internship programs are now designed to provide students with a two-week summer internship in place of the six-week in-person internship or a 12-month online experience. Students develop their skills alongside professionals in the industry and gain insights to the culture and work of EY teams. Many of the interns are also invited to rejoin the EY organization in a graduate position. The online format is specifically designed to help enable the interns to undertake meaningful tasks and high-quality WIL. The internship programs try to mirror the online learning and experiences with those of the in-house programs as much as possible. Students are set tasks that put them in the ‘shoes of graduates’ so that they still get a real flavor of what life is like at EY and in EY client teams.

The next steps for online internships The past year has certainly facilitated the EY organization to reflect critically on how to help structure and deliver internship programs in a post-pandemic world. There are many benefits to hosting online experiences, and the organization appreciates that many of today’s students are increasingly ‘tech savvy’ and comfortable in the digital world. That said, the organization is mindful of those who have accessibility challenges and experience inequity issues. As a global organization, they are keen to support individuals in this position and have factored this into their virtual offer. EY teams also recognize that there are multiple benefits to in-house experiences and hope to utilize them again in future. The organization expects to follow a ‘hybrid internship’ approach going forward. This approach will help enable the organization to unite both quality and innovation, to enhance the students’ work-related learning experience, and to fortify their candidate talent pipeline.

Emerging themes and commonalities of the case studies There are several emerging themes, which run through these two case studies. Not surprisingly, both case studies reveal that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in considerable disruption to the traditional in-person internship offer. Despite the abrupt switch to online internships, it is interesting to note that both EY and the University of Adelaide plan to continue using this model of WIL. This is despite the scant research globally, regarding online internships and the limited evidence regarding their quality and equity for students (Hora et al., 2021). Significantly, both the EY organization and University of Adelaide case studies demonstrate effective online internship design, to support student learning, which aligns well with existing frameworks, such as that provided by Werner and Jeske (2021). Also, emerging from both case 277

Joy Perkins and Amy Irwin

studies, is the requirement to prepare thoroughly, for all stakeholders to be involved with the online internship experience, and the need for proactive intervention, support, and dialogue for this experience to be truly beneficial. Sauder et al. (2019) have previously described the importance of dialogue and communication methods among internship stakeholders: both are central for a successful internship. Not surprisingly, digital literacy features in both case studies: it is clearly a crucial professional competency for online internships in remote work contexts. A key observation from our case studies is also, therefore, the notable ongoing commitment to digital training and support for all involved in the design and delivery of online internships.

Online internships in practice: case studies and stakeholders' perspectives A series of case studies authored by key online internship stakeholders, namely an undergraduate student, an employer host, and a WIL academic at a higher education institution, is shown in this section (Boxes 18.3–18.5). Each author offers a rich picture of their own online internship perspectives and experiences enabling ‘first-hand’ stakeholder accounts, which provide authenticity to this chapter. Case studies are crafted using Rolfe et al.’s reflective model (2011), which is framed around three reflective questions: (1) What? (2) So what? (3) Now what? In these accounts, the stakeholders illustrate how online internships can be facilitated and managed, as well as highlighting the challenges and benefits from their involvement. Additionally, the triangulated case studies offer practical advice regarding issues, such as the importance of communication and supervision for interns and their key learning points regarding the design, delivery, and ongoing evaluation of online internships.

The benefits of online internships The case studies below illustrate the perceived benefits brought by online internships for each stakeholder. This section will further elaborate on these points, and include additional benefits highlighted in the educational literature.

Increased diversity Typically, online internships offer an organization access to a broader talent pool than a traditional face-to-face internship; this helps to increase the likelihood of finding the right intern for the role (Jeske & Axtell, 2016). This increased level of diversity can be an important organizational resource, allowing companies to benefit from a broad range of employee life experiences and perspectives, and thus enhancing the probability of a mutually beneficial learning experience (Jeske, 2019). This is considered particularly important for smaller organizations such as SMEs and micro-businesses, where virtual interns may be utilized to address organizational knowledge gaps and skill deficits ( Jeske & Axtell, 2016).

Flexibility The idea of flexibility can encompass multiple aspects in an organization, such as flexible working hours, allowing students to balance work and home commitments (Medeiros et al., 2015). Flexibility around workspace allows students to work from home, reducing the need

278

The practice of online internships

Box 18.3  Triangulated, online internship, student case study MA (Hons) Business Management & Sociology Student Online Marketing Intern West Carolina London, UK

What? During the summer 2020, I completed an online internship as a Marketing Intern at Londonbased, fashion start-up business West Carolina. My usual tasks would include benchmarking analysis, managing the brand’s Shopify store and website to improve customers’ experience, and increasing the overall traffic through Search Engine Optimization (SEO) and affiliates. I also assisted with costs tracking, inventory management, and screening resumes. During my internship the founder and creative director would host daily, online Zoom catch-up meetings for team members to share their work, set goals and ask questions. Despite different time zones and the lack of a physical office, I felt part of a productive team due to the online collaborative tools.

So what? Working remotely has indeed boosted my digital skills. The use of platforms such as Zoom and Slack, software such as Excel and Google Drive were paramount in my role. I learnt how to create and manage an e-commerce website on Shopify, use Trello to improve project management, and develop SEO performance through analytical tools like Google Keyword Planner. Coming back to university after my summer internship enabled me to reflect on my digital skills learning, as I completed the work-integrated learning module, Work Experience: Employability Skills Development, and updated my LinkedIn profile. Although at first, I was skeptical about online working, this experience has made me appreciate its unique benefits. However, in the long-term, I would like to both work from home and at the office, as team building through a screen is challenging.

Now what? Working with tools and software I have never used before, helped me develop a more practical approach to the learning process and made me realize that some things can only be learnt by doing them. The digital working environment was for me the best way to test and improve my IT skills in a safe space and made me more confident. This confidence is impacting on my current remote job, where I am much faster and more efficient thanks to my familiarity with the software used. I am also continuing to use Trello to keep track of my tasks and make sure I complete them by the relevant deadline.

279

Joy Perkins and Amy Irwin

Box 18.4  Triangulated, online internship, academic case study Module Coordinator Work Experience: Employability Skills Development University of Aberdeen Scotland

What? Our innovative third year, 15 credit, ‘Work Experience: Employability Skills Development’ module was inspired in 2017 by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Scotland Enhancement Theme, ‘Student Transitions’. Activity to initiate, design and quality assure the module was initially undertaken by a university-level working group, which was led by the Dean for Quality Enhancement and Assurance. Since its inception in 2018, the module has been rolled out to a range of academic disciplines. A distinctive feature of this work-integrated learning module is its structure, as students secure their own internship, which is approved by their academic School. Similar to other institutions, we have responded to the global health pandemic in 2020 with a variety of measures, including the adoption of online internships in this module.

So what? An underpinning part of the work experience module is encouraging students, to reflect on their professional development and to make connections between their degree program and the world of work. The module also provides students with an opportunity to assess their Aberdeen Graduate Attribute development. This approach enables students to identify and evidence competencies that employers look for in graduates, while also broadening partnerships between the university and workplaces. Our quality assurance processes have also been adapted to accommodate online internships within the module, heightening our focus on issues such as: how and when students will keep in touch, IT equipment and data protection, and how the intern’s performance will be managed.

Now what? Initial feedback from the online interns is positive, benefits highlighted include accessibility, flexibility and enhanced digital skills. The reflective summative, module assessments have also provided positive insights of the online internship experience for me as the Module Co-ordinator. This experience is especially notable, when the student is mentored and there are sustained and effective communication channels between the online intern and host organization. It is clear to me, there are advantages for both online internships and in-person internships in the physical workplace. However, a major advantage of the online internship is, that it is helping students and employers to adjust to the changing nature of the workplace, especially as more organizations are establishing remote working policies and practices.

280

The practice of online internships

Box 18.5  Triangulated, online internship, employer case study Online Internship Provider Designer & Creative Director West Carolina London UK

What? West Carolina is a London-based fashion start-up business based in Hackney, East London, which was founded in 2018. The brand’s mission is to spread joy and positivity to the world by creating clothes that empower those who wear them. Due to COVID-19, we have started to offer online internships. Before the pandemic, interns were given the possibility to work from home once a week. Interns have always been recruited online. The recruitment process includes three steps. Applicants first apply through the FashionUnited website by submitting a CV, a cover letter, and samples of their work. If successful, they are invited to complete an online questionnaire to see whether they are familiar with software and social media platforms that the brand works with. Finally, if they are a good fit for the job, we invite them for an online interview.

So what? Online internships have proved themselves to be very beneficial for the start-up so far. Working remotely is time and cost saving and it offers the possibility to recruit worldwide. Working online has been an opportunity to make the internships more structured to support the interns’ learning, helping to keep better track of the work and skills development by many team-members across the world. Communication has also improved thanks to tools such as Slack and Zoom. Delivering the induction training is also easier as interns can join all at once. The trust that we give to interns translates into good work and constant commitment. Working remotely means that interns can benefit from a better work-life balance, which has resulted in improved productivity.

Now what? The start-up has adapted well to the online retail and work environment, and interns will be recruited online even after the pandemic. We will also be asking interns to come to the office only if necessary. This way, because the number of interns is not constrained by the capacity of a physical office, more interns can be hired in the future if necessary. During the past few months, online hangouts and team-building activities have been held regularly, but the level of engagement has been low because staff are keen to balance their screen time. In the future, the main challenge will be to identify how we can best interact and socialize with interns outside the office hours, to further build team rapport.

281

Joy Perkins and Amy Irwin

for organizations to fund office space and supplies (Briant & Crowther, 2020). There is also the flexibility of location, allowing students to take part in internship opportunities around the world (Medeiros et al., 2015).

Autonomy Research suggests that autonomy at work, encompassing aspects such as decision-making and control over job activities, is necessary for worker wellbeing, the ability to thrive at work, and job satisfaction (Jiang et al., 2020). The importance of job autonomy in remote work contexts has been highlighted by Wang et al. (2021), who describe autonomy as a job resource that can help workers deal with challenges such as loneliness. Autonomy is often a key factor within online internships, which are generally considered to emphasize independence. This independence can have benefits for students’ graduate attribute development, predominantly their problem-solving and self-management skills (Gill, 2020).

Digital nomads Recent literature has begun to refer to a ‘digital nomad’ workforce, where workers are able to use technology to fit work around their lifestyle and can digitally commute to jobs around the world (Cook, 2020). This new world of work requires professionals to be self-motivated, good digital communicators, and able to navigate successfully through online spaces. Students who have experienced this online working, therefore, have already developed employability attributes in the professional online workplace, giving them a distinct advantage in the graduate labor market (Gill, 2020).

Challenges of online internships Despite the potential benefits of online internship programs highlighted in this chapter, the literature reveals educators, organizations, and students may be reluctant to engage in this form of WIL, perhaps due to the following challenges outlined below.

Lack of familiarity Researchers suggest that stakeholders feel they have a lack of familiarity with an online format for internships (Jeske & Axtell, 2017). A lack of knowledge and familiarity on the part of employers and academics may restrict access to appropriate guidelines and protocols for online internships, in turn compromising learning outcomes and support mechanisms (Bayerlein & Jeske, 2018). Recent research has sought to address this issue via the publication of clear guidance for the management of online internships (Werner & Jeske, 2021). This guidance elucidates the need for effective, ongoing internship management via thorough preparation and regular communication between stakeholders, which can be challenging to address, especially in high-pressured business environments.

Isolation Another challenge for online internships is the high level of technological interaction required, necessitating both access to computer equipment at home, plus a good level of technical skill. Students who lack confidence when interacting and engaging online may feel isolated 282

The practice of online internships

from their host organization, thereby reducing engagement (Irwin & Perkins, 2021; Konradt & Schmook, 1999; Oakman et al., 2020). Employers may also be concerned about a lack of engagement, with some organizations preferring face-to-face internships as a mechanism for embedding the intern within the company culture. This approach is often preferred to also facilitate intern motivation and to help prepare interns for future recruitment purposes (Pittenger, 2021). Online internships are often considered as primarily a lone working experience with associated responsibility and autonomy (Massingill, 2013). This does have the advantage of enhancing self-management skills, but also has the disadvantage of a lack of close supervision along with reduced feelings of camaraderie due to a deficiency of informal social interaction (Massingill, 2013).

Social bonds There may be challenges in forming bonds between the organizational team and the intern as well as between interns. As a result, interns may feel less committed to their role and organization (Jeske & Axtell, 2014). Some students may find it difficult to maintain motivation in these conditions, with the consequential danger of missing work deadlines (Massingill, 2013). To combat this, educators are advised to emphasize self-directed learning and self-efficacy, to encourage students to be independent in preparation for remote roles and online internships (Bowen, 2020). This should also help students manage the many distractions that may come with working from home (e.g., family activities, discussions with roommates) (Bowen, 2020) or remotely in other locations.

Industry under-representation Research suggests that online internships tend to take place within technologically advanced organizations (e.g., marketing, PR) and organizations with remote working protocols already in place (Jeske & Axtell, 2014). This may mean that certain industries, and roles, are under-represented in this format. There is also the suggestion that certain roles are not suitable for an online environment: usually roles where there is a great deal of observational learning and practical skill development (e.g., nursing) ( Jeske & Axtell, 2014). It is, therefore, a challenge to offer online internships across all academic subjects, as these internships are not suitable for all WIL disciplines (Pretti et al., 2020).

Case study: Swinburne media and communication project units The benefits and challenges of online internships are further illustrated in this next case study from Swinburne University of Technology, Australia, where students clearly view the online internship as beneficial in preparing them for their future work environment. In contrast, this case study also highlights the perennial challenge for many universities in securing sufficient, high quality, internship opportunities. Swinburne University of Technology, based in Melbourne, has a small media and communication department that includes professional and creative writing, film and television, journalism, media industries, public relations (PR), social media, and advertising majors. Curriculum project units are utilized by the students to gain valuable professional experience through completing a project or an internship while also gaining academic credit. Professional projects are discipline-related artifacts that may include films, journalism articles, and PR campaign plans; these are completed under expert supervision. Internships are 283

Joy Perkins and Amy Irwin

placements that students complete unpaid in a supervised work environment. Students typically complete professional placements onsite, but there has been a trend towards some remote work. As COVID-19 sent most of Australia into isolation, students completing internships had to renegotiate their placements. The University worked with employers to ensure professional placements could continue through remote supervision and the use of suitable technology, with only seven students (out of a cohort of 50) losing their work placement. Industry responses to the new WIL arrangement have been subdued with most industry locations seemingly of the belief that worksites will have more access going forward, with remote working a temporary measure. However, many industry experts expect remote work to continue for most employees in the future. Student feedback has been heavily weighted towards the benefits of the online professional internship experience, as many see the future working environment incorporating transferable skills of time management, technology proficiency, and a growth mindset. Recent professional experiences for Swinburne students have provided individuals with a taste of the online office experience. It has been received by both students and industry as a positive experience that has enabled future employees to be more industry ready. As the growth and popularity of online internships is predicted to increase, broader empirical research is essential to help understand if online internships actually provide a meaningful learning experience. Ensuring the quality of WIL is core university business (Venville et al., 2018); it is, therefore, imperative that universities provide opportunities for stakeholders to evaluate their experiences and provide feedback. A systematic approach to collecting and evaluating online internship data is critical to safeguard quality for all (Shah et al., 2017; Venville et al., 2018), while also helping to future-proof the online internship experience.

Remote and online internships: post-pandemic A significant increase in online internships driven by the pandemic occurred in 2020. This required swift adaptation to the online environment by not only the students, but also educators and organizations as well (Pretti et al., 2020). Given the pandemic has established itself for at least three years now, organizations and universities have expertise in managing remote learning. The question is: Where will it lead in the future? The opportunity to expand into international online internships in the curriculum could present interesting and exciting opportunities for students to develop their intercultural competencies via remote and digital collaborations. A precursor to this type of activity was conducted by Ferreira-Lopes and Van Rompay-Bartels (2020) in their intercultural virtual class, which involved Spanish and Dutch students collaborating on a shared project. Similarly, Owens and Hite (2020) engaged American, French, and Chinese students in a global project-based learning task. The results of both studies highlight positive student feedback along with an increase in intercultural awareness and enhanced receptiveness to alternative points of view. Ferreira-Lopez and Van Rompay-Bartels (2020) suggest that future efforts should seek to engage students in online internships, electronic human resource management (e-HRM), and other online formats to combine the benefits of virtual collaboration with work-related learning in real world organizations. The rapid expansion of online internship provision during the pandemic has also inspired a range of innovative approaches to ensure students continued to develop work readiness and graduate attributes. For example, some institutions such as the Canadian University of Waterloo, increased provision of entrepreneurial opportunities and engaged students in start-up business opportunities, encouraging discussion around online entrepreneurism (Kay et al., 2020). 284

The practice of online internships

A  range of innovative practices were also reported by the University of Melbourne, via the development of remote health placements following the pandemic. These included the provision of tele-supervision, enabling students and supervisors to work together in an online environment, along with the development of online telehealth modules, and digital workplace assessments (Salter et al., 2020). Overall, the pandemic may have accelerated provision of online internships, but given the digitizing environment of Industry 4.0, these internships are predicted to stay.

Conclusion Research on online internships is very much in its infancy with limited evidence to support their effectiveness for student learning. Although all three principal stakeholders – students, academics, and employers – are becoming more familiar with this model of WIL, there remains a need for further rigorous, empirical research to fully understand the factors influencing this form of internship. Further scrutiny and research are, therefore, much needed to truly understand all the facets of an effective online internship experience. Key gaps in the literature highlighted in this chapter include a need to investigate the work characteristics that influence the online internship experience, such as work complexity, virtual context, payment, and level of autonomy. Understanding the impact of such factors on online internships would bring research more in line with the remote work literature (Wang et al., 2021). There is also a need to assess methods of ensuring a high-quality student experience via mechanisms such as contextualized mentoring and supervision (Jeske & Linehan, 2020) and enhanced assessment practices (Ajjawi et al., 2020). Research to date suggests mentoring can increase student satisfaction and skills development, but the need for further work to consider cross-cultural and psychosocial influences on the mentoring experience (Jeske & Linehan, 2020) and the lack of organizational immersion (Irwin & Perkins, 2021) is required. Further research is also required to fully understand how to reduce the disadvantages or issues associated with online internships such as distractions, loneliness, team building, and lack of motivation. Improved understanding around these issues will enable academics and organizations to support quality enhancement and management of online internships, so they align with WIL module learning outcomes and help to develop students’ employability. In this chapter, a range of case study material has been used to offer a practical perspective on how to manage and design effective online internships. Interestingly, the case studies presented suggest that online internships are here to stay, and are not the ‘quick fix’ that was perhaps originally intended. Although there are some online internship challenges still to overcome, there are many collaborative learning advantages in the digital world to capitalize on for students, employers, and educational institutions alike.

Acknowledgments Special thanks to the University of Aberdeen, University of Adelaide, Swinburne University of Technology, EY, and West Carolina for sharing their online internship experiences in this chapter.

Notes 1 The views expressed in this section are the views of the author, not EY. This section provides general information, does not constitute advice, and should not be relied on as such. Professional advice should be sought prior to any action being taken in regard to any of the information.

285

Joy Perkins and Amy Irwin

References ACEN (Australian Collaborative Education Network) (2020, July). Online Work Integrated Learning: Placements and Projects Guide. http://wordpress-ms.deakin.edu.au/dteach/wp-content/uploads/ sites/103/2020/07/OnlineWILPlacementsGuide_ExternalVersion_July.2020.pdf?_ga=2.213297620. 1126991652.1617462179-1579096746.1605520348 Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Le Huu Nghia, T., Boud, D., Johnson, L., & Patrick, C.-J. (2020). Aligning assessment with the needs of work-integrated learning: the challenges of authentic assessment in a complex context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938. 2019.1639613 Bayerlein, L., & Jeske, D. (2018). The potential of computer-mediated internships for higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(4), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM11-2016-0254. Billett, S. (2009). Realizing the educational worth of integrating work experiences in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 827–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802706561 Bilsland, C., Nagy, H., & Smith, P. (2020). Virtual internships and work-integrated learning in hospitality and tourism in a post-COVID-19 world. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 425–437. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_4_425_437.pdf Blayone, T. J. B., & VanOostveen, R. (2021). Prepared for work in Industry 4.0? Modelling the target activity system and five dimensions of worker readiness. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 34(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2020.1836677 Bowen, T. (2020). Work-integrated learning placements and remote working: Experiential learning online. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 377–386. Briant, S., & Crowther, P. (2020). Reimagining internships through online experiences: Multidisciplinary engagement for creative industries students. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 617–628. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1271577.pdf Cook, D. (2020). The freedom trap: Digital nomads and the use of disciplining practices to manage work/leisure boundaries. Information Technology & Tourism, 22, 355–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40558-020-00172-4 Dean, B. A., & Campbell, M. (2020). Reshaping work-integrated learning in a post-COVID-19 world of work. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 355–364. https://www.ijwil.org/files/ IJWIL_21_4_355_364.pdf Ferreira-Lopes, L., & Van Rompay-Bartels, I. (2020). Preparing future business professionals for a globalized workplace through intercultural virtual collaboration. Development and Learning in Organizations, 34(2), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-08-2019-0194 Forbes Technology Council. (2020, September). When pandemic and technology meet: A new twist on Industry 4.0. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/09/02/when-pandemic-andtechnology-meet-a-new-twist-on-industry-40/?sh=5505c4708173 Gill, R. J. (2020). Graduate employability skills through online internships and projects during the COVID19 pandemic: An Australian example. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 11(1), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2020vol11no1art946 Hora, M. T., Lee, C., Chen, Z., & Hernandez, A. (2021). Exploring online internships amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-21: Results from a multi-site case study. WCER Working Paper No. 2021-5. Irwin, A., & Perkins, J. (2021, June 15). Are online internships the future of work experience, or just a pandemic remedy for student employability? https://wonkhe.com/blogs/are-online-internships-the-­future-of-workexperience-or-just-a-pandemic-remedy-for-student-employability/ Irwin, A., Perkins, J., Hillari, L. L., & Wischerath, D. (2022). Is the future of internships online? An examination of stakeholder attitudes towards online internships. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning, 12(4), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-05-2021-0102 Jackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842221 Jeske, D. (2019). Virtual internships: Learning opportunities and recommendations. In R. Shindell (Ed.), Total internship management – The employer’s guide to building and sustaining the ultimate internship program (3rd ed.). Intern Bridge. Jeske, D., & Axtell, C. (2014). e-Internships: Prevalence, characteristics, and role of a student perspectives. Internet Research, 24, 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-11-2012-0226

286

The practice of online internships Jeske, D., & Axtell, C. M. (2016). How to run successful e-internships: A case for organizational learning. Development and Learning in Organizations, 30(2), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-09-2015-0073 Jeske, D., & Axtell, C. M. (2017). Effort and reward effects: Appreciation and self-rated performance in e-internships. Social Sciences, 154(6), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6040154 Jeske, D., & Linehan, C. (2020). Mentoring and skill development in e-Internships. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 12(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-09-2019-0028 Jiang, Z., Di Milia, L., Jiang, Y., & Jiang, X. (2020). Thriving at work: A mentoring-moderated process linking task identity and autonomy to job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, (118), 103373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103373 Jisc. (2020). Employability rebooted: Democratising the future of work. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/ employability-rebooted Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., Smith, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). The emerging future: Innovative models of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 401–413. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1179840.pdf Kay, J., McRae, N., & Russell, L. (2020). Two institutional responses to work-integrated learning in a time of COVID-19: Canada and Australia. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 491–503. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_5_491_503.pdf Konradt, U., & Schmook, R. (1999). Telework: Stress and strain in a longitudinal study. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 43(3), 143–150. Kraft, C., Jeske, D., & Bayerlein, L. (2019). Seeking diversity? Consider virtual internships. Strategic HR Review, 18(3), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-12-2018-0100 Massingill, R. (2013, October). Creating win-win-win experiences: When do virtual internships really work? In 2013 12th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) (pp. 1–6). IEEE Medeiros, A. R., Ìcen, D., Morciano, E. A., & Cortesão, M. (2015). Using virtual internships as an innovative learning technique. Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) 262–266. Estonia. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2015.7095980 National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2020, May). NACE Best practices for virtual internships. https://www.naceweb.org/talent-acquisition/internships/best-practices-for-virtual-internships/ Oakman, J., Kinsman, N., Stuckey, R., Graham, M., & Weale, V. (2020). A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: How do we optimise health? BMC Public Health 20, 1825–1837. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09875-z Owens, A. D., & Hite, R. L. (2020). Enhancing student communication competencies in STEM using virtual global collaboration project based learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1778663 Pejic-Bach, M., Bertoncel, T., Meško, M., & Krstić, Ž. (2020). Text mining of industry 4.0 job advertisements. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 416–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijinfomgt.2019.07.014 Pittenger, K. K. (2021). Virtual internships – A new reality. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the 48th Annual ABSEL conference. Pretti, T. J., Etmanski, B., & Durston, A. (2020). Remote work-integrated learning experiences: Student perceptions. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 401–414. https://www.ijwil.org/ files/IJWIL_21_4_401_414.pdf Rolfe, G., Jasper, M., Freshwater, D., & Rolfe, G. (2011). Critical reflection in practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Salter, C., Oates, R. K., Swanson, C., & Bourke, L. (2020). Working remotely: Innovative allied health placements in response to COVID-19. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 587. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_5_587_600.pdf Sauder, M. H., Mudrick, M., Strassle, C. G., Maitoza, R., Malcarne, B., & Evans, B. (2019). What did you expect? Divergent perceptions among internship stakeholders. Journal of Experiential Education, 42(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825918818589 Shah, M., Cheng, M., & Fitzgerald, R. N. (2017). Closing the loop on student feedback: The case of Australian and Scottish universities. Higher Education, 74(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-016-0032-x Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2016). Designing work-integrated learning placements that improve student employability: Six facets of the curriculum that matter. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(2), 197–211.

287

Joy Perkins and Amy Irwin Smith, J. E., Meijer, G., & Kielly-Coleman, N. (2010). Assurance of learning: The role of work integrated learning and industry partners. Australian Collaborative Education Network National Conference: Work Integrated Learning (WIL) - Responding to Challenges (ACEN). Sytch, M., & Greer, L. L. (2020, August 18). Is your organization ready for permanent WFH? Harvard Business Review, Change Management. https://hbr.org/2020/08/is-your-organization-ready-for-permanent-wfh TargetJobs. (2020). A student guide to virtual internships. https://targetjobs.co.uk/internships/advice/ 1046376-a-students-guide-to-virtual-internships Venville, A., Lynch, B., & Santhanam, E. (2018). A systematic approach to the evaluation of the student experience in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(1), 13–21. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1179840.pdf Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59. https://doi. org/10.1111/apps.12290 Wenham, K. E., Valencia-Forrester, F., & Backhaus, B. (2020). Make or break: The role and support needs of academic advisors in work-integrated learning courses, Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 1026–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1705254 Werner, J., & Jeske, D. (2021). Ten simple rules for running and managing virtual internships. PLOS Computational Biology, 17(2), e1008599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008599 Winchester-Seeto, T., Rowe, A., & Mackaway, J. (2016). Sharing the load: Understanding the roles of academics and host supervisors in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(20), 107–118. World Economic Forum. (2020). The Future of Jobs Report 2020. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf

288

19 THE PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING Karima Ramji, Shabnam Surjitsingh Ivković, Nicole Miller, Farzana Karim-Haji, and Sherilyn Trompetter Introduction International work-integrated learning (IWIL) has been important in the higher education landscape and has highlighted the value of international experiential and work-integrated learning (WIL) opportunities for students (CBIE, 2016). Such programs have improved the skills and career opportunities for students, and also enhanced their global citizenship and awareness (Knight, 2012). The desire to participate in international experiential learning programs has grown exponentially and the benefits are evident in the literature (Boateng & Thompson, 2013; Gamble et al., 2010; McRae et al., 2016; Tiessen & Huish, 2014). Over the last decade, experiential learning programs have burgeoned at post-secondary institutions, mainly in the Global North (a term used to describe developed countries), and have focused on providing improved practical experiences and skill development through WIL. For students, these opportunities serve as a bridge to future employability and career pathways, and provide a broader understanding of global engagement, social responsibility, and intercultural awareness. This benefits their preparation for careers in today’s globalized world. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the value of the virtual WIL experience has been quickly realized, and key trends are forming in the virtual space (Dean & Campbell, 2020). Virtual mobility has provided access and inclusion for marginalized communities such as students with diverse abilities, those of diverse gender orientations, mature students, students with family responsibilities, and students living in remote communities. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many educational institutions have shifted to the online space, and outcomes have confirmed that: virtual internships challenge existing barriers; can support student outcomes; and offer new opportunities for networking and professional development (Briant & Crowther, 2020). Medeiros (2015) highlights mobility, flexibility, access, autonomy, empowerment, and professional networking as key advantages to the virtual experience. This chapter provides a holistic understanding of a successful IWIL program, both onsite and virtually, and how such programs enable student readiness for the future of work. These integrated components include strong systems to support global mobility, informed mentor-employers, and prepared students who have the appropriate skills and knowledge to work in diverse environments. In addition to employers and students, IWIL requires flexible and adaptive post-secondary institutions which can build deeper institutional partnerships, all DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-22

289

Karima Ramji et al.

committed to developing future leaders. In developing this chapter, the authors’ collective experience provides a unique opportunity to study a wide spectrum of WIL models, practices, and platforms to observe a variety of differing requirements and expectations. This has created an excellent ‘meeting point’ to study differences and explore best practices. Examples of resources from multiple institutions are provided to illustrate processes and procedures that contribute to a successful IWIL program. The discussion also includes how sustainable and trustworthy relationships, especially from East–West and North–South cultural perspectives, can be built with employers, where supervisors take on co-educator roles as part of the three-way partnership between the student, the employer, and the institution.

Stakeholder considerations A typical IWIL program has the same elements as a domestic WIL program, with nuances related to cross-border engagements where travel is required. McRae et al.’s (2018) AAA Quality WIL Framework is equally applicable in this context, and provides guidance on stakeholder aims, actions, and achievements. Stakeholder engagement, relationship management, infrastructure development, and pedagogical aspects of successful WIL programs, as explained in other chapters in this Handbook, also apply to IWIL. However, there are some key considerations unique to IWIL. These include guidelines on developing IWIL opportunities, pedagogical aspects of IWIL, and immigration, safety, and security concerns relating to IWIL. When developing cross-border programming for students, institutions are guided by the relevance of these opportunities to the students’ areas of study, so that the WIL opportunities are meaningful and contribute to their career and life goals through the development of knowledge, skills, and attributes. Institutional plans and priorities may also guide the nature and geographic regions where IWIL opportunities are developed. Timely connections to employers to seek out IWIL opportunities need to be considered, as does the additional time required for immigration and travel planning when securing such opportunities. These opportunities then need to be marketed to students well in advance of travel dates to allow for sufficient travel planning. Ongoing communication with students and employers before, during, and after the IWIL experience become much more important to ensure adequate support for students who travel far from home. For students, gauging their own readiness to engage in international travel is an important first step, particularly for long-term IWIL experiences extending beyond a couple of weeks. It is often advisable, particularly for students with no prior professional experiences abroad, to complete a domestic WIL term so that they can experience the transition from an academic culture to a workplace culture within the same country first, and then experience an international workplace culture. These transitions involve navigating distinct cultural differences, and this pattern allows for scaffolding their learning and competency development, even for those students who may have connections or have lived abroad, but not worked abroad. Students also need to have a solid financial plan that ensures their financial wellness before, during, and after their IWIL experience. They will need to budget for travel, health insurance, visa, work permit, immunization costs, and the cost of living in a foreign country at a minimum. This is important, as wage requirements for IWIL experiences are consistent with host country standards, which may be lower than those in students’ home countries. Employers or host organizations, as key partners in the students’ education, have the responsibility to contribute to the students’ professional development and career goals by offering IWIL experiences that relate to the students’ educational programs. Students can then take their learning from the workplace back to their host institutions, facilitating a global knowledge 290

International work-integrated learning

exchange and reciprocal learning. Engaging faculty in midterm assessment visits, debriefing sessions with peers and WIL coordinators, and sharing student reflection reports are effective means of facilitating this knowledge exchange. To promote effective learning during the IWIL term, employers should support the students with mentorship throughout their IWIL experiences, participate in assessing students’ achievement of their learning objectives, and provide midterm and final WIL assessments. Support with travel logistics is helpful; compensation that allows for an appropriate standard of living in the host country is also important and has a positive impact on student success (Miningou & Vierstraet, 2017). Finally, creating a welcoming and inclusive environment for the students fosters deeper engagement where they feel heard, their ideas are welcomed, and they are empowered to contribute meaningfully to the organization. Governments may play a key role in supporting IWIL through funded programs that help subsidize student costs and wages and provide immigration support (work permits and visas) to those wishing to pursue IWIL opportunities.

Developing international work-integrated learning opportunities Institutions have a responsibility to provide relevant IWIL opportunities for students. These should be consistent with national and international accreditation standards or guidelines such as those set out by Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada), the Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN), Work-Integrated Learning New Zealand (WILNZ), the Southern African Society for Co-operative Education (SASCE), and the World Association for Co-operative and Work-Integrated Education (WACE). Multiple avenues can be explored to develop these IWIL opportunities. These include direct job development with employers, institutional partnerships, and engagement with third party providers.

Direct international work-integrated learning opportunity development with host organizations In all matters relating to IWIL, institutional travel policies and advisories, usually in alignment with the institution’s country’s travel restrictions, must be upheld. Examples include Global Affairs Canada advisories, the USA’s STEP program, and Australia’s SmartTraveller program. Institutions must also ensure that job development activities relate to students’ areas of study and career goals, meet national accreditation criteria, and do not involve unskilled or casual labor positions. Opportunity development is generally managed virtually due to limited budgets. This necessitates reliable and robust verification frameworks are in place so that the quality of the opportunities, the safety of the students, and the satisfaction of all stakeholders can be maintained. Familiarizing with a company and onboarding them effectively so that they understand the value of the WIL program, institutional standards, and the WIL model is important. Where possibilities for a large number of placements exist with a brand-new employer, it is prudent to start with one or two placements and build from there. Due diligence when onboarding new international employers into the IWIL program, including the process of vetting and verifying, should occur. These aspects could include: • • • •

Location of the company (e.g., using Google Maps); Validity of the email address used; Domain name association; Search engine findings of the company name; 291

Karima Ramji et al.

• • • • •

News media and social media footprint; The company’s incorporation and operational history; The company’s membership in local and/or global business and professional associations; The company’s reputation on professional platforms (e.g., Glassdoor and Reddit); The company’s corporate social responsibility statements, awards, and so on.

It is also helpful to determine if: • • • •

There are alumni from your home institution at the company (e.g., using LinkedIn); The company is associated in some way with other companies that hire from your institution; The company has (prior) dealings elsewhere within the institution; The company hires students from other institutions (e.g., does the company advertise institutions they hire from? Are WIL colleagues at other institutions familiar with this company?).

WIL practitioners can request a business license/number or an offer letter to the student on company letterhead. It is important to speak with the potential workplace supervisor on the phone and respectfully ask for references if a phone call is not satisfactory. Conversations with employers should include: safety training; expectations and orientation; workplace insurance coverage, especially for clinical, unpaid, and underpaid students; type of office environment; recommendations for local housing, meals, transport, mentorship, and feedback; and their aspirations for diversity recruitment. For virtual WIL opportunities, discussions should include time zone differences and how employers can best support students virtually. Many institutions have developed toolkits to support employers in this endeavor, for example the one offered by the University of Victoria in Canada (University of Victoria, n.d.-a). Finally, any student engaging in independent contractor work should be handled with due caution and legal oversight. Especially important for developing virtual international WIL opportunities, all stakeholders should be coached about the legal and functional complexities of inter-jurisdictional hiring, especially across country lines. An example of a framework for guidance is provided by the University of Waterloo in Canada (University of Waterloo, n.d.-a).

Institutional partnerships Formal partnership agreements between institutions are an effective way by which IWIL opportunities can be developed. Partners may offer curricular or co-curricular opportunities including: research, administration, teaching or service positions; placing the student in companies affiliated with the partner institution; research exchanges (usually at graduate or faculty level); staff exchanges (usually to share/transfer knowledge); field schools; and service-learning programs. When reciprocal, these arrangements help ensure ethical partnership models are being implemented. Such partnerships may also help rebalance existing agreements. Institutional partnerships (e.g., Memorandum of Understanding, Letter of Collaboration, Agreement) are an excellent vehicle to build better relationships, create trust, and help mitigate challenges in instances where the institution represents a poor fit or lacks a strong WIL program. One of the key advantages of using partnership opportunities for development of IWIL opportunities includes the idea of seamless mobility that enables students an easier transition from one campus to the other, as it relates to logistics, visas, cultural activities, housing, campus support and services, and so on. Faculty, staff, and alumni can serve as champions, supporters, and implementers of these opportunities. 292

International work-integrated learning

Other methods for sourcing opportunities It is common for students to source their own IWIL opportunities. This happens when students are keen on a particular opportunity, may know of opportunities in their home locations, or might have career aspirations they wish to follow in that location. In such cases, it is advisable to provide students with a comprehensive knowledge base of IWIL opportunity development materials they can use to help their employer understand the true value proposition of their IWIL experience. Examples include the “Tips for arranging your own co-op job” toolkit by the University of Waterloo (University of Waterloo, n.d.-b). Third-party providers are another resource to connect with when developing opportunities for students. ACEN has an excellent resource on how to approach opportunity development via third-party providers (ACEN, 2015). Such providers are best approached when on-theground opportunity development is challenging (e.g., during a pandemic), when the program wants to enter new areas of the world, when institutional risk management protocols are still nascent, or when the institution does not have the resources or connections to create IWIL opportunities. Some elements to consider include the transparency of program fee structure, quality of employers and jobs, academic relevance to the student population, maturity of the third-party providers, and robustness of the remote program delivery (especially during a pandemic). Ideally, students, at the least, should get back, via remuneration provided by the employing opportunity provider, the program fee for virtual opportunities, and the program fee and flights for at-location opportunities. The student perception of the program fee model can be explained by the provision of enhanced services for the fee (as applicable), such as assistance with housing and accommodation, visa applications, at-location logistics support, and where possible no/low-cost activities that provide cultural experiences. Additionally, institutional assets, such as alumni networks, research networks, and entrepreneurial ecosystems, make for incredible pathways for opportunity development.

East–West practice and cultural implications on international WIL opportunity development With IWIL, it is common to encounter differences in practices between Eastern and Western hosts and opportunity providers. Some of these can be better understood along these points of difference: •

•

•

•

•

Length: Summer programs, visa/work permit limitations, academic cycles, and the maturity of WIL, among other things, might result in programs that vary from one month to eight (or more) in duration. Student remuneration: The culture of WIL, permit limitations, the local economy, the perception that the employer is already providing equipment, knowledge, and resources can result in varying ideas of whether the student should be paid or not. Active supervision with mentoring and regular feedback: The practice of WIL and local industry norms might result in significant differences of how much supervision is required, let alone deeper mentorship. Depth of immersion in work and meaningful experiences: The practice of WIL can strongly dictate how deeply involved the student is in core staff tasks. Sometimes language barriers prevent deeper engagement and leave students out of the staff cohort. Scale of comparison for evaluation: One of the more commonly observed differences is that Western employers are seen to give evaluations of very good/excellent/outstanding 293

Karima Ramji et al.

•

more often than the satisfactory/good that Eastern employers give. It is generally the case that ‘good’ denotes a job well done; however, this is perceived differently by the students from the West compared to students from the East. Intercultural effectiveness: The other significant difference is the cultural habits of students from Western and Eastern institutions, where aspects like taking initiative, asking for clarification, and inclusivity considerations, can have polar variations when students travel to the other half of the globe.

The approach to opportunity development should be one of recognizing differences and trying to bridge them so that they are mutually beneficial. First and foremost, the institution itself should: try to understand why the differences occur – by reviewing regulation and policy in the host country; have an appreciation for evaluation standards; and have a deep grasp of the maturity of WIL in the destination location. Then, the institution should discuss standards and expectations with the employer thoroughly. Where possible, the program should assign a lead-person for greater engagement and retention. It is helpful to provide toolkits to employers to facilitate the WIL experience as it provides a consistent understanding of onboarding, expectations, mentorship, supervision, outcomes, and succession planning. Supervisory toolkits from the University of Waterloo (University of Waterloo, n.d.-c) and the University of Victoria (University of Victoria, n.d.-b) offer some examples.

Student learning outcomes The diverse cultural norms and values students encounter and exhibit in a WIL environment, as identified above, often pose challenges for students; however, they also provide immensely valuable opportunities for their personal and professional development. Students will need to understand and adapt effectively to these diverse norms and values while staying true to their own values. An IWIL curriculum that enables them to develop their intercultural competencies is, therefore, important and should be supplemented by support from WIL practitioners through regular check-ins with students and employers.

Intercultural competency development There are many tools that help students develop and measure their intercultural competencies. Matsumoto and Hwang (2013) summarize and provide an analysis of multiple tools including the Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer et al., 2003) and Cultural Intelligence (Earley & Ang, 2003). The Cultural Intelligence, or CQ framework, has been proposed as a valuable developmental tool that can enable students to enhance their intercultural effectiveness during an IWIL term (McRae & Ramji, 2011). A subsequent study by these authors demonstrated development of cultural intelligence in students at the University of Victoria, Canada, engaging in IWIL experience (McRae et al., 2016). This inspired the development of the University of Victoria’s Intercultural Competency Development Curriculum (ICDC), which includes a module ‘Take Flight with Co-op: Preparing for your Co-op Abroad’ (Take Flight) (McRae & Ramji, 2017). The ICDC incorporates Pedagogy, Experience, Assessment, and Reflection (PEAR) as key components of the curriculum, as outlined by McRae et al. (2018) in their AAA* Framework. The ‘Take Flight’ course includes: •

An online pre-departure course encouraging students to develop their intercultural motivation, intercultural knowledge, and strategic thinking while preparing for the experience; 294

International work-integrated learning

• Exercises to develop students’ intercultural knowledge and strategic thinking as they develop their understanding of similarities and differences between cultures and plan for intercultural encounters; • Students having the option to select intercultural competencies as part of their learning objectives during their IWIL experience where they identify intercultural challenges and address them using their intercultural competencies; • Assessment of, and reflection on, intercultural competency development during and after the IWIL term with support from WIL coordinators. While the ICDC uses cultural intelligence as the intercultural effectiveness framework, institutions can adapt this approach using other frameworks and approaches.

Professional development and extra-curricular learning IWIL provides students with professional development opportunities that may surpass those available in their home countries. Living and working in an unfamiliar country exposes students to cultural challenges that enhance their intercultural competency development in a much deeper way, where they develop a greater sense of self, resilience, and self-confidence. In addition to developing employability skills such as personal management and project management they gain a deeper understanding of working effectively in multicultural teams, intercultural communication, and intercultural conflict management. They also develop their knowledge about global business, legal systems, and global issues such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs, n.d.), inspiring and equipping them to engage more meaningfully as agents of change (see Chapter 35 in this Handbook). In addition, networking opportunities with international organizations and professional associations related to their areas of study are powerful avenues to build one’s professional networks. Organizations such as Chambers of Commerce provide professional development and networking opportunities that students can engage in to gain an international perspective in areas of career interest. Such organizations also provide valuable volunteer opportunities for students. All these activities can contribute to their extra-curricular activities abroad, and thence to their co-curricular records or programs at their home institutions, where applicable. For instance, students can reflect on international experiences that enable them to ‘embrace diversity’ as part of the ‘Leading Edge’ program at the University of Victoria (Andrews & Ramji, 2020).

Risk management Student safety and security are always critical and for IWIL somewhat more challenging. Risk management is, therefore, a central feature of IWIL. In developing a risk management plan for IWIL, an institution must examine the framework of risk and consider institutional risk management. This institutional perspective adds to the creation of a framework that will endurably structure all elements of the program. The grounding of this program in preparation, procedures, and structure will ensure the awareness within institutional staff and, as a result, of all stakeholders to the importance of the risks involved for the student participant, the host organization, and the institution. The first item for the creation of a robust risk management framework is the necessity of a common language, hence the ability for all stakeholders to understand and participate in the maintenance of safety for the students. Before any action is taken to mitigate a risk, an institution’s risk appetite needs to be taken into consideration. 295

Karima Ramji et al.

This chapter discusses risk management as it pertains to at-location IWIL. However, risks associated with virtual IWIL, which became prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic to mitigate the health risks of cross-border travel, must not be ignored. Some of these risks are: 1. Student isolation is prevalent during long periods of virtual work. This can lead to negative impacts on wellbeing and mental health, ranging from lack of self-motivation to more serious effects. 2. Virtual mentorship is an area that employers have had little experience in. This can result in lack of job training and guidance, minimal work structure, and high expectations by the workplace supervisor. 3. Most institutional IWIL procedures do not take into consideration virtual international placements. This can be exhibited as an inadequate ability to track student progress virtually, lack of funding availability, and technical risks to monitoring within a virtual environment. Institutions have developed resources to support students and employers as they engage in virtual WIL and these have been referred to earlier in this chapter. As previously mentioned, this section will concentrate predominantly on risk factors that exist in the at-location IWIL arena. A risk management methodology is proposed based on two specific components, namely, the creation of foundational training and support for students, and the utilization of the stakeholders to support the creation of a safe environment that will help mitigate the risk that students might face during their IWIL experience.

Creation of risk management training and support for students Along with intercultural competency development training, it is important to include risk management in the pre-departure preparation for students engaging in IWIL. Such training and support will enhance the student experiences, and will help them identify dangerous situations, and manage these risk conditions. Ensuring student readiness and preparation closely aligns expectations with reality throughout the lifecycle of the IWIL experience. The procedures that an institution devises help frame the student’s journey throughout the process, and the structured delivery will ensure the quick and efficient relay of necessary instructions (RuzicDimitrijevic & Dakic, 2014). The setting of learning objectives is important to the learning aspect (McRae et al., 2018) but it can be equally important to set these objectives within a risk management perspective. Structured preparatory training allows students to develop realistically defined risk management goals. Table 19.1 outlines risk factors and how institutions can mitigate these as part of risk management training for students.

Utilizing stakeholders to support the creation of a safe environment To mitigate risk where possible, all educators, employers, and students within the IWIL environment need to be involved. The utilization of structured processes and procedures as templates helps solidify the risk management by an institution’s IWIL program. Table 19.2 outlines how these educators and employers can participate in this risk mitigation. Obtaining appropriate insurance to reduce the costs associated with the fallout from the above-mentioned risks is a key component of IWIL programming. At the university level, IWIL organizers should consult with their institutional risk management office for off-­campus activities to understand the institutional insurance coverage and deductibles and identify potential gaps for IWIL organizers. There are many types of insurance policies and companies and it 296

International work-integrated learning Table 19.1  Pre-departure risk management training

Risk

Description

What to put into place

A. Health Risks

• Depending on the country where IWIL will occur, students must be aware of diseases, pollution, water/ air hazards, etc. • Mental health and wellbeing including cultural adjustment/ shock.

B. Personal Safety Risks

• As students arrive in another country, they are more likely to have their guard down, and their lack of knowledge of risk factors, language, and customs may make them more susceptible to dangers that might not be present in their home country. • Students with unrealistic expectations may envision their IWIL experience through their first-world gaze and may get involved in the country’s unrest. This may put them at risk with governments that might not share their ideologies. • Understanding that they are in another country, which has its own set of norms, needs to be paramount. • Natural disasters are not always foreseeable but learning about the possibilities in various parts of the world can prepare a student for what to do in these eventualities.

• Health insurance requirements and understanding of inoculations. • Health and wellness resources, e.g., World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). • Protocols and processes signed off by both institution and the students for those experiencing mental health problems. • Situational Learning Exercises within pre-departure modules to emphasize various risk circumstances students might encounter. • On-site security briefing for all students.

C. Political Risks

D. Environment Risks

E. Learning Risks

• The institution must ensure the proper preparation of the students. This includes intercultural competencies, risk management, and student learning aspects of IWIL.

297

• Training on political climate and risks in destination country. • Each student signs a statement or agreement indicating they will not engage in politically risky behavior during their tenure.

• Students need to remain informed of travel advisories, warnings, and public announcements for their host country. • Students sign up to a relevant government travel advisory service and, where applicable, their thirdparty service provider contracted to provide on-the-ground support for students. • Examining the risks of the experience and building the learning material and appropriate competency assessment mechanisms.

Karima Ramji et al. Table 19.2  Stakeholder engagement in risk management

Risk

Description

What to put into place

A. IWIL Approval Risk

Includes workplace risk criteria evaluations such as employer screening, location approval, safety assessments, and risk mitigation. Processes during IWIL need to be proactively managed by the institution, which has its own set of expectations, policies, and risk appetite.

Rigorous screening of the workplace, location, supervisor, owner/manager, colleagues, etc., when developing IWIL opportunities. • Identify clear and precise expectations between institutions, students, and host organizations. • Punctual communication between all parties such as during a mid-term evaluation. Develop clear memoranda of understanding prior to the commencement of the IWIL agreed upon by all stakeholders.

B. Process Risks

C. Legal Risk

D. On-site Risk

E. Financial Risk

F. Emergency Risk G. Ethical Risk

Responsibility by the institution for reviewing, understanding, and accepting all contracts and nondisclosure agreements required for this job. Safety considerations in the workplace including workplace compensation in the event of an injury and liability insurance, where required, emergency protocols, policies, and procedures to maintain safety.

Student and institutional expenses; liabilities arising out of any expenses, costs, or losses a student might incur; financial information including salary and taxation; other legal and incidental costs. Risks and dangers that may occur due to the hazards of traveling, accidents, natural disasters, or illness. Mobility inequality, marketizing education, inattentiveness to asymmetrical power relationships or value systems, exploiting host community as research participants, perpetuating stereotypes, privilege, and entitlement.

298

• Student agreements to abide by the policies, procedures, and practices of the employer. • Clear emergency response and support protocols for students by the institution. • Ongoing evaluation and feedback mechanisms for the student administered by the on-site supervisor. • Clear articulation of expenses student is responsible for, and what the organization will cover, who takes ownership of liabilities. This needs to be completed prior to acceptance of the IWIL by institution and student. • A reliable emergency response plan at an institutional level. • Clarity on who takes ownership of liabilities arising out of these risks, who ensures the student in the event of death, injury, or loss while abroad, including evacuation insurance, where required. • Develop an ethical framework of engagement (e.g., Karim-Haji et al., 2016). • Having students explore ethical dilemmas that may prove to be riskbased and engaging critically is often a choice, ensuring students are prepared and aware of the dilemmas and how to navigate them.

International work-integrated learning

is imperative to work institutionally with a trusted partner. While working with the institution’s risk management team, questions to consider are: • • • • • • • • • •

Does the plan cover IWIL activities? Will it be mandatory to use a specific insurance provider or plan? Will travel insurance be mandatory (separate from health insurance)? Will the institution provide subsidized insurance coverage for students? Does the student’s existing insurance coverage (if any) include coverage for IWIL? Will the students be covered under the institution’s workers compensation plan while they are on IWIL? What coverage will be required? Do the administrators of IWIL have access to the appropriate resources and contact information in case of an emergency? While in the host country, does the student have to carry individual liability, professional, or other types of insurance? What are the institutional, individual, and employer liabilities and responsibilities? What is covered and excluded by insurance in the case of a program-specific, regional-­ specific, or global event?

Immigration and permits In addition to IWIL opportunities developed by institutions or students, there are several international mobility pathways that could facilitate IWIL. Onsite practical programs include The ErasumusIntern in the European Union, Australia Awards schemes including the New Colombo Plan, BridgeUSA (J-1 Visa), Tier 5 Visa of the UK, and International Experience Canada. New pathways include virtual mobility and hybrid programs that blend at-location and virtual offerings. Regardless of the nature of the opportunity, each of these have their own immigration requirements. It is important to explore the legalities of working virtually for an organization in a different country and follow the appropriate regulations and laws. In most at-location IWIL scenarios, specific immigration and travel documents will be required prior to the student’s departure. The time required to obtain the appropriate documents must be taken into consideration when designing an IWIL program at an institution, as it may take several weeks to several months and may include in-person visits to a consulate or embassy located in a different city. An increasing number of countries require biomedical scanning data to issue appropriate documents (e.g., the European Union). The basic documents that are usually needed are: a valid passport, an entry visa of the host/transiting countries, a permit or visa to study or work, and a resident permit or registration after arrival in the host country. Immigration requirements vary by country and change frequently. Students and institutions need to stay informed on the most up-to-date instructions outlined by the host embassy or consulate carefully. Post-COVID-19, it is imperative to also keep track of any mandatory vaccination or quarantine requirements that the transit or host country may require. The process to obtain a visa or permit may not be simple. A police check, a health form, or financial records may be required, each with their own processes and time requirements. Ultimately, the students should begin the application process as early as possible. Country immigration sites can be a good starting point. For instance, the Government of Canada’s Travel and Tourism website (GAC, n.d.) provides information on entry/exit requirements for various countries for Canadian citizens and permanent residents, and for foreign nationals wishing to travel to Canada. Students traveling to a given destination would need to determine entry/ exit requirements for citizens of their destination country via reliable government information 299

Karima Ramji et al.

websites. Most governments have official travel advice and warnings for countries and will have countries where their citizens are either discouraged or banned from traveling. Dual citizens who are traveling to their other country of citizenship should contact the embassy or consulate of that country to find out if there are specific requirements. Dual citizens should travel with both passports because, while abroad, local authorities could refuse access to their home consular services without evidence of citizenship.

Procedures and processes for a quality IWIL student experience Procedures and processes help establish clear expectations by which successful IWIL initiatives operate, while maintaining institutional standards. Although these procedures and processes can be cumbersome, they generally fall into three categories: student processes, IWIL employer actions, and institutional procedures (McRae & Johnston, 2016). So far, this chapter has delved into the infrastructure that supports IWIL. Table 19.3 looks at the student experience and provides steps that all stakeholders can take to ensure a positive IWIL student experience. Although each institution will want to generate its own set of processes to support the student experience through their IWIL, Table 19.3 has been pieced together as an actionable template to assist in their creation. Additionally, IWIL employers and students are encouraged to explore funding options available to support IWIL activity. At the institutional level, awards and funding should be developed to encourage IWIL activities. Existing study abroad, research, or internship awards available to students can be expanded to include IWIL. Beyond the institution, government-specific funding such as Erasmus Awards, Australia Awards, and EduCanada awards may be utilized to support IWIL.

Ethical considerations in international work-integrated learning Building IWIL programs, whether virtual or on-site, through an ethical lens, establishes a model that is holistic in nature and partnership-centered. An ethical perspective needs to be at the forefront of planning IWIL programs and not as an afterthought. Critiques in the literature have suggested that IWIL programs can often produce conflicting expectations about internationalization and the inequality of opportunity (Heron, 2007). While there will be students who are hesitant to travel after the COVID-19 pandemic has settled, IWIL is likely to continue and grow. However, careful consideration needs to be given to this development and how it can be challenged and changed (Tiessen & Huish, 2014). As virtual programs burgeon, there is an opportunity to design robust programs that engage in ethical discourse addressing many of the inequalities that exist. Ethical mobility programs consider the priorities and needs for students, the institution, and the host partner organizations, and emphasize co-development, co-implementation, and co-evaluation (Gough et al., 2018). Gough et al. (2018) identify a holistic model of six critical components for ethical mobility, and builds critically reflexive students who value and respect all the stakeholders, as well as a balanced program: • • • • • •

Ethically engaged partner relationship; Co-developed orientation and materials; Ethics of governance led from the ground; Ethical branding and communications; Ongoing critical and ethical engagement and learning; Co-assessment, co-evaluation, and co-learning. 300

Table 19.3  Stakeholder roles during the IWIL process

IWIL employer

Institutions

A. IWIL Approval/ Application

• Choose IWIL opportunity through a specific institutional process, which may include application processes, finding their own opportunities, and proceeding through an interview process.

• Vet student through their own criteria such as: readiness to work within organization; suitability of candidate; understanding of culture/country.

B. Predeparture

• Follow pre-departure training and submit required standardized institutional forms, such as: travel itinerary, waiver of liability, emergency contact form; proof of travel and health insurance, work and/or study permit and vaccinations /medications as required; register with relevant government travel advisory service and, where applicable, their third-party emergency service provider; secure accommodations in host country. • Register with local authorities and home consulate/embassy upon arrival in host country as required. • Participate actively in the experience and ongoing acculturalization/ intercultural growth through the adherence to: procedures, performance, workplace safety, and IWIL reporting processes.

• Provide letter of employment confirmation to student to expedite work or study visa (if necessary). • Complete onboarding of the student to satisfy their own risk management procedures.

• Institutions select relevant IWIL opportunities using: 1. Workplace criteria evaluations including: readiness to host student; quality of experience; onboarding processes; safety of location/country. 2. IWIL assessment criteria: including nature of IWIL tasks, length of opportunity, relation to learning, compensation. • Student training to satisfy risk management, which may include the required completion of learning modules on such topics as: cultural sensitivity, critical reflexivity, personal safety, and university IWIL requirements. • IWIL employer training on such topics as: student integration, mentoring, reporting through IWIL processes.

C. During IWIL Experience

• Engage in ongoing mentorship of the student through: feedback, supervision, competency assessments, worksite visits, recording work outcomes, and providing intercultural growth opportunities.

• The institutions are charged with the setting of reporting processes including: specific learning outcomes and assessment criteria. • The institutions also commit to hosting a mid-point review including reporting and assessing of both the IWIL employer and student experiences. • Maintain off-campus registry of all students abroad.

(Continued)

International work-integrated learning

Students

301

Perspective

Table 19.3  (Continued)

Perspective

Students

IWIL employer

Institutions

E. After IWIL Experience

• Students’ engagement in self-reflection after their IWIL experience will ensure that they know how to articulate competencies gained, share with the IWIL community, continue to grow, and learn and become a more global citizen (Tiessen & Huish, 2014).

• IWIL employers will ensure working with the institutions by assisting in the IWIL program design evolution with such items as re-examining student experience, partner return on investment, IWIL service standard.

• Institutions need to be conscious of possible reverse culture shock in students and provide adequate post-IWIL training. • Institutions must also ensure proper data collection and management from both students and IWIL employers to guarantee such items as: satisfaction and engagement, outcomes, sustainability, growth, quality, reputational collateral, and brand development.

Karima Ramji et al.

302

International work-integrated learning

University-based IWIL programs have generally developed in the Global North and have focused on student outcomes and skill and career development. While important and relevant, a critique of such North–South IWIL models is that they continue to perpetuate existing inequalities of access, power and privilege, stereotypes, race and class, often with unintended consequences (Tiessen et al., 2018). Existing models have often overlooked the role and value of the host community or partner organizations that provide environments for IWIL students to work and learn in, and exacerbate problematic practices such as non-reciprocity, invisible walls, learning as transaction, exclusion in decision-making, and the burden of resources and time (Tiessen et al., 2018). Universities have responded to the broader critiques of IWIL by engaging with host communities in reciprocal partnerships to ensure students are engaged and critically reflexive, and by developing tool kits and assessment tools to help student preparedness, by strengthening pre- and post-departure processes and systems (Karim-Haji et al., 2016; Tiessen & Huish, 2014). Just as North–South IWIL programs require intentional thought around ethics, similar attention needs to be given to making IWIL programs accessible to students who belong to historically under-represented populations, such as Indigenous students, students with diverse abilities, and students from the Global South. The University of Victoria’s Indigenous International WIL Exchange Program showcases internationalization and Indigenization of two models of WIL (cooperative education and community internship). Principles and good practices for Indigenous student success embedded in this program facilitate positive IWIL experiences for these students (Hunt et al., 2010; Ramji et al., 2016; Ramji et al., 2021; and see Chapters 32 and 35 in this Handbook). With virtual internships, there is an opportunity for bi-directional mobility from the Global South (countries typically referred to as low or middle income) to the Global North. South– North mobility has provided greater access to students who in the past might have been unable to participate due to financial concerns, visa issues, or travel restrictions. For example, at the Aga Khan University, the Virtual Internship Programme (AKU-VIP) opened virtual positions in countries that were politically insecure, conflict zones, and in remote areas where a student could have an impact while working virtually. From an employer perspective, the virtual internship allows access to a wider cohort of students and to test out new ways of working.

Conclusion and future direction This chapter serves as a guide for practitioners wishing to develop an IWIL program. IWIL continues to play a key role in the future of work as students prepare themselves for the workplace within the Fourth Industrial Revolution. While automation will become increasingly common, effective human interaction will be critical (WEF, 2016). Global competencies like languages, cultural awareness, and adaptability will also be in demand (RBC, 2018). IWIL programs play a key role in helping students develop these global competencies. The ability to work in diverse teams in the workplace and engage effectively with diverse local and global communities sets students up for success when working on complex issues of global importance, such as those raised in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs, n.d.). The disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated sector-wide changes in the way IWIL operates. Virtual experiences will not fully replace at-location experiences; they will, however, likely become a common part of IWIL practice to help adapt to new work environments, workplaces and new modes of working, reduce carbon footprint associated with travel, widen access to those who traditionally would not consider international experiences, and so on. Such experiences will bring a new set of opportunities, complexities, and trends 303

Karima Ramji et al.

that will change the face of IWIL in the decades to come. Practitioners can attempt new and innovative ways to develop IWIL programs, which can be informed by the framework provided here. Virtual IWIL will also help address issues of equity and inclusion and will connect students unable to travel to access IWIL opportunities globally.

Acknowledgments The authors thank Bettina Wahl, University of Waterloo, Canada, for her contributions towards the formatting of this chapter.

References ACEN. (2015). Third party provider engagement. https://acen.edu.au/resources/third-party-providerengagement/ Andrews, J., & Ramji, K. (2020). Connecting work-integrated learning and career development in virtual environments: An analysis of the UVic Leading Edge. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 643–656. Boateng, A., & Thompson, A. M. (2013). Study Abroad Ghana: An International Experiential Learning, Journal of Social Work Education, 49(4), 701–715. Briant, S., & Crowther, P. (2020). Reimagining Internships through online experiences: Multidisciplinary engagement for creative industries students. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 617–628. CBIE. (2016). A world of learning: Canada’s performance and potential in international education. Canadian Bureau of International Education. https://cbie.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/A-World-of-Learning-HIRES-2016.pdf Dean, B., & Campbell, M. (2020). Reshaping work-integrated learning in a post-COVID-19 world of work. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2(14), 355–364. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press. GAC. (n.d.). Global affairs Canada travel advisories. https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/advisories Gamble, N., Patrick, C., & Peach, D. (2010). Internationalising work-integrated learning: Creating global citizens to meet the economic crisis and the skills shortage. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(5), 535–546. Gough, B., Roy, P., & Karim-Haji, F. (2018). A Holistic Model for Ethical Mobility Programs. In 12th Annual Global Internship Conference. Retrieved 28 March, 2022 from http://www.pamelaroy.net/ uploads/5/0/8/2/50825751/a_holisitic_model_for_ethical_mobility_programs__web_.pdf Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443. Heron, B. A. (2007). Desire for development: The education of white women as development workers. Wilfred Laurier University Press. Hunt, S., Lalonde, C., & Rondeau, Y. (2010). Supporting Aboriginal student success: Report of the LE,NONET research project. The University of Victoria. Karim-Haji, F., Roy, P., & Gough, B. (2016). Building ethical global engagement with host communities: North-South collaborations for mutual learning and benefit. In 10th Annual Global Internship Conference. https://international.uwo.ca/pdf/Ethical%20Engagement%20Guide_2016.pdf Knight, J. (2012). Student mobility and internationalization: Trends and tribulations. Research in Comparative and International Education, 7(1), 20–33. Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence: A review of available tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 849–873. McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 337–348. McRae, N., & Ramji, K. (2011). Enhancing cultural intelligence through cooperative and workintegrated education. In R. Coll & K. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and workintegrated education (2nd ed.). World Association for Cooperative Education, Inc.

304

International work-integrated learning McRae, N., & Ramji, K. (2017). Intercultural competency development curriculum: A strategy for internationalizing work-integrated learning for the 21st century global village. In M. Drysdale and T. Bowen (Eds.), Where are we headed: Work-integrated learning for the 21st century global village. Emerald publishing. McRae, N., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2018). Work-integrated learning quality framework. WATCACE. https:// uwaterloo.ca/work-learn-institute/sites/ca.work-learn-institute/files/uploads/files/wil_quality_ framework_-_aaa_-_for_posting.pdf McRae, N., Ramji, K., Lu, L., & Lesperance, M. (2016). Developing global ready graduates: The CANEU-COOP experience. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, Special Issue, 17(4), 377–386. Medeiros, A. R., Ìcen, D., Morciano, E. A., & Cortesão, M. (2015). Using virtual internships as an innovative learning technique. In 2015 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 262–266). Tallin University of Technology. Miningou, E. W., & Vierstraet, V. (2017). Work-terms and success in postsecondary education. Economics Bulletin, 37(1), 180–189. Ramji, K., Kines, L., Hancock, R. L., & McRae, N. (2021). Developing and delivering a culturally relevant international work-integrated learning exchange for Indigenous students. International Journal of Work Integrated Learning, 22(3), 307–321. Ramji, K., McRae, N., Hancock, R. L., & Kines, L. (2016). Indigenous WIL exchange: Lessons from the University of Victoria, Canada-University of Newcastle, Australia Experience, [Paper presentation]. In K. E. Zegwaard, M. Ford, & N. McRae, (Eds.), Proceedings of The 2nd International Research Symposium on Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education. RBC. (2018). Humans wanted: How Canadian youth can thrive in the age of disruption. Royal Bank of Canada report. https://www.rbc.com/dms/enterprise/futurelaunch/_assets-custom/pdf/RBC-Future-SkillsReport-FINAL-Singles.pdf Ruzic-Dimitrijevic, L., & Dakic, J. (2014). The risk management in higher education institutions. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 2(1), 137–152. Tiessen, R., & Huish, R. (2014). Globetrotting or global citizenship? Perils and potential of international experiential learning. University of Toronto Press. Tiessen, R., Roy, P., Karim-Haji, F., & Gough, R. (2018). Expanding our understanding of North-South mobility programs: Insights for improved institutional practice. Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 6(1), 1–21. UNSDGs. (n.d.). United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals University of Victoria. (n.d.-a). Supporting remote work. https://www.uvic.ca/coopandcareer/hire/managing/ remote-work/index.php University of Victoria. (n.d.-b). Managing student employees. https://www.uvic.ca/coopandcareer/hire/ managing/index.php University of Waterloo. (n.d.-a). Working as an independent contractor for co-op credit. https://uwaterloo.ca/ co-operative-education/working-indepensdent-contractor-co-op-credit University of Waterloo. (n.d.-b). Job search tips for arranging your own co-op job. https://uwaterloo.ca/ co-operative-education/job-search-tips-arranging-your-own-co-op-job University of Waterloo. (n.d.-c). Supervisor toolkit. https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-advancement-cooperative-education/resources/supervisor-toolkit World Economic Forum. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution: What it means, how to respond. https://www. weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/

305

PART IV

Developing and managing work-integrated learning programs

20 ESTABLISHING A NEW WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING PROGRAM IN A DEGREE Bonnie McBain, Paul Stolk, Kylie Twyford, and Liam Phelan

Introduction This chapter reviews the experience of implementing work-integrated learning (WIL) experiences into two generalist degrees. Generalist degrees are standard offerings at universities internationally across several discipline areas including arts, science, and business. They are degrees that cover a range of disciplines and prepare students for a wide range of potential career pathways upon graduation. The chapter situates the analysis within a wider contextual framework of WIL at a national and institutional level in Australia, to explore the nexus between WIL policy and the messy pragmatics of WIL implementation. Using a case study approach, the processes through which WIL initiatives were conceived, developed, implemented, reviewed, and improved in two generalist degrees through the Business School and the College of Engineering, Science, and Environment at a regionally located Australian university are explained and analyzed. To ensure the chapter is useful for other curriculum and program developers, specific attention is directed to presenting a synthesized analysis of the two cases that identifies shared issues or challenges. While the setting is specific to Australia, both the policy context as impetus for implementing WIL and the practical challenges of implementing WIL in generalist degrees should resonate for readers in universities elsewhere.

The Australian higher education experience of work-integrated learning Policy support, expansion, and leadership Demands from the Australian government, industry, and community for work-ready graduates since the 2000s (Bradley et al., 2008; Cleary et al., 2007; ACN & DETYA, 2000) have driven increasing and widespread support for WIL across higher education institutions. WIL has become common in higher education curricula and is now compulsory within some disciplines and institutions (Kay et al., 2020). A 2017 survey by Universities Australia showed that across 39 universities, 451,263 students (one in three) undertook 555,403 WIL experiences in that year (Universities Australia, 2019). The establishment of the Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN) in late 2006, the national WIL association, has been instrumental both domestically and internationally in DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-24

309

Bonnie McBain et al.

the strategic advancement of WIL and the professional development of practitioners. One of the ways ACEN has supported WIL is through establishing partnerships with key stakeholders, as evidenced by the National Strategy on Work-Integrated Learning in University Education (Universities Australia et al., 2015). The Strategy was conceived to increase opportunities to participate in WIL in recognition of the benefits to students, employers, universities, and the economy. The Strategy proposes action in eight key areas, with the focus being primarily facilitative, such as measuring the level of participation in WIL by students in Australian universities to inform the next steps and future growth opportunities. While ACEN has provided valuable leadership for the advancement of WIL, partnerships between industry and universities in Australia are more limited than in many other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations – Australia ranked 29th on the OECD global Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard in 2013 (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2016). Partnerships initiated by universities were found to be rare, and industry seldom considered approaching higher education institutions – leaving potential opportunities for collaboration untapped (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2016). To better appreciate the relationship between industry and universities in Australia, and what this relationship means for the development of WIL opportunities, it is helpful to consider how WIL is facilitated and developed in other nations.

The international context of work-integrated learning Internationally, WIL is complex due to the varying national policy contexts governing higher education, especially in relation to types of activities that constitute WIL, duration requirements, quality, and payment. A unifying factor, however, is the leadership of WACE.1 WACE is the only international professional organization dedicated to developing, expanding, branding, and advocating for WIL programs within industry and educational institutions (WACE, n.d.). Countries and regions viewed internationally as significant contributors to the WIL discourse, and its quality development, are evidenced by their inclusion in the WACE National Associations Committee in 2017. These include Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, Southern Africa, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. For example, Canada, with its government’s substantial investment in WIL (investing Can$1.1 billion since 2015, with Can$800 million dedicated to WIL in the 2019 budget), is contributing significantly to the development and expansion of its quality. There have been several reports examining various aspects of WIL within Canada, with one of the most recent examples being the University of Waterloo’s WIL Quality Framework (McRae et al., 2018). As highlighted by Yorke and Vidovich (2014, p. 226) in their historical overview of quality assurance policy developments in higher education across the United Kingdom, Europe, the United States, and Australia, “conceptions of quality WIL remain multiple, malleable, and highly contested.” However, spurred on by the work of the OECD, there is evidence to suggest that quality assurance policies are increasingly focused on comparability across international borders (McRae et al., 2018).

Key components of work-integrated learning Defining what constitutes WIL has been something of an evolutionary, and at times contentious, process (Edwards et al., 2015; and see Chapter 3 in this Handbook). One commonly used description stems from a seminal large-scale scoping study of initiatives, where WIL was described as “an umbrella term for a range of approaches and strategies that integrate theory 310

A work-integrated learning program in a degree

with the practice of work within a purposefully designed curriculum” (Patrick et al., 2008, p. 9). WIL as an ‘umbrella term’ refers to a broad scope of models that can include work placements, clinical placements, project-based learning, virtual projects, simulations, and fieldwork (Edwards et al., 2015; Orrell, 2011; Rowe et al., 2012). In Australia, WIL placements in some degrees, such as engineering, nursing, and teaching, are linked explicitly to accreditation whereas they are not always an accreditation requirement for many generalist degrees (including both the case studies in this chapter). WIL activities are mostly unpaid in Australia, and this differs significantly from several other international contexts where payment for WIL – especially for student work placements – is more commonplace. As noted in Chapter 34 in this Handbook, there are many variables influencing payment and its subsequent influence on the success of WIL. The Fair Work Act 2009 (Fair Work Ombudsman, n.d.) governs the employer–employee relationship in Australia and provides the legal and regulatory framework for unpaid work (inclusive of student placements). Notably the Fair Work Act 2009 specifies several legal criteria for placements relevant to this discussion. First, there is no entitlement to pay for the work the student undertakes; however, a work placement host does have discretion to provide payment(s) and thus paid student placements can (and do) occur. Second, the placement must be done as a requirement of an education or training program, and the institution delivering the program must be authorized to do so (typically these institutions are universities, technical colleges, and schools). As WIL has become more widely adopted in the Australian higher education sector, the focus and importance has moved to the quality of WIL (see Campbell et al., 2019; McRae et al., 2018; Smith, 2012; Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, 2017). A quality scaffolded WIL curriculum allows for incremental development of learning experiences that allow greater autonomy, responsibility, diversity, consequence, contribution, and active reflection for students as they progress from first to final years (Bosco & Ferns, 2014; Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019). Quality WIL includes factors such as: authenticity; student preparation and support of learning activities; quality supervision; preparation, reflection, debriefing, and assessment; and inclusivity (Winchester-Seeto, 2019). Campbell et al. (2019, p. 28) propose an approach centered on four domains of WIL best practice: 1. 2. 3.

4.

Student Experience: a quality WIL experience should provide students with a scaffolded, connected, and supported pedagogical experience. Curriculum Design: a quality WIL curriculum should contain embedded, accessible, and transformative learning and assessment within an intended and enacted curriculum. Institutional Requirements: quality WIL activity across institutions should be evidenced by the proper management of staff, risk management, and reporting around WIL experiences supporting continual improvement. Stakeholder Engagement: quality WIL experiences are supported by engagement, connection, and responsiveness to the dynamic expectations of diverse stakeholders (industry, community, government, higher education sector, professional bodies, and students).

Work-integrated learning at the University of Newcastle The University of Newcastle (hereafter referred to as the ‘University’) is one of the larger comprehensive universities in Australia with approximately 2,766 full-time staff. The University began its engagement with WIL through the influential problem-based learning (PBL) approach to medical education nearly 50 years ago (Bokey et al., 2014). Since then, WIL has expanded in scope and application. WIL opportunities are entrenched in hundreds of core, directed, and 311

Bonnie McBain et al.

elective courses and research higher degrees offered by the University (here the terminology ‘course’ represents a subject that sits within a larger degree program). The types and models of WIL employed reflect the diverse range of disciplines and vocational accreditation obligations and, as such, have required an equally diverse and flexible system of requirements. In 2017, there were over 23,500 WIL experiences undertaken by 38,000 students across five campuses. These experiences were across the spectrum of WIL activities and include placements, project work, fieldwork, and virtual WIL. WIL at the University is supported through strategic plans, policy frameworks, and procedure manuals (e.g., University of Newcastle, 2007, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021). In brief, WIL within the University is the term used to describe educational activities that integrate theoretical learning with its application in a workplace, profession, career, or future employment. WIL should provide a meaningful and relevant experience and should be recognized through assessment and credit. The WIL experience can be off or on-campus, real or simulated depending on the discipline area, but must involve clearly stated outcomes, be evidenced by assessment, and be consistent with quality teaching and learning. WIL at the University has operated on a decentralized model with the colleges and schools responsible for its delivery and support and which reflects the professional requirements and specific discipline needs of their programs. Decentralized approaches are common in Australian institutions (Edwards et al., 2015), and justified as necessary to reflect “the diversity of WIL models in the Australian context and the discipline links to their industry sector, enabling close engagement with the academic staff that facilitates flexibility and responsiveness” (Kay et al., 2020, p. 496). Since the early 2000s, commitment to WIL from the University leadership has ebbed and flowed. Support and drive for WIL commenced with a sector-leading strategic focus in the period 2007–2011 (Orrell, 2018). This period was followed by a lesser institutional commitment to WIL, and then more recently renewed interest. Nevertheless, the offerings of WIL have expanded over time, to the point now where virtually all undergraduate programs include at least one WIL opportunity. The current strategic plan calls for ‘WIL for All’ (University of Newcastle, 2020). The key goal underpinning the WIL for All initiative is articulated as follows: All of our undergraduates will have a Work-Integrated Learning experience during their studies. Engagement will be with business, government, start-ups, research teams, not-for-profits, multidisciplinary initiatives, and international organizations. The offer will be flexible and personalized to the needs of our stakeholders, including a focus on local opportunities that will see our students contributing to our regions. Such an experience, supported by employability learning, will enable our graduates to make informed career choices. It will also contextualize their academic learning and will help graduates to understand the skill sets that are relevant to employers. (University of Newcastle, 2020, p. 29)

This discussion summarizes the Australian and international context of WIL, and reviews WIL at the University of Newcastle. The next part of the chapter appraises the two cases that demonstrate both shared and unique WIL program development, processes, and issues.

Case study 1: Newcastle Business School Origin and design of the work-integrated learning program The Newcastle Business School offers four dedicated WIL courses (offerings of 10 credit points of a typical 80 credit points per year full-time load) across undergraduate and postgraduate 312

A work-integrated learning program in a degree

programs, with the earliest course dating back to 2009. These WIL courses were developed in what could be described as an ad hoc process, rather than part of a strategic direction or stemming from a holistic School program review. Delivery and stewardship of the courses has largely relied on the efforts of a handful of enthusiastic academics. The course that is the focus of this case study, BUSN3002 Industry Placement (hereafter Industry Placement) was first offered in 2016 and comprises a 100-hour, externally hosted student placement. This course was the first in the School to include an external placement and was originally conceived to be an elective course for students enrolled in the Bachelor of Business, the Bachelor of Commerce, and related combined degrees. Prior to the introduction of Industry Placement, Business School student access to dedicated WIL courses was highly constrained. Only one WIL course existed, BUSN3001 Project in Business, with enrollments limited to approximately 20 students per year due to academic prerequisites, including a grade point average (GPA) requirement and availability of suitable research projects. In Project in Business, student contact with the external project partner was limited to several meetings, and the bulk of learning and assessment occurred as conventional classroom methods. Another related course, BUSN3500 International Work Placement in Business was first delivered in 2014 but was effectively restricted to students who could afford the financial costs of international travel and had also completed two years of their three-year program. In the period 2014–2020, International Work Placement averaged approximately 35 students per annum. By comparison, the Industry Placement course appeals to a much wider cross-section of the undergraduate student cohort because it emphasizes student placements with organizations in local settings and eschews academic prerequisites. The only requirement for prospective students is successful completion of the equivalent of three semesters full-time of their degree. Assessment is framed around pre- and post-experience measures, along with associated analysis and self-reflection. At the time of introduction, Industry Placement was not expressly positioned as a strategic initiative or market response. As identified earlier, the School did not have a formal WIL strategy or plan. However, in 2016, the School was seeking accreditation with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), the international accreditation body for business schools. The development of Industry Placement occurred concurrently with the School addressing feedback from an AACSB international peer review team. While not driven explicitly by the feedback, it seems likely the conception and implementation of a WIL course like Industry Placement was animated by the accreditation process.

Implementation and delivery The first offering of Industry Placement was delivered in Semester 2, 2016 as an elective and attracted just six student enrollments. In 2017, numbers increased to nine students in Semester 1, and a further 13 students in Semester 2. In these early iterations of the course, the students who enrolled in Industry Placement were actively matched by the Business School with workplace placement roles aligned to their study areas. Such roles were sourced either by (a) referring to a short list of organizations that had contacted the Business School expressing interest in hosting a placement, or (b) the course coordinator actively recruiting host organizations to address a particular shortfall (e.g., seeking out an accounting placement for a Bachelor of Commerce student majoring in accounting). This ‘high-touch’ approach proved labor-intensive, but also necessary given the relatively low profile of the placement program in the local business community. 313

Bonnie McBain et al.

Following three years of delivery (2016–2018), Industry Placement was redesignated from an elective to a ‘directed course’ for the Bachelor of Business degree, thus giving the course a place in disciplinary Business majors or specializations (e.g., marketing, human resource management, leadership, and management). This change was aimed at improving the visibility of the course amongst students and more closely engaging WIL opportunities (and host organizations) with corresponding academic disciplines. In practical terms, this change meant Bachelor of Business students taking Industry Placement as a directed course had to ensure their placement experience was in the same field as their study major/specialization. By contrast, the Bachelor of Commerce retained Industry Placement as an elective only, due to concerns about limited capacity in the curriculum and the accommodating coursework requirements for key professional accreditations (such as that offered by Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand). As enrollments in Industry Placement increased substantially (in the order of 80–90 enrolments per year from 2018 onwards) and external stakeholders became more attuned to placement possibilities, the Industry Placement delivery model was adapted. Rather than School staff actively matching students with placement roles, students were directed to either (a) apply for School-sourced placement roles, or (b) source placement roles themselves (pending School review and approval of the placement). This two-pronged approach became the default operating model for placement fulfillment in Industry Placement. School-sourced roles are circulated to all eligible students using a brief Position Description (PD) posted to CareerHub, a central institutional online platform. The application process is competitive, and shortlisted students are invited to a brief interview with the host prior to a final selection. This method replicates components of a typical selection and recruitment process, and in doing so provides students with preliminary exposure to a ‘real-world’ job application. Students can also source their own placements directly. Having both options ensures that students without social and cultural capital (international students and equity cohorts) are supported to source placements.

Success factors and challenges The success of Industry Placement can be evaluated in several ways. Across five deliveries in the 2017–2020 period, student satisfaction ratings with Industry Placement averaged 4.13 out of 5, with the two most recent deliveries scoring 4.55 and 4.45, respectively. As a non-compulsory course, the increasing enrollments are indicative of how undergraduate students’ value and prioritize WIL experiences within curricula. Moreover, as the following representative quote illustrates, students appreciated the chance to ground-truth their coursework learning and improve their sense of work-readiness: “I got to put into practice things learnt at Uni. I was able to gain new skills and learn new things. It was a great opportunity to gain perspective into the workplace” (Industry Placement Student, Semester 2, 2020 Feedback on Placement). The introduction of Industry Placement presented the School with an opportunity to engage more directly with a wide range of industry partners. At the time of writing, the School managed a database of approximately 110 unique organizations, representing multiple industry sectors and comprising the full spectrum of business types – from multinational corporations to start-ups. In 2020, four of these partner organizations were inducted into the University’s WIL Hall of Fame in recognition of their ongoing provision of quality experiences. In terms of challenges faced by Industry Placement, one ongoing difficulty has been accommodating the needs of international students. These students have displayed consistent interest in WIL placements and internships yet have struggled to secure opportunities in this course. 314

A work-integrated learning program in a degree

The challenges faced by this cohort are significant and include not having the social capital or local networks to source their own placement, while also being disadvantaged in competitive placement applications due to English being their second language. Attempting to address this challenge, in 2017, the University secured a grant from Study NSW to provide placement-style WIL experiences for international articulation students at the undergraduate level. The model involved students being placed with local businesses, some of whom had provided letters of support for the grant application to Study NSW. Participating host organizations received cross-cultural training from a contracted provider to help build staff literacy around cross-cultural competencies. Participating international students experienced their placement with slightly increased support from the School, including access to video resources developed around communication, personal branding, and workplace culture. The Study NSW grant provided much needed support to assist international student placements in the Business School. A legacy from the grant is the series of video resources that continue to be shared with international students enrolled in Industry Placement. However, it is evident that placements for international students require more than just improved student preparation and support. The willingness of partner organizations to host international students is critical, and this aspect of the challenge continues to be a focus for the School.

Case study 2: College of Engineering, Science and Environment Origin and design of the work-integrated learning program In 2017, the College of Engineering, Science, and Environment initiated a wholesale redesign of its flagship degree, the Bachelor of Science. The revision was a response to the rapidly changing context of both science in society and science teaching. Nationally, the skills of science graduates were not aligning well with the current needs of employers (Kirkup & Sharma, 2009) where typically there were gaps in transferable skills. Employers were also seeking future skills in science graduates such as entrepreneurialism, greater flexibility and adaptability, and skills for a more globally mobile workforce requiring greater autonomy and more learning on the job. Within the University, there was also a rapidly changing policy context. The Institution’s Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) Strategy required the degree to cater for a highly diverse student cohort with learning that could be personalized to students’ interests and needs. It also mandated that the science curriculum should go beyond the confines of single disciplines and to challenge the creativity of students with high-quality teaching approaches such as problem-based learning, experiential learning, and practical/active learning. The University’s Employability Strategy advocated for partnerships between its central Centre for Employability and Colleges so that students would be provided with context-specific integration of employability into curricula. It is notable that, being a generalist degree, graduates with a BSc may or may not pursue careers in science. For example, CEOs of Australian businesses are more likely to have a degree in science than in commerce (Apollo Communications, 2019). A literature review was undertaken to understand the current context in which the BSc was being developed. The aim of the review was to understand: • • • •

Current graduate employment prospects; Current skills requirements of employers; Future skills requirements of employers; Graduate skills expectations beyond employment; 315

Bonnie McBain et al.

• • •

Student expectations; Federal government policy in relation to science and science education; Institutional strategic policies for STEMM and science education.

The literature review was followed by a highly consultative eight-stage process to ensure that the BSc was redeveloped using the full breadth of expertise required for a robust outcome and to ensure that staff were engaged and owned the outcome. The first two stages (intensive workshops involving teaching staff, industry, transferable skills experts, teaching staff from interrelated colleges, postgraduate students, professional and technical staff, and institutional leaders in STEMM) provided the foundational elements guiding the design. The first stage was a workshop to establish the strengths and limitations of the current BSc, and aspirations and possibilities for the revised BSc. The second stage was a workshop to list curriculum priorities and advice on how to implement them. The remaining stages were as follows: 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Transferable skills expert consultation; Science disciplinary consultation; Professional staff consultation; Student consultation; Industry consultation; Cross-college consultation.

One key recommendation from this multi-stage collaboration was the mandate to incorporate an employment focus culminating in WIL to address employer concerns about new graduates having little workplace experience (Deloitte Access Economics, 2014).

Implementation and delivery Industry surveys indicate that WIL placements are more highly regarded when students are immersed in the workforce environment for a significant period (i.e., more than 12 weeks) (Deloitte Access Economics, 2014). Such partnerships give industry exposure to future employees and their skill sets and allow them to build relationships with students they may wish to recruit in the future. Additionally, placements provide students with the opportunity to develop a good understanding of what is required in the workforce. WIL placements are regarded as one of the most effective learning approaches to building workforce-relevant skills (Deloitte Access Economics, 2014). However, managing placements at the scale required (over 100 students) was not sustainable within the BSc. Instead, an alternative approach was adopted that brought industry partners into the university to work with third-year student teams on project-based learning. This was complemented by simulated workplace courses set as prerequisites in the second year. Finally, an employability focus was scaffolded throughout the degree from the first to third year, culminating in the design and implementation of six new core courses. A set of principles underpin these core courses, namely: • • •

Explicitly teach and scaffold the transferable skills highly sought after by employers including literacy, numeracy, communication skills, research skills, teamwork, and critical reflection; Explicitly teach and scaffold the future skill sets graduates are likely to require including entrepreneurial skills, ability to work autonomously, and life-long learning skills; Integrate employability skills throughout the curriculum in course content and assessment tasks; 316

A work-integrated learning program in a degree

•

Scaffold the skill sets required by graduates to operate successfully in more-than-single-­ disciplinary environments, for example, multidisciplinary learning in the first year, interdisciplinary learning in the second year, and transdisciplinary learning in the third year.

In practical terms, WIL is now integrated and scaffolded throughout all six of the core courses of the BSc degree. In the first year, students learn how to identify high-quality science, how high-quality scientists practice, how they think (e.g., critically, creatively, reflectively) (McBain et al., 2020), and how to undertake multidisciplinary science. This learning sets the scene for applying the aforementioned knowledge and skills in increasingly sophisticated ways through the degree, for example, interdisciplinarity in the second year and transdisciplinarity in the third year. In the second year, students begin the journey of building their employability (the capital that makes them employable). There are three parts to this: being aware of skills sought by employers and opportunities to develop those skills; being able to recognize they have skills; and being able to communicate their attainment of these skills. They also apply high-quality science through a simulated workplace experience regarded as ‘internal WIL.’ Students operate as a freelance interdisciplinary consulting team to a client (an internal university staff member, usually from a service unit) under the management of a head consultant manager (the lecturer). In their third year, transdisciplinary student teams serve the University’s regional and broader community (such as businesses and community groups) by addressing a real, complex problem. To account for the fact that students are more likely to be creating their own jobs than working in more traditional industry roles (Mitchell et al., 2015), the students design a social enterprise startup to address the challenge so that economic and environmental sustainability is improved. Thus, students learn how to create their own jobs. The curriculum supports students in learning an evidence-based approach to developing solutions to wicked problems that are equally relevant to a range of science employment contexts, such as applied research, grant writing, working in industry, and entrepreneurialism.

Quality assurance measures Resourcing curriculum renewal is not enough to ensure sustained institutional change and better student outcomes from science programs ( Johnson, 2014). A review of the success of instructional change strategies published in the science education literature (Henderson et al., 2011) indicated that two main issues lead to poor success: a short timeframe for resourcing cultural change, and poor evaluation of teaching practices. An ongoing and rigorous cycle of planning, enacting, and experiencing curricula is essential for demonstrating the success (or otherwise) of a program (Matthews & Mercer-Mapstone, 2016). The data collected is key to the iterative renewal of a program to sustain its success (O’Donnell et al., 2015). Program-wide evaluation is a complex and nuanced activity (Kirkup & Johnson, 2013). Institutional student feedback mechanisms evaluate student satisfaction but do not demonstrate the achievement of learning outcomes. Evaluation of the success of pedagogic approaches, such as inquiry and problem-based learning, can often reveal an aversion to certain teaching approaches despite better learning outcomes. Evidence also shows that teaching transferable skills complements and improves engagement with the science disciplinary content – the two competencies are not separate. Ellis et al. (2005) showed, for instance, that students who understood that the quality of science cannot be separated from the writing process had more positive perceptions of an assessment, the workload in the subject, felt their independence was encouraged, and understood better the goals of what they were trying to achieve. Evaluation, 317

Bonnie McBain et al.

therefore, must be able to account for such interrelatedness through more nuanced understanding of student engagement and learning outcomes (Kirkup & Johnson, 2013). Multiple data types enabled mixed methods analysis to measure the quality of the WIL experience for students. For example, other data points beyond institutional student surveys include self-selected participation in student focus groups and Brookfield’s Critical Incident Questionnaire (Brookfield, 1995) administered and fed back to students at multiple points within courses – which examine student perceptions and experiences of learning. Studentgenerated artifacts and interactions with learning environments also allowed examination of learning outcomes and engagement, respectively. For example, analyzing reflective journal assessment tasks helps us to understand what students have learned and where learning gaps appear. Learning Management System (Blackboard) analytics allow an understanding of how students engage with the online course content, including when, how often, and for how long.

Success factors and challenges The most significant risk to the success of the BSc is support for the program in a sustained manner over time (O’Donnell et al., 2015). For the revised BSc to successfully demonstrate best practice outcomes for students, it will require cultural change within the College. Three main transformational challenges are as follows: 1. Implementing more-than-single-disciplinary governance and teaching that counters the current siloed institutional structure (Rich et al., 2016). 2. Transitioning teaching of content in courses from a mode dominated by traditional faceto-face teaching to a blended mode. This can be one of the most pervasive changes facing universities (Partridge et al., 2011). If done well, it can provide dramatic improvements for student learning and engagement as well as for teaching outcomes. If done poorly, it can risk student engagement (at best) and increase attrition (at worst). 3. There is a risk that the transferable skills (primarily provided within the core courses) may be perceived as ‘light’ relative to the perceived importance of disciplinary learning (Schlegel, 2011). Without sustained leadership to continually reinforce the importance of these skills for graduate employability now and into the future, there is a risk that the curriculum space taken up by core courses could be compromised.

Synthesis of case study findings Commonalities The commonalities and shared challenges of the two cases outlined in this chapter highlight issues that may need to be considered when implementing WIL for the first time in a program. The case studies share many commonalities. The most obvious is that both curriculum development processes occurred contemporaneously, at a time when institutional policy in WIL (‘WIL for All’) was still in development. This had wide-ranging implications that incorporated both fundamental knowledge, such as ‘the definition of WIL,’ along with larger practical considerations such as how WIL should be supported and resourced at the institutional level (and, by inference, how organizational units, e.g., colleges and schools, might need to invest resources). The institutional WIL for All policy, when it started to be defined in 2020, gave some retrospective legitimacy to both case study initiatives, though the operational parameters of WIL for All continues to be refined by the institution. This has resourcing implications for investment in WIL into a program because future adaptation to policy might be required. 318

A work-integrated learning program in a degree

Another commonality was that institutional staffing to support WIL was critical for its development. The University’s coordinator of WIL was able to provide support, expertise, resources, and collegiality through a WIL Community of Practice (CoP). This guided both WIL initiatives in navigating the legislative landscape that governs it, and also socialized any WIL ideas and fears within a welcoming environment. Hearing about other WIL initiatives at the University was instructive. The process of presenting about the BSc WIL process and outcomes at the WIL CoP, for instance, was confidence-building and allowed advice from a broader ‘brains trust’ to be heard. If formal networks like this do not exist, it is helpful to informally build a group of supportive peer mentors. Both initiatives received endorsement and support from senior leadership. In the Newcastle Business School, the Head of School championed WIL development and implementation. In the College of Engineering, Science, and Environment, the Pro Vice-Chancellor’s (PVC) office facilitated and drove the initiative as part of a thorough review of the BSc. A staff member was hired to lead the review, and a small team in the office of the PVC were allocated time in their workload to manage the process. The inclusive nature of the process (i.e., using the time of staff in the College during consultation) was also supported. Both initiatives also share the common context of a rapidly changing agenda in national higher education, whereby employability and work-readiness have become key graduate outcomes. This shifting of priorities has delivered legitimacy to the WIL programs described in this chapter, but at the same time the success of the programs still requires considerable ongoing advocacy and leadership to be embedded into curricula.

Shared challenges The initiatives also shared several challenges. The first is the workload for academics. Organizing WIL relationships with industry takes time. Industry has clearly expressed to the University that it wants to be more than a line in a WIL database. A key benefit of building authentic industry–university relationships is more authentic engagement by industry in student WIL experiences. It can also create an opportunity for ongoing research relationships between staff. The time it takes to build these authentic relationships are often inadequately reflected in university workload models or rewarded in promotion criteria. The initiatives also share a staffing vulnerability. Because the development and implementation of WIL in both cases was coordinated largely by a single staff member, institutional memory and expertise also reside primarily with individual employees. Building relationships with industry requires particular personal attributes and, whilst some attributes can be learned, professional development in these areas within universities are not common. Developing such extensive relationships, however, may require a culture shift within many Australian universities. Historically, roles with these requirements have not always been sufficiently prioritized or resourced, and thus many WIL components are left up to individual academics to implement. Recruiting and resourcing the ‘right’ staff who are adequately resourced to build industry–­ university relationships will support a higher quality outcome. For example, a WIL staffing profile that combines non-academic staff and academic staff working collaboratively in clearly defined roles (e.g., separate roles for industry partnerships, student support, and teaching responsibilities) can often deliver quality WIL experiences. Both WIL case studies in this chapter are vulnerable during leadership changes and when agendas shift. The support from leadership has been crucial to the success of developing WIL in both case studies. Supportive leadership gives the development process legitimacy and allows for resourcing. In science, for example, there is a particular risk that employability 319

Bonnie McBain et al.

(which culminates in the third-year WIL course) is seen as insubstantial because of the focus on transferable skills and working in teams across multiple disciplines (rather than in isolated single disciplines). Despite the evidence from industry about science graduates’ gaps in transferable and complex problem-solving skills (Deloitte Access Economics, 2014), siloed disciplinary learning is a legacy of most BSc structures, requiring a cultural shift away from such practices. Without sustained ongoing support and direction from leadership, this cultural shift will not occur.

Unique issues and challenges The unique issues and challenges help inform what others might want to ‘have on their radar’ when implementing WIL in a new program. Both schools took their own approach to designing and delivering WIL. In the BSc, the scale of the final year course (up to 100 domestic students) meant that individual placements could not be found for each student – the available staff resourcing could not allow for such a scale. The approach needed to be sustainable. For this reason, industry was invited into the university so that teams of students could work on authentic problems with the support of their industry clients. By comparison, the smaller (but growing) student cohort enrolled in Industry Placement meant that sourcing individual work placements for students was a more tenable resource proposition for the Business School. The move to recognize student-sourced placements was also a key factor in increasing the number of placements in a resource-efficient way. The review of the Newcastle Business School programs – and WIL offerings within – was largely driven by an accreditation process. The approach to strengthen WIL was ad hoc, addressing WIL in isolation from other course offerings in the degree. This meant that investment in WIL added value through the introduction of a placement course, but it was ‘bolt on’ rather than strategic. In contrast, the review of the BSc initiated by the College or Engineering, Science, and Environment involved a strategic ‘root and branch’ review of the entire degree (with WIL being part of that). This was driven by a number of factors, including research (funded nationally by the Australian Office of Learning and Teaching) about WIL in science. But it also included an internal institutional review of science teaching undertaken within the university. This meant that the approach to WIL taken in the degree was systematically scaffolded across all years of the degree and was broader than what WIL typically describes. Regional industry stakeholders appear to be predominantly interested in engaging with domestic student cohorts, seeing it as an opportunity to scope out students through working with them, and a good way to ‘test out’ their potential. Regional industry also sees WIL as a way of investing in their regional economy and community (most students come from the region). Finding industry placements for international students, such as those enrolled in the Newcastle Business School undergraduate programs, has proved more difficult. Generally, domestic industry partners are more reticent to take on international students. Although the reasons for this are unclear, contributing factors may include a perception of international students as temporary visitors who are unavailable for follow-on employment (although this is not the reality with post-study work rights visas) and/or a view that such students are somehow less work-ready than local students (e.g., assumed deficiencies in English language skills, or unfamiliarity with Australian workplace culture). In summary, the industry engagement conducted as part of WIL experiences in both degrees demonstrates that WIL needs to have clear reciprocal benefit for both industry and university students.

320

A work-integrated learning program in a degree

Program development recommendations This chapter has demonstrated there are multiple approaches to developing WIL programs in degrees. Determining the appropriate approach for WIL development needs to consider a range of factors including: size of the student cohort; type of students; the needs of the student, industry, and the institution; and institutional and national policy. Three common elements are crucial to ensure a new WIL element can be added to existing qualifications. First, leadership needs to provide supportive power and resourcing to the initiative – leadership provides legitimacy. Second, those designing and implementing WIL require their own legitimacy and access to power. They need to be recognized through formal leadership roles that support the cultural change and ongoing resources required to produce a WIL program that will be successful in the long term. Lastly, resources such as funding, time, and technology need to be available (Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017). Without these three elements, WIL implementation will struggle to succeed. Research on implementing WIL (particularly that funded by the Australian Office of Learning and Teaching) strongly influenced curriculum design. Zegwaard (2015) also emphasizes the importance of research-informed WIL curricula (as is appropriate for all teaching in higher education) to evaluate the benefits and the challenges of various ways of implementing WIL. WIL curricula not strongly informed by research, risks the quality of the offerings. Clear national (Kay & Ferns, 2021) and institutional clarity is also needed about (i) what WIL is, (ii) what expectations there are for WIL experiences for students in higher education, and (iii) what institutional resourcing and support is available for WIL. These are critical enablers for successful implementation of WIL (Rowe et al., 2022). The WIL experience ideally is also scaffolded across curricula to prepare students for it and provide support and feedback on their learning experiences. Building relationships is critical (Fleming et al., 2018). Industry often prefers a single ‘front door’ through which to connect with universities for the first time, but this should then allow for a customized relationship with relevant staff members they will be working with. Program-wide evaluation is also essential to ensure consistent, quality delivery of WIL and requires strategic planning to allow for the collection of multiple evidence points across a program. A collaboration between evaluation experts and curriculum experts is recommended for developing a sound evaluation plan (Kirkup & Johnson, 2013). Evaluation of teaching and learning quality is essential (Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019) and could focus on a diverse range of indicators: 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Changes in skill development of students and teaching staff; Student perceptions and attitude towards their own employability; Student engagement; Student wellbeing; Industry–university relationships; Administrative elements such as legal obligations and administrative functions; Appropriateness of the WIL assessment.

Finally, the sustainability of WIL practices needs to be a prime consideration in how WIL opportunities are offered to students. Individual work placements are not always a model that can be applied to a whole institution and other models of WIL need to be considered. The design of WIL needs a case-by-case approach to fulfill the learning outcomes for students,

321

Bonnie McBain et al.

address industry needs and constraints, ensure the pastoral care of the students, and balance the resourcing available with the demands of the size of student cohorts and academic workload.

Conclusion The experience of introducing WIL curricula in two degrees has shown there are common elements that underpin the success of implementation. WIL for generalist degrees poses a challenge because the future workforce for graduates from these degrees is highly diverse. The curriculum needs to prepare students for a diverse range of careers and sectors. Addressing key criteria to inform the implementation of WIL, as outlined in this chapter, will help in the development and implementation of high-quality, relevant experiences for students.

Note 1 WACE: The international association for WIL, formerly an acronym for the World Association of Co-operative Education, now operating as the World Association for Co-operative and WorkIntegrated Education, retaining WACE as the formal short version of the name.

References ACN (A.C. Nielsen Research Services) & DETYA (Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs) (2000). Employer satisfaction with graduate skills. Australian Government. https://www.voced. edu.au/content/ngv%3A13863# Apollo Communications. (2019). Australian top 50 CEO report 2019. https://apollocommunications.com. au/ceo-report/ Bokey, L., Chapuis, P. H., & Dent, O. F. (2014). Problem-based learning in medical education: One of many learning paradigms. Medical Journal of Australia, 201(3), 134–136. https://doi.org/10.5694/ mja13.00060 Bosco, A. M., & Ferns, S. (2014). Embedding of authentic assessment in work-integrated learning curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(4), 281–290. https://www.ijwil.org/files/APJCE_15_ 4_281_290.pdf Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian Higher Education: Final Report [Bradley Review]. Australian Government http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/44384 Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass. Campbell, M., Russell, L., McAllister, L., Smith, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., & Barrett, M. (2019). A Framework to Support Assurance of Institution-wide Quality in Work-integrated Learning: Final Report. https://research.qut.edu.au/wilquality/wp-content/uploads/sites/261/2019/12/Final-Report.pdf Cleary, M., Flynn, R., Thomasson, S., Alexander, R., & McDonald, B. (2007). Graduate Employability Skills. https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A19437# Deloitte Access Economics. (2014). Australia’s STEM Workforce: A Survey of Employers. https://www. google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi09 bnxoafkAhXFV30KHTI2BoYQFjACegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww2.deloitte.com%2 Fcontent%2Fdam%2FDeloitte%2Fau%2FDocuments%2FEconomics%2Fdeloitte-au-economicsaustralia-stem-workforce-report-010515.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2pWENYpYqfZG8sxTq7viE4 Edwards, D., Perkins, K., Pearce, J., & Hong, J. (2015). Work Integrated Learning in STEM in Australian Universities: Final Report Submitted to the Office of the Chief Scientist. https://research.acer.edu.au/ higher_education/44 Ellis, R., Taylor, C. E., & Drury, H. (2005). Evaluating writing instruction through an investigation of students’ experiences of learning through writing. Instructional Science, 2(33), 49–71. http://www.jstor. org/stable/41953667 Fair Work Ombudsman. (n.d.). Student placements. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/pay/unpaid-work/ student-placements Fleming, J., McLachlan, K., & Pretti, T. J. (2018). Successful work-integrated learning relationships: A framework for sustainability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 321–335. https:// www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_19_4_321_335.pdf

322

A work-integrated learning program in a degree Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439 Jackson, D., Sibson, R., & Riebe, L. (2014). Undergraduate perceptions of the development of teamworking skills. Education + Training, 56(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-01-2013-0002 Johnson, E. (2016). WIL in Science: Leadership for WIL - Final Report 2016. Australian Council of Deans of Science. https://www.acds-tlcc.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2017/05/WIL-inScience-project-report-2016.pdf Johnson, E. (2014). Changing the Game in Science and Mathematics Higher Education. Office for Learning and Teaching. Kay, J., & Ferns, S. (2021, February 28). We need a way for the WIL: For Work Integrated Learning to really work we need a national approach, not piecemeal institutional efforts. Campus Morning Mail. https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/we-need-a-way-for-the-wil/ Kay, J., McRae, N., & Russell, L. (2020). Two institutional responses to WIL in a time of COVID-19. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(Special Issue), 491–503. https://www.ijwil.org/files/ IJWIL_21_5_491_503.pdf Kirkup, L., & Johnson, L. (2013). Good Practice Guide (Science) - Threshold Learning Outcome 3 - Inquiry and Problem-solving. Office of Learning and Teaching. https://www.acds-tlcc.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/ sites/14/2013/01/Science-Good-Practice-Guide-2013_FINAL-TLO3.pdf Kirkup, L., & Sharma, M. (2009). Forging new directions in physics education in Australian universities. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/DS6-607%20UTS%20Kirkup%20 Sharma%20Physics%20report%202009_0.pdf Matthews, K. E., & Mercer-Mapstone, L. D. (2016). Toward curriculum convergence for graduate learning outcomes: Academic intentions and student experiences. Studies in Higher Education, 43(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1190704 Mitchell, K., Judd, M.-M., Kinash, S., Crane, L., Knight, C., McLean, M., Dowling, D., Schwerdt, R., & Lovell, C. (2015). Case studies to enhance graduate employability: Careers Services. http:// graduateemployability.com McBain, B., Yardy, A., Martin, F., Phelan, L., van Altena, I., McKeowen, J., Pemberton, C., Tose, H., Fratus, L. & Bowyer, M. (2020). Teaching science students how to think. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 28(22), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.30722/IJISME.28.02.003 McRae, N., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2018). Work-integrated learning quality framework, AAA. University of Waterloo, Centre for the Advancement of Cooperative Education. https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-­ advancement-co-operativeeducation/sites/ca.centre-advancement-co-operativeeducation/files/uploads/ files/wil_quality_framework_-_aaa_-_for_posting.pdf O’Donnell, M., Wallace, M., Melano, A., Lawson, R., & Leinonen, E. (2015). Putting transition at the centre of whole-of-curriculum transformation. Student Success, 6(2), 73–79. https://studentsuccessjournal. org/article/view/569/326 Office of the Chief Scientist. (2016). Australia’s STEM workforce: Science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Australian Government. https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/sites/default/files/Australias-STEMworkforce_full-report.pdf Orrell, J. (2018, April 30). Work Integrated Learning: Why is it increasing and who benefits? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/work-integrated-learning-why-is-it-increasing-and-whobenefits-93642 Orrell, J. (2011). Good practice report: Work integrated learning. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/GPR_Work_Integrated_Learning_Orrell_2011.pdf Partridge, H., Ponting, D., & McCay, M. (2011). Good practice report: Blended learning. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/GPR_Blended_Learning_Partridge_2011.pdf Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). The WIL [Work Integrated Learning] Report: A National Scoping Study. Final Report. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/44065/1/WIL-Report-grants-project-jan09.pdf Rich, J. M., Aitkin, R., Boyle, A., Callister, R., Cameron, J., Carlson, J., Coleborne, C., Craig, H., Dastoor, P., Dayas, C., Elder, M., Fleming, A., Giacomini, A., Grainge, I., Johnson, S., McCluskey, A., Nixon, B., Wanless, E., & Ware, S. (2016). A new future underpinned by Science, Technology, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM) Strategy 2025. Rowe, A. D., Ferns, S. J., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2022). The future of work-integrated learning: Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning. Routledge.

323

Bonnie McBain et al. Rowe, A. D., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2017). Developing graduate employability skills and attributes: curriculum enhancement through work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 87–99. Rowe, A., Winchester-Seeto, T., & Mackaway, J. (2012). That’s not really WIL! –Building a typology of WIL and related activities. In M. Campbell (Ed.), ACEN 2012: Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Collaborative Education Network National Conference. Collaborative Education: Investing in the Future (pp. 246–252). Australian Collaborative Education Network. https://acen.edu.au/wp-content/ uploads/2015/09/ACEN-2012-National-Conference-Proceedings.pdf?x17208 Schlegel, W. M. (2011). Creating interdisciplinary science programs: Purposes, progress, potholes. Peer Review, 13(3). https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/creating-interdisciplinaryscience-programs-purposes-progress Smith, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: A comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360. 2011.558072 TEQSA (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency). (2017). Guidance Note: Work Integrated Learning. (Version 1.2). https://www.teqsa.gov.au/latest-news/publications/guidance-note-workintegrated-learning Universities Australia. (2019). Work Integrated Learning In Universities: Final Report. https:// internationaleducation.gov.au/International-network/Australia/InternationalStrategy/EGIProjects/ Documents/WIL%20in%20universities%20-%20final%20report%20April%202019.pdf Universities Australia, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Australian Industry Group, Business Council of Australia, and Australian Collaborative Education Network. (2015). National strategy on work integrated learning in university education. http://acen.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NationalWIL-Strategy-in-university-education-032015.pdf?x99824 University of Newcastle. (2007). Building distinction: The University of Newcastle Strategic Plan 2007–2011. University of Newcastle. (2013). New directions: Strategic Plan 2013–2015. University of Newcastle. (2016). New Futures Strategic Plan 2016–2025. University of Newcastle. (2018). Student Professional Experience Policy. https://policies.newcastle.edu. au/document/view-current.php?id=30 University of Newcastle. (2020). Looking Ahead: The University of Newcastle Strategic Plan 2020–2025. https://www.newcastle.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/607292/Strategic-Plan-2020-2025.pdf University of Newcastle. (2021). Program Management Procedure Manual - Coursework. https://policies. newcastle.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=89&version=5 World Association of Cooperative Education. (n.d.). Welcome to WACE. https://waceinc.org/ Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). Quality and standards for work integrated learning. Australian Council of Deans of Science. https://www.acds-tlcc.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2019/03/Winchester-SeetoLiterature-Review-Quality-and-Standards.pdf Yorke, J., & Vidovich, L. (2014). Quality policy and the role of assessment in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3), 225–239. Zegwaard, K. E., & Rowe, A. D. (2019). Research-informed curriculum and advancing innovative practices in work-integrated learning, International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 20(4), 323–334. Zegwaard, K. E. (2015). Building an excellent foundation for research: Challenges and current research needs [special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(2), 89–99.

324

21 ESTABLISHING AND MANAGING A BLENDED APPROACH TO INSTITUTIONAL WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING Mohna Baichoo, Jennifer Fane, Tania Loken, and Aurelea Mahood Introduction Advocating for, establishing, and managing blended and centralized work-integrated learning (WIL) initiatives within a post-secondary institution poses significant challenges given the intricacies of bringing together a complex range of stakeholders, disciplines, and practices. The chapter begins with an exploration of the criteria for an institutionally defined WIL focus and the increased focus on embedding WIL into a wide range of programs and disciplines within an institution from global perspectives. The chapter examines the practice of establishing and maintaining institution-wide approaches to WIL and the complexities and challenges institutions face by drawing on a range of international literature and examples of practice. Key considerations in aligning WIL with institutional strategic direction, developing an institutional support structure (blended or centralized) to adopt, allocating resources, and managing WIL across an existing institution are explored. The chapter presents a case study of a regional Canadian university’s work to move from a decentralized institutional WIL approach to a blended institutional WIL support structure, and the planning, processes, successes, and challenges faced during this process. The case study explores in detail all aspects of establishing and maintaining a blended WIL support structure from researching and selecting a model that fits within the ethos of the institution, to identifying and leveraging existing resources, processes, and relationships, to building institutional capacity with institution-wide supports and a shared vision. Examples are shared from practice with the challenges (initial and ongoing), successes, barriers, and opportunities that have come from the shift towards a blended WIL model with widespread buy-in from all stakeholders. Specific focus is given to carefully outline the processes the university undertook so that the case study provides sufficient detail for program developers looking to incorporate or operationalize aspects of it into their own institution. The chapter includes discussion of lessons learned and key points of consideration from the case study and the work of establishing and maintaining a new institutional WIL approach. The chapter concludes with key considerations and guiding questions for program developers DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-25

325

Mohna Baichoo et al.

looking to assess or review current institution-wide practice and embark on a new institution-wide WIL approach.

Institutional work-integrated learning models Internationally, WIL is a key focus in higher education across a broad range of countries ( Jackson & Meek, 2021; Smith et al., 2018; Talbot, 2019) with national WIL associations spanning North America, Europe, Africa, and Australasia (Zegwaard et al., 2019). While there is no single international definition of WIL (Brown, 2010), see the discussion in Chapter 3 in this Handbook, good practice requires three stakeholders for its success: (1) institutional, (2) educational, and (3) partnerships (Orrell, 2011). Institutionally, a “clearly articulated and shared vision” (Patrick et al., 2014, p. 11) within a university is necessary for implementing, supporting, and sustaining WIL. While there is consensus on good practice in relation to WIL across universities (Campbell et al., 2019; McRae & Johnston, 2016), there continue to be a range of support models that institutions adapt in relation to it. These models span from highly decentralized or siloed approaches where WIL is found in ‘pockets of practice’ in relation to certain academic programs/disciplines, to highly centralized models where all students complete a WIL component in the course of their degree through a central WIL center or ‘hub,’ frequently found in the portfolio of the Provost (see, e.g., Kay et al., 2020; Patrick et al., 2014). A decentralized approach to WIL in many institutions likely stems from the fact that many disciplines, such as education, social work, and health/medicine, have longstanding traditions of it as a required part of their degree programs (Kay et al., 2020). However, as WIL has been identified as a key strategy for higher education institutions to respond to the increased calls for student employability and ‘work ready graduates’ (Levin et al., 2010; Mackaway et al., 2014; Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017), both curricular and co-curricular WIL are being embedded in an increasing range of disciplines/program areas in many universities including STEM, humanities, and social sciences (Edwards et al., 2015; Rowland et al., 2020; Sutherland & Symmons, 2013; Universities Australia et al., 2015; Whelan, 2017). In Australian universities, decentralized or blended organizational structures are the most common, with few centralized support models that manage all aspects of WIL (Edwards et al., 2015). Reporting on the development of a province-wide matrix for WIL in British Columbia, Canada, Johnston et al. (2016) noted that most of the Province’s institutions did not have centralized capacity for managing WIL and, as a result, for issues that were arising. Even within countries, there can be noted difference in WIL support models in relation to whether the institution is research focused or teaching focused (Smith et al., 2018), with the latter more likely to have structured or centralized supports (Talbot, 2019). In a report on the good practice of WIL (Sachs et al., 2017), the authors report case studies on a variety of international institutions using an institution-wide approach to WIL as a way of exemplifying innovative and current good practice, highlighting the benefits of coordinated approaches.

Institutional integration and centralization of work-integrated learning As WIL becomes more prevalent across disciplinary lines, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting the benefits of institutionally integrated (blended) or centralized systems and processes for it. Jackson and Meek (2021) claim that it is widely acknowledged that institution-wide approaches to WIL facilitate wider WIL opportunities for students. Brown 326

Establishing and managing a blended approach

(2010) contends that successful implementation of WIL requires the development of an institution-wide position on it through the creation of policy and coordinated practice. From their survey of institutional approaches to WIL, Patrick et al. (2014) assert that a successful WIL program requires strategic leadership at the institutional level to embed it into mainstream curricula and assessment activities, and to achieve efficiency in the facilitation of it. While survey respondents came from a range of institutional WIL models (decentralized, blended, and centralized) all respondents noted that WIL implementation at their institution was underestimated and/or under-resourced. Interestingly, all respondents also desired a further formal and centralized policy for WIL. Similar findings were also reported by Dollinger and Brown (2019) who indicated that the more decentralized the decision making about WIL was, the more challenging it was for staff to implement. In another recent study which investigated institutional response to WIL during COVID-19, Kay et al. (2020) compared the challenges faced by an institution with a centralized WIL model (University of Waterloo, Canada) and a largely decentralized model (RMIT, Australia), and found that implementing a coordinated response was more efficient in a centralized model. For established institutions, the move to integrating some centralized WIL components within a currently decentralized model may serve as a way of reaping some of the benefits of a centralized model without disrupting the practices and process of WIL at specific departmental levels. In this way, institutions can adopt what Swirski and Simpson (2012) coin a ‘slow measured approach’ to WIL innovation that assesses the needs of all stakeholders to carefully identify what types of university-wide WIL structures would be supportive and sustainable by all stakeholders. The following sections draw on a range of international research to make a case for integrated or centralized institutional activities for WIL, to address the following areas highlighted in the literature as continued institutional challenges to it: • • • • • • • •

Academic leadership; Shared language; Equity for students; Finding WIL placements/partners; Academic/faculty and staff workload; Resources and supports; Risk management; Assessment and evaluation.

Academic leadership There has been a significant amount of research on the role of academic leadership in relation to WIL and WIL-related challenges in the past decade (Cooper et al., 2010; Kay et al., 2019; Patrick et al., 2014). This area of scholarship includes the development of two institutional WIL frameworks that highlight the need for strong academic leadership to develop and sustain high quality WIL experiences for all students (Campbell et al., 2019; Dean et al., 2020). Patrick et al. (2014) argue that developing academic leadership capacity must be done across the spectrum, including at the department/unit, faculty, and senior/executive levels. Kay et al. (2018) highlight the role of senior academic leadership in developing and driving processes and logistics relating to WIL at the institutional level including key components such as conducting regular audits of WIL, identifying gaps, developing good practices, supporting external partnership development, and addressing staff and faculty workload challenges. 327

Mohna Baichoo et al.

Shared language A lack of common language and a definitive understanding of what WIL is (and what it is not) is also a significant challenge to institution-wide WIL practices (Bennett, 2009; Johnston et al., 2016; Orrell, 2011). McRae and Johnston (2016) argue that while the focus of institutions is frequently on increasing the number and quality of WIL opportunities, this work is hampered by the less visible issue of a lack of common language and understanding of what constitutes quality WIL experiences. Johnston et al. (2016) offer an excellent case study outlining the real intra- and inter-institutional challenges of a lack of shared WIL language, and a way forward through the development of a working group to develop a WIL matrix with mutually agreed upon language within a Canadian province.

Equity for students An institution-wide WIL focus also offers opportunities for addressing student equity issues in accessing quality WIL opportunities. Increases in types and number of WIL offerings across disciplines not traditionally engaged in WIL is a key factor in addressing equitable student access to WIL; however, there are still significant issues for certain student groups. Peach and Gamble (2011) highlight that even in areas were WIL is mandated for professional accreditation, international students and students with significant family and/or financial responsibilities may not be able to pursue WIL opportunities, especially if they are unpaid. Brough et al.’s (2014) study also found similar barriers for students in relation to accessing WIL opportunities, as well as additional barriers such as travel, finding childcare, and program structures. These challenges were additionally highlighted in COVID-19 where problems relating to finding placements were exacerbated (Kay et al., 2020). Jackson and Meek (2021) argue that embedding institution-wide non-traditional WIL alternatives to the traditional workplace models is a viable alternative for addressing many of these issues. Additionally, an institutional WIL focus allows for shared goals between academic units and student service units, which can be used to identify and address these challenges.

Educational institution staff and faculty workload The increased complexity of WIL work for staff and faculty workload (both for WIL-related teaching loads and non-teaching WIL-focused positions) remains vastly under-recognized and supported at the university level, both in terms of resources and workload allocation ( Jovanovic et al., 2018; Levin et al., 2010; Tuinamuana, 2016). Edwards et al. (2015) assert that the under-resourcing of support staff and the lack of value placed on WIL workload for teaching staff are key barriers to WIL at an institutional level. Without an institution-wide commitment to resources and workload allocation for WIL, the work is generally completed by a few of the faculty and teaching staff who feel strongly enough about the value of WIL to do this work off the ‘side of their desk’ alongside under-supported non-teaching staff.

Finding work-integrated learning host organizations Building from the challenges identified under ‘workload,’ the rising demand for WIL is generally not matched with a rise in suitable work placement opportunities (Jackson & Meek, 2021). Establishing an institution-wide register or database of external parties who have expressed interest in engaging with students has been identified as a key strategy for supporting WIL (Brown, 2010). Additionally, an institution-wide database may facilitate the identification of further types of WIL opportunities with current partners (e.g., incorporating both co-curricular and curricular), 328

Establishing and managing a blended approach

and may help to identify non-traditional partners through networking, such as startups and micro-businesses, which may be especially relevant during COVID-19 (Jackson & Meek, 2021).

Resources and supports In addition to a shared register or database for cataloguing external partnerships, the creation of institution-wide resources, tools, and strategies that can be shared amongst faculty, teaching staff, and administrative staff have been identified as key sources of WIL support (Smith et al., 2018). For this to happen as argued by Brown (2010), there must be institutional WIL policy developed to support the work that has traditionally been done at the school/departmental level. Kay et al. (2020) provide an example of three institutions with central WIL units that are able to offer a suite of centralized resources that were found to be highly supportive of WIL including professional development, WIL management and reporting systems, legal advice, WIL procedures and processes, and broader industry engagement support.

Risk management Risk management, which includes issues such as legal advice, requirements and contracts, health and safety, potential student issues while on WIL (workers’ rights and potential exploitation), and staff burnout, are key elements of WIL in higher education (Naylor et al., 2010). However, in a recent international survey of WIL practitioners, many of these issues were rated of low importance when it came to ranking challenges or issues associated with the provision of WIL (Zegwaard et al., 2019). This may be due to the fact that some WIL practitioners are not aware of their duty of care when it comes to the management of risk during WIL and/or the supports needed from the institution for WIL provision. Cameron (2020) identifies that low-risk literacy presents a significant risk to the institution, students, and WIL staff. To address these concerns, Campbell et al. (2019) argue the need for institution-wide legal and risk management frameworks and compliance processes and procedures to ensure that the institution, students, and partners are covered and protected during WIL experiences.

Assessment and evaluation The value of institution-wide approaches to WIL relates to the complexities of providing quality assessment (Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017) and the need for systematic and routine evaluation at the institution level (Brown, 2010). This includes the tracking of both short-term and long-term goals (Campbell et al., 2019), and providing the basis for the “collection of evidence to improve WIL activities and outcomes” at the institutional level (Sachs et al., 2017, p. 7). An institution-wide approach to assessment and evaluation supports the development of assessment strategies, instruments, and reporting strategies for all the three key stakeholder groups (institution, students, host organizations) and drives increased efficiency, accountability, and resourcing (Naylor et al., 2010).

A case study: shifting the focus of institutional work-integrated learning Description of the case Capilano University (CapU) is a Canadian university named after Chief Joe Capilano, an  important leader of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish) Nation of the Coast Salish people. 329

Mohna Baichoo et al.

We  respectfully acknowledge that our campuses are located on the territories of the Líl̓wat (Lil’wat), xʷməθkʷəy̓ əm (Musqueam), shíshálh (Sechelt), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, and Səl̓ílwətaʔ/ Selilwitulh (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations (Capilano University, 2021). CapU, founded in 1968 as Capilano College, was conceived to serve the residents of the North Shore, in British Columbia (BC)’s Lower Mainland, and where the main campus is located (Capilano University, 2022). “In 2008, the provincial government changed its designation to Capilano University, to reflect the growth and capacity of the institution” (University Affairs, 2021, para. 4). CapU is a teaching focused university, with a community campus on the Sunshine Coast and an urban campus near downtown Vancouver. CapU typically enrolls 7,500 (full-time equivalent) students across the three campuses. Envisioning 2030, approved by the Board of Governors in 2020, which outlines the university’s strategic operational plan for the next ten years, highlighted the need for building closer partnerships with the communities it serves and creating a distinctive university experience for students (Envisioning 2030, 2021). CapU has a long-standing history of Co-op/WIL in specific program areas such as the Bachelors of Tourism, Visual Communication and Design, Business Administration, and Early Childhood Education. However, these opportunities have been highly localized to specific student groups. In an effort to expand opportunities for all students to participate in curricular WIL opportunities, the university launched CityStudio North Vancouver in September 2019 (CityStudio North Vancouver, 2022). This is a collaboration between the City of North Vancouver and CapU, where academic courses are matched with city programs/staff to engage students in community-based service learning and applied research projects (Fane et al., 2021). While in 2020–2021 CityStudio North Vancouver saw 26 course collaborations, there still remains a need to increase opportunities for further curriculum WIL opportunities for students, with no centralized supports or staff resources to undertake this work (CityStudio North Vancouver, 2022). To address these challenges, CapU applied for two British Columbian Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training grants to support institution-wide WIL capacity building, available from the Can$9 million in funding announced by the Ministry to support the work across the entire sector in BC. The awarding of these two Ministry funded grants, a team of faculty and staff at CapU working under the Director of Academic Initiatives and Planning embarked on the process of increasing institutional WIL capacity through an integrated model that focused on leveraging existing resources and good practices to develop and sustain increased WIL offerings to all students. The literature presented at the beginning of this chapter was used as the starting point for the design of an integrated WIL model that is outlined in the following section. It is also important to note that this institutional WIL development took place in the 2020/2021 academic year, within the context of COVID-19. Building from the wealth of international literature on institutional WIL approaches, CapU began the process of reimagining WIL within the institution. The focus of this work was identifying key centralized supports to assist the move from a fully decentralized model to a blended approach that would augment the capacity of all departments/areas in delivering WIL without impinging on academic freedom and discipline-specific processes/procedures.

Reimagining institutional WIL as a blended model In the efforts to build CapU’s existing resources and expand ‘WIL pockets of excellence,’ an internal audit of current practices and WIL offerings was completed. To ensure the work was based on lessons learned by other Canadian institutions engaging in large-scale WIL, CapU 330

Establishing and managing a blended approach

also completed an external review of good practices to identify the first steps in developing an integrated WIL model. Outlined below are the outcomes of these two reviews.

Assessing the landscape: an internal audit A crucial part of the internal review was a systematic review of all programs, departments, and courses to identify the current WIL landscape at CapU, both in relation to co-curricular and curricular WIL opportunities for students. A systematic curricular review of all individual university course offerings, as well as program offerings, was completed. The purpose of this review was to identify any language or course/program outcomes that denote a WIL component. All relevant offerings were compiled into a database and forwarded to each department/ unit for review by faculty to ensure that it was accurate and complete. A co-curricular WIL1 review was also completed in consultation with CapU’s Career Development Centre, Centre for Student Affairs, and Centre for Creativity, Research, and Scholarship, where co-curricular WIL opportunities are housed. A significant challenge of the review was working across a broad range of language used to describe WIL. To address the challenge of a lack of shared language, terminology outlined in the ACE WIL matrix was adopted, which is a comparative matrix of different forms of work-integrated education and learning, created by the BC Co-op Directors Council (ACE WIL Matrix, n.d.). This matrix was developed with the objective to create a common understanding and shared language around these forms of work-integrated experiences across post-secondary institutions in BC. The internal review noted both the terminology used at the department level and the terminology suggested by the WIL Matrix to create a better shared understanding of what students are doing during their WIL experience.

External review The external review began with online scans of WIL models at Canadian educational institutions to identify which ones have already moved to integrating WIL at the institutional level. From these online scans, institutions with integrated/blended or centralized WIL features that could inform CapU’s progress in developing a blended WIL model were identified. The CapU WIL team contacted over 20 institutions and were able to schedule a 30-minute interview with 15 Canadian-wide institutions (across five provinces) to learn more about their models, successes, and challenges. Guiding questions were developed (Table 21.1) and used to structure these conversations to ensure the same information was captured for each institution as the interviews were completed by different members of the WIL team.

Table 21.1  External review guiding questions Guiding questions

Responses

University name: WIL organizational structure and administration: History/evolution of current WIL model: Resourcing and personnel of WIL model: Integration of WIL model within faculties/program/disciplinary areas: WIL model feedback (faculty/staff/partners/students): Challenges and successes: Other information of note:

331

Mohna Baichoo et al.

On completion of the 15 interviews that formed the external review, the CapU WIL team reviewed the responses to the guiding questions and identified key themes that emerged from the responses: • • •

The need for institutional-level planning for WIL; The benefits of an up-to-date institution-wide inventory of WIL offerings; An institutional WIL framework, common language, and monitoring/evaluation of WIL experiences; • Centralized resources for WIL including: professional development opportunities to increase faculty/staff WIL capacity, dedicated faculty/staff for WIL, digital resources, supports for accessing external funding; • A need to focus on inclusion and avoidance of barriers for students; • The importance of recognizing faculty/staff workload related to WIL in individual and departmental workloads. The findings of the internal audit and external review were then compared against the international literature presented at the beginning of this chapter to identify three key foci for the development of a CapU blended WIL model: 1. Development of a WIL ‘Hub’ with dedicated faculty/staff and resources to support the development and sustainability of WIL opportunities; 2. Strategic outreach to identify and connect with potential partners in a variety of sectors/ industries, and increase the number of partner organizations for students to work with; 3. Development of increased curricular WIL opportunities in the under-served disciplinary areas through the design/redesign of required courses to include mandatory embedded WIL components.

Towards a blended WIL model through developing institutional capacity This section details the planning and work in addressing the three key priority areas identified above for developing a blended institutional WIL model.

Work-Integrated Learning Hub The internal audit described above was pivotal in informing the structure of a central WIL Hub at CapU. Through the course inventory, there was a systematic record of all faculties, departments, and programs that included WIL components, yet the practices, processes, and language differed widely. Additionally, as per the ACE WIL matrix, co-curricular WIL was also included in the internal audit, so further engagement with non-academic areas of the university also engaging in co-curricular WIL such as the Career Development Centre, Centre for Student Affairs, and Centre for Creativity, Research, and Scholarship was needed to understand the full breadth of current WIL practice across the institution and institutional needs. The concept of a central WIL Hub was presented to senior leadership and key stakeholders across the university to socialize the idea and assess buy-in, concerns, and obstacles as a way of moving forward through the large-scale consultation of a blended WIL model using these framing questions: • •

What benefit would a central WIL Hub offer students, staff, and faculty? What would you identify as the goal of a central WIL Hub? 332

Establishing and managing a blended approach

• • • • • • •

Who might use the Hub? Is there alignment with the university’s strategic and academic plans? What are faculty’s needs and experience with WIL? What are staff needs and experiences with WIL? What concerns can be identified around the sustainability/viability of a central WIL Hub? What would scaling the Hub look like across the next three to five years? How could the success of a central WIL Hub be measured/evaluated?

Through these consultation processes, the concept of the WIL Hub becoming a ‘one-stop shop’ for the three stakeholder groups – faculty/staff, community partners, and our students – was a recurring theme that garnered strong buy-in. Together, the vision of a WIL Hub as a place where targeted information, resources, and support are available for each of the stakeholder groups to promote and increase meaningful WIL opportunities across the university emerged. The next step in the consultation process was to imagine and consider a name for the Hub that evoked curiosity and sparked interest amongst all stakeholders identified above. The name CapU WIL Co-Lab, with the word ‘Co-Lab’ reflecting a double meaning of both collaboration and a dedicated ‘lab’ space for imagination, innovation, and partnerships, was selected as it resonated with most stakeholders. Due to on-campus meeting restrictions during COVID-19, the CapU WIL Co-Lab emerged as a dedicated digital space that is currently still a work in progress. In the midst of the COVID-19 digital pivot, the CapU market and digital experience (MDX) team was highly focused on student facing needs, and as a result lacked capacity to move forward with a new large-scale project in a timely manner. As a way of moving forward with the CapU WIL Co-Lab despite resource scarcity, an external digital agency with strong experience in working with public institutions to develop digital tools was contracted to create the digital space and assets. The initial focus of the Co-Lab digital space was to house targeted information, resources, and supports for each of the three key WIL stakeholders: faculty/staff, students, and community partners. The Co-Lab digital hub continues to grow (170 student experiences across summer 2022, spring 2022, and fall 2021) and develop as a place to showcase and support the breadth of WIL activities and opportunities for students, faculty, and community partners with targeted sections being created for each stakeholder group including: • • • • • • • • • •

Targeted information about the CapU WIL Co-Lab; Stories to showcase projects from previous WIL experiences from students, faculty/staff, and partner experiences from a wide range of departments/areas; Types of WIL opportunities (curricular and co-curricular) along with descriptions and average time commitment; A section for employers: benefits, expectations, funding information, and support; A section for faculty/staff: benefits, planning and assessment resources, grant funding, and partnership support; A section for students: benefits, opportunities, record of WIL participation; A ‘Contact Us’ section that includes an area for stakeholders to submit an ‘expression of interest’ to be matched for a WIL experience; Dedicated faculty and staff support to monitor the digital hub, match-make, and support WIL at an institutional level; Information and supports for faculty seeking funding for WIL projects; Integrating social media icons to easily post blurbs on institutional, social, and media channels, and support the broad sharing of ‘What’s going in CapU Co-Lab?’ 333

Mohna Baichoo et al.

An additional area of focus for the digital space was the integration of the platform with other relevant online platforms and software that are in current use at CapU including eLearn (Moodle), ORBIS, Riipen, and Talent Basket. Grant funds were also used to purchase a oneyear institutional CEWIL (National WIL body) membership for all CapU faculty and staff.

Outreach As a regional university with multiple campuses, CapU had been developing sustained and formalized partnerships with regional community partners for years. However, this process of building partnerships without any central institutional supports meant that these partnerships generally resided with specific faculties or departments, and were often lost if faculty left the institution. In order to facilitate targeted and sustainable partnership development at the institutional level that supported access to students across the full range of faculties and programs, CapU embarked upon using the CityStudio2 model of experiential education to develop a long-term WIL partnership. This model provided a framework for developing and facilitating WIL opportunities for over 400 students a semester, and runs yearly across all three semesters, due to the success of the original. Building on this success, CapU continues to focus on further expansion of the CityStudio model to other municipalities in the regional area, and also trialed similar models with other regional partners such as North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, which allowed for the prioritization of WIL for the partner organization and the development of sustained WIL opportunities each semester for CapU students (North Vancouver Chamber of Commer, 2020). Why these types of partnerships are so effective for WIL is not only due to the amount of opportunities they generate for students, but also because they are equally accessible by all students regardless of faculty or program. However, these partnerships require a significant outlay in resources (specifically time, knowledge, and funding), which continue to be real barriers to further increasing WIL opportunities for students. In addition to the formal partnerships outlined above, further external outreach to other local community partners, with businesses or organizations across the regional area, was also identified as essential work in developing the WIL Hub. For this work, marketing materials were prepared to target the needs of local businesses and organizations, to highlight opportunities to work with CapU students and faculty, such as: • • •

•

A ‘Welcome to the CapU WIL Co-Lab’ message and brief description; Testimonials from students and previous employers involved in a work-integrated project; Types of WIL experiences that CapU can support, and the time and resources commitment needed for potential community partners who may be interested in working with CapU students; Information about how to submit a proposal or where to ask further questions.

The CapU WIL team worked closely with the CapU Career Development Centre and their extensive database of community-based employers who have sought to hire CapU students and graduates to distribute materials to. Additionally, WIL research assistants were tasked with the job of scanning local council minutes and newspapers to identify new potential partners and WIL projects to develop a prospective list of new contacts for targeted external outreach. Internal institutional outreach for faculty and students was also done through internal communication channels and social media platforms directing traffic to the newly developed CapU WIL Co-Lab page. Print materials for the campuses were planned for the post-COVID-19 334

Establishing and managing a blended approach

return to campus, to encourage organic ‘water cooler’ discussions once faculty, staff, and students were together again. To systematically track targeted external outreach and developing and expanding partnerships at the institutional level, the WIL/Experiential Module by ORBIS3 was purchased and populated with existing information from multiple databases and spreadsheets throughout CapU. The purpose of the ORBIS module is to centralize contacts, opportunities, projects, and student accomplishments. The module acts as a database where WIL partnerships and partners are catalogued and is searchable by WIL type, external partner, and course. The module is complementary to the other ORBIS modules already in operation at CapU to track co-curricular opportunities, job postings for students, and Co-op and “practicums” for the School of Tourism Management, which all draw from the same database (Practicum, 2021).

Course (re)design The final key priority area was the development of increased opportunities for students to engage in curricular WIL through the targeted (re)development of courses in departments/areas without established curricular WIL programs (such as practica or Co-op). From the literature and internal inventory, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences was identified as the priority underserved area and became the focus of a pilot project to build faculty capacity to develop and integrate WIL into required upper and lower-level course. A detailed account of this process is reported in Fane et al. (2021). The key facets of the project are: •

One section of faculty release (eight sections is a full-time teaching load) for 13 participating members to develop or (re)develop courses to include an embedded curricular WIL component; • Bi-weekly mandatory workshops providing information and support for (re)developing courses and assessment structures to include curricular WIL; • One-on-one support from a WIL Faculty Associate in relation to course outlines, assessment, and course approval processes; • Partnership matching support for courses with new WIL experiences; • Support for applying to grant funding (where needed) to establish or extend WIL opportunities. The course (re)design and approval processes took place over the course of the two major terms (fall and spring) and resulted in the creation of 28 new or redeveloped addressed courses across more than ten disciplinary areas for students in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Implementing institutional work-integrated learning: lessons learned This section outlines various challenges and lessons learned from the process of establishing and managing a blended WIL model at CapU.

Managing information and developing processes for the evaluation and monitoring of institutional WIL One of the pivotal challenges was the tracking of institutional WIL, which coalesces on the identification, monitoring, and evaluation of current and emerging WIL opportunities at CapU. This was not a spreadsheet-sized venture, and most universities with blended or 335

Mohna Baichoo et al.

centralized WIL use specialized software for this work. In conversation with many other Canadian universities, the clear choice for software was ORBIS, and ORBIS was already employed at CapU to track Co-op and practicums for the School of Tourism, and a further module was in use at CapU’s Career Development Centre to creating co-curricular records for students completing co-curricula WIL. Given that CapU already uses ORBIS software, it was anticipated that adding a new module would be a relatively simple process. However, overall, the process was frustrating and challenging, and the timeline for scoping, purchasing, and implementing new software in relation to both working with the software company and internally at an institutional level was more than twice what was originally anticipated. This slow and tedious process was also impacted by other aspects of the project, including external outreach, development of institutional processes, and the defining of new roles of dedicated WIL faculty/staff, which was an important lesson learned in relation to creating viable milestones relating to the project. At the time of writing this chapter, there is still work in progress to configure the new ORBIS modules to support the goal of systematic and ongoing monitoring and evaluation of WIL across the institution that will provide continuous information and feedback on the efforts to increase WIL experiences for students, particularly those in program/degree areas with historically few WIL opportunities.

Working with Indigenous community partners CapU campuses are located on the traditional and unceded territories of five Coast Salish Nations (identified in the case study description). Developing respectful and mutually beneficial relationships with the Nations whose lands CapU occupies was identified as a key objective of the two WIL projects. However, the CapU WIL team recognizes that labeling the process of forming partnerships as an objective is a highly colonial and problematic perspective when thinking about engaging in meaningful collaboration with Indigenous Nations, communities, organizations/businesses, and individuals. Considering the challenges of working in ways that would actively and meaningfully work to decolonize outreach processes, this work has required stepping back. It is important to recognize the need to work in careful collaboration and consultation with systems and structures in current development to support truth and reconciliation at CapU, rather than charge ahead with the outreach in ways that may work with other types of community/industry partners. In relation to these challenges, the CapU WIL team reimagined the processes and timeline for doing this work, and sought guidance and support from CapU’s newly formed Indigenous Education Steering Committee to develop appropriate and respectful protocols for engaging with Indigenous community partners in relation to WIL partnerships and working in close collaboration with the Office of Indigenous Education and Affairs at CapU (Indigenization, 2021).

Working towards institutional change during COVID-19 Working remotely in a pandemic has been a significant challenge to all aspects of life for post-secondary institutions. In relation to the CapU institutional WIL work, this has manifested in two key areas. The first is that the work is dependent on understanding the current institutional WIL landscape, and working with various departments and areas to brainstorm and solidify current challenges, good practices, and vision for institutional change. This work was significantly hampered during COVID-caused remote work, where the volume of emails and online time requirements for core work for faculty and staff alike left little time and energy for further commitments or participation in new initiatives. The second key area was 336

Establishing and managing a blended approach

that developing the sustainable ongoing WIL structures, resources, and staffing needed to build from these two grant-funded projects required repeated requests for ongoing and previously committed new funds from the university. Given a forecasted reduction in student enrollment due to COVID-19 and budgeting challenges, the WIL team made the decision to ask for a very modest budget for essential resourcing to be scaled in subsequent years, rather than the original budget request which would have likely been denied. The WIL team was fortunate to receive the modest request; however, it will be difficult to sustain and grow this work on modest means both during and post the COVID-19 pandemic.

Faculty workload At teaching-focused universities, faculty workload is typically connected to teaching sections and, as such, developing and embedding curricular WIL opportunities for students within courses and programs is often done ‘off the side of desks’ by certain faculty members that are motivated to do this work – which was commonly the case at CapU. The faculty/teaching staff who participated in this project to (re)develop courses to include a curricular WIL component were given one section of release time (equivalent to teaching a course) to do this work. Yet, many of them struggled to complete this task within the given due date. It is difficult to know if one section of release time for this work is generally inadequate, or if the inadequacy of this release time was directly related to the abrupt shift to remote work that was precipitated by COVID-19. However, faculty workload constraints and time were in most cases exacerbated by a lack of understanding of how to effectively integrate WIL into coursework and course assessment. Faculty, as drivers of any institutional change, must possess knowledge of WIL, and have a deep understanding of course design and assessment, and how to source and manage these opportunities. The CapU Centre for Teaching Excellence (CTE) needed resources to help faculty develop programs based on a common set of values determined by the Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada). The CTE WIL liaison position was paramount in providing support and access to those resources for participating faculty; however, there was a significant need to manage them through this process to ensure that release time was not taken up by other work.

Wariness of blended or centralized workintegrated learning resources and processes In the “knowledge as currency” post-secondary environment, industry contacts are an invaluable support to developing and sustaining WIL opportunities for students. As such, it was perhaps not overly surprising that faculty and departments were protective and wary of sharing their resources and contacts with a central group and other departments outside of their control, for fear that further demand on their contacts would reduce their ability to engage their students in WIL. Trust is a primary element of the WIL centralization model (Cooper et al., 2010) and needs to be carefully cultivated. Historically at CapU, faculty and departments manage their own WIL courses and programs, and do so with consultation from their industry-specific associations, and their WIL experiences generally connect with industry required placements for specific qualifications and credentials (i.e., education and health fields). As changes to these processes and access to industry connections may jeopardize students’ access to those credentials and sow distrust amongst faculty and staff members, faculty and departments were not asked or required to list, record, or relinquish heir industry contacts. Rather, the focus of targeted WIL outreach was to develop new external partnerships (which faculty could identify/request) 337

Mohna Baichoo et al.

that would be compiled and available to everyone. This plan allows for the development of further supports to all staff and students, without disrupting, interrupting, or detracting from individual faculty or departments. This model also helped to build trust in the new blended institutional approaches as an added support available to all faculty that ameliorated the need to take on additional work.

Towards a blended institutional work-integrated learning model The purpose of presenting this case study is to provide enough context and information about the work and processes CapU undertook in moving towards a blended WIL model so that it might be a helpful resource for other institutions considering this move. In this chapter, attention has been paid to outlining both key contextual and institutional information, as well as the vision the CapU WIL team had for reimagining WIL and developing a new blended institutional model for WIL. The goal of moving to a blended WIL model was focused on creating further meaningful WIL opportunities for all students regardless of area of study or program. However, this work was hampered not only by the previous lack of institutional focus on WIL, but also the real pressures associated with the rising demand for WIL not generally matched with a rise in suitable placement opportunities (Jackson & Meek, 2021). CapU is one of a number of institutions trying to do this work in a highly populated area alongside competing institutions. In an attempt to work strategically in this context, the key priority was the development of a blended institutional model that could establish a common WIL language for internal and external stakeholders (McRae & Johnston, 2016), drive the development of institutional WIL policies and procedures (Brown, 2010), address the lack of WIL opportunities in many disciplines (Rowland et al., 2020; Universities Australia et al., 2015; Whelan, 2017), and reduce/manage risk through recognition of where current practices leave the institution legally vulnerable and do not support the systemic and routine evaluation of WIL at an institutional level (Rowe and Zegwaard, (2017). Additionally, the implementation of sustainable resourcing and support for WIL that supports all these goals has remained a pressing focus (Patrick et al., 2014, p. 11). The key for any kind of project of this scope is to first clearly identify the problem or challenge that needs to be solved, and then determine a course of action through large-scale consultation that addresses the problem or challenge as a university community. Having a clear, well-laid out vision helps to create the workflow process that will achieve that shared vision and put structures in place that will lead to its fruition. This chapter has presented a case study of a regional Canadian university’s work to move from a decentralized institutional WIL approach to a blended institutional WIL model, and the planning, implementing structures, successes, and challenges faced during this process. In the process of developing the CapU blended WIL model and Co-Lab, there were various challenges such as the development of data management and evaluation/monitoring processes, working collaboratively with diverse community partners, and developing institutional direction and processes during a global pandemic. It is also important to highlight that while this chapter has outlined the work undertaken to date and lessons learned, the work is ongoing. Creation of a strong and effective blended WIL model will require ongoing and sustained effort and action alongside dedicated resourcing and passion for the work. Every institution is unique and the choice of staying with or moving towards a centralized, decentralized, or blended model is not an easy one to make, nor is there a one-size-fits-all solution. The choice must be made through careful consultation, deliberation, and vision of 338

Establishing and managing a blended approach

what the institution, faculty, staff, students, and the community values and wants when it comes to WIL, and for the capacity to reimagine practice. However, it is hoped that sharing CapU’s journey may provide in equal parts encouragement, signposting, and forecasting of the challenges of engaging in WIL at other institutions.

Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the funding provided by the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training for the development and implementation of the CapU WIL Co-Lab.

Notes 1 At CapU, the term “co-curricular WIL” is used to denote experiential learning opportunities which are non-credit-bearing activities that take place outside of classwork. The use of the term for non-­ credit-bearing activities comes from the ACE WIL Matrix (n.d.). 2 CityStudio is a proven model of experiential education and civic engagement pioneered in Canada and now in use globally since 2019 (CityStudio London, 2022). 3 ORBIS is an experiential learning solution provider for post-secondary institutions in Canada (Orbis, 2022).

References ACE WIL Matrix. (n.d.). https://acewilbc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ACCE_Matrix.pdf Brough, M., Correa-Velez, I., Crane, P., Johnstone, E., & Marston, G. (2014). Work-integrated learning in social work and human services: Assessment of financial stress associated with student placements. ACEN. Bennett, K. C. (2009). Speaking the same language: Relevance for a global ontology of work-integrated learning. In World Conference on cooperative education and work integrated learning. North Vancouver, Canada. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/143868127.pdf Brown, N. (2010). WIL [ling] to share: An institutional conversation to guide policy and practice in work-integrated learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(5), 507–518. Cameron, C. (2020). Risk management by university lawyers in work-integrated learning programs. Monash University Law Review, 45(1), 29–69. Campbell, M., Russell, L., McAllister, L., Smith, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., & Barrett, M. (2019). A framework to support assurance of institution-wide quality in work-integrated learning. https://research. qut.edu.au/wilquality/wp-content/uploads/sites/261/2019/12/FINAL-FRAMEWORK-DEC2019.pdf Capilano University. (2021). https://www.capilanou.ca/about-capu/get-to-know-us/ - :~:text=The University is named after,and Sechelt (shíshálh) Nations. Capilano University. (2022). https://www.capilanou.ca/about-capu/get-to-know-us/our-history/ CityStudio London. (2022). https://citystudiolondon.ca CityStudio North Vancouver. (2022). https://citystudiocnv.com/ Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning. A guide to effective practice. Routledge. Dean, B., Yanamandram, V., Eady, M., Moroney, T., O’Donnell, N., & Glover-Chambers, T. (2020). An institutional framework for scaffolding work-integrated learning across a degree. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(4), 6. Dollinger, M., & Brown, J. (2019). An Institutional Framework to Guide the Comparison of Work Integrated Learning Types. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 10(1), 88–100. Edwards, D., Perkins, K., Pearce, J., & Hong, J. (2015). Work integrated learning in STEM in Australian Universities. Australian Council for Educational Research. http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1046&context=higher_education Envisioning 2030. (2021). https://www.capilanou.ca/media/capilanouca/about-capu/governance/ presidentx27s-office/reports-amp-initiatives/envisioning-2030/Envisioning-2030-Report.pdf Fane, J., Baichoo, M., & Loken, T. (2021). A structured approach to developing faculty capacity for course-based curricular WIL opportunities in under-represented disciplinary areas. Special Canadian Issue of the International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning

339

Mohna Baichoo et al. Indigenization. (2021). https://cte.capilanou.ca/resources_/indigenization/ Jackson, D., & Meek, S. (2021). Embedding work-integrated learning into accounting education: The state of play and pathways to future implementation, Accounting Education, 30(1), 63–85. https://doi. org/10.1080/09639284.2020.1794917 Johnston, N., McRae, N., & Maclean, C. (2016). The development of a comparative matrix of forms of work-integrated learning and work-integrated education (WIL/WIE) within the Province of BC, Canada. World Association for Cooperative Education (WACE), 77. Jovanovic, J., Fane, J., & Andrew, Y. (2018). Giving institutional voice to work-integrated learning in academic workloads. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2018, 19(2), 93–109 Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., & Smith, J. (2018). Expanding WIL possibilities: Enhancing student employability through innovative WIL models. Australian Technology Network of Universities. Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., Smith, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). The emerging future: Innovative models of work-integrated learning [Special issue]. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 401–413. Kay, J., McRae, N., & Russell, L. (2020). Two institutional responses to work-integrated learning in a time of COVID-19: Canada and Australia. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 491–503. Levin, E., Bok, B., & Evans, B. (2010). Expectations of industry-based learning: A stakeholder approach. Paper presented at the International Conference on Work Integrated Learning, Hong Kong: WACE. http:// www.waceinc.org/hongkong/linkdocs/papers/Australia/Refereed%20Paper%207%20(revised).pdf Mackaway, J., Winchester-Seeto, T., Peach, D., Ferns, S., Campbell, M., Moore, K., Wallace, R. M., Ford, L. M.,& Prior, J. (2014). Inclusive practise in WIL. In HERDSA guide: Work integrated learning in the curriculum (pp. 33–39). Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4). https://www.ijwil.org/files/ APJCE_17_4_337_348.pdf Naylor, S., Bhati, A., & Kidd, P. (2010, September 29–October 1). Multiple campus operation - challenges and opportunities in implementing Work Integrated Learning (WIL). In: Work Integrated Learning – Responding to Challenges: Proceedings of the 2010 ACEN National Conference, Perth, WA, Australia. pp. 342–351. Australian Collaborative Education Network North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce. (2020). NVC Year in review 2019-2020. North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce. Orbis. (2022). https://orbiscommunications.com/ Orrell, J. (2011). Good practice report: Work-integrated learning. Office of Learning and Teaching. Strawberry Hills, NSW, Australia. http://www.olt.gov.au/resources/goodpractice?text=work+integrated+learning Patrick, C.-J., Fallon, W., Campbell, M., Devenish, I., Kay, J., Lawson, J., Russell, L., Tayebjee, F., & Cretchley, P. (2014). Leading WIL: A distributed leadership approach to enhance work integrated learning. Final report 2014. Office for Learning and Teaching. Peach, D., & Gamble, N. (2011). Scoping work-integrated learning purposes, practices and issues. In S. Billett & A. Henderson (Eds.), Developing learning professionals. Professional and practice-based learning, Vol. 7. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3937-8_10 Practicum. (2021). https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/employment-standardsadvice/employment-standards/forms-resources/igm/definitions#work Rowe, A. D., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2017). Developing graduate employability skills and attributes: Curriculum enhancement through work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 87–99. Rowland, S., Gannaway, D., Pedwell, R., Adams, P., Evans, R., Bonner, H., & Wong, K. S. (2020). Legitimising transgression: design and delivery of a science work integrated learning program that draws on students’ extant work in diverse, non-science fields. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(2), 318–331. Sachs, J., Rowe, A., & Wilson, M. (2017). 2017 Good practice report - Work integrated learning (WIL). Australian Government Department of Education and Training. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/WIL_ Report.pdf Smith, M., Bell, K., Bennett, D., & McAlpine, A. (2018). Employability in a global context: Evolving policy and practice in employability, work integrated learning, and career development learning. Graduate Careers Australia. Sutherland, K., & Symmons, M. (2013). Issues and challenges identified in the development of a broad multidisciplinary work integrated learning package. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(4), 295–304.

340

Establishing and managing a blended approach Swirski, T., & Simpson, M. D. (2012). Re-imagining work-integrated learning through slow innovation in higher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(4). https://www.ijwil.org/files/ APJCE_13_4_239_253.pdf Talbot, J. (2019). Global perspectives on work-based learning initiatives. IGI Global. https://doi. org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6977-0 Tuinamuana, K. (2016). The work of the teacher-educator in Australia: Reconstructing the “superhero” performer/academic in an audit culture. Asia-pacific journal of teacher education, 44(4), 333–347. University Affairs. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/ five-new-universities-in-bc/ Universities Australia, BCA, ACCI, AIG, & ACEN. (2015). National strategy on work-integrated learning in university education. Universities Australia Whelan, M. (2017). Road testing graduate attributes and course learning outcomes of an environmental science degree via a work-integrated learning placement. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(1), 1–13. Zegwaard, K. E., Johansson, K., Kay, J., McRae, N., Ferns, S., & Hoskyn, K. (2019). Professional development needs of the International work-integrated learning community, 20(2), 201–217.

341

22 QUALITY INDICATORS OF WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING Matthew Campbell and T. Judene Pretti

Introduction Discussions of quality in higher education have evolved following the expansion of student numbers, alongside an emergent quest for better public services, accountability for public expenditure, and increased competition between institutions (Green, 1994). Considerations of quality in higher education are not new phenomena, but have been evident for, at least, several decades. However, debates still remain around the nature and role of quality management in educational contexts, with the challenge of the complexity of the human endeavor being considered alongside approaches designed to manage systems and machines (Mukherjee, 2019). According to the World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-first Century (UNESCO, 1998, p. 7), quality in higher education is “a multidimensional concept” which should embrace all aspects of institutional practice, including “teaching and academic programmes, research and scholarship, staffing, students, buildings, facilities, equipment, services to the community, and the academic environment.” To a greater degree, it is declared that these aspects should be evaluated, both internally and externally, against comparative standards recognized at an international level, with stakeholders as an integral part of the evaluation process. This chapter explores the application of constructs of quality in higher education to work-integrated learning (WIL) practice and pedagogy. It explores two case studies of quality frameworks in use; the first being in Canada and the second in Australia. Emergent from comparisons of these two approaches to quality WIL is a proposed model for a global WIL quality framework, which will provide a shared understanding of WIL practice and pedagogy, stakeholder expectations, and the connections between WIL and local contexts. We make an argument that the experience and understandings of WIL are highly context-specific, but that there exist common threads of practice which connect across these contexts. In doing so, we extend the idea of a ‘multidimensional concept’ of quality to understandings of WIL through working towards a model of comparative standards.

Understandings of quality in higher education Gibbs (2010) proposes a model of quality for higher education in which he adapts Biggs’s (1993) ‘3P’ construct of the curriculum, with this model considering elements of presage, 342

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-26

Quality indicators of work-integrated learning

process, and product. Biggs’s original construct, when applied to a curriculum, considered the learning experience to be an outcome of factors which preceded the experience (e.g., planning, policy, context), shaped by the actions and activities of the learning space. Extending from this concept, Gibbs’s use of the 3P model considers quality to be more than just a measure of outcomes but as a complex consideration of factors which inform and enact practice and policy. Similarly, Billett (2011) proposed a model of a WIL curriculum in which he explores ideas of the intended, enacted, and experienced curriculum. He makes the argument that learning is a product of intent, action, and experience, and that, therefore, each learner’s outcomes can be considerably different depending on how they experience the curriculum. In consideration, alongside Gibbs (2010), Billett’s construct further highlights the relationship between intent, activity, and outcomes inherent in considerations of quality in education, and specifically within WIL. Practical application of these ideas allows for the revelation of different points of quality across an educative experience and/or institution. Quality learning outcomes, therefore, become dependent upon the combination of the policy, systems, and supports on the institution (presage factors), alongside student support, guidance, and teacher quality (process factors), and considered through resources, partnerships, and student achievement (product factors). Quality is realized as a complex interrelationship of factors that precede, support, and are produced by a particular activity. Whilst acknowledging the complexity of quality in the higher education context and the interrelationship between multiple factors, determining what is quality in higher education depends significantly upon the expectations of the educative experience. That is, according to Mukherjee (2019, p. 215): The quality of higher education is determined by the relevance (fitness of purpose) of its mission and objectives for the stakeholder(s) and the extent to which the institution/programme/course is also judged by the extent to which it satisfies the minimum standard set for inputs, processes and outcomes, which is called the standard-based approach to quality. Expectations of society, government, industry, and business, as well as students, staff, and the wider academic community, all inform the judgment of quality in higher education. What quality means and how it is measured within higher education is highly dependent upon the context of the systems, values, and interpretations of the leaders, and the interests of various stakeholder groups (Steinhardt et al., 2017). ‘Quality’ has attributes of excellence, consistency, relevance, value (particularly value for money), and capacity for transformation (Harvey & Knight, 1996). Mukherjee (2019, p. 217) further reflects that quality is a quandary in that it is “difficult to define but appreciated by all, not directly amenable to measurement but quite often subjected to discussions and initiatives for control, assurance and improvement.” In this sense, concepts of quality present as controlling mechanisms for practice within higher education, shaping what is valued and aspired towards. There is no singular definition of what is considered to be ‘quality’ within higher education, both in terms of how quality is defined, as well as what is valued as representative of quality. For example, Bertolin (2016) asserts that concepts of quality in higher education derive from particular worldviews of the purpose and function of that education. He suggests a dichotomy of worldviews of higher education: (1) the ideological ‘right’ with commercial and economic views of education, and (2) the ideological ‘left’ with a social view of education serving a public good, both of which present different understandings of what is valued. Measures of outcomes, based on these dichotomous views of education, differ significantly. 343

Matthew Campbell and T. Judene Pretti

The ‘commercial’ perspective sees value in student employment outcomes and education as a mass, globalized business (Boden & Nedeva, 2010), in which the product being sold is not just a job, but a well-paying job of sufficient income and status to underwrite the cost of the degree (Zemsky & Shaman, 2017). The driver of success, therefore, becomes an ability for the university to differentiate itself within the market of higher education, and attract and retain the ‘customer’ supporting the financial sustainability of the institution. The other viewpoint sees the quality of a university education being vested in the ‘processes’ (or curriculum) of the institution rather than a product (e.g., employment). Value is assigned to student learning and experiences as part of a contribution to a wider social good. Therefore, success is witnessed through the impact that the graduate, and university, can have in transforming society towards notions of justice and fairness. Approaches and worldviews of quality are not divorced from the wider globalization of higher education and global standards. Locally different perspectives on what is valued for the student provide filters for global initiatives, but understandings of quality extend beyond the bounds of the university or nation state. For example, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), located in the USA but providing quality assurance globally, aims to provide accreditation to business schools as part of a movement united to improve the quality of business education around the world. Concepts of quality are defined by the AACSB disconnected from the expectations of the nation state within which the university seeking accreditation may be operating. Often the prestige and connection to the global market, which these forms of accreditation provide, alongside other political and economic pressures, sees the focus of the university shifting towards a universalist and globalized perspective (Clarke, 2018). Curricula and student experience, therefore, in response to these models of assurance, are shaped around the demands of the global market and student-consumer. Although operating within a globalized marketplace and prioritizing students as consumers, understandings of quality measures in higher education are often derivatives and extensions of government policy frameworks that aim to improve educational outcomes, or evaluate investment in the sector (Alderman, 2016). Government policies of higher education, particularly within the Anglosphere, are broadly based on an assumption that the economic welfare of the individual and competitive advantage of the nation are dependent on the development of the knowledge and skills of the workforce and the need for a highly skilled workforce to meet the demands of a dynamic and changing world of work (Brown et al., 2003; Clarke, 2018). Policy makers, it can be argued, are wanting to see measurable outcomes for their investment in universities where the knowledge and skills students develop through higher education are viewed as productive resources which can be traded (Clarke, 2018; Tomlinson, 2017). At even more localized levels, quality can be considered to be a reflection of institutional value statements, missions, and strategic goals. Therefore, context is highly influential on the definition and understandings of quality. As universities have become even more self-governing, rather than being dominated by a regulated, national, public-sector network, tensions have emerged between ‘context-productive’ (top-down and policy driven) and ‘context-generative’ (localized) practices, all nested within the flows of globalization (Appadurai, 1996; Lingard, 2014). The significant outcome of this tension has been the evolution of perceptions of quality as a mechanism of localized change and transformation through enactment of processes such as Total Quality Management and the evolution of ‘cultures of quality’ that move the conversation of quality from evaluation to action (Suskie, 2015). Suskie (2015) suggests five dimensions of quality in which she contests that commitment to quality and excellence is not just a point-in-time event, but should be enduring and pervasive. Her dimensions of quality, grounded in the perceived pervasiveness of culture, therefore include a culture of relevance, a 344

Quality indicators of work-integrated learning

culture of community, a culture of focus and aspiration, a culture of evidence, and a culture of betterment. In presenting these, Suskie makes the argument that an institutional culture of quality needs to move from being defined simply by reputation (e.g., the perceived quality of high-ranking universities), largely focused on an obsolete input model, towards one of effectiveness, which measures outcomes and experiences, and transforms those aspects of value and importance. That is, discussions of quality need to be both focused on evaluating the aspects of the focus of examination (in this instance, higher education or WIL) as well as supporting ongoing and continual improvement in these aspects.

The challenges of assuring quality in work-integrated learning Quality of WIL is becoming more important within higher education as the space of WIL practice matures (Smith, 2012); however, WIL presents a particular context for considerations of quality in higher education. WIL extends consideration of elements of quality beyond the confined teacher–student relationship of the classroom, into relationships with industry, government, and communities that sit beyond the boundaries of the institution. However, and despite much already having been written about what constitutes WIL experiences (see, e.g., Cooper et al., 2010; Ferns et al., 2014; Patrick et al., 2009), there is often a lack of shared understanding of WIL. Across global contexts, constructs such as cooperative education, sandwich courses, and industry cadetships have been subsumed under the wider construct of WIL. Often, debates explore whether WIL experiences should be considered to be just placements or internships, or whether the concept is broader and, therefore, inclusive of a range of pedagogical approaches with connections to authentic learning (Kaider et al., 2017). This, therefore, creates challenges in developing consistent and shared understandings of elements of quality within WIL practices. To define a shared understanding of WIL and, therefore, what constitutes quality in WIL, there is an opportunity to develop a framework of quality. Any framework, or set of indicators, of quality in WIL must be connected to a shared understanding of what constitutes WIL, and also reflective of stakeholder expectations. As argued by McRae and Johnston (2016, p. 338): A better understanding of WIL parameters and attributes is needed to inform discussions between and among key stakeholders including students, institutions, employers, and governments. Without such, the potential for developing and promoting appropriate offerings, conducting meaningful research, collecting data, developing quality standards, and assessing impact is limited. They go further to remark that “the lack of a shared framework also limits the extent to which best practices and effective tools can be shared” (p. 338). The challenge, however, is that the construct of WIL is nested within two contested spaces of ‘work’ and ‘learning.’ Winch (2013), in his exploration of work and learning, argues that work can be understood in multiple ways and, therefore, what constitutes a ‘workplace’ is equally contestable. Winch limits the definition of work to an agentic practice deployed for the purpose of remuneration, although acknowledges that there exist many examples of where work is undertaken without expectation of monetary remuneration. Winch (2013) suggests that the workplace (and experiences of work) have essential characteristics that support the acquisition of propositional or practical knowledge. Similarly, Billett (2006) highlights the complex and contested nature of defining work, but argues that it has a cultural genesis, in a particular situated manifestation, alongside a personal dimension of agency and deployment. Billett (2006, p. 7) further argues 345

Matthew Campbell and T. Judene Pretti

that learning is “an inevitable and ongoing process that occurs as individuals engage in conscious and non-conscious thinking and acting”; further, that there is “no difference between participating in work and learning.” Therefore, to understand WIL, there needs to be a shared understanding of its component elements of work and learning and how these are connected in student experiences. Moreover, an approach to defining a framework of quality for WIL can have its foundations in understandings of domains of practice which constitute an overarching experience of WIL in higher education contexts.

Exploring domains of work-integrated learning practice In developing an understanding of WIL and, therefore, being able to apply constructs of quality to WIL, there is value in unpacking key aspects of its practice and experiences. Historically WIL was often framed as singular experiences in a workplace (e.g., work experience); however, maturing understandings of WIL suggest that it is not a singular learning experience occurring at a particular point in time but is instead a manifestation of many interrelated experiences and practices. That is, WIL is emerging and maturing as a curriculum and pedagogy which spans learning before, during, and after experiences of work. The simple provision of practice-based experiences for students is insufficient in achieving the intended outcomes of professional readiness and support for transition to the workplace that is often expressed as desired outcomes of WIL (Billett, 2011). WIL experiences need to be integrated into the wider curriculum and education experience, and be seen as a vehicle for the explicit integration of theoretical and practical knowledge, supported by processes of reflection and assessment (Orrell, 2011; Stirling et al., 2016). WIL, therefore, has a temporal element in both the sense of the reflective and transformative nature of the experience for students, as well as occurring across, and drawing upon, different times and dimensions (Billett, 2011). Billett (2011) suggests a pedagogical and curriculum model of WIL that considers activities and events that occur before (e.g., orientation of expectations, preparation of agentic learners), during (e.g., direct guidance in the workplace), and after (e.g., facilitate sharing of experience, explicitly making links to other learnings) the WIL experience. Such an approach provides a progressive and staged understanding as to how WIL experiences are constructed, enacted, and experienced. The elements of a WIL experience (before, during, and after) are not separate ideas, but are interconnected and relational with similar qualities and dimensions evident across these time periods. For example, much has been written about the importance of reflection in supporting learning through WIL (see, e.g., Stirling et al., 2016). Reflection can be experienced in different forms, such as reflection for, reflection in, and reflection on action (or before, during, and after an experience) (Helyer, 2015; Schon, 1987). Therefore, whilst consideration of the temporality of WIL is important, to understand quality in WIL there is also a need to consider the layered domains of practice that permeate across these timings. Previous work in attempting to map the dimensions of quality in WIL have generated lists of domains, standards, factors, or elements, with each attempting to describe the qualities of the WIL experience. There are some notable works that have attempted to describe quality in teaching and learning in WIL such as work by McRae and Johnston (2016), Orrell (2011), Sachs et al. (2016), and Stirling et al. (2016). For example, Orrell (2011) highlights ten ‘good practice’ principles for implementing WIL programs (Box 22.1). Further, McRae and Johnston (2016) identify four ‘key attributes of experiential learning’ that form the basis of their framework; namely (1) experience in a workplace setting, (2) curriculum integration of workplace and academic learning, (3) student outcomes that lead to employability, and (4) reflection. Whilst these frameworks provide insights into the domains of WIL practice, much 346

Quality indicators of work-integrated learning

Box 22.1  Good practice principles for implementing the workintegrated learning wellbeing framework used in Pearson Business School programs (Orrell, 2011, p. 20) When implementing WIL programs, universities are responsible for ensuring that: 1. Students are sufficiently prepared and fit for workplace demands. 2. Sufficient resources and infrastructure are available to ensure duty of care to student safety and effective learning experiences that add to students’ education. 3. All students have equal access to full participation in a WIL experience where a degree program offers such experiences. 4. Indigenous students receive appropriate support in their WIL placements. 5. Students with disabilities have access to WIL programs in their course of study and receive appropriate support in their placement. 6. International students receive support to understand and adapt to Australian socio-cultural workplace environments, and their personal cultural background and prior knowledge are recognized as valued attributes. 7. WIL programs meet the requirements of professional registration and accreditation organizations. 8. WIL programs are designed to be mutually beneficial to all stakeholders. 9. WIL programs are integrated into the curriculum so that they have clear educational expectations and are a vehicle for integrating theory and practice learning. 10. Evidence from a variety of sources is used to monitor, evaluate, and improve the effectiveness of diverse WIL program arrangements.

of these considerations have been focused on the experiences of teaching and learning yet fail to account for the institutional systems and processes required to deliver on these elements. This was particularly evident in the review undertaken by Winchester-Seeto (2019) in which she synthesized a wide range of the current literature and approaches to WIL, formulating a set of quality dimensions. Winchester-Seeto contested that there were nine dimensions of quality that should be considered in any quality framework for WIL (Table 22.1). Although eliciting nine dimensions, the focus very much remained around teaching and learning without consideration of the wider administrative functions and the role of stakeholders beyond the university. Sachs et al. (2016) attempted to highlight the complex interconnected elements of WIL experiences in proposing a model that frames WIL as connections across four spaces of outcomes, relationships, resources, and context (Figure 22.1). In doing so, Sachs, et al. (2016) manage to highlight the product elements of WIL, namely the learning outcomes, student experience, and curriculum alongside the processes necessary to support these outcomes, such as stakeholder engagement and institutional resourcing. This model extends considerations of WIL beyond just pedagogic and curriculum foci. The inclusion of stakeholder relationships and resources, technology, and scalability as elements of WIL begins to highlight the nested nature of WIL within the wider higher education ecosystem. Any attempt to assure the quality of WIL must account for both the learning as well as the administration of WIL experiences. 347

Matthew Campbell and T. Judene Pretti Table 22.1  Dimensions of quality practice in work-integrated learning (Winchester-Seeto, 2019) Quality dimension

Understanding

Authenticity of experience

Experiences should provide opportunities for students to engage in meaningful, hands-on, professional work. WIL should be integrated with broader curriculum approaches through intentional design, alignment of learning outcomes, linking theory and practice, and with a clear emphasis on learning. Students should be fully prepared for the experience of the workplace including having appreciation of their capacity for learning, available supports, and responsibilities. Activities designed to support learning before, during, and after WIL experiences confer significant benefits to students and should include structured, critically reflective self and peer learning processes. Supervision is provided by both university and workplace supervisors, with WIL supervision involving four main roles: administration and management, education, support, and ‘gatekeeper.’ Reflective activities which promote understandings of skills, knowledge and capacities, and integration of learning from the workplace and the academic program to support career transitions. Facilitated guidance and questioning of the experience to promote sharing, unpacking, and sense-making. Considerations of the nature and form of assessment which promotes learning, whilst assuring competence, alongside the role of the workplace and university in making assessment of student performance. Ensuring all students can participate appropriately and have access to rewarding opportunities for learning and practice experiences.

Being embedded in the curriculum Student preparation Supporting learning activities

Supervision (including feedback) Reflection Debriefing Assessment

Inclusive approach to WIL

Figure 22.1  The interconnected elements of work-integrated learning. (Sachs et al., 2016)

348

Quality indicators of work-integrated learning

Applying concepts of quality to work-integrated learning practices Alongside an increasing interest from the academic community towards a focus on improving the quality of WIL experiences, governments and regulators have become more interested in ensuring quality WIL practices as part of a broader agenda for quality assurance of teaching and learning in higher education (Pattison, 2017; Winchester-Seeto, 2019). Much focus for WIL over previous decades has been around increasing student participation (quantity) in WIL. More recently, with the more general increase in accountability agendas in higher education, there has been comparative increase in interest to assure the quality of WIL. The previous sections have presented an overview of the conception of quality in higher education more generally, and a brief exploration of the domains of practice for WIL. To respond to the increased interest in quality assurance of WIL, it is necessary to bring these two constructs together. This section highlights the experience of quality assurance frameworks in two national contexts, Canada and Australia, with the intent that these explorations will provide a basis for a wider global understanding of quality, and quality assurance, for WIL practice. The Canadian context draws upon work undertaken by the Work-Learn Institute at the University of Waterloo as well as work done by the Quality Improvement Council of the national association, Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada). The Australian context is still evolving approaches to quality assurance of WIL with the case study presented here drawing largely from the work of Campbell et al. (2019) who undertook an explorative study to develop a shared quality framework supported with funding from the Australian national association, the Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN). This framework is providing a tool for institutions (defined in multiple ways to include either whole-of-university, faculties, or disciplines) to assure WIL practices, and consider evidence necessary to support accreditation and approval processes.

Canadian approach to quality in work-integrated learning Context of cooperative education in Canada Within the Canadian context, the use of WIL as an umbrella term for different forms of industry–community connected learning emerged around 2014. Prior to that, while there were many forms of WIL programs being offered at higher education institutions, each form of WIL operated largely independently of one another. A prevalent model of WIL in Canada is cooperative education. In 1957, the University of Waterloo established itself as a university with the cooperative education model being its distinguishing feature. The model was adopted by other institutions in Canada, and in 1973 a national association for cooperative education was established and named the Canadian Association for Co-operative Education (CAFCE) (Crichton, 2009). In 1979, with increased interest by governments in the model of cooperative education, CAFCE developed an accreditation process and outlined the quality criteria that programs would need to demonstrate to be accredited by the national body. More details on cooperative education accreditation in Canada can be found in Chapter 23 in this Handbook. Since 2016 in Canada, there has been a new wave of interest from government and industry associations in WIL. As economists and policy makers considered the challenges ahead for Canada and the global economy, attention turned to the ways that students can be better prepared to enter the labor market. Cooperative education and other forms of WIL have been identified as a strategy for addressing the issue (Conway et al., 2016; Government of British Columbia, 2018; Government of New Brunswick, 2019; Walker, 2019). 349

Matthew Campbell and T. Judene Pretti

Aligned with the focus on WIL within the government and higher education institutions, in 2017 the national association, CAFCE, expanded its mandate from a focus on cooperative education to represent WIL more broadly, and changed its name to Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada). To acknowledge the need at a national level for a focus on quality standards for WIL, a Quality Improvement Council was formed.

Describing the approach to quality assurance There were two main phases involved in the development of the WIL Quality framework adopted by the Quality Improvement Council of CEWIL. The first phase was the development of the framework based on a review and classification of the WIL literature. The second phase was the validation of the framework that involved subject matter experts and key stakeholders from higher education institutions and organizations across Canada involved in various types of WIL. The resulting framework is described in the publication Work-Integrated Learning Quality Framework, AAA* (McRae et al., 2018). In the review and classification of the WIL literature, and in discussions with subject matter experts and key stakeholders, a few trends emerged. A great deal has been written about the quality of the WIL experience from the student learning perspective (Winchester-Seeto, 2019). What the literature revealed, however, is that there has been much less discussion about WIL quality at the program level. In Canada, just as accreditation for cooperative education is considered at the program level, there was a desire to develop a framework for quality that captured both the individual WIL experience, but also the WIL program as a whole. The other aspect that seemed to be missing from many of the discussions about quality in WIL is the consideration of other key stakeholders’ perspectives and their goals for participating. For example, much is written about the design characteristics that need to exist within a WIL program (Smith, 2012), but WIL programs are only sustainable if the goals each stakeholder group has are considered, and if the programs are designed in such a way as to enable stakeholders to achieve their goals for participation (Fleming et al., 2018). The other aspect of stakeholder perspectives not addressed in other discussions of quality is the responsibility or role each of the stakeholders has in contributing towards quality WIL. For example, educators can design WIL experiences to incorporate the key elements of quality, but if students do not engage in the curriculum or experience, it will not result in quality WIL. The existing literature on quality criteria for WIL experiences, combined with observations about gaps in the discussion regarding quality WIL, led to the development of a Quality WIL framework that included two main dimensions (Table 22.2). The first dimension is the stakeholder perspective, and includes five key stakeholder groups: students, employers/host organizations, educators, institutions, and governments. The second dimension has three components that examine from each stakeholder’s perspective their aims for participating, the actions they need to take in support of Quality WIL, and their achievements through participating in WIL. The organization of the framework in this way was used to organize and classify existing WIL literature and highlight areas where less research has been done. For example, there was a significant amount of research that described the aims and achievements or outcomes for students, but less research that investigated the aims and achievements of institutions or governments. The existing literature on characteristics of quality WIL experiences fits naturally within in the ‘actions’ dimension, that is, what needs to be done to achieve quality WIL. Isolating the stakeholder dimensions enabled the consideration of a particular stakeholder within the system and highlights their goals, responsibilities, and outcomes of participation. In the original conception of the framework, there were four stakeholders identified: students, 350

Quality indicators of work-integrated learning Table 22.2  Work-Integrated Learning Quality Framework AAA* (McRae et al., 2018) Stakeholder

Aims

Actions

Achievements

Students

What are the aims that students have for participating in WIL? What are the aims that employers have for participating in WIL? What are the aims that educators have in offering WIL experiences? What are the aims that institutions have for offering WIL programs? What are the aims that governments have for supporting WIL programs?

What are the actions that students must take in support of quality WIL? What are the actions that students must take in support of quality WIL? What are the actions that educators must take in support of quality WIL?

What are the achievements for students of quality WIL? What are the achievements for employers of quality WIL? What are the achievements for educators of quality WIL?

What are the actions that institutions must take in support of quality WIL? What are the actions that governments must take in support of quality WIL?

What are the achievements for institutions of quality WIL? What are the achievements for governments of quality WIL?

Employers or host organizations Educators

Educational institutions Governments

employers or host organization, educational institutions, and governments. However, as the framework was populated, according to aims, actions, and achievements, the educator stakeholder emerged as a separate entity from the educational institution. While many aspects of the educator perspective aligned with the institution, there were some differences in considering their aims, actions, and achievements. The ‘*’ after ‘AAA’ in the Work-Integrated Learning Quality Framework, AAA* (McRae et al., 2018) represents the ongoing continuous improvement process. After documenting the aims, actions, and achievements for the five stakeholder groups for a particular WIL program, the next step is to examine the contents of the framework for opportunities for improvement; for example, (1) where there is misalignment between aims and achievements and (2) how the actions of one of the stakeholder groups could better align the aims and achievements of one or more of the stakeholder groups.

Operationalizing the framework The AAA* framework has been adopted by the Quality Improvement Council of CEWIL Canada and tested with the nine models of WIL defined by the association. The framework was used as the backbone for the development of a Resource Hub for CEWIL members that highlights program profiles of the nine different types of WIL. The Quality Council has developed worksheets to support members in implementing and evaluating their programs and has plans to offer courses to practitioners in support of their professional development.

Australian approach to quality in work-integrated learning The Australian work-integrated learning context Within the Australian context, WIL has been broadly adopted as an umbrella term which captures a range of experiences that integrate theory and learning in work contexts (Patrick 351

Matthew Campbell and T. Judene Pretti

et al., 2009). However, there is not one shared policy definition of WIL across the Australian higher education sector despite a general direction towards increasing student participation in WIL (Universities Australia, 2019). A brief comparison between different universities highlights a variety of policy positions, extending from limiting WIL to just direct engagement in work-based learning, to broad definitions that include pedagogical approaches ranging from case studies and workplace shadowing to long-term immersive experiences (Campbell et al., 2020). Ferns et al. (2014) claim that WIL is used to identify a myriad of experiences that engage students in the workplace. Whilst accepting the necessity to account for context, discipline, and intent, they identify that WIL experiences can broadly be understood as pedagogical approaches that are: • • •

Authentically engaged with practices and experiences of the workplace; Located within an intentional discipline-centered curriculum; Focused towards graduate learning outcomes and career pathways.

Within the broader policy landscape, alongside the debates of what constitutes WIL, there is also an increasing push to ensure quality student learning experiences in these non-­traditional learning contexts. Government policy has more recently highlighted a centrality of quality measures and quality assurance in higher education institutions. The emergence of the Australian Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), replacing the previous Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), alongside the introduction of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015), highlights an ongoing focus of the Australian Government in assuring the quality of universities, and teaching and learning practices within (Winchester-Seeto, 2019). TEQSA, in their published WIL Guidance Note, assert that the application of the same standards and expectations of teaching within other areas of higher education shall apply to WIL; however, higher education providers have the additional challenge of also assuring this quality amongst business and industry partners supervising students in the workplace (TEQSA, 2017). This extends the role of the higher education provider to assurance of activity and learning that occurs away from the physical campus and within workplaces remote to the university. TEQSA asserts that support for students also includes appropriate guidance and support in acquiring and accessing the required WIL experiences. Therefore, within the Australian context, which is not dissimilar to other Anglosphere contexts, understandings of quality in WIL need to encompass understandings of pedagogical quality, alongside broader concepts of quality in processes and supports (e.g., stakeholder engagement, administration) beyond learning that enable WIL to occur.

Describing the approach The Australian framework (Campbell et al., 2020) was developed through a research project undertaken across three phases of investigation: 1. 2. 3.

Review: this explored understandings of quality and application to WIL with key stakeholders; Exploration: in this stage several workshops were utilized to translate the understandings of the review phase into a usable framework; Benchmarking: this engaged staff across multiple settings to utilize the proposed framework and evaluate the standards on usability, thoroughness, and transferability to different contexts. 352

Quality indicators of work-integrated learning Table 22.3  An overview of the domains of quality practice Domain

Parameters

Understanding of quality

Student experience

Focused on the connection between the learning of the workplace and the experienced curriculum. Inclusive of personal and professional development afforded to the student in and through the WIL experience. Underlying design of the associated curriculum that supports a WIL experience with alignment across the intended, enacted, and experienced curriculum.

• Connectedness of learning across different contexts • Alignment of intended outcomes, student experiences, and assessment of these

Curriculum design

Institutional requirements

Institutional policies, practices, and professional support.

Stakeholder engagement

Partnerships across and beyond the institution with a broad understanding of ‘stakeholders’ to be inclusive of the wider higher education sector, governments, and regulators, alongside industry and community partners.

• Relationship between the student WIL experience and whole-ofcourse outcomes • Connections with previous and future learning experiences and outcomes • Alignment of WIL activities and practices with institutional strategy, supports, and expectations • Reciprocity through reward, recognition, feedback, and ongoing quality improvement • Ongoing and reflective engagement with all stakeholders

The framework adopted four domains of WIL practice: student experience, curriculum design, institutional requirements, and stakeholder engagement in an attempt to highlight and connect practice across both pedagogical and supportive/administrative functions of education. Table 22.3 provides a summary of these domains and how they were included in the framework. Within each domain, standards of practice were identified which were loosely connected to activities occurring before, during, and after the WIL experience. The introduction of standards within each practice domain is a key element of this framework that responds to WinchesterSeeto (2019) who claimed that few of her identified dimensions of quality have indicators or standards already developed. These standards provided the foundation of the framework under which each standard was supported by explorations of how it would be realized in practice. These explorations included detailed descriptions of the types of evidence which would demonstrate the realization of the standard, and inclusion of an illustration of practice which provided a short vignette of good practice already occurring and which was reflective of the standard. A mapping of the standards against the domains is provided as Appendix 22.1.

Connecting quality in work-integrated learning within a global context The World Association for Co-operative and Work-Integrated Education (WACE) produced a global charter in 2019 (WACE, 2019). The charter included three calls to action, one of them being “facilitate the development of a global cooperative and work-integrated education (CWIE) quality assurance framework – a focus on global QA” (WACE, 2019, p. 5). The two frameworks presented in this chapter provide the basis for a global perspective on quality in WIL. While the primary focus of the frameworks has been within a national context 353

Matthew Campbell and T. Judene Pretti

(Canada and Australia), there are reasons to believe that they may be useful internationally. First, one of the inputs for the development of the frameworks was the existing literature. The literature that was drawn on to inform the development of the frameworks was not limited to Canada and Australia. A significant contribution to the Canadian framework was an international collaboration involving participants from Thailand, South Africa, Namibia, and Canada (Khampirat & McRae, 2016). The frameworks have also been used to guide discussions with global audiences, both at international conferences and workshops, as well as included in the Global WIL course on Quality. In all of these settings, the frameworks have resonated with WIL practitioners representing a variety of types of WIL and from various regions of the world. The two frameworks presented in this chapter are structured differently but have many common elements. The Australian model goes to a deeper level of detail including standards statements related to the four key domains. The Canadian model puts a stronger emphasis on the external stakeholder perspectives. It is, therefore, proposed here that a combined framework, which draws upon the two case studies, may provide a model for a global approach to assuring quality in WIL. Evident across both cases is the alignment between the aims, actions, and outcomes of WIL practice as a central construct to quality. Within the Canadian experience, this has been labeled as ‘aims, actions, achievements’ whilst the Australian example frames it as ‘before, during, and after.’ As previously argued, WIL practice and pedagogy as well as applications of quality, has a temporal reality. Any global understanding of quality in WIL needs to be grounded in purpose, practice, and product. The debate around quality in WIL, therefore, resides in what the foci should be within each of these phases of experience. In comparing the Canadian and Australian models, it is emergent that WIL practice and pedagogy is not solely located within the teacher–student relationship but is instead nested within multiple relationships and stakeholder interests. Therefore, measures of success and understandings of quality need to draw upon the multiple realities and priorities of these different stakeholders; namely, students, academics (or educators), employers/workplaces, institutions, and government. The boundaries of interest for each of these stakeholders vary across contexts, but central to any success in WIL must be a focus on the student experience, grounded in a process of learning from, and transitioning to, employment in a workplace. The Canadian approach highlights strongly the trajectories from the aims of stakeholders to measures of achievements or outcomes. However, through connection with the construct of domains of practice captured in the Australian model, there is opportunity to better articulate how the aims and achievements are connected and realized. This allows for a synthesized model of Global WIL Quality that, at a high level, connects aims to achievements through a prism of practice (Figure 22.2). This synthesized model for Quality WIL identifies the key stakeholders as students, organizations who host them, educators, institutions, and government. The model illustrates that the aims of those key stakeholders shape the actions that are involved in delivering quality WIL, which include four key domains: student experience, curriculum design, institutional requirements, and stakeholder engagement. Through those four domains of action, there are achievements for each of the key stakeholder groups that can be evaluated and compared to the stakeholder aims, to identify opportunities for continuous improvement. Evident in the proposed model are the intersections between the different priorities and aims of the various stakeholders and the practices of WIL. For example, a student or educator is not solely responsible for the realization of a quality student experience. Instead, it is the responsibility of all stakeholders, to varying degrees, and what is valued will be different for different stakeholders. The domains of practice have been drawn from the Australian model, which, deliberate in its design, was focused on the institution. This proposed new model claims 354

Quality indicators of work-integrated learning

Figure 22.2  Global work-integrated learning quality model.

that these domains need to be extended to multiple stakeholders with standards of practice relevant for employers, students, and government. It is not our intent to elicit a comprehensive framework for Global WIL Quality, but instead to propose this model as a mechanism to better define and understand quality WIL practice and pedagogy. However, the evolution of a comprehensive framework, which draws together the intersections of stakeholders and domains, is possible. Overlapping the construct of stakeholder perspectives, drawn from the Canadian framework, with the standards and domains of practice evident in the Australian framework, enables consideration of the intersection of stakeholders and practice in developing understandings of quality in WIL. For example, Standard 1.4 states “student WIL experiences are safe and supportive” (see Appendix 22.1). This standard is mapped within the domain of student experience. Within this standard, students, as stakeholders, have the aims of being supported, accessing resources, and understanding expectations of the WIL experience. Employer intersections with this standard expect: quality measures in their induction and orientation processes, policies for managing students in the workplace, and safe work practices. Further, government intersects with clear guidance and expectations of workplaces and universities; for example, in Australian contexts it is a legislated requirement to provide a safe workplace for all. Therefore, the true standard (or exemplar) of practice is not a simple statement of safe and supportive experiences, but must instead be interpreted through the multiplicity of inputs and expectations by the various stakeholders. That is, the realization of the ‘standard’ requires each stakeholder to perform in particular ways, whilst also working towards a shared understanding of the desired practice. Intersections of stakeholders and standards must, however, be viewed through the lens of the national and local contexts. Local contexts create varying experiences, opportunities, and limitations. A comparison, for example, of the context dependency of quality in WIL can be seen through the intersections of standards with engagement of workplaces and employers. In the Australian context, where there is limited government funding for WIL placements, and where the majority of students undertake placements unpaid, the relationship between the 355

Matthew Campbell and T. Judene Pretti

university and workplace is often positioned as an act of the workplace ‘doing a favor’ for the university and thereby framing WIL in terms of benefits to the workplace and employer (e.g., future talent). The identification of students for placement is often driven by the university, with often limited input from workplaces. This then shapes interpretation of, for example, Standard 4.5 from the Australian framework (i.e., effective and sustainable relationship management including appropriate communication, reward, and recognition). However, consideration of the Canadian context in which models of cooperative education are funded, paid, and shaped by government policy might lead to a different interpretation of Standard 4.5. Sustainable relationship management within the context of paid student work will require a focus on assessing whether the organizations are receiving value for their financial investment. In this context, employers who do not see a reasonable return on their investment for participating in a WIL program will not continue to participate. This model (e.g., cooperative education) and its context-specific (e.g., Canada) stakeholder expectations may lead to a standard for WIL programs to incorporate a screening and selection process which increases the likelihood that the match between employers and students produces positive outcomes for both stakeholders. These examples highlight that a focus on understandings of quality, through the intersections of stakeholder aims, achievements, and domains of practice, must be considered within local and national contexts.

Conclusions and future research By working towards a global model of WIL quality, it is possible to realize a shared understanding and definition of WIL and associated pedagogies and practices. Attempting to define WIL in past research has often reduced the definition to a simple statement. However, WIL practice is complex, the contexts in which WIL practice occurs are varied, and the expectations of stakeholders are informed by the limits of their experiences. So, in order to properly define WIL, it is necessary to encapsulate these complex variations. A quality model of the like proposed in this chapter continues the maturation of a more thorough definition of WIL pedagogy and practice. The model offers a frame and a common language that can be used to develop quality standards applicable to multiple forms of WIL within national and regional contexts. Models and frameworks of quality WIL, more generally, provide the opportunity to: 1. Create/develop WIL experiences and programs based on the aims of stakeholders and key design criteria; 2. Benchmark the quality of WIL experiences and programs to identify opportunities for continuous improvement; 3. Examine and understand differences in the types of WIL, and in the similarities and differences across various regions of the world. This chapter has presented an overview of two frameworks that have attempted, within their contexts, to define quality WIL and to provide a mechanism to support the benchmarking of practices. A synthesized model of these frameworks has been proposed as a way forward in developing a global framework for WIL quality. However, further research is required to fully explore the applicability of this model and subsequent frameworks, across different regions and models of WIL. This work should provide a common frame of reference for describing the characteristics of WIL experiences and programs and a way of examining outcomes from stakeholder perspectives that will support global research collaborations.

356

Appendix 22.1  Framework for the institutional quality assurance of work-integrated learning (Campbell et al., 2019)1 DOMAINS Student Experience

Institutional Requirements

A quality WIL curriculum should contain embedded, accessible and transformative learning and assessment within an intended and enacted curriculum.

Quality WIL activity across Quality WIL experiences are institutions should be evidenced supported by engagement, by the proper management of staff, connection, and responsiveness risk management and reporting to the dynamic expectations of around WIL experiences supporting diverse stakeholders (industry, continual improvement. community, government, higher education sector, professional bodies, students) Standard 3.1 Institutions have Standard 4.1 Diverse stakeholders shared goals, policies, principles, are active participants across WIL and values about WIL activities Standard 3.2 Institutions have Standard 4.2 Partner sites are identifiable leadership and reviewed for health and safety, and governance structures for WIL suitability for WIL activities Standard 3.3 WIL is supported by adequate and effective IT and administrative systems

Guiding principle

A quality WIL experience should provide students with a scaffolded, connected and supported pedagogical experience.

Before

Standard 1.1 Ensure student Standard 2.1 WIL experiences readiness and preparation for are embedded through a wholelearning in the workplace context of-qualification curriculum Standard 1.2 Student WIL design underpinned by current experiences are connected to research and scholarship prior and future learning and Standard 2.2 Students and work industry are partners in the Standard 1.3 Student WIL design of WIL curriculum experiences align with their learning goals and capabilities

Stakeholder Engagement

(Continued)

Quality indicators of work-integrated learning

357

Curriculum Design

DOMAINS Student Experience

Curriculum Design

Institutional Requirements

Standard 2.3 WIL curriculum Standard 3.4 Institutions provide design reflects professional targeted professional development accreditation requirements and for academic and professional ongoing career and employability staff, and industry and community development partners Standard 2.4 WIL curriculum Standard 3.5 Enacted legal and design provides inclusive, risk management frameworks, equitable and accessible compliance procedures and experiences processes Standard 2.5 WIL assessment design is supported by authentic tasks, aligned with learning goals and graduate outcomes

Standard 4.3 Institution has effective policies and procedures in place for ongoing quality assurance of stakeholders including partner agreements, financial arrangements, and supervision quality Standard 4.4 Institutions undertake site contact and stakeholder communication Standard 4.5 Effective and sustainable relationship management including appropriate communication, reward, and recognition Standard 3.6 Provision of funding, Standard 4.6 Partnership resourcing, support, and recognition arrangements are regularly necessary to achieve WIL strategic reviewed goals Standard 3.7 Evaluation and tracking of short to long term WIL outcomes for continuous quality improvement

After

Standard 1.7 Students receive, use, and provide feedback on WIL experience to ensure progress towards learning goals

Standard 2.6 Student learning gains are measurable against intended outcomes Standard 2.7 Benchmarking of WIL assessment and identification of areas for improvement

Matthew Campbell and T. Judene Pretti

Standard 1.4 Student WIL experiences are safe and supportive Standard 1.5 Student WIL experiences offer scaffolded learning opportunities Standard 1.6 Support and guidance is provided for students within the WIL experience

358

During

Stakeholder Engagement

Quality indicators of work-integrated learning

Note 1 The full framework, including evidence and illustrations of practice for each standard, is available at https://research.qut.edu.au/wilquality

References Alderman, L. (2016). Mapping government reforms in quality against higher education theory: is the relationship symbiotic? Quality in Higher Education, 22(3), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/135383 22.2016.1251047 Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press. Universities Australia. (2019). Work-integrated learning in universities: Final report. Universities Australia. Bertolin, J. C. G. (2016). Ideologies and perceptions of quality in higher education: from the dichotomy between social and economic aspects to the ‘middle way’. Policy Futures in Education, 14(7), 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316645676 Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 12(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436930120107 Billett, S. (2006). Work, subjectivity and learning. In S. Billett, T. Fenwick, & M. Somerville (Eds.), Work, subjectivity and learning. (pp. 1–20). Springer. Billett, S. (2011). Curriculum and pedagogic bases for effectively integrating practice-based experiences: Final Report. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Boden, R., & Nedeva, M. (2010). Employing discourse: universities and graduate ‘employability’. Journal of Education Policy, 25(1), 37–54. http://doi.org/10.1080/02680930903349489 Brown, P., Hesketh, A., & Wiliams, S. (2003). Employability in a knowledge-driven economy. Journal of Education and Work, 16(2), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363908032000070648 Campbell, M., Russell, L., Smith, L., McAllister, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., & Barrett, M. (2019). A framework for assuring quality in work integrated learning. Queensland University of Technology. https:// research.qut.edu.au/wilquality/wp-content/uploads/sites/261/2019/12/FINAL-FRAMEWORKDEC-2019.pdf Campbell, M., Russell, L., Smith, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., McAllister, L., & Bennett, M. (2020). A  framework to assure the institutional quality of WIL. [Paper presentation]. ACEN Beyond 2020: Creating the future with WIL. Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN) National Virtual Summit (27–28 October). Clarke, M. (2018). Rethinking graduate employability: the role of capital, individual attributes and context. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1923–1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1294152 Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). Higher education standards framework (threshold standards) 2015. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01639. Conway, S., Campbell, C., Hardt, R., Loat, A., & Sood, P. (2016). Building the workforce of tomorrow: A shared responsibility. The Premier’s Highly Skilled Workforce Expert Panel. https://files.ontario.ca/hsw_ rev_engaoda_webfinal_july6.pdf Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning: A guide to effective practice. Routledge. Crichton, A. (2009). From impossibility to reality: Documenting the history of CAFCE in Canada. Canadian Association for Cooperative Education (CAFCE). https://www.cewilcanada.ca/common/Uploaded%20 files/Public%20Resources/Research%20Papers/2009-CAFCEHistory-AC.pdf Ferns, S., Campbell, M., & Zegwaard, K. (2014). Work integrated learning in the curriculum. In S. Ferns (Ed.), HERDSA Guides Series: Work Integrated Learning. HERDSA. Fleming, J., McLachlan, K., & Pretti, T. J. (2018). Successful work-integrated learning relationships: A framework for sustainability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 321–335 Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. The Higher Education Academy. Government of British Columbia. (2018). Helping students succeed through work-integrated learning. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2018AEST0100-001443 Government of New Brunswick (2019). FutureReadyNB launched to support student job training and employer recruitment. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/post-secondary_education_ training_and_labour/news/news_release.2019.01.0034.html Green, D. (1994). What is quality in higher education? Concepts, policy and practice. In D. Green (Ed.), What is quality in higher education? (pp. 3–20). Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

359

Matthew Campbell and T. Judene Pretti Harvey, L., & Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming higher education. Open University Press. Helyer, R. (2015). Learning through reflection: The critical role of reflection in work-based learning (WBL). Journal of Work-Applied Management, 7(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-10-2015-003 Kaider, F., Hains-Wesson, R., & Young, K. (2017). Practical typology of authentic work-integrated learning activities and assessments. Asia Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 153–165. Khampirat, B., & McRae, N. (2016). Developing global standards framework and quality integrated models for cooperative and work-integrated education programs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 349–362. Lingard, B. (2014). Politics, policies and pedagogies in education: The selected works of Bob Lingard. Routledge. McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 337–348. McRae, N., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2018). Work-integrated learning quality framework. University of Waterloo Canada. https://uwaterloo.ca/work-learn-institute/sites/default/files/uploads/files/wil_ quality_framework_-_aaa_-_for_posting.pdf Mukherjee, S. P. (2019). Quality: Domains and Dimensions. Singapore: Springer Nature. Orrell, J. (2011). Good practice report: work-integrated learning. Sydney, New South Wales: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., & Pocknee, C. (2009). The WIL [work integrated learning] report: A national scoping study (Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Final Report). Queensland University of Technology. Pattison, P. (2017). Standards and quality in Australian higher education. In R. James, S. French, & P. Kelly (Eds.), Visions for Australian Tertiary Education. Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne. Sachs, J., Rowe, A., & Wilson, M. (2016). Good Practice Report: Work Integrated Learning (WIL). Department of Education and Training, Australian Government. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey Bass. Smith, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: a comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360. 2011.558072 Steinhardt, I., Schneijderberg, C., Götze, N., Baumann, J., & Krücken, G. (2017). Mapping the quality assurance of teaching and learning in higher education: The emergence of a specialty? Higher Education, 74(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0045-5 Stirling, A., Kerr, G., Banwell, J., MacPherson, E., & Heron, A. (2016). A practical guide for work-integrated learning: Effective practices to enhance the educational quality of structured work experiences offered through colleges and universities. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Suskie, L. (2015). Five dimensions of quality: A common sense guide to accreditation and accountability. Jossey-Bass. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). (2017). Guidance note: Work integrated learning. Australian Government. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/latest-news/publications/guidance-note-workintegrated-learning Tomlinson, M. (2017). Introduction. Graduate employability in context: charting a complex, contested and multi-faceted policy and research field. In M. Tomlinson & L. Holmes (Eds.), Graduate Employability in Context: Theory, Research and Debate (pp. 1–40). Palgrave Macmillan UNESCO. (1998). World declaration on higher education for the twenty-first century: Vision and action. UNESCO. WACE: World Association for Co-operative and Work-Integrated Education (2019). The Global Co-operative and Work-Integrated Education Charter. https://waceinc.org/Global-WIL-Charter Walker, V. (2019). Minister Bains announces investment in work-integrated learning. Markets Insider. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2019/07/ministerbains-announces-investment-in-work-integrated-learning.html Winch, C. (2013). The workplace as a site of learning: Reflections on the conceptual relationship between workplace and learning. In P. Gibbs (Ed.), Learning, work and practice: New understandings (pp. 9–19). Springer. Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). Quality and standards for work integrated learning. http://www.acds-tlcc. edu.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2019/03/Winchester-Seeto-Literature-Review-Quality-andStandards.pdf Zemsky, R., & Shaman, S. (2017). The market imperative: Segmentation and change in higher education. John Hopkins University Press.

360

23 ACCREDITATION AND QUALITY IN WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING An international comparison Sonia J. Ferns and Christine Arsenault Introduction Debate on quality in the global higher education sector has resonated with key stakeholders for three decades (Schindler et al., 2015). Discourse on delivery, curriculum design, quality assurance of institutions, risk management, employability outcomes, and graduate attributes form the cornerstone of discussions on quality. Ubiquitous dialogues on the dimensions that constitute quality in higher education and metrics to validate those dimensions inevitably raise questions about the fundamental purpose of a university education (Barnett, 2019). Understanding purpose, aspirations, and desired outcomes is paramount to defining quality and identifying metrics to evidence quality (Probert, 2015). The shift from considering inputs to an outcomes-focused and impact quality assurance paradigm, while admirable, has further exacerbated the complexity in defining and measuring quality (Scott, 2016). Perceptions of the purpose of a university education are variable and more contentious as “pressures for change [require] urgent reflection on the role and purpose of a university” (Davis, 2013, p. 48). Davis argues that the fundamental purpose of a university has remained consistent over many decades: to prepare students with the skills and attributes required of specific professions, with approximately 70% of the Australian student population enrolled in a degree with a clear professional outcome (p. 44). Others argue that the role of a university is to foster intellectual, civic, and ethical capabilities of the individual where the focus is on building character and broadening one’s perspective (Universities Australia, 2016). In more recent times, workforce planning, economic growth, sustainability, and innovation have emerged as priorities (Rich, 2015). Despite the discord on verifying quality, there is general agreement on the importance of universities in shaping the environmental, cultural, economic, political, and social dynamics of communities (Schneider & Preckel, 2017). This is of particular relevance in the current context, where disruption and change are constant as a result of technological innovations, increasing mobility, rapid workforce transformation, and demand for innovative problem-solvers. Traditional didactic and content-focused teaching methodologies fail to position graduates to navigate a competitive, interdisciplinary, and results-driven career trajectory (Evans-Greenwood et al., 2015). The past decade has seen a transition to an emphasis on experiential learning

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-27

361

Sonia J. Ferns and Christine Arsenault

where student learning embraces the integration of theory and practice in authentic settings. The emphasis globally on the work-readiness of graduates has intensified the importance of work-integrated learning (WIL) as a pedagogy for providing real-world experiences and industry/community engagement opportunities for students. WIL has therefore emerged as a high priority for educational institutions (Ferns et al., 2014; Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017). This further amplifies the conundrum of WIL accreditation. According to Yorke and Vidovich (2014), an increased emphasis on learning standards for the purposes of quality assurance is commendable but, despite the importance of WIL pedagogy for enhancing graduate employability, standards rarely apply as they “tend to be narrowly defined” (p. 229) and fail to factor in the nuances and flexibility a WIL curriculum affords. Accreditation is synonymous with quality in a higher education context and perceived as a mechanism for attaining legitimacy in a global market where student attraction and retention is a major indicator of institutional credibility and financial sustainability. Successful accreditation implies that an institution meets expected academic standards to ensure quality outcomes for students. Accreditation is generally gauged against standards deemed indicative of quality. Hayward (2017) defines accreditation as “a process by which recognized authorities validate that an institution meets minimal professional standards and accountability based on its mission” (p. 22). Hayward’s definition implies that standards reflecting appropriate quality dimensions depending on the purpose of the accreditation process are fundamental to accreditation. The connection between quality and accreditation is, therefore, inextricable, and a conversation about one must incorporate reference to the other. This chapter begins with a discussion on contemporary approaches to quality assurance across the higher education sector. Accreditation is discussed in the context of a broad interpretation of accreditation. Quality specific to the context of WIL with reference to recent literature on this topic is addressed. With these constructs in mind, case studies from Canada and Australia explore approaches to WIL accreditation in different national settings. Analysis of Canadian and Australian practices was deemed appropriate as they are actively exploring metrics and standards that verify the quality of WIL pedagogy. While an emphasis on WIL quality and graduate employability is also evident in countries such as Thailand, South Africa, and Sweden, substantiating quality at a national level remains elusive (Khampirat & McRae, 2016). Through synthesis of the case studies and identification of themes that promote quality WIL outcomes, guiding principles for accrediting WIL are proposed. The chapter culminates with a discussion on the opportunities a global approach to WIL accreditation affords, and considerations for progressing this initiative.

Accreditation as an indicator of quality Accreditation of higher education institutions as a process for attesting the quality and profile of institutions originated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the USA (Woodhouse, 2004). The 1980s saw external quality assurance expand globally as the number of higher education students increased, requiring greater government expenditure which initiated the need for “evidence of accountability” (Woodhouse, 2004, p. 77). As the ‘quality industry’ has evolved it remains a contested issue (Newton, 2002). Notions of quality remain “multiple, malleable, and highly contested” (Yorke & Vidovich, 2014, p. 226). Quality enhancement is intended to improve quality thereby adding value, whereas quality assurance is more concerned with determining the standard of a product or service (Lomas et al., 2010). There is a perception that the shift has erred more towards the validation of quality assurance as a measure of external accountability (Reid, 2009). The emerging ‘audit culture’ 362

Accreditation and quality

(Strathern, 2000) has caused discontent in higher education as there is a sense of diminishing autonomy and increasing control over institutional priorities and strategies. An overly prescriptive and managerial approach to quality does not augur well for assuring or enhancing the quality of WIL outcomes which are variable, unpredictable, and context-dependent (Adams & Jones, 2022). Standards and accreditation processes that inform the quality of curriculum design, assessment methodology, learning experiences, and student outcomes are of paramount importance in the educational arena. In addition to assuring quality, accreditation within higher education informs prospective students’ study choices; enables monitoring courses and programs; facilitates institutional benchmarking; provides external evidence of performance; and allows governments to make decisions regarding funding, policy development, and accountability (Coates, 2005).

Quality in work-integrated learning Recognition of progress in quality WIL frameworks is paramount to a discussion on WIL accreditation. With emphasis on graduate employability, WIL has emerged as a high priority for educational institutions worldwide and subsequently discourse on WIL quality and accreditation has taken center stage. However, McRae et al. (2018) posit that WIL has been a neglected topic in conversations around quality in higher education. WIL refers to structured and deliberately designed learning experiences that integrate theoretical concepts with the world of work (Ferns, et al., 2014). WIL affords students authentic interaction with industry/ community situations and occurs in a myriad of ways with experiential and problem-based learning at its core (Zegwaard et al., 2022). Such methodologies enable students to shape their learning and affords personalized outcomes. With increasing innovation and diversity in models of WIL, assuring quality through accreditation is complex and problematic. Several studies have been conducted to define quality parameters for WIL that aspire to facilitate quality WIL design and implementation, thereby enabling educators to self-assess, benchmark, and provide the construct for an accreditation process. See Chapter 2 for details on quality WIL. A WIL quality framework developed by Cooper et al. (2010) comprised seven key dimensions: purpose, context, integration, curriculum, transformative learning, partnerships, and student support. While the dimensions are comprehensive in their coverage of aspects of the WIL experience, the ‘context’ is explicitly situated in the workplace. This compromises application of the framework to diverse WIL models that have gained prominence with the impact of COVID-19 (Kay et al., 2020). Smith et al. (2016) collected 4,835 survey responses from 13 Australian institutions, confirming that WIL experiences nurture students’ work-readiness capabilities. This empirical study identified dimensions of employability and a quality curriculum that optimizes employability outcomes for students (Smith et al., 2016). Authenticity, constructive alignment, integration of theory and practice, preparation prior to WIL, and debriefing after the WIL experience were deemed integral to quality WIL curricula. A seminal national project on Leadership for WIL programs and curricula developed a distributed leadership model comprising five domains deemed essential for successful implementation of quality WIL in institutions (Patrick et al., 2014). Outcomes of this project emphasized the importance of leadership in quality WIL assurance. To broaden the quality WIL agenda in Canada and to be more inclusive of different approaches to WIL, other than cooperative education (co-op), which has dominated the Canadian landscape, McRae and Johnston (2016) designed a quality WIL framework that encompassed the theoretical underpinnings of “experiential education.” Four key attributes form the basis of the framework: experience, curriculum integration, 363

Sonia J. Ferns and Christine Arsenault

student outcomes, and reflection. Rather than use standards as aspirations of quality, McRae and Johnston (2016) suggest outcomes which indicate quality elements of each attribute. The overarching purpose of the framework is to describe a range of WIL activities and to move beyond definitional conversations. The WIL quality framework developed by McRae et  al. (2018) comprises five sections: definition of concepts and terminology, aims of stakeholder groups, actions for quality, expected achievements, and synthesizes the framework to inform a process for continuous improvement. Winchester-Seeto (2019) ascertains that authenticity of experience, embedded in curricula, student preparation, supporting learning activities, supervision and feedback, reflection, debriefing and assessment, and an inclusive approach to WIL, were fundamental to quality WIL. In 2019, the Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN), the peak body for WIL in Australia, funded research aimed to design a framework for assuring WIL quality. The evidence-based standards framework developed by Campbell et al. (2019) is premised on the scholarly work of others to define four domains of WIL quality: student experience, curriculum design, institutional requirements, and stakeholder engagement. The framework includes standards that underpin each domain and guiding principles to facilitate a shared interpretation of the domains and standards. This framework is yet to be widely deployed in Australia but provides substantial groundwork for a more formal approach to affirming WIL quality through accreditation. This brief overview of contemporary literature on WIL quality demonstrates the commitment of the higher education sector to this topic.

Professional accreditation The quest for professional accreditation has intensified in recent years (Ulker & Bakioglu, 2018) as a means of global benchmarking, quality assurance, and adequate preparation of students as novice professionals. Accreditation denotes graduates are safe to practice, and for some professions is linked to lawful requirements whereby it is a legal imperative that accreditation is acquired before one can practice in that profession (e.g., medicine). Professional accrediting bodies are perceived as arbitrators of “coherence and subject integrity” (Ewan, 2016, p.  51) and regulators of expectations and standards of a profession (Stokes, 2016). Professional accreditation is usually facilitated by self-regulated bodies (Burritt et al., 2016) with an interest in ensuring high-quality graduates for a viable and respected profession. Professional standards, increasingly important for informing curriculum design, are produced by professional bodies via a consultative process with relevant stakeholders (Grealish, 2015). Professional bodies are well positioned to inform WIL accreditation given their familiarity of the profession and the essential attributes required of employees. Traditionally, accreditation standards have specified placement WIL requirements within a program, but the need to diversify models of WIL is compelling given the cost and resource implications associated with industry placements (PhillipsKPA, 2017). There are multiple approaches to WIL (Ferns et al., 2014) and emerging models that are gaining traction with both industry and universities (Kay et al., 2019). Input from accreditation bodies in co-designing curriculum, assessment, and delivery approaches that embrace WIL pedagogy should ensure authentic learning experiences and outcomes. As Dunn et al. (2018) substantiate, there are challenges in discussing “the complexities associated with achieving good WIL practice” (p. 120) around models of WIL beyond the traditional placement. Given that its “genesis is concern for consumer protection” (Woodhouse, 2004, p. 77), the broader community profits from professional accreditation with confidence that a university qualification assumes graduates have the capabilities required to be proficient practitioners 364

Accreditation and quality

and provide quality service (Ferns et al., 2022). Professional accreditation addresses the need for external review and benchmarking in higher education (Ralph et al., 2015). Professional competency standards “provide a boundary between the curriculum and the real world of practice” (Grealish, 2015, p. 90). Furthermore, professional accreditation supports a cyclic quality improvement process of self-review, external review, and actions for improvement (Ingvarson, 2002). Professional accreditation informs the cohesiveness and connectedness of subjects across a program, an important criterion for quality outcomes (Ferns et al., 2019). Typically, accreditation interrogates the content, combination of subjects, applicability of learning outcomes, relevance of assessment profiles, and learning activities, including WIL, to enable students to acquire outcomes. Program accreditation facilitates a rigorous and intense interrogation of a degree for institutional appraisal and continuous enhancement. Despite the benefits of professional accreditation, Grealish (2015) describes it as a “tedious process and meticulous record-keeping” (p. 97). Higher education staff perceive professional accreditation as an under-utilized resource that is “regulatory, time-consuming, and resource intensive” (Ferns et al., 2019, p. 107).

Inquiry process A case study approach was adopted to determine synergies and contrasts in WIL accreditation, WIL quality matrices, and accreditation of professional degrees in Australia and Canada. Merriam (2009) describes case studies as “particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic” (p. 43). Particularistic refers to the focus; the descriptive feature is realized by the “complete, literal description of the entity being investigated” (p. 43); and the heuristic aspect relates to the impact on the reader’s knowledge and understanding of the research phenomenon. The case studies and contemporary literature were scrutinized for emerging themes pivotal to quality WIL. Strengths, similarities, and differences were analyzed to identify themes and future guiding principles for global WIL accreditation considerations (Table 23.2).

Accreditation of work-integrated learning in Australia Australian institutions are required to adhere to quality standards specified by regulatory and professional bodies and a range of quality assurance processes, some of which are compulsory and others optional. The accreditation landscape in Australia is somewhat obscure and ill-defined but three discrete processes are central to accrediting quality: the Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF), professional accreditation, and evolving WIL quality frameworks. The higher education sector in Australia is well-respected globally and has built a strong reputation as a leader in educational quality and credibility (Coaldrake, 2019). The HESF specifies the requirements that Australian higher education providers must address and evidence to meet registration requirements of the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA). Maintaining the quality and reputation of the Australian higher education sector is a key impetus of the HESF. The Standards Framework encompasses seven Domains (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015). The Domains are underpinned by Sections which include Standards statements specifying the obligations of institutions in operationalizing each Domain. The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) is the national policy which regulates education and training qualifications in Australia (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013). This taxonomy of qualifications informs the design, complexity of learning outcomes and skill development, and contexts for applying skills and knowledge, showing increasing autonomy and sophistication as the qualification level increases. The document highlights the 365

Sonia J. Ferns and Christine Arsenault

importance of canonical knowledge, cognitive development, and skills required of practitioners at the various stages of educational achievement. “Domain two: Learning Environment” has an accompanying Guidance Note on WIL (TEQSA, 2017). While this document acknowledges the diversity of WIL, the Guidance Note centers on placement WIL, emphasizes health, safety, and wellbeing, and outlines potential risks to quality. Reference is made to other quality standards across the domains including course design, learning outcomes and assessment, and staffing as a way of addressing quality WIL requirements. Quality measures such as discipline currency of staff, scholarly pursuits (Teaching Domain), and assuring quality of WIL placements when a third party (industry) is involved (Institutional Quality Assurance Domain) are relevant standards in a WIL context. While the HESF refers to WIL, it remains nebulous in defining quality parameters to inform the design of WIL pedagogy. Despite this, there is recognition that standards address “Australia’s evolving higher education landscape, accommodate innovative and changing practice, and are comparable to international benchmarks” (Coaldrake, 2019, p. 1). However, little guidance is provided on the structure and enactment of WIL approaches and industry/community engagement, a fundamental component of WIL. Professional accreditation of a degree program and registration of graduates, if applicable, is suggested as a reference point in the HESF, but these accreditation processes (i.e., self-accreditation and professional accreditation), while one may inform the other, are two discrete processes. The HESF specifies that “where professional accreditation of a course of study is required for graduates to be eligible to practice, the course of study is accredited and continues to be accredited by the relevant professional body” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015, p. 8). While there are robust national quality mechanisms in Australia as outlined above, there is currently no systematic approach using an agreed framework to ascertain what constitutes quality WIL and the metrics to validate that quality (Smith et al., 2022). ACEN is leading the development of an accessible, sustainable, and transferable process for determining the quality of WIL. While advancement of a national process that enables accreditation of WIL, national benchmarking, and a streamlined procedure is still in its infancy, quality WIL parameters have been defined through rigorous research. Each of the accreditation processes outlined above are beneficial and ensure kudos, status, and profile for an institution. All are essentially striving to enhance quality and maintain global deference for the Australian higher education sector. However, currently each operates as a discrete entity, although there are aspirations for greater collaboration (Ferns et al., 2019). There is scope to strengthen the multiple accreditation processes universities are subject to through a collaborative and collegial model.

Accreditation of work-integrated learning in Canada Canadian universities share a common culture of quality and excellence, and a commitment to achieving and maintaining high standards in their academic programs. Similar to Australia, Canada maintains three processes that are central to accrediting higher education quality. However, unlike Australia, the first is determined provincially rather than nationally. University programs are regulated by a provincial Quality Assurance Framework, professional accreditations, and evolving WIL quality frameworks. As higher education in Canada falls under the country’s ten provinces and three territories, nationally, there is only a degree qualifications framework. This framework, adopted in 2007 by provincial and territorial ministers, outlines procedures and standards that provide general

366

Accreditation and quality

guidelines on assessing the quality of new degree programs and degree-granting institutions (Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials [CICIC], 2021). From a quality assurance perspective, each province and territory have shaped processes that review proposed objectives, requirements, structure, quality, admission requirements, and resources of higher education programs. In addition to higher education quality assurance, academic programs in professional fields must adhere to accreditation requirements of professional bodies at the national or provincial level. With over 60 professional accrediting bodies in Canada, the requirements vary but generally focus on the content of higher education programs, resources, and competency expectations (CICIC, 2021). While many of these programs require practical experience, WIL is rarely a focus of accreditation requirements. Accreditation of WIL began in 1979 under the direction of the Canadian Association for Co-operative Education (CAFCE), now Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada). Members of the association developed accreditation standards to establish co-op as an educational strategy and to provide leadership in ensuring quality co-op programming (CEWIL Canada, 2021). Canadian WIL accreditation is the same process regardless of discipline as it focuses on the structure, institutional context, and commitment as well as the quality and evaluation criteria of co-op itself. While there are efforts within Canada to define a quality matrix for broader forms of WIL (McRae et al., 2018), Canada’s WIL accreditation history has primarily focused on co-op defined as a program that formally integrates academic studies alternating with work experience that is approved and monitored by the post-secondary institution. The student is involved in productive work, receives remuneration for the work, the work is evaluated by the employer, and time spent in the workplace constitutes at least 25% of the degree (CEWIL Canada, 2021). Practitioners of accredited co-op programs run the accreditation process. Review teams consist of a chair who must be from an accredited program and two reviewers who may or may not be part of an accredited program. Although the standards were initially created to protect a brand of co-op programming (Crichton, 2009), in recent years each standard is expected to be supported by research. Standards not validated by research have become the subject of debate within the Accreditation Council. Review teams complete all aspects of the review remotely and voluntarily, keeping costs affordable. The intent is to allocate a portion of accreditation application fees towards further research into accreditation standards. In general, the Canadian WIL accreditation process is perceived as a supportive practice with the goal of meeting a common set of standards necessary for quality program delivery. Practitioners leverage the accreditation process to advocate for more resources and to prevent the erosion of the co-op experience. It is also an opportunity to celebrate and share best practices with an eye to innovation. Advocacy through accreditation has resulted in co-op provincial tax credit benefit, wage-subsidies (Crichton, 2009), and the ability to launch a national database (McRae et al., 2018). Conducting accreditation primarily through the practitioner lens and with limited inclusion of employer/industry, student, and graduate perceptions, compromises the reliability of WIL accreditation. The Canadian WIL accreditation process has worked well because of a narrow definition of quality co-op. Expanding to encompass diverse WIL models appears to be a daunting, if not impossible task. While entrepreneurship has recently been considered and added, a volunteer-backed system limits the Council’s ability to proactively address emerging educational themes such as equity, diversity, access, and inclusion.

367

Sonia J. Ferns and Christine Arsenault

Provincial and national work-integrated learning accreditation case studies Attempts have been made to integrate different forms of WIL accreditation in Canada. In 2015, the Accountability Council of Co-operative Education in British Columbia (ACCE BC) and CEWIL Canada (then known as CAFCE) created a reciprocity agreement for accreditation purposes. The process involved an analysis of the provincial ACCE BC approval process and the national CEWIL accreditation requirements. It allowed for post-secondary institutions with provincial accreditation to submit their ACCE BC application documents and to only complete a few components of the CEWIL application that were not covered through the BC process. The hope was that more institutions might pursue provincial accreditation (a slightly less onerous process) and eventually take smaller additional steps for national accreditation. Since 2015, only one institution has pursued the reciprocity accreditation agreement process between the province of British Columbia and the national association. While on the surface this may seem like a failed initiative, the process was quite successful. By having the two associations determine the shared and unique aspects of their respective accreditation practices, changes were discussed. Shortly after the reciprocal approval of BC Okanagan College, the CAFCE Accreditation Council conducted a review of their accreditation processes. The reciprocal project was in part responsible for this review as it informed CAFCE of areas that could be streamlined which ultimately simplified the overall accreditation process. The streamlined CAFCE accreditation process resulted in a decision by the BC group to utilize only one approval/accreditation process for BC programs. The ACCE decided to drop the BC approval process and required that all BC programs utilize the CAFCE accreditation application. The reciprocal review conducted, along with the establishment of the agreement, was an opportunity to review the processes that lead to understanding the differences and similarities between BC and CAFCE (M. Klemetski, Former CEWIL Accreditation Chair, personal communication, March, 2021).

Professional and work-integrated learning accreditation in Canada Similar to Australia, Canada hosts numerous professional associations that are discipline specific such as Accounting, Engineering, and Nursing. While many of these professional programs include forms of WIL, the accreditation standards, minimally at best, review the WIL component of their programs. The Canadian Professional Accounting Ontario (CPA Ontario) Association, for example, requires students to complete 30 months of practical experience which complements the theoretical components of their discipline in real-world settings (CPA Ontario, 2021). There are two pathways to approve this practical experience. Firstly, through a pre-approved CPA employer and secondly, via an experience verification method by an employer chosen by the student. In both pathways, five requirements must be met, and all are strikingly similar to those of the CEWIL Co-op Accreditation Standards (Table 23.1). Despite the similarities above, the provincial accrediting accounting body and the post-­ secondary institutions do not collaborate on the practical experience approval. The only collaboration between these two groups is accreditation of courses offered by the post-secondary institution. The accounting supervisor who hires future CPA students for work terms must complete the above requirements for both the provincial accrediting accounting body and the post-secondary institution separately, doubling their already busy workload. 368

Accreditation and quality Table 23.1  Comparison of the CPA Ontario practical experience requirement and the CEWIL Co-op Accreditation Standards CPA Ontario practical experience requirement

CEWIL Co-op Accreditation Standards

Gain relevant and progressive experience and develop as a professional accountant Must be appropriately supervised

The student is engaged in productive work for which he or she receives remuneration The student’s performance in the workplace is supervised and evaluated by the employer The co-op curriculum supports student learning goals, personal evaluation, and reflection The student’s progress during their work term is monitored by the co-op program Each experience is developed in partnership with the employer and approved by the co-op program as a suitable learning environment

At key milestones the student must submit detailed experience reports Must meet with a CPA approved mentor at least semi-annually The experience is assessed by the profession

Comparison of accreditation in Canada and Australia Drawing on the examples of WIL accreditation in Canada and Australia, Table 23.2 provides a comparison of themes relevant to WIL accreditation and aligns practices to professional accreditation given its importance to the higher education sector in both countries. Suggestions for streamlining accreditation processes are recommended.

Bringing together co-op, professional accreditation, and WIL quality frameworks The benefits and deficits of accreditation models in Table 23.2 inform the design of a globally germane WIL accreditation model. Themes were synthesized from Table 23.2 and consolidated into six categories to develop guiding principles for consideration when designing a WIL accreditation model. The six categories comprised: the focus of WIL accreditation; collaboration; research and validated standards; motivation; evaluation, innovation, and best practice; and access. The categories are outlined below along with the guiding principle emerging from the theme.

Focus of work-integrated learning accreditation When comparing methods across Table 23.2, the focus of WIL is a clear aspect of differentiation. Canada’s WIL accreditation has a history of focusing on co-op exclusively. While accreditation of co-op has resulted in improved quality and a common understanding of this form of WIL, globally there is an appetite to embrace diverse models of it. Quality frameworks premised on different WIL models are yet to be piloted in an accreditation process. In contrast, the professional accreditations process has a broader remit yet generally fails to validate the nuances of WIL from a quality perspective. The ideal goal is to develop an accreditation process that includes all forms of WIL, evaluates and supports quality, and has the strong uptake of professional accreditations. There is potential to integrate WIL accreditations across evaluating bodies to minimize overlap and maximize efficiency. GUIDING PRINCIPLE ONE: WIL quality frameworks and an accreditation process should encapsulate diverse WIL models and be sufficiently flexible to accommodate emerging ones. 369

Table 23.2  Comparison of work-integrated learning quality and accreditation practices in Canada and Australia Canada WIL accreditation

WIL quality assurance in Australia

Professional accreditation

Recommendation

Focus of WIL accreditation

Co-op across all disciplines; quality student experience

Informed by research

While limited to co-op, the CEWIL accreditation has clear standards with illustrations of practice Accreditation standards informed by empirical data

Acquisition of professional skills, WIL placement often factored into professional accreditation standards Standards vary in format and focus across professions

Integrate WIL accreditations across evaluating bodies to minimize overlap and maximize efficiency

Standards

Quality of diverse WIL models verified against holistic framework, quality student experience Clearly articulated standards with illustrations of practice WIL quality dimensions informed by empirical data

Encourages innovation and best practice

Promotes best practice, encourages innovation through networking during accreditation activities

Standards articulate best practice

Generally developed through consultation; research findings may inadvertently influence the compilation of standards Although varied, some professional accreditation bodies are leaders in driving innovation and best practice

Motivation for pursuing accreditation

Enables advocacy for administration of co-op;supports strength of the co-op brand; access to best-practice discussions

Must evidence successful outcomes to be eligible for government funding; opportunities for benchmarking within and across institutions

Degree credibility; marketing strategy for attracting students

Merge/combine standards to avoid repetition; quality enhancement requires statements about how standards are evidenced Share research findings, to inform processes, standards

Accreditation should include standards that articulate best practice and encourage networking to maximize the sharing of innovation and best practices Opportunity to leverage from professional bodies who focus on innovation. Benefits to the institution should be clearly articulated to maximize engagement

Sonia J. Ferns and Christine Arsenault

370

Themes

Role of employer/ industry

No formal role in accreditation; standards explicitly address quality processes associated with stakeholder engagement

Institutional access

Affordable at Can$500 per review; non-accredited members can participate in institutional reviews to encourage access and transparency Standards do not assess equitable access to WIL education

Student access

No formal role in quality assurance; standards explicitly address quality processes associated with stakeholder engagement Quality assurance frameworks are freely available

Standards incorporate access and equity for students.

CEWIL Accreditation Council members (Review Chair) and WIL practitioners (accredited and non-accredited)

No formal accrediting review team

Process

Online accreditation package submitted, review team works with program lead to understand challenges and best practices; recommendations are written with a lens of support/advocacy for the WIL practitioners to enhance quality

Intent is to enable collaboration, consultation, and enhancement within and across institutions

Co-design standards/rationale with industry partners and involve them in quality assurance

While costs vary across professional accreditation bodies, there is generally a substantial human resource and financial commitment Although variable, standards related to admissions, teaching practices, and student outcomes are minimal to non-existent Experienced industry practitioners; may include a staff member from another institution

Accreditation should be accessible to all institutions with equitable opportunities to benefit from the process

Preparation of documentation and evidence, panel visits the university in-person, conducts interviews and validates evidence; a report containing commendations and recommendations is provided

WIL quality standards should address access and equity for students and institutions Impartial and not-for-profit reviewers Retain focus on education benefits and practices A strong review team composition and process can build capacity and transparency. Process should be collaborative, consultative, and encourage shared leadership

(Continued)

Accreditation and quality

371

Composition of accrediting review team

Represented on professional accreditation panels

Table 23.2  (Continued) Canada WIL accreditation

WIL quality assurance in Australia

Professional accreditation

Recommendation

Benefits

Unified voice to nationally advocate for awareness, tax credits, hiring subsidies, and government support; supports policies and procedures established for their operation and as a reference point when dealing with student and employer issues (Qiubo et al., 2016); shared understanding facilitates collaboration and permits transferability of co-op credits between institutions

Quality WIL improves graduate employability; facilitates collaboration and a shared understanding about quality WIL parameters

Enhances status and profile of an institution and a profession; attracts international students; global consistency of professional standards

Shared understanding facilitates collaboration, enhances brand, and transferability

372

Sonia J. Ferns and Christine Arsenault

Themes

Accreditation and quality

Collaboration Given the substantial work on accreditation processes and WIL quality outlined in this chapter, there is much to be gained from organizations working collaboratively to share expertise, resources, experiences, and human capital. Cooperation has the potential to minimize overlap and maximize efficiency through the integration of WIL frameworks and consolidation of accreditation processes. Rigorous quality dimensions and standards are possible through merging and refining existing quality frameworks, thereby creating a globally relevant blueprint for WIL accreditation. Assimilation of WIL accreditation and professional accreditation avoids duplication and engages diverse stakeholder groups, ensuring a more robust and informed process. Furthermore, incorporating multiple stakeholders would strengthen the review team, build capacity of members, and enable greater transparency (Ruskin & Bilous, 2022). Configuration of the review team should also include a representative from an organization which is yet to undergo accreditation to enable orientation to the accreditation process, clarification of dimensions and standards, and preparation for involvement in accreditation. Involving multiple stakeholders in the accreditation process provides an ideal dynamic for co-designing standards and curriculum with industry partners and collating input directly from employers. Establishing a collaborative rapport creates a vibrant ambience where engaged stakeholders function collectively to address challenges, debate quality, and motivate innovation. WIL accreditation as a mechanism for quality improvement should be undertaken in a manner that is able to “inspire and motivate stakeholders” (Kristensen & Harvey, 2010, p. 34), a process that engages all stakeholders, shares leadership, and incorporates collective and consultative decision-making, culminating in capacity-building of those involved and clearer recognition of the quality parameters of WIL required for accreditation. Global understanding and validation of standards promote transferability and mobility across contexts and increases the likelihood that issues of access and equity in WIL are considered and addressed (Khampirat & McRae, 2016). In addition, unified voices in the accreditation process enhance credibility, encourage a cohesive process, broaden application to a national and international level, stimulate debate, and intensify the impact of advocates. GUIDING PRINCIPLE TWO: The emphasis of WIL accreditation should be on collaboration and cooperation among stakeholders to establish a shared learning environment premised on reciprocity.

Research and validated standards A systematic accreditation process where quality enhancement is a core outcome is reliant on the development and agreement of evidence-based standards that are informed by rigorous research (Rowe et al., 2018). Research methodology substantiates outcomes with empirical proof which clarifies intent and cogency of process. Research-informed practice mitigates bias, ensures inclusivity, reinforces currency, retains the focus on educational benefits, and avoids political whims dictating procedures and practices. Furthermore, collaborative research projects activate and galvanize collegial networks, and ascertain shared terminology. GUIDING PRINCIPLE THREE: WIL accreditation standards should be grounded in empirical evidence and established theoretical foundations.

373

Sonia J. Ferns and Christine Arsenault

Motivation The design and enactment of the accreditation process is pivotal to engaging and motivating stakeholders, thereby positively impacting accreditation outcomes. In a large study conducted by Ferns (2018, p. 180), staff perceived the professional accreditation process as a “powerful enabler that gives the [degree] credibility” but described accreditation bodies as “regulators” and the process as “like an exam.” In addition, “accreditation constraints” were thought to inhibit innovative curriculum design. While staff acknowledged the value of achieving ‘accreditation’ status, they were not actively engaged in the process, which compromised personal and professional benefits. In contrast, a survey of CEWIL (2021) accredited practitioners revealed their perceived benefits of accreditation as: “the foundation of a strong co-operative education program.” “So we could ensure quality and consistency in co-op programming.” “It’s always about making sure your program is innovative and up to date with recognized professional standards.” “I have learned a lot from other PSIs [Post-Secondary Institutions].” “We wanted a seat at the table to collaborate and learn from other accredited institutions.” (Survey participant responses) A WIL accreditation format should realize benefits for all participants with clarity about commitments, expectations, and goals for both reviewers and reviewees, thus optimizing engagement and motivation. Practitioners are less likely to perceive accreditation as burdensome when personal benefits such as increased networks, enhanced professional development, and the opportunity to advocate and build capacity within their institution are clearly articulated. The accreditation process should model WIL best practice where reflection on process and outcomes is integral to improved practice. The rare opportunity to gather experts in a similar field to review one’s practice and provide constructive feedback is highly motivating for WIL practitioners. A study of the Canadian Co-op accreditation process identified that institutional membership within the Canadian Co-op Accreditation Council provides a forum to discuss best practices, emerging trends and standards, and rationales with colleagues (Qiubo et al., 2016). Dialogue amongst reviewers and accreditation-seeking practitioners should encourage reflective discussions and a mutual interest in building capacity rather than seeking to judge. Beyond practitioner experience, institutions will benefit from increased engagement as the accreditation guidelines provide evidence of standards aligning with requirements for special funding and tax credit opportunities established by different levels of government (Qiubo et al., 2016), which in turn creates other motivational considerations. GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOUR: The accreditation process should be engaging and beneficial for stakeholders to motivate participation.

Evolution, innovation and best practice While it is critical to have evidence-based accreditation standards, WIL is an evolving pedagogical practice (Smith et al., 2022). Standards must intentionally accommodate emerging practice and innovation, support continuous improvement, and identify priorities and associated resource allocation (McRae et al., 2018). Regular review of accreditation standards is imperative as knowledge in WIL and society is created. An example of this process in the Canadian context is provided in Box 23.1. 374

Accreditation and quality

Box 23.1  Inviting diverse perspectives Since co-op accreditation inception in Canada, a standard stipulated that time spent on work placement must equal no less than 30% of time spent in study for a degree. CEWIL recognized that this mandate was a barrier to college programs qualifying for accreditation. In 2012, CEWIL intentionally increased college membership by appointing a College Director-at-Large to the CEWIL Board. Having college representation at the Board level alerted the Accreditation Council to how problematic the 30% rule was for colleges wishing to pursue accreditation. This messaging was confirmed when non-accredited college practitioners were volunteer readers for Accreditation Council review teams. When most colleges were supporting two and three-year diplomas, it became clear that the 30% rule was a barrier to accreditation but not a barrier to quality WIL. At the time of publication, by encouraging an inclusive approach, 12 colleges are now accredited, making up 26% of the accredited institutions in Canada.

Accrediting bodies bring together like-minded people to confirm commitment to a common set of standards. While this process can be highly beneficial and allow advocacy for resources and legislative and structural changes, it can also be an antithesis to innovation as it confirms a historical set of standards. Innovation and best practice cannot be done well in silos. An effective accrediting process should invite feedback and expertise from all stakeholders: industry, education institutions, and students. Stakeholder engagement should be leveraged when standards are being established and throughout the accreditation process itself. Standards should also encourage innovation and best practice sharing in support of a thriving community of practice. Within the CEWIL Accreditation application, institutions are encouraged to share innovative practices. These practices are celebrated within the council, in the accreditation confirmation letter, and among CEWIL members. GUIDING PRINCIPLE FIVE: WIL accreditation standards should promote innovation and accommodate evolving WIL practices.

Access Institutional access In a digitally connected environment, the cost of accreditation should be minimal to ensure equitable access and subsequent benefits for institutions. Professional accreditation is prohibitive for many institutions with costs exceeding USD$25,000 and annual fees in excess of USD$5,000. These fees are in addition to costs associated with workload for preparing documentation and, in many instances, funding a visiting panel of reviewers (PhillipsKPA, 2014). Focusing on the co-op model of WIL has been the impetus for many benefits for Canada, including a national understanding of the co-op WIL definition, enabling greater impact of advocacy, funded research to evaluate the outcomes of co-op, and resources to support quality co-op WIL. However, limiting to one resource-intensive model of WIL which is costly to the organization inhibits diversity and flexibility and is unaffordable for many institutions. This creates an exclusivity around one form of WIL that leaves many programs, which do not include this costly form of WIL, without support. 375

Sonia J. Ferns and Christine Arsenault

Student access Existing WIL accreditation standards fail to adequately address equitable access to WIL education. Standard 2.4 in the Quality WIL Framework developed by Campbell et al. (2019) stipulates that “WIL curriculum design provides inclusive, equitable and accessible experiences” (p.  11). Standard 2.4 encompasses diversity, financial equity, inclusivity, and cultural safety. Given inclusivity and equity is a high priority for universities, it should feature explicitly in a WIL quality framework. Furthermore, admission into degrees that incorporate a WIL component often require specified eligibility measures prior to entry. These measures may take the form of ‘inherent requirements’ for a professionally focused degree or student selection based on academic success, thereby creating a culture of ‘exclusivity’ which favors high-achieving students. International students are particularly disadvantaged when competing for WIL opportunities as employers perceive more long-term benefits when working with domestic students (Jackson, 2017). Inequity also occurs when students pursue work permits for global WIL experiences with some key countries benefiting from wide access for their students yet limiting access to foreign students. Accreditation frameworks provide the opportunity to set ambitious future directions of pedagogy. In 2019, the World Association for Co-operative Education (WACE) initiated the Global Co-operative and Work-Integrated Education (CWIE) Charter, a bold vision of global WIL with a focus on reducing skill gaps between graduates and employer needs, increasing intercultural understandings, and creating equitable access to a meaningful, relevant, and productive education (WACE, 2019). Charter signatories included 32 WIL leaders from 10 countries with a commitment to developing a global CWIE quality assurance framework with an alignment to other international goals such as the Global Human Capital Index and the UN Charter: Article 55. Operationalization of the Charter Calls to Action will consider both a ‘What is the greatest good for the greatest many?’ and a ‘What is needed for the few?’ to help ensure equity, diversity, and inclusion with respect to WIL participation. GUIDING PRINCIPLE SIX (A): A WIL accreditation process is accessible and equitable to ensure institutional engagement. GUIDING PRINCIPLE SIX (B): WIL accreditation standards hold institutions accountable for equitable student access to WIL.

Deficits and challenges While the benefits of a globally relevant WIL accreditation process are numerous, several deficits have surfaced throughout this synopsis of accreditation. While the six guiding principles above aim to address deficits, there are challenges in determining how to implement these principles. One of the greatest challenges is to determine how to fully embrace inclusivity in the accreditation process. WIL quality assurance tends to focus internally on student experience and learning while professional accreditation focuses externally on the acquisition of skills beyond graduation. While complementary, integration of internal and external processes has been minimal. ACCE BC is an exemplar model as it demonstrates the benefit of investing in different perspectives for improved outcomes. Streamlining processes and engaging collaborative stakeholders is a priority, but how to execute these aspects requires further investigation. The contributions of students, industry partners, and university staff are “crucial and must be commensurate with each other” (Smith et al., 2022, p. 112) in co-designing quality WIL.

376

Accreditation and quality

The balance of quality assurance versus quality enhancement remains a delicate one in defining and applying a quality WIL framework. A rigorous accreditation process will determine quality while allowing for innovation to respond to new knowledge and continuous improvement. With multiple stakeholders involved in WIL (government, institutions, employers, students, national associations), visionary, shared leadership is essential to ensure optimal outcomes. Leadership should be supportive and open to new ways of thinking and doing. Barriers to partnership and innovation are too often created by ineffective and hierarchical WIL leadership (Ferns & Kay, 2021). Patrick et al. (2014) described a WIL leader as a developer, innovator, broker, deliverer, and monitor. Inspirational WIL leadership values quality assurance within a collaborative framework that is sufficiently nimble to facilitate quality enhancement and promote innovation.

Conclusion With growing emphasis on deploying WIL across the higher education sector, and as models of WIL diversify to accommodate pressures of resource availability and accelerating change in the global marketplace, verifying the quality of WIL has become more pressing. Accreditation of WIL, premised on agreed quality frameworks, is paramount to the quality assurance of WIL programs and the employability outcomes of graduates. Drawing on progress and initiatives in the Australian and Canadian contexts, the imperative for global collaboration has emerged as vital to implementing an accreditation process that is globally relevant, thereby enabling international benchmarking. Indeed, we have recognized the collegial benefits of exploring WIL accreditation from the perspectives of each country. The collaboration has enabled an international perspective and broadened mindsets. Through the compilation and comparison of Canadian and Australian case studies, identification of synergies inherent in the case studies, and robust collaborative conversation, several themes have emerged as fundamental to successful WIL accreditation. Given the high profile, resource intensity, and potential for duplication, professional accreditation has been factored into the synthesis. Themes have been consolidated into six overarching guiding principles with the intent to inform a blueprint for WIL accreditation. Scalability, inclusivity, and affordability are vital attributes of a WIL accreditation model. Developing digital platforms for self-assessment processes and global connectivity is essential. Considerations for future accreditation standards that are currently not evident in existing quality frameworks include specifying requirements for international students’ access to WIL and global mobility opportunities for all students. The underlying tenet for WIL accreditation is to optimize the added-value from collaboratively designing quality WIL curricula in contrast to assessing existing curricula (Ulker & Bakioglu, 2018). WIL, and graduate employability outcomes derived from WIL pedagogy, have been dominant features of the higher education landscape for over a decade. Despite this, parameters that constitute quality WIL, and a process of accreditation to validate quality and enable continual growth and improvement, remain nebulous and contested. This is a call to action for the global WIL community to convene an international working party with a remit to agree on quality WIL standards, develop a WIL accreditation process premised on collaboration and enhancement, and pilot the process in willing institutions. Such an endeavor requires visionary leadership that inspires, motivates, and challenges the status quo (Ferns & Kay, 2021).

377

Sonia J. Ferns and Christine Arsenault

References Adams, C., & Jones, C. (2022). Designing a work-integrated learning curriculum. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 27–36). Routledge. Australian Qualifications Framework Council. (2013). Australian Qualifications Framework. https://www. aqf.edu.au/sites/aqf/files/aqf-2nd-edition-january-2013.pdf Barnett, R. (2019). Supercomplexity and education research. In L. Ling and P. Ling (Eds.), Emerging methods and paradigms in scholarship and education research (pp 231–243). https://doi.org/10.4018/9781-7998-1001-8.ch013 Burritt, R., Guthrie, J., & Evans, E. (2016). Professional associations – Past contributions, present tensions and future opportunities. In J. Guthrie, E. Evans and R. Burnitt. (Eds.), Relevance and professional associations in 2026, (pp. 9–24). RMIT University and Chartered Accounts Australia. Campbell, M., Russell, L., McAllister, L., Smith, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., & Barrett, M. (2019). A framework to support assurance of institution-wide quality in Work Integrated Learning. ACEN https://research.qut.edu.au/wilquality/resources/Campbell Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials. (2021). The Canadian degree qualifications framework. https://www.cicic.ca/1286/pan_canadian_qualifications_frameworks.canada Coaldrake, P. (2019). What’s in a Name: Review of the higher education provider category standards. Final Report. https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-reviews-and-consultations/resources/final-reportreview-higher-education-provider-category-standards Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement in higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320500074915 Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). Higher education standards framework (threshold standards) 2015. https:// www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01639 Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning: A guide to effective practice. Routledge. Cooperative Education and Work Integrated Learning (CEWIL). (2021). Accreditation Council. https:// www.cewilcanada.ca/CEWIL/Councils%20and%20Committees/Accreditation.aspx?WebsiteKey= 70188082-f13b-461c-8c8d-74e0e6c01c18 CPA Ontario. (2021). Practice experience requirements. https://www.cpaontario.ca/become-a-cpa/completeyour-designation/practical-experience/requirements Crichton, A. (2009). From impossibility to reality: Documenting the history of CAFCE in Canada. April 30, 2021, https://www.cewilcanada.ca/common/Uploaded%20files/Public%20Resources/ Research%20Papers/2009-CAFCEHistory-AC.pdf Davis, G. (2013). The Australian idea of a university, Meanjin, 3, 32–48. https://search-informit-org.dbgw. lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/epdf/10.3316/informit.640753171641857 Dunn, L., Nicholson, R., Ross, K., Bricknell, L., Davies, B., Hannelly, T., Lampard, J-L., Murray, Z., Oosthuizen, J., Roiko, A., & Wood, J. (2018). Work-integrated learning and professional accreditation policies: An environmental health higher education perspective. International Journal for work-Integrated Learning, 19(2), 111–127. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_19_2_111_127.pdf Evans-Greenwood, P., O’Leary, K., & Williams, P. (2015). The paradigm shift: Redefining education. http:// landing.deloitte.com.au/rs/761-IBL-328/images/deloitte-au-ps-education-redefined-040815.pdf Ewan, C. (2016). Higher education standards in a disaggregated learning environment. Final Report. Office for Learning and Teaching. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/Ewan%2CC_HESP_Fellow_Report_2016.pdf Ferns, S. (2018). Collaboration, cooperation and consultation: Work-integrated learning partnerships for enhancing graduate employability. PhD thesis. UWA. https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/ collaboration-cooperation-and-consultation-work-integrated-learni Ferns, S., Campbell, M., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2014). Work integrated learning. In S. Ferns (Ed.), HERDSA guide: Work-integrated learning in the curriculum (pp 1–6). Higher Education and Development Society of Australasia. Ferns, S., Dawson, V., & Howitt, C. (2019). A collaborative framework for enhancing graduate employability [Special Issue]. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(2), 99–111. https://www.ijwil. org/files/IJWIL_20_2_99_111.pdf Ferns, S., Dawson, V., & Howitt, C. (2022). Professional accreditation: A partnership proposition. In S. Ferns, A. Rowe, and K. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future. (pp. 60–72). Routledge.

378

Accreditation and quality Ferns, S., & Kay, J. (2021). Needed now: Exceptional leaders for work-integrated learning. Campus Morning Mail. 8th August 2021. https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/needed-now-exceptionalleaders-for-work-integrated-learning/?utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email&utm_ campaign=website Grealish, L. (2015). Professional standards in curriculum design: A socio-technical analysis of nursing competency standards. In M. Kennedy, S. Billett, S. Gherardi, & L. Grealish (Eds.), Practice-based Learning in Higher Education. (pp. 85–98). Springer. Hayward, F. M. (2017). Reflections on two decades of quality assurance and accreditation in developing economies. Planning for Higher Education Journal, 46(1), 21–31. Ingvarson, L. (2002). Development of a national standards framework for the teaching profession. Australian Council for Education Research. Issue 1, May 2002. Jackson, D. (2017). Exploring the challenges experienced by international students during work-integrated learning in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(3), 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188 791.2017.1298515 Kay, J., Ferns, S., Russell, L., Smith, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). The emerging future: Innovative models of work-integrated learning [Special Issue]. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 401–413. Kay, J., McRae, N., & Russell, L. (2020). Two institutional responses to WIL in a time of COVID-19 [Special Issue]. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 491–503. https://www.ijwil.org/ files/IJWIL_21_5_491_503.pdf Khampirat, B., & McRae, N. (2016). Developing global standards framework and quality integrated models for cooperative and work-integrated education programs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, Special Issue, 17(4), 349–362. https://www.ijwil.org/files/APJCE_17_4_359_362.pdf Kristensen, B., & Harvey, L. (2010). Initiative-based quality development and the role of distributed leadership. In C. S. Nair., L. Webster., & P. Mertova (Eds.), Leadership and management of quality in higher education. Chandos Publishing. Lomas, L., Teelken, C., & Ursin, J. (2010). Quality management in higher education: a comparative study of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland. In S. Nair, L. Webster & P. Mertova. (Eds.), Leadership and management of quality in higher education. Chandos Publishing. McRae, N., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2018). Work-integrated learning quality framework AAA*. https://uwaterloo.ca/work-learn-institute/wxlprojects/quality-wil-framework McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016) The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 337–348. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass. Newton, J. (2002). Views from below: Academics coping with quality. Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 39–61. Patrick, C.-J., Fallon, W., Campbell, M., Devenish, I., Kay, J., Lawson, J., Russell, L., & Tayebjee, F. (2014). Leading WIL: A distributed leadership approach to enhance work integrated learning. Office for Learning and Teaching (Issue May 2016). http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30065318/campbell-leadingwil2014.pdf PhillipsKPA. (2014). Engaging employers in work integrated learning: Current state and future priorities. https:// docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/phillipskpa-wil-research-report.pdf PhillipsKPA. (2017). Professional Accreditation: Mapping the territory. Final Report. https://www.dese.gov.au/ higher-education-standards-panel-hesp/resources/professional-accreditation-mapping-territory Probert, B. (2015). The quality of Australia’s higher education system: How it might be defined, improved and assured. Office for Learning and Teaching. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/Probert_Quality_Aust_HE_2015.pdf Qiubo, Y., Shibin, W., & Zha, Q. (2016). Canada’s industry-university co-op education accreditation system and its inspiration for the evaluation of China’s industry-university-institute cooperative education. Chinese Education & Society, 49(3), 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2016.1218257 Ralph, N., Birks, M., Cross, W., & Chapman, Y. (2015). “Settling for less”: Designing undergraduate nursing curricula in the context of national accreditation. Collegian, 24(2), 117–124. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.colegn.2015.09.008 Reid, I. (2009). The contradictory managerialism of university quality assurance. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 575–593. Rich, J. (2015). Employability: Degrees of value. London: Higher Education Policy Institute. https://www. hepi.ac.uk/2015/12/10/employability-degrees-value/

379

Sonia J. Ferns and Christine Arsenault Rowe, A. D.; Nay, C., Lloyd, K., Myton, N., & Kraushaar, N. (2018). Telling your story of work-­ integrated learning: A holistic approach to program evaluation. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 19(3), 273–285. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_19_3_273_285.pdf Rowe, A. D., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2017). Developing graduate employability skills and attributes: Curriculum enhancement through work-integrated learning [Special Issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education. 18(2), 87–99. Ruskin, H., & Bilous, R. (2022). Engaging stakeholders in work-integrated learning: A sustainable model of curriculum co-creation. In S. Ferns, A. Rowe, and K. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future. (pp. 49–59). Routledge. Schindler, L., Puls-Elvidge, S., Welzant, H., & Crawford, L. (2015). Definitions of quality in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(3), 3–13. http://doi. org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i3.244 Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ bul0000098 Scott, G (2016): Transforming graduate capabilities and achievement standards for a sustainable future. http://flipcurric.edu.au/sites/flipcurric/media/107.pdf. Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2022). A quality framework for developing and assuring high-quality work-integrated learning curricula. In S. J. Ferns, A. Rowe, & K. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future. (pp.107–120). Routledge. Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2016). Designing work-integrated learning placements that improve student employability: Six facets of the curriculum that matter. International Journal for Work-Integrated Learning, 17(2), 197–211. https://www.ijwil.org/files/APJCE_17_2_197_211.pdf Stokes, G. (2016). Relevance and professional associations in 2026: Towards a new role for thought leadership. In J. Guthrie, E. Evans, and R. Burritt. (Eds.), Relevance and professional associations in 2026. RMIT University and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand. Strathern, M. (Ed.). (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. Routledge. Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA). (2017). Guidance note: Work integrated learning. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/guidance-note-work-integrated-learning-v1-2-web.pdf?v= 1581310233 Ulker, N., & Bakioglu, A. (2018). An international research on the influence of accreditation on academic quality. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1445986 Universities Australia [UA]. (2016). Submission in response to the Government’s options paper: Driving innovation, fairness and excellence in Australian higher education. https://submissions.education.gov.au/Forms/ Archive/AHE/Documents/1216.%20Universities%20Australia.pdf Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). Quality and standards for work integrated learning. ACDS Teaching and Learning Centre. https://www.acds.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/Winchester-Seeto-Literature-Review-Qualityand-Standards.pdf Woodhouse, D. (2004). The quality of quality assurance agencies. Quality in Higher Education, 10(2), 77–87. World Association of Cooperative Education. (2019). The global cooperative & work-integrated education charter: An international charter for cooperative and work-integrated education (CWIE) focused educational institutions and employers. https://waceinc.org/global-wil-charter/ Yorke, J., & Vidovich, L. (2014). Quality policy and the role of assessment in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education Special Issue, 15(3), 225–239. https://www.ijwil.org/files/ APJCE_15_3_225_239.pdf Zegwaard, K., Ferns, S., & Rowe, A. (2022). Contemporary insights into the practice of work-­integrated learning in Australia. Editorial. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future. (pp.  1–14). Routledge.

380

24 LEARNING ECOSYSTEMS Enhancing student understanding and agency through work-integrated learning Norah McRae and Jennifer Woodside

Introduction As institutions of higher learning, the mission is to prepare students for the future of work within an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world. Coined by Johansen and Euchner in 2013 and popularized in 2016 by the World Economic Forum, the concept of VUCA is a topic of keen focus for policy makers, educators, industry, and unions the world over as a significant global challenge. While this concept might have been viewed in 2013 as something that would occur in the future, it is increasingly clear that adapting to this uncertain state is required of today’s students and graduates as they enter the workplace. VUCA workplaces are expected to include disruptive technologies, automation, decentralized teams, gig work, and increasingly diverse workforces, requiring workers to be adaptive and resilient (Stevens et al., 2020). This depicts a world of work in which individuals face conditions and prospects that are characterized by high demand and low control. Environments that demand high effort and at the same time offer low (perceived or actual) control have been shown to have wide-ranging negative impacts on individuals’ physical and mental health and wellbeing (Marmot et al., 1991). Governments, institutions, and communities will need to consider how to protect individuals, families, and groups against the challenges caused by VUCA conditions. In Canada, for example, one-third of workers are in jobs projected to change significantly in the coming decade, with 19% projected to grow and 15% to decline (Brookfield Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2019). Adaptability and productivity will be less attainable if large segments of the population are in a state of anxiety about their future livelihoods (Mani et al., 2013). Traditional, rational approaches to career education, such as those rooted in Parson’s traitand-factor theory (Parsons, 1909), have long centered on the individual’s ‘fit’ to an occupation, fixed to some extent across the lifespan. Through this lens, the success of career preparation has been measured narrowly via graduate employment rates, presumably with the assumption that the first career steps are the most difficult, subsequently getting easier through progression along a well-understood path. Yet adapting to and thriving in future-of-work conditions requires a mindset shift, moving from the expectation of a linear career progression up organizational

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-28

381

Norah McRae and Jennifer Woodside

hierarchies to a lifelong learning mindset and lifestyle that is characterized by self-reflection and self-direction (Johnston, 2017), and lateral moves within and across fields/sectors (Hirji, 2021). Employability at an early, single moment in time thus becomes a less useful measure of career ‘success’ when considering the demands of the future of work. More telling and valuable are the abilities of students and graduates to identify and, over time, iterate what constitutes purposeful work for them personally, through a cycle of hope-driven active engagement with the world around them, and through continuous self-reflection to identify their evolving values, needs, capabilities, and motivations to solve complex future challenges.

Activity theory and a learning ecosystem Activity theory, as conceptualized by Engeström, considers learning from an enactivist perspective and as the product of an entire ecosystem (Engeström, 1987). Within this ecosystem, focus is not placed solely on the individual learner, but rather on the learner’s role as an agent and co-creator within each system (Avis, 2009; Engeström, 1987, 2009; Keengwe & Jung-Jin, 2013; Taylor, 2008). Learning is part of a social, cultural, and historical context where the learner is both influenced by the environment and influences it in return. Engeström identifies four key enablers of learning within this ecosystem: ‘tools,’ ‘rules,’ ‘division of labor,’ and ‘community,’ which influence the subject’s learning about an object and the development of their agency to apply this learning (Avis, 2009). Activity theory is an appropriate lens to apply when examining the learning that occurs in post-secondary institutions’ work-integrated learning (WIL) programs (McRae, 2015) and adds a conceptual framework that contributes to the current discourse regarding WIL ecosystems (Fergusson et al., 2021). WIL and career education occur within an ecosystem that includes multiple partners in the learning: academic units, host organizations, and students, where the desired outcomes for students are deeper understanding and agency (McRae, 2015). This chapter will delve into how WIL can support students to develop their understanding of and agency in navigating VUCA, where the student is the ‘subject’ and the ‘object’ is purpose clarification, revealing how the latter can help students clarify what constitutes purposeful, meaningful work for them. In turn, WIL students and graduates can be agents of change in supporting organizations and communities too, so as to navigate the VUCA world. Thinking of the enablers of this learning, the tools used in this activity system are pedagogy, experiences, assessments, and reflections (PEAR), all of which are features of quality WIL and career education (McRae et al., 2018). Meanwhile, the rules relate to academic requirements for a student’s program of study, university regulations, and employment regulations. Finally, the division of labor refers to those units at the institution that deliver components of the ecosystem of learning, including the whole community of faculty, staff, students, and host organizations.

Ecosystem subjects: students The subjects of the WIL ecosystem are students. Within the Canadian context, nine models of WIL have been defined as applied research, apprenticeship, clinical placement, cooperative education, entrepreneurship, field experience, internship, service learning, and work experience (CEWIL, 2019). Regardless of the model of WIL, students engaged in learning through WIL will gain experiences that lead to employability, personal agency, and lifelong learning (McRae et al., 2018; Rowe & Winchester-Seeto, 2022). In some cases, depending on the institution, a student’s learning progression through WIL may be connected to career education. 382

Learning ecosystems

Ecosystem tools: pedagogy, experience, assessment, and reflection Developing high-quality WIL programs of study can be achieved through attending to pedagogy, experience, assessment, and reflection (McRae et al., 2018). ‘Pedagogy’ points to the need for intentional curricular design to create robust structures, scaffolding, and supports surrounding WIL. ‘Experience’ indicates the need for the experience to be meaningful and substantial, as well as to include career education supports before, during, and after the WIL experience, including for learners to be equipped with the resources they need. ‘Assessment’ highlights the need for the WIL to be evaluated to measure the development of individual learning. Finally, with ‘reflection,’ it is shown that WIL requires the learner to engage in reflective practices. Ultimately, a WIL ecosystem that is designed to satisfy these four PEAR requirements with intentionality is seen to deliver quality outcomes (McRae et al., 2018).

Ecosystem: division of labor The university ecosystem that supports WIL is comprised of many academic and supporting units. Internally, academic units provide the curriculum in degree programs, equipping students with their discipline- and context-specific knowledge and skills. Meanwhile, WIL program units provide the curriculum to prepare students for their experiences, the vetting, and management of those experiences and the engagement with external collaborators such as employers and community partners. Finally, career education units typically provide career development services, job readiness training, and engagement opportunities with employers, alumni, and other stakeholders. The effectiveness of each academic support unit is enabled through instituting thoughtful and equity-informed staff-hiring practices, as well as training, mentorship, and professional development that will enable the continuous improvement of contemporary, person-centered systems and reflective professional practices. Examples of such professional development include the Global WIL program (Zegwaard et al., 2019) and certificates in career development and counseling.

Ecosystem: rules WIL is curricular; therefore, academic policies and procedures relating to degree progression and completion, student conduct, and academic integrity are relevant. Additionally, in Canada, if the selected WIL model is cooperative education, the Canadian association CEWIL has established accreditation criteria.

Ecosystem: community As outlined in the AAA* Quality WIL Framework, the community in which WIL operates, consists of five key stakeholders and their advocates: students, employers/host organizations, educators, institutions, and governments (McRae et al., 2018). These various stakeholders interconnect in different ways depending on the context, which can be influenced by the model of WIL, the institution’s strategy, organizational structure, and the role and influence of government. Each stakeholder has a set of aims, actions (i.e., as per PEAR) required to meet those aims, and achievements that demonstrate progress is being made on the actions (McRae et al., 2018). The effectiveness of the interactions of these stakeholders sets the stage for an effective community to support the ecosystem. 383

Norah McRae and Jennifer Woodside

Ecosystem object: purpose The ‘object’ of the interactions within this ecosystem is ‘purpose,’ a concept loosely aligned with the ancient Japanese practice of ikigai, which promotes living in accordance with one’s values and with an orientation toward the future (Garcia & Miralles, 2017). The concept of purpose was first depicted visually in 2011 (Vilaseca, 2013) and offers a means to identify one’s raison d’être by reflecting on four domains, often characterized as: • • • •

What you love; What you are good at; What the world needs; What you can be paid for.

At the intersection of these spheres lies a sense of purpose. Seeking a sense of purpose is not a prescriptive formula, nor does it point toward an occupational identity. Rather, it is a concept that can illuminate an iterative, active process that can be tailored to the individual and offer a foundation for making life and, as part of that, career hypotheses and decisions (Tamashiro, 2020). Within a future of work context, the proposed value of clarifying one’s purpose is that it offers individuals a means by which to respond to and effect change within ambiguous circumstances. This aligns with the counseling philosophy of Positive Uncertainty, which is designed to support decisions about an unknown future (Gelatt & Gelatt, 2003).

Ecosystem outcomes In WIL, students reflect on their experiences, develop abstract conceptualizations, and re-­ engage to enable a continuous cycle of learning and personal development (Kolb, 1984). Good WIL program design can generate resilience-building opportunities (Mate & Ryan, 2015), a lifelong learning mindset (Drewery et al., 2020), and the ability to transfer skills and knowledge across contexts (Johnston, 2017). A Canadian study by the CD Howe Institute suggests that WIL has the potential to enhance students’ labor market access and reduce the wage gap for participants across various identity groups (Wyonch, 2020). A purpose-clarifying, ecosystems approach to WIL engrains habits of mind and action that facilitate self-direction (Masten et al., 1990; Mate & Ryan, 2015). Purpose clarification arguably amplifies the implicitly hope-oriented elements of WIL – encouraging personal agency, pathways thinking, and goal-setting skills – all toward supporting learners in their wellbeing and ongoing resilience (Mate & Ryan, 2015; Niles et al., 2010). Harnessing the power of the university’s ecosystem, providing intentional curriculum to promote reflection on the four domains of purpose clarification, is expected to provide students and graduates with some understanding of what the future of work could look and feel like, as well as the agency to engage adaptively with that future of work. There is evidence that empowering reflective practices helps lessen career choice indecision, anxiety over career stability, uncertainty about employment after graduation, and insecurity over future finances (Osorochi, 2015). Moreover, it promotes students’ sense of agency and self-efficacy, growing their personal sense of competence and employability over time (Robertson, 2013).

A case study: the University of Waterloo’s work-integrated learning and career education learning ecosystem Students at the University of Waterloo, Canada, are introduced to its unique ecosystem and culture upon acceptance to the institution. The university’s culture is rooted in an action and 384

Learning ecosystems

change orientation. As the home of many Canadian startup ventures, innovations, and discoveries, the ethos within the university ecosystem is one of enacting change. Students are regularly invited to engage in hackathons, idea competitions, and design challenges. It is expected that a Waterloo student will acquire disciplinary knowledge and apply that learning to tackle some of society’s critical problems. This action orientation is reinforced throughout a student’s participation in Waterloo’s prominent WIL program of study, which is formally known as a Co-operative Education (co-op) program. In Canada, co-op is a specific, well-defined model of WIL, where students complete full immersion work placements of 16 weeks. Employers hire co-op students with the expectation that they will contribute to their workplaces through bringing fresh ideas and innovative solutions (Deloitte, 2019), which aligns with the enactivist perspective on learning. University of Waterloo’s Centre for Career Action (CCA) also encourages an enactivist approach by supporting students to: engage with their communities in ways that lift their energy; build mutually rewarding relationships with professional allies, mentors, and sponsors; and evaluate and take advantage of learning and work opportunities toward developing their evolving self-beliefs and skills.

Ecosystem subjects: University of Waterloo students in work-integrated learning and career education WIL at the University of Waterloo, including its co-op program (the largest of its kind, globally) is a powerful vehicle for preparing learners for the future of work. This centralized educational program stretches across all six faculties, approximately 130 majors, and in 2021–2022 involved over 24,000 co-op work terms. The university also offers additional WIL programs, such as the EDGE Experiential Education Certificate, which optionally offers structured WIL experiences for the 28% of undergraduate students not already enrolled in co-op. Thus, almost all students are provided with pre- and post-experience career education support. The combination of WIL and career education ushers in ecosystem effects that are greater than the sum of their parts. Waterloo offers widespread access to an integrated WIL/career education network of supports and resources, which is a self-sustaining ecosystem that enables and encourages students to develop as change agents (Fenwick, 2000). Waterloo’s broad, cross-faculty WIL and career education offerings have impacts beyond jobs and employability as its unique environment can foster a powerful sense of purpose. The CCA has in the past four years supported over one-third of the student body each year, engaging actively with each of those students on an average of 2.5 occasions. With undergraduate students, CCA sees bi-modal engagement across students’ time at the institution: unlike many other university career centers, there is a large peak in student demand from first and second-year students, in addition to the standard peak of engagement from students in the final year as they prepare to graduate. For graduate students, there is significant engagement at all levels, with even higher rates of participation from students working toward graduate degrees.

Ecosystem tools: PEAR at the University of Waterloo Pedagogy. In addition to the academic teaching that students receive at the university, students enrolled in either co-op, or the WIL program for non-co-op students called EDGE, gain the opportunity and responsibility to earn professional development (PD) credits (called ‘courses’ at Waterloo), designed explicitly to prepare them to develop transferable and technical skills for the world of work. Co-op and EDGE students take the first of these courses, ‘Career 385

Norah McRae and Jennifer Woodside

Fundamentals,’ while taking a regular academic course load at the outset of their registered degree program. Beyond that, co-op students take a combination of three mandatory and elective PD courses on topics such as ‘Reflection and Learning in the Workplace,‘ ‘Teamwork,’ and ‘Project Management’ while on a full-time co-op work term (i.e., work placement). Meanwhile, EDGE students can take up to three PD courses, paired with self-selected and self-arranged (volunteer or work) experiences. Recently, as part of a new WIL program called Waterloo Experience (WE) Accelerate, first and second-year co-op students are also provided with short, employer-sourced, skill development courses for building knowledge and skills frequently requested by employers in areas such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, digital skills, and innovation. Experience. Since its founding, the university sought to equip and empower learners to successfully navigate the ever-changing and complex world of work (Lyon, 1971). The university is best known for its CEWIL-accredited co-op program, in which undergraduate students alternate four-month study terms with work terms. The students graduate with up to two years of full-time paid work experience that is related to their field of study and designed to develop their employability skills. Labor market access is a major cornerstone of the university’s image and impact, distinguishing it from other universities around the world (Deloitte, 2019). The university’s breadth and depth of employer relationships provide earners with an unmatched array of options to build their network and test a variety of work environments, experiences, and roles throughout their degree. Waterloo’s experiential education ecosystem extends, however, beyond co-op. Other experiential education programs are in place, both curricular and co-curricular. One curricular example is the EDGE certificate that offers experiential education within a sound career education framework. EDGE students complete six milestones that allow them to develop their professional skills, explore career options, and learn how to market themselves to employers. These include a skills identification and articulation workshop, a career development course, three work or community experiences, and a two-day capstone workshop where students develop an action plan for post-graduation success (University of Waterloo, 2020b). The WE Accelerate Program is a new approach to explicitly address the unique needs of junior students seeking co-op work in the wake of COVID-19. This program provides students not only with intentional skill development and career education opportunities, but also a workplace-related project in which to practice their skills and build self-understanding and self-marketing know-how. The university is also actively developing its ability to support full, unrestricted access to WIL. One contribution is through embedding career education in the university’s mainstream curricula for students early in their degree (Andrewartha & Harvey, 2017) and seeking to create proactive supports that specifically address the needs of under-represented groups. Assessment. To enable and assess student development across experiences and settings, the Co-operative and Experiential Education Unit at the university has developed a Future Ready Talent Framework (FRTF; see Figure 24.1) (McRae et al., 2019). The FRTF is a researchbacked tool to help learners, employers, and educators understand the key competencies individuals are expected to need in navigating the VUCA future of work and learning. The framework was developed through extensive research into existing frameworks, studies, and reports, and validated with Waterloo’s network of employers, students, and fellow educators. It is the foundation on which student performance evaluations rest, and is used extensively across the co-op program as a major indicator of student growth and performance. The FRTF explicitly calls out the importance of three competencies that support the enactivist perspective on the university’s ecosystem. Namely, it presents the ability to design 386

Learning ecosystems

Figure 24.1  Future Ready Talent Framework. (Used with permission, University of Waterloo, n.d.)

and deliver solutions through the development of an innovation mindset, skills in critical thinking, and the ability to implement such ideas (University of Waterloo, n.d.). Inclusion of such knowledge, skills, and capabilities recognizes implicitly that students are not just on their own individual learning journey, but rather part of something bigger than themselves, with an imperative to apply their learning towards enacting change. Reflection. Repeated striving for meaning via critical self-reflection is encouraged throughout the WIL ecosystem. Much of the ecosystem supports Kolb’s cycle of development: students in co-op engage in several work experiences that alternate with their classroom-based learning, and during each experience they engage in a professional development course in which they are required to reflect on their experiences and who they are. Likewise, EDGE students take PD courses and submit reflections for each of their registered experiences. One previously mentioned PD course open to both groups is ‘Reflection and Learning in the Workplace.’ Career education is thus incorporated into a large majority of students’ degrees and is grounded in meaning-making constructivist theory. The FRTF also provides a consistent, future-facing, and individualistic tool for student reflection. Another powerful way in which students are provided with the opportunity to reflect on the notion of meaningful work is in connection with broad, global challenges. The university has been recognized for its institutional strengths in offering degrees, certificates, course materials, and significant non-curricular opportunities (Times Higher Education, 2020) pertaining to key challenges being faced across the planet and highlighted by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in particular. The SDGs provide a comprehensive set of goals that pertain to any field of study and any workplace setting (United Nations, 2015). Within Co-operative and Experiential Education, research is underway to identify how co-op work terms align with the SDGs. Moreover, in career education contexts, when a student expresses interests that align with the SDGs, career educators seek to raise awareness of this connection. This can aid students to identify potential career futures through a lens of what the world needs, as opposed to occupational categories (Buford & Nester, 2020). Thoughtful exposure to, and practice with, critical self-reflection on global sustainability challenges is a non-pressured way in that reflection and enactivism are threaded together through the ecosystem. Through this integration, the university is setting the stage for students to develop a deep appreciation for what the world needs.

Ecosystem: division of labor at the University of Waterloo The Co-operative and Experiential Education (CEE) unit is made up of five departments: Co-operative Education, the Centre for Career Action, the Centre for Work-integrated Learning, CEE Business Services, and the Work-Learn Institute (WxL). Together, this portfolio 387

Norah McRae and Jennifer Woodside

is responsible for program and curriculum development, operations, and research related to WIL and career education. The Co-operative Education department is responsible for the extensive co-op program. The CCA supports students, postdocs, alumni, and employees through services and resources to facilitate self-knowledge and strategic engagement in meaningful career development and lifelong learning opportunities. The Centre for Work-integrated Learning develops and delivers professional development and upskilling courses and delivers the EDGE program. The CEE Business Services unit provides the operational infrastructure to all program areas, including a data analytics team. Finally, WxL is a research unit that studies WIL and the ways in which it serves the evolving needs of learners, organizations, and the labor market overall. WxL also serves as an incubator for innovative WIL pilots and initiatives, developing and testing new learning interventions to further understand and enhance the power of WIL within the world of work. Each of the CEE departments has its own responsibilities and accountabilities; together as a portfolio they strive for quality outcomes. For example, with respect to one of the ecosystem tools, the CCA staff continually develop their skills to facilitate student reflection. This involves staff regularly advancing their counseling skills to support students in developing both their self-awareness and their story toward making meaningful career and employment decisions. This intentional choice to run a person-centered service contributes to the CEE portfolio’s ability to prepare students for navigating uncertainty. Despite clear responsibilities and accountabilities between departments, there is extensive collaboration and integration across the departments, as well as across the institution. For example, the academic units and CEE regularly confer about co-op and EDGE program development and changes, co-creating professional development courses, integrating career education into classroom curricula, and co-designing research projects.

Ecosystem: rules at the University of Waterloo WIL is curricular at the university. As such, rules that govern academic programs apply, such as requirements for degree progression and completion, academic integrity, and conduct. Each of the co-op degrees requires for graduation a particular number of work terms. Academic programs also determine the number of professional development credits required to graduate, including those earned in undertaking curricular WIL preparation, authored by the staff in the CCA. These rules bring career education to a large majority of students within their first two years of university, setting the stage for ongoing interactions. In addition, the predominant practice of cooperative education that is offered at the university is the ‘alternating’ model, where students complete one four-month term of study and then one four-month term of paid work, and this pattern is repeated up to six times over an undergraduate degree. This multiplicity of experiences creates a robust degree for the students where they are exposed repeatedly to the world of work. At an institutional level, the co-op degrees are accredited by the national association CEWIL Canada. This accreditation requires standards of preparation, levels of support, and assessment of these students. It also sets the national standards for the length of work terms and student payment. CEWIL’s standards assure the conditions that allow students to have meaningful, substantial, and valued work terms. Given that WIL students are employed by external partners, the rules that govern employment standards, human rights, harassment, immigration, and health and safety apply. This ensures that students are protected by the laws of the land and can work in safe conditions. 388

Learning ecosystems

Ecosystem: community at the University of Waterloo With the size, scale, and reputation of WIL at Waterloo, co-op is more than a program. It has become foundational to a self-reinforcing ecosystem in which all students, even those not enrolled in co-op specifically, are immersed. The community is an action- and goal-oriented system revolving around skill- and experience-building opportunities with the intent of making an impact. With the university’s strengths in fostering career development well known, eight of the top nine reasons cited by incoming students for accepting an offer of admission at Waterloo are employment and career outcome-related (University of Waterloo, 2019). In recent years, 56% of co-op students work in three or more different industries and 87% of them work for three or more different employers over the course of their degree. (University of Waterloo, 2018)

Access to a diversity of experiences is understood to prime students for innovation and the transfer of skills needed in the future of work, to the benefit of the wider community. (Johnston, 2017)

Critical members of the university community are its employers. Commensurate with its strong WIL engagement levels, the university has a network of over 7,000 employers across 60 different countries that actively recruit students each term or semester (University of Waterloo, 2020a). Employers recruit students through employer information sessions, networking, and professional events designed to highlight each organization’s values, brand, and/or range of opportunities. Students compete for jobs posted by these employers as they would in the ‘real world,’ where students must prepare and submit job applications and participate in employer interviews. The employer network forms a committed community supporting student growth and development. The immersive, opportunity-rich nature of the university’s ecosystem also allows students who are not enrolled in WIL programs to access world-class opportunities through self-directed channels. The ecosystem enables all of Waterloo’s students to build a mindset and skillset that cultivate their capacity to effect innovative change in the world of work. The university has, for example, been recognized not only for its leadership in cooperative education, but for its strength in innovation and entrepreneurship (Deloitte, 2019). Entrepreneurship knowledge-building is embedded in the classroom, where students encounter real-world examples and opportunities to stretch their minds in this direction. Initiatives to enhance the relevance of WIL to groups of learners who are historically marginalized and/or face work-related barriers are continuously underway. For example, units across the university community have been working toward building a proactive and inclusive model of support for students with disabilities. The CEE portfolio has, as part of this, been involved in redesigning systems, policies, and practices to encourage engagement and feedback loops across the ecosystem for these and other equity-deserving groups. Another dimension of this ecosystem relates to the ways in which the university community generally embraces a culture of being work-oriented. At the point of founding, the university ascribed value to student-driven, student-centered tacit knowledge, and informal experience (Lyon, 1971). This culture persists today (Boden & Nedeva, 2010; Jameson et al., 2012; Tomlinson, 2012; Usher, 2014). 389

Norah McRae and Jennifer Woodside

Community effects also include the university’s inspired action noted earlier to effect positive change for a sustainable world. It is host to the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, a network of over 1,300 universities worldwide committed to tackling the SDGs. The university is also home to a Faculty of Environment, as well as many unique research centers and academic programs that reinforce the importance of the SDGs. As such, the university’s efforts in WIL and career education strengthen wider community efforts already focused on this important work.

Ecosystem object: purpose clarification at the University of Waterloo Within the context of career education at the university, intentionally supporting students to critically reflect on any, or a subset, of the four purpose clarification domains is an aspirational goal. Importantly, a purpose-aligned practice can be person-centered in supporting each learner within the scope of their own personal perspective and priorities. Moreover, within that person-centered scope one can offer implicit support for lifelong learning, as well as an action orientation in career development. The domains of purpose clarification are reinforced throughout the ecosystem, though such opportunities are not always labeled as such. For example, within the WE Accelerate Program, students are encouraged to: identify what they value and need; clarify what skills they have and which ones they want to develop/use further; practice engaging with their community and/ or in the labor market. Moreover, if students’ skills, values, and/or needs point them toward seeking to have a particular type of impact in organizations or their environment, such connections are noted or highlighted with an educational nod to the SDGs. The University of Waterloo has created a visual depiction of the concept of purposeful work that aligns with its institutional culture and ecosystem. This image encompasses reflection on talents and skills, values and needs, engagement, and impact (Figure 24.2). This visual representation is meant to show what is needed within the individual (self-understanding and a growing sense of what is personally meaningful to them) to step forward into an uncertain future of work and lifelong learning as a self-directing agent of change.

Ecosystem outcomes: the University of Waterloo There are many positive outcomes experienced by Waterloo students such as high graduate employability, career clarity, exposure to a range of industries, and the financing of their

Figure 24.2  Four domains of reflection at the University of Waterloo toward purposeful work.

390

Learning ecosystems

education (Pretti & McRae, 2021). To support all students, but particularly groups who historically face labor market barriers, the university aspires to be equity informed as a WIL ecosystem. It aims to equip students with an enhanced employer network, as well as an awareness of how to understand and navigate the labor market whilst considering their values, needs, skills, and motivations. Given the established health costs of perceived chronic work stress (Marmot et al., 1991; Yarnell, 2008), the value of the WIL ecosystem lies in its capacity to offer individuals a means to develop their network and career development practices that enables them to support their wellbeing when navigating VUCA conditions (Mani et al., 2013). With a well-developed sense of personal agency and an internal compass to surface opportunities and steer career and lifelong learning decisions, the high-demand, low-control conditions of a VUCA world can still be met with creativity, innovation, and a sense of meaning. Organizational benefits come in through greater potential for the retention of meaning-driven employees. Such individuals have practiced taking ownership for their learning and have started developing a resilient base for their career identity that supports adaptability in the face of change (Redekopp & Huston, 2020). Given their repeat interactions with workplace environments, these students are also likely to have gained a sense of how to effect change in collaboration with others towards a shared goal. In hiring Waterloo’s co-op students for fouror eight-month work terms, employers see $2 in economic contributions for every $1 spent on student salary (Deloitte, 2019). Beyond financial gains, the Deloitte study also found that hiring co-op students represents for these employers a valuable pipeline to fill their future talent and innovation needs, and that integrating these students into their core operations is valuable and worthwhile.

Implications for institutions seeking to invest in student agency Institutions interested in developing such an ecosystem can consider their institutional strategy, organizational structures, and resources. At the heart of this ecosystem is quality WIL and career education offerings, in Waterloo’s case as outlined in the AAA* Quality WIL Framework (McRae, et al., 2018). This framework describes the aims, actions, and achievements required for all stakeholders involved in WIL to enable quality learning opportunities. The strength of the ecosystem where these learning opportunities reside can either enhance or limit the quality of student learning. Senior leadership support and a strategic vision are needed to embrace the potential of WIL and career education as interconnected and mutually reinforcing, and to set conditions for the creation and sustenance of an integrated learning ecosystem. Organizational structures can be decentralized or centralized (Kay et al., 2020) and accordingly offer different approaches. A more decentralized structure can allow for organic development of the ecosystem and afford greater opportunity for strategic direction and leadership. Furthermore, adequate human and financial resources are needed from leadership to address ecosystem needs. Integrating career education into a quality WIL ecosystem requires hiring and supporting the ongoing development of staff skills that can enable WIL programs and career education to stretch beyond transactional spaces to cultivate student agency, clarify their sense of purpose, and support students to navigate VUCA conditions into the future. Finally, there must be prioritized investments in initial resources to develop the ecosystem, as well as ongoing resources to keep the various components functioning well and evolving along with professional and broader institutional cultural shifts. The results of successful implementation are significant for future-proofing students, employers, and communities. 391

Norah McRae and Jennifer Woodside

Conclusion WIL program structures hold the potential to promote access to and inclusion in the labor force and across society through inherently acknowledging individuals’ value in the world (Wyonch, 2020). Moreover, career education fosters self-knowledge, value-driven decision-making, and a lifelong learning orientation (CERIC, 2012). This chapter has provided a case study where a combined, integrated ecosystems approach, used by the University of Waterloo, offers benefits to students and employers alike as they navigate through a VUCA world. The impact of an education ecosystem, with reflective practices intentionally incorporated throughout to illuminate what purposeful work looks like, is greater than the sum of its parts. This can be achieved at any post-secondary institution to a greater or lesser extent depending on intention and resources. This chapter has laid out a case for why such an approach is important. A purpose-driven ecosystem serves as a mechanism for inoculating students and graduates against the resource-draining effects of uncertainty. Moreover, it supports a lifelong learning orientation that will benefit graduates throughout their career (World Bank, 2018). Such an ecosystem equips learners to derive sustained energy and meaning from working toward sustainable change in a VUCA world. Finally, consideration should be given to the impacts of citizens’ meaning-driven, hope-­ oriented action on population health, the vibrancy of workplaces, and on managing change. Grounded in both reality and practice, hope has been identified as a critical ingredient for citizens to challenge dominant power systems that have brought about and deepened the impacts of existential threats like climate change and inequity like anti-Black racism (HomerDixon, 2020). A purpose-driven approach within a WIL ecosystem cultivates the skills, habits, and resilience in students that will enable them to make positive impacts on organizations that can unleash bigger picture impacts: offering communities fuel to effect sustainable change toward a better world.

References Andrewartha, L., & Harvey, A. (2017). Employability and student equity in higher education: The role of university career services. Australian Journal of Career Development, 26(2), 71–80. https://doi. org/10.1177/1038416217718365 Avis, J. (2009). Transformation or transformism: Engeström’s version of activity theory? Educational Review, 61(2), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910902844754 Boden, R., & Nedeva, M. (2010). Employing discourse: Universities and graduate “employability”. Journal of Education Policy, 25(1), 37–54. Brookfield Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. (2019). Turn and face the strange: Changes impacting the future of employment in Canada. https://brookfieldinstitute.ca/report/turn-and-face-thestrange-changes-impacting-the-future-of-employment-in-canada/ Buford, M., & Nester, H. (2020). A problem-solving approach to career exploration: Using the lens of challenge. NACE Journal. https://www.naceweb.org/career-development/organizational-structure/ a-problem-solving-approach-to-career-exploration-using-the-lens-of-challenge/ CERIC. (2012). Canadian standards and guidelines for career development practitioners. Glossary of Career Development Terms. http://career-dev-guidelines.org/career_dev/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Glossary-of-Terms-changes-from-CD-Chapter-re-counselling.pdf CEWIL. (2019). CEWIL Resource Hub: Types of WIL. https://www.cewilcanada.ca/CEWIL/Resources/ Resource-Hub/Types%20of%20WIL.aspx Deloitte. (2019). University of Waterloo economic impact assessment. https://uwaterloo.ca/about/sites/ ca.about/files/uploads/files/university_of_waterloo_economic_contribution_analysis_2019.pdf Drewery, D. W., Sproule, R., & Pretti, T. J. (2020). Lifelong learning mindset and career success: Evidence from the field of accounting and finance. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 10(3), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-03-2019-0041/full/html

392

Learning ecosystems Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels & K. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 303–328). Cambridge University Press. http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/ISCARkeyEngestrom.pdf Fenwick, T. J. (2000). Expanding conceptions of experiential learning: A review of the five contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, 50, 243–272. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/07417130022087035 Fergusson, L., Van der Laan, L., Imran, S., & Ormsby, G. (2021). The development of a work-integrated learning ecosystems: An Australian example of co-operative education. International Journal of WorkIntegrated Learning, 22(1), 25–40. Garcia, H., & Miralles, F. (2017). Ikigai – The Japanese secret to a long and happy life. Random House. Gelatt, H. B., & Gelatt, C. (2003). Creative decision making using positive uncertainty (2nd edn). Crisp Learning. Hirji, Z. (2021). Building a future of work that works for all. [Presentation.] CANNEXUS 2021 Virtual Conference, 25–27 January, & 1–3 Feburary. Homer-Dixon, T. (2020). Commanding hope. Penguin Random House. Jameson, J., Strudwick, K., Bond-Taylor, S., & Jones, M. (2012). Academic principles versus employability pressures: A modern power struggle or a creative opportunity? Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.590978 Johansen, B., & Euchner, J. (2013). Navigating the VUCA world. Research-Technology Management, 56(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5601003 Johnston, N. (2017). Navigating continuous change: A focus on self-direction and skills and knowledge transfer. International Perspectives on Education and Society, 32, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/ S1479-367920170000032001 Kay, J., McRae, N., & Russell, L. (2020). Two institutional responses to work-integrated learning in a time of COVID-19: Canada and Australia. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 2020, 21(5), 491–503. Keengwe, J., & Jung-Jin, K. (2013). A triangular prism model: Using activity theory to examine online learning communities. Education Information Technologies, 18(1), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10639-011-9178-4 Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning as the science of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Lyon, B. (1971). The first 60 years: A history of Waterloo Lutheran University from the opening of Waterloo Lutheran Seminary in 1911, to the present day. Reeve Bean. Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science, 341, 776–980. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1238041 Marmot, M. G., Stansfield, S., Patel, C., North, F., Head, J., & White, I. (1991). Health inequalities among British civil servants: The Whitehall II study. Lancet, 337(8754), 1387–1393. https://doi. org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)93068-K Masten, A., Best, K., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0954579400005812 Mate, S., & Ryan, M. (2015). Learning through work: How can a narrative approach to evaluation build students’ capacity for resilience? Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(3), 153–161. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1113541.pdf McRae, N. (2015). Exploring conditions for transformative learning in work-integrated education. AsiaPacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(2), 137–144. http://hdl.handle.net/1828/5284 McRae, N., Church, D., Woodside, J., Drewery, D., Fannon, A., & Pretti, J. (2019). Toward a future-ready talent framework for co-operative education and work-integrated learning. 5th International Conference on Higher Education Advances. Retrieved March 21, 2021, from http://ocs.editorial.upv.es/index.php/HEAD/ HEAD19/paper/view/9319 McRae, N., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2018). Quality work-integrated learning framework [White paper]. Work-Learn Institute, University of Waterloo. https://uwaterloo.ca/work-learn-institute/sites/ ca.work-learn-institute/files/uploads/files/wil_quality_framework_-_aaa_-_for_posting.pdf Niles, S. G., Amundson, N. E., & Neault, R. (2010). Career flow: A hope-centered approach to career development. Pearson. https://doi.org/10.18401/2014.4.1.1 Osorochi, P. O. (2015). Constructionist career counselling of undergraduate students: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.03.009 Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Houghton Mifflin.

393

Norah McRae and Jennifer Woodside Pretti, T. J., & McRae, N. (2021). Preparing gen y and z for the future of work through co-operative education: A case study on the University of Waterloo. In T. Gerhardt & P. Annon (Eds.), Applications of work-integrated learning among gen z and y students, (94–117), (IGI global book series Advances in educational technologies and instructional design), IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-79986440-0.ch005 Redekopp, D., & Huston, M. (2020). Strengthening mental health through effective career development: A practitioner’s guide. CERIC Foundation House. Robertson, P. J. (2013). The well-being outcomes of career guidance. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 41(3), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2013.773959 Rowe, A., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2022). Support for student learning in work-integrated learning: a holistic framework. In S. Ferns, A. Rowe, & K. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future. Routledge. Stevens, T., Pretti, J., & McRae, N. (2020). Preparing for the future of work through work-integrated learning [White paper]. Work-Learn Institute, University of Waterloo. https://publications.uwaterloo.ca/ future-of-work-through-work-integrated-learning/welcome/ Tamashiro, T. (2020, January 27–29). How to ikigai [Presentation]. CANNEXUS 2020 Conference, 27–29 January, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. Third update on adult learning theory (pp. 5–15). Wiley Periodicals. Times Higher Education. (2020). Impact rankings 2020. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ impactrankings#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/undefined Tomlinson, M. (2012). Graduate employability: A review of conceptual and empirical themes. Higher Education Policy, 25, 407–431. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2011.26 United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable %20Development%20web.pdf University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Overview: Future Ready Talent Framework. https://uwaterloo.ca/futureready-talent-framework/ University of Waterloo. (2018). Waterloo produces future-ready grads [PowerPoint slide]. Presentation, University of Waterloo. University of Waterloo. (2019). Recruiting the class of 2020 [Report]. Incoming student survey, University of Waterloo. University of Waterloo. (2020a). Co-operative education: About co-op. https://uwaterloo.ca/co-operativeeducation/about-co-op University of Waterloo. (2020b). EDGE: About EDGE. https://uwaterloo.ca/edge/about-edge Usher, A. (2014, November 13). Preparing students for the workforce. Higher Education Strategy Associates. https://higheredstrategy.com/preparing-student-for-the-workforce/ Vilaseca, B. (2013). Qué harías si no tuvieras miedo? [What would you do if you were not afraid?] PRH Grupo Editorial. World Bank. (2018). Lifelong Learning. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1328-3_ch4 World Economic Forum. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution: What it means, how to respond. https://www. weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/ Wyonch, R. (2020). Cooperative programming yields different outcomes according to program-based, identity factors. CD Howe Institute Commentary 562. Retrieved March 14, 2021, from https://www.cdhowe.org/ sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/Commentary562.pdf Yarnell, J. (2008). Stress at work—an independent risk factor for coronary heart disease? European Heart Journal, 29(5), 579–580. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehm641 Zegwaard, K. E., Johansson, K., Kay, J., McRae, N., Ferns, S., & Hoskyn, K. (2019). Professional development needs of the international work-integrated learning community. International Journal of WorkIntegrated Learning Special Issue 2019, 20(2), 201–217.

394

25 BUILDING SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS AND MANAGING EXPECTATIONS OF WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING STAKEHOLDERS Elyce Green, Rebecca Barry, Jayne Lawrence, Brent Smith, Alicia Carey, Melanie Peelgrane, and Zara Crawford Introduction The key objective of this chapter is to provide practical guidance for those looking to create partnerships and engage with stakeholders for the purpose of work-integrated learning (WIL). The chapter begins this guidance by identifying potential WIL stakeholders and how they may be engaged. We will then briefly examine some relevant stakeholder theories and partnership models, followed by a discussion of ways to communicate, build trust, and create sustainability. The ongoing management of WIL partnerships is discussed, including the complexity of this endeavor and ways to approach risk management. Finally, we examine ways to conclude partnerships with a view to continuing successful partnerships, renegotiating partnerships where goals were not met, or ending partnerships that are no longer viable or desirable. In project management literature, the purpose of stakeholder engagement is to increase the likelihood of project success – usually by influencing stakeholders (Eskerod & Vaagaasar, 2014). The approach to building partnerships and managing stakeholders in WIL is less focused on influence towards a single organizational goal and more focused on creating relationships that enable achievement of a common goal. While there is generally one organization responsible for the overall coordination of the WIL activity, the nature of WIL is such that partnerships are not often formed for a one-off project but are ongoing across several projects or several iterations of the same program. Although much of this chapter refers to literature based on project management in business, we take the approach of considering successful relationships as the goal of stakeholder engagement. It is our experience that sustainable partnerships and managing stakeholder expectations often result in successful WIL programs. Situated within the stakeholder management literature, our approach to stakeholders is slightly nuanced and focuses on building partnerships that are largely based on reciprocity. For this reason, although the literature referred to in this chapter uses the term ‘stakeholder management’ readers will note that the application of the literature is collaborative rather than

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-29

395

Elyce Green et al.

instrumental, reflecting an emphasis on engagement. We also take into consideration the claim by Jepsen and Eskerod (2009) that much of the current understanding of project stakeholder management is conceptually based and does not provide a practical guide for those undertaking stakeholder engagement. In response to this, although this chapter is largely based on project management literature, we have attempted to integrate these understandings with their experiences of conducting these activities.

Identifying work-integrated learning stakeholders The success of WIL projects and programs is largely influenced by effective identification, engagement, and management of stakeholders (Chung & Crawford, 2016). Identifying key stakeholders is one of the first activities that should be undertaken when designing WIL programs. The definition of who constitutes a stakeholder may be fluid and change over time according to the type or length of the WIL program. Friedman and Miles (2006) demonstrated the ambiguity of the definition of stakeholders, presenting a summary of 55 definitions of the term. Despite this apparent ambiguity, for the sake of this chapter, the term ‘stakeholder’ refers to a group or individual who can affect or is affected by the objective or activities of the WIL program, or is able to influence those objectives or activities (Andersen, 2008). There are several reasons why it is important to identify WIL stakeholders including: • Stakeholders provide resources for WIL activities; • Stakeholders determine the criteria for evaluating the success of a WIL program (the learning outcomes, supervisory model, consumer interactions, etc.); • The resistance of some stakeholders creates risk and can threaten the outcomes of a WIL activity; • WIL activities may affect stakeholders in both positive and negative ways. (Adapted from Eskerod et al., 2015) Stakeholder analysis can be used to identify WIL stakeholders (Eskerod et al., 2015). The purpose of this activity is twofold: it allows the WIL team to identify required resources and where they will be sourced, and it helps the team to understand the interests and concerns of stakeholders (Eskerod et al., 2015). To identify WIL stakeholders, the activities, people involved, and objectives of the WIL program should be defined. A list can then be generated of all the people and organizations that need to commit time, resources, and finances to the program, as well as the anticipated beneficiaries. A stakeholder is generally someone who possesses a resource needed for the program such as expertise, decision-making power, money, goodwill, influence, or contacts (Eskerod & Vaagaasar, 2014). It is important to keep in mind that the contributions of stakeholders are not necessarily constructive or simple. For example, when planning to undertake a new, innovative WIL activity within an organization where the staff are extremely keen to be involved but the chief executive officer is not able to prioritize or support the project due to competing demands or limited resources. In this instance, it is important to manage the differing needs and priorities of each stakeholder. Identifying stakeholders requires analysis of the WIL potential within communities and external organizations. An example of this in the field of health is identifying factors such as priority health areas for the region, health service availability and health professionals in the region, and the desire for WIL involvement. If there is sufficient WIL potential that can be of benefit to the community or external organization and university, this warrants engagement with stakeholders to explore opportunities and projects. Identification of potential stakeholders 396

Building sustainable partnerships

stems from the assessment of the opportunities. Establishing partnerships between stakeholders, particularly universities and host organizations, can be a lengthy process; careful consideration needs to be given to the university curriculum and pedagogies as well as the needs of the host organization and other stakeholders of the WIL experience (Choy & Delahaye, 2011). Although not exhaustive, a general overview of the stakeholders who may be relevant to WIL activities is shown in Figure 25.1, which also demonstrates that rather than stakeholders having a unidirectional interaction with the program coordinator, stakeholders also interact with and can influence one another (Beringer et al., 2013; Rowley, 1997). This reflects our practical experience and the seminal work of Ackoff (1974) who suggested stakeholders should be analyzed as a system. For simplicity, Figure 25.1 allocates the WIL program to the center of the stakeholder network, although in our experience, different projects often require different approaches to stakeholder engagement, so the central focus of the network is interchangeable and often revolves around the community or consumers. For the purpose of WIL activities, it is useful for the coordinating project team to identify whether stakeholders are internal or external to their organization. Generally, internal stakeholders will share similar organizational goals and resources and fall within the same organizational structure. This can make it easier to engage with internal stakeholders, understand their opportunities and constraints, and identify their managerial lines (i.e., those who have the power to make decisions). These activities can be a little less clear when partnering with external stakeholders. It takes more time to understand their organizational goals and resources, and these will often differ from the internal organization. The differences noted in internal or external stakeholders should not deter project groups from working with both internal and external partners but is an important consideration in planning WIL activities and designing communication strategies (Ferns et al., 2016a; Jeffries & Milne, 2014). Another important consideration when identifying WIL stakeholders is differentiating them based on relationships and partners with whom contractual and financial agreements will be sought. This dramatically affects the type of engagement required and how the stakeholder will be managed throughout the course of the WIL activity.

Students

University staff

Education provider

WIL program Other governing bodies

Community

Placement host

Figure 25.1  Stakeholders usually involved in work-integrated learning activities.

397

Elyce Green et al.

Partnerships in WIL are a special form of stakeholder relationship. Although every partner is a stakeholder, not every stakeholder is a partner. Partners exercise shared control over a WIL activity and share related risk (Mainardes et al., 2012). Partnerships in WIL are often created between education institutions and industry organizations for the purpose of providing students with the skills they require to be work-ready and a link to employment opportunities (Ferns et al., 2016b). When conducting stakeholder analysis, WIL teams must be diligent in defining partners as a subgroup of stakeholders so that attention can be paid to defining the objectives and processes of the partnership. Stakeholder analysis can be a time-consuming activity, but as has been previously mentioned, it is essential for program success. Although stakeholder analysis should occur at the commencement of WIL planning, it is also an ongoing and iterative activity throughout the duration of a program or project. Ongoing review of the group of stakeholders involved in an activity reflects the realistic nature of WIL activities. Not all stakeholders will be readily available or identified at the beginning of the project.

Engaging with potential stakeholders After identifying potential stakeholders, the program coordinator or WIL team should plan the methods of engagement that will be used (Fleming et al., 2016). In some instances, such as when partners have approached the educational institution seeking involvement, this may be easy. In others, where a potential stakeholder has been identified with whom there has been no prior contact, this task can prove more difficult. The way stakeholders are engaged initially is highly dependent on the context of WIL and the results of the stakeholder analysis. It has, however, been our experience that an introduction to a potential stakeholder through a mutual connection or building on existing relationships is far more likely to succeed than contacting people via phone or email when there has been no prior relationship or conversation. Viewing stakeholder engagement from a project management lens, it is important to continually evaluate the stakeholders engaged in the project and ensure that each has an ongoing role and, more importantly, the WIL team is agile in engaging with additional stakeholders if the need arises (Eskerod & Vaagaasar, 2014). Some of the benefits and challenges associated with engaging WIL stakeholders are shown in Table 25.1 and are explored further in Chapter 7 in this Handbook.

Theories of stakeholder engagement There are several theories that can be used to understand stakeholder engagement and may be useful in guiding these interactions. Stakeholder theory is perhaps the most widely referred to theory that demonstrates a fundamental approach to stakeholder engagement. Originally created by Freeman (2010), stakeholder theory takes a managerial approach and focuses on the purpose of an organization being the creation and distribution of value. Value is defined as benefit to a plurality of stakeholders and requires their cooperation and support (Freeman, 2010). This theory focuses on the interconnections between a business and its stakeholders and so includes the effect of the environment on the goals and outcomes of a company. Generally, stakeholder theory points to two different methods: managing ‘for’ stakeholders and management ‘of ’ stakeholders (Eskerod & Huemann, 2013). In the ‘managing for’ approach, stakeholders are viewed as having an individual value and ability to contribute to the project. This perspective uses the view of the stakeholder in its approach. Conversely, the 398

Building sustainable partnerships Table 25.1  Benefits and challenges associated with engaging work-integrated learning stakeholders The benefits of engaging with stakeholders

The challenges associated with engaging stakeholders

• Ability to combine resources • Enhances the diversity of WIL and ability to embed cultural awareness and sensitivity • Fosters buy-in and inclusion • Allows for feedback and the ability to adapt to the environment • Aligns WIL activities with societal needs • Creates an understanding of the organizational culture and structure of partners • Knowledge sharing • Building rapport and potential opportunities • Increases likelihood of sustainability • Stakeholders can contribute to the student experience by promoting learning opportunities, fostering belonging and connection, and assisting students to shape their professional identity

• Geographical challenges with stakeholders located in different areas • Access to resources and networks • Competing demands, needs, or values • Complexities of managing multiple partners • Staff turnover • Partners’ experience with collaboration • Variable engagement from all members of staff in an organization • Differing expectations, perspectives, or personality types • Time constraints

‘management of ’ approach takes a resource-based view of an organization and stakeholders are seen as providers of resources. This represents an instrumental approach to stakeholder management in its application (Eskerod & Huemann, 2013). A stakeholder theory approach can assist WIL coordinators to identify and analyze people and organizations who should be engaged in the process of a WIL activity. Although practically useful, the application of stakeholder theory in WIL may not recognize or give enough emphasis to the social networks that are fundamental to many WIL programs. To understand the social perspective of WIL, the application of more socially focused theories may be appropriate. A social network approach considers such networks as “a set of socially relevant nodes connected by one or more relations” (Marin & Wellman, 2011, p. 11), which holds relevance for many WIL activities. Largely based on the work of sociologists, social network theory is now suggested to include the three key concepts of centrality, cohesion, and structural equivalence (Liu et al., 2017). The theory focuses on the role of social relationships in communicating information, channeling influence, and, enabling attitudinal or behavioral change (Liu et al., 2017). Social network approaches to stakeholder engagement recognize the importance of the social ties that underpin the WIL experience and the effect these can have on the stakeholder experience. It also recognizes that WIL stakeholders are often able to affect and be affected by one another. The application of stakeholder theory and social network theory demonstrates the importance of approaching WIL stakeholders with an understanding of power, influence, and social networks (Chung & Crawford, 2016). WIL is often a business or organizational process but is also a largely social endeavor, and therefore requires a mixed business and social approach for stakeholder engagement. Taking a business approach to stakeholder management allows the WIL team to analyze costs, resources, and sustainability while also creating processes to manage associated benefits and risk. This is particularly important in WIL projects where a financial or contractual commitment is required by one or more stakeholders. It also incorporates an understanding of organizational power dynamics that can affect program outcomes (Pedrini & Ferri, 2019). 399

Elyce Green et al.

Communicating expectations Communication strategies are one of the most integral foundations of successful relationships in WIL (Fleming et al., 2016; Patrick et al., 2008). The way that communication is undertaken within and across organizations and between individuals is, therefore, a crucial design point when creating WIL experiences. As shown in the seminal work by Bavelas (1950), certain communication structures are more conducive to communication flow and the performance of teams. Regarding WIL partnerships, at the time stakeholders are identified, they should be engaged in a discussion of how, when, and with whom communication will occur. Communication strategies are essential for managing stakeholder expectations, including assessing expectations, communicating progress, and managing obstacles (Pandi-Perumal et al., 2015). The process of stakeholder management includes analyzing expectations and their impact on the project, effectively engaging stakeholders in project decisions and execution, and understanding the goals of each party (Project Management Institute, 2017). The goals are what each stakeholder hopes to achieve from the WIL experience as well as the learning outcomes to be successfully achieved by the students. All stakeholders of WIL experiences can make a vital contribution to successful outcomes. When partnerships are being established, the roles and responsibilities of each party should be discussed, documented, and circulated for consultation and recording. This process enables clarity for all stakeholders responsible for contributing to the overall success of the WIL activity. Unfortunately, many projects are characterized by the fact that stakeholders’ expectations are not adequately considered or met (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). The main contributor to this is the variance of expectations among different stakeholders and insufficient communication of these differences. Research has indicated that stakeholders’ views and responsibilities differ, particularly in relation to their respective roles and responsibilities in a project (Fleming & Haigh, 2017). Generally, WIL program expectations will include finishing on time and on budget, and delivery of outcomes to stakeholder satisfaction (Eskerod et al., 2015). The importance of each of these expectations will vary for each stakeholder. Open and clear discussions of the vision of the WIL experience should be prioritized as WIL activities are developed. Program coordinators may need to create or verbalize the value of being involved in a program, rather than assuming the benefits are clear or a shared priority. Discussion around individual expectations will often require negotiation and tailoring the WIL experience to meet various goals. For this reason, WIL experiences should be co-designed with stakeholders where possible, and the learning outcomes designed to benefit all stakeholders involved. Students are important stakeholders in this process as they are inevitably one of the beneficiaries of WIL. It is important to include students from the outset in the planning and preparation process to establish social cohesion between the different stakeholders, to promote a sense of agency and the degree of accountability for the proposed project to be accomplished during the WIL experience (Ebbs et al., 2019).

Building trust Building trust in WIL partnerships is essential for program success, sustainability, and managing expectations (Patrick et al., 2008). When entering new partnerships, an understanding of the past and present situation of the stakeholder is often not achievable. Trust is largely focused on the future and is built from the first point of contact with a new stakeholder. It is characterized by “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712). 400

Building sustainable partnerships

Trust is not superfluous in WIL relationships, particularly if considering the underlying assumption of trust suggested by Eskerod and Vaagaasar (2014, p. 73): “if we trust we open up, share more knowledge and, possibly put in more effort than if we do not trust.” Research by Herald et al. (2012) also suggests that the presence of trust in alliances creates an environment in which governance and structural differences can be overcome, and stakeholders are able to see beyond unequal resource contributions and respect what others can bring to the partnership. During WIL activities, trust will be required among stakeholders when there are uncertainties or a lack of knowledge on the side of one of the partners (Eskerod & Vaagaasar, 2014; Smyth et al., 2010). In our experience, trust organically develops from partnerships in which stakeholders are authentically and honestly invested. Educational organizations that seek to create trusting environments should first look internally to their own values and ensure their purpose is congruent with seeking trusting partnerships (Lozano, 2005). Some reflective questions related to trust that may be useful for those engaging with WIL stakeholders include: •  Do our stakeholders trust us? How does this influence their behavior and expectations? •  Do we trust our stakeholders? How does this influence our behavior and expectations? (Eskerod & Vaagaasar, 2014, p. 73)

Using sustainability as a foundation for workintegrated learning partnerships When partnerships are being established for the creation of WIL experiences, consideration should be given to the long term. As a result, longevity and sustainability should be factored as foundational principles, with a view to balancing stakeholders’ economic, ecologic, and social interests (Eskerod & Huemann, 2013). Establishing WIL experiences can be time intensive due to the amount of consultation required with all stakeholders to ensure successful outcomes for all involved. Due to the amount of work required in creating these experiences and opportunities, stakeholders often do not want opportunities to be one-off WIL experiences offered to students, organizations, or communities. For WIL experiences to result in the most benefit for all stakeholders involved, sustainability should be factored as a foundational consideration of establishing the WIL partnership and opportunity. Sustainability considerations include embedding WIL opportunities within organizations and the community, the cost and availability of WIL supervisors, accommodation availability for students, and matching the WIL program with curriculum needs. There should also be consideration of the importance of the quality of the WIL experience, rather than simply meeting a quota (Campbell et al., 2019). If sustainability is not considered possible when looking at a new WIL opportunity, it may be better to seek WIL experiences and opportunities with other organizations or communities. As identified by Fleming et al. (2018), the key themes for sustainable WIL relationships include preparation, managing expectations (of all stakeholders), communication, flexibility, mentoring, commitment (from all stakeholders), and relationship management. They also point to the explicit and implicit critical success factors for sustainable university–community engagement as suggested by Arden et al. (2009) which focus on process, outcomes, and relationship aspects of partnerships. Some practical tips for creating sustainable WIL partnerships are shown in Box 25.1. 401

Elyce Green et al.

Box 25.1  Guidance for creating sustainable work-integrated learning partnerships • • • • • •

Take time to understand each of the stakeholders’ needs and interests at the beginning of the relationship. Create WIL programs that focus on providing a high-quality experience for all stakeholders. Allow time for stakeholder engagement to occur throughout the project. Attempt to embed WIL opportunities within the business-as-usual activities of the host organization and work load of staff. Create and follow communication pathways with stakeholders. Evaluate WIL partnerships regularly and be flexible to changing needs.

Fostering reciprocity and sustainability from the perspective of external stakeholders We are responsible for creating WIL opportunities focused on rural health in Australia. For rural and remote communities, the maldistribution of health workers leads to limited accessibility and poorer health outcomes. Student exposure to rural and remote settings is a long-term strategy aimed at reducing workforce shortages by fostering the development of rural careers, with well-monitored, supportive placement interactions linked to the intentions of rural practice (Smith et al., 2018). In addition, WIL helps to develop the cultural capabilities of students and promote interest in working with Aboriginal communities that are marginalized and underserved (Thackrah & Thompson, 2019). The following two case studies demonstrate some of the WIL opportunities created in partnership with community organizations. These partnerships are based on reciprocity and creating sustainability in WIL experiences. They demonstrate the importance of the WIL experiences from the viewpoint of the stakeholders.

Case study 1: work-integrated learning in an early learning center A partnership that was developed to facilitate a WIL placement in an Early Learning Center provided an opportunity to respond to an identified need in a remote community that may otherwise not have been addressed. The placement evolved from initial contact made by the director of the Center, resulting in a WIL placement that was co-designed, involving consultation with the staff, workplace learning academics, and the community (including community Aboriginal Elders). Meetings with all stakeholders were coordinated to facilitate consultation and a commitment to ensuring the WIL experience was mutually beneficial. Reciprocity was achieved by ensuring that the WIL placements were designed to meet the needs of all stakeholders. The director of the Early Learning Center suggests the following strategies to support and sustain the partnership: Maintaining regular communication with all stakeholders, either face-to-face, by phone, or email, or through community consultation. [It is important to be] inclusive of all community stakeholders through regular meetings and communication to plan and prepare the placement and documentation, confirm the placement schedule, roles, and expectations prior to it commencing. 402

Building sustainable partnerships

The benefits of an effective partnership in facilitating WIL placements, particularly in rural and remote communities, were also highlighted: For me as a Director, there were so many positives. In a little town with minimal to no access to allied health, it was a massive relief to have expert eyes look at us and want to help. Building a relationship with the [educational institution] has been an incredible part of my personal and professional journey and I feel truly honored to be a part of this amazing opportunity. It has meant that our staff can learn as the students learn, and share knowledge, skills, and ideas to build all of our capacity. It has meant that we are able to take the specialized knowledge of both Occupational Therapists and Physiotherapists to integrate specialized instruction during play to improve children’s learning outcomes. That’s MASSIVE for a little town like ours. Comments made by a student participating in the WIL experience at the Early Learning Center further support the importance of the partnership between stakeholders, including the community: My experience is one I will always treasure because what we developed will continue to improve the future development of the children that attend the preschool. I was overwhelmed by the support we received from the entire community, and their eagerness to learn from us and implement some of our strategies into their children’s daily routine, which made the placement so rewarding. Frequent and open communication between stakeholders has been essential to ensure success in this WIL partnership, as has the experience with the Early Learning Center. In addition to regular coordinated meetings and correspondence between stakeholders, the clear aims of the WIL placement and expectations of all stakeholders involved were documented and discussed during all stages of the process. Stakeholder relationships were well supported by a clear structure for the WIL placement including a timetable and key contact persons listed. This structure ensures all stakeholders can contribute to the WIL experience and their perspectives are valued.

Case study 2: work-integrated learning in an Aboriginal community-controlled health organization Aboriginal community-controlled health organizations (ACCHOs) have a distinct lack of provision of allied health care, making them ideally positioned for community-focused WIL placements. These placements within the ACCHO space allow an under-served community to obtain health care that would not otherwise be accessible to it. During this placement, the students were immersed in the culture of both the organization and the community it serves for the duration. With structured project outlines and timetabling of supervision and activities, the students worked across all teams in the organization. The manager of the Wellbeing Center that hosted the WIL placements highlighted the impact: By completing our placements, the students get a real hands-on experience and leave feeling that in just a few weeks they have made a difference. They also get to work with other health and well-being practitioners that they wouldn’t necessarily interact with in a more traditional placement. 403

Elyce Green et al.

A strong reflective component was included in the WIL placement to promote student use of higher-order thinking skills to make sense of the structured learning from the service experience and expand it (Biggs & Tang, 2011). Formal reflective opportunities assisted students to discuss the meaning and outcomes of their WIL experience. Reflection provided by the manager of the Wellness Center emphasizes its importance: The students have provided an insight into what gaps in our program could be lacking and how we can provide our medically-led, comprehensive health care model with an even more in-depth service. By adding students to our already multidisciplinary team, we were able to further expand and upskill our core team of health and well-being practitioners. The students we’ve had on board have always been inspired and enthusiastic about working with and for First Nations people. This excitement has led students to make real connections with patients and has also had an impact on the organization.

Ongoing management of work-integrated learning partnerships Managing ongoing partnerships is crucial to successful WIL opportunities for all stakeholders involved. Such partnerships with stakeholders is just as important as establishing the partnerships in the first instance (Parmar et al., 2010). Suggestions for ongoing stakeholder engagement throughout a WIL program are shown in Box 25.2. As demand for WIL opportunities and experiences increase, consideration of sustainability becomes essential that is assisted through strong relationships between universities, industry partners, and communities (Choy & Delahaye, 2011; Fleming et al., 2018). Ongoing partnerships require routine relationship management and key touchpoints should be implemented at all stages of the WIL process (Fleming et al., 2018). This ensures all stakeholders’ needs are met and any issues can be identified and addressed early. Contact should utilize modalities which are suitable and preferred by stakeholders. Contact

Box 25.2  Suggestions for ongoing stakeholder engagement • • • • • • • • • • • •

Regular meetings with stakeholders to initiate, plan, coordinate, implement, and evaluate WIL experiences (formal and/or informal). Regular communication via email (throughout the whole process). Media stories or promotion. Writing and disseminating reports on project progress. Engaging with other institutions (including universities and WIL providers). Engaging with community organizations and participating in interagency meetings. Co-designing projects with stakeholders to ensure community needs are met. Ensuring that cultural safety is a key consideration. Addressing potential/actual issues that may impact on the success of the placement. Debriefing with partners/stakeholders. Evaluating the quality of the placement with all stakeholders/partners. Offering online/face-to-face professional development opportunities to support clinicians and students.

404

Building sustainable partnerships

options available include phone, email, video conferencing, and meeting in person (Jeffries & Milne, 2014). A debrief with all stakeholders on conclusion of the WIL experience should be scheduled to ensure timely reflections. In certain cases, stakeholder consultation works well where entities are approached directly, allowing for transparent reflections. Stakeholder consultation should explore elements such as what worked well, what needs improvement, and future WIL opportunities. This ensures all stakeholders’ voices can contribute to ongoing WIL sustainability. Another component of the ongoing management of WIL relationships is celebrating success (Carney et al., 2011). Success can eventuate for both students and staff involved in the WIL experience and for the organization and community hosting the opportunity. Promotion and celebration of success contributes to the long-term sustainability of the WIL experience as well as the potential for new WIL opportunities to develop within other organizations. Celebrating success between stakeholders provides an opportunity for an additional touch point, which can contribute to the ongoing management of the WIL partnership.

Complexity and risk in work-integrated learning partnerships WIL experiences are not without their challenges and, as a result, pose a risk at all stages. A simple definition of risk proposed by Effeney (2020, p. 390) is the “potential to lose something of value.” Applying this definition to WIL, risk can incorporate the potential loss of relationships, reputation, or resources, due to different perceptions of what constitutes value, and to what extent risk will be defined differently for each WIL stakeholder. Potential risks should, therefore, be identified by viewing the project from the lens of each stakeholder. When developing WIL experiences and engaging and consulting with stakeholders, there are risks. Risks can be a consultation that does not consider all factors and elements impacting the WIL experience, or when all appropriate stakeholders are not consulted. To counter this, and manage risk, careful assessment of the landscape and region is required to ensure all appropriate stakeholders are included. Risk can be further managed through consultation with engaged stakeholders to ensure others are not missed, as their knowledge of the local scene is important. Another risk is that relationship building, and development of WIL opportunities, can take a considerable time. These risks can be managed by allowing enough time for WIL opportunities to be formulated and implemented (Cameron et al., 2019). When assessing risk in WIL, it is useful to use a risk matrix or template, such as the example template shown in Table 25.2. Managing risk among stakeholders is important for successful WIL outcomes. Risk matrices such as that proposed by Freeman (2010, p. 173) can aid in identifying the importance of stakeholders and appropriate actions to take. A risk that can present in WIL is conflict between stakeholders. The type of conflict can dictate how a resolution is approached. Conflict resolution can be productive or destructive to the process and for the stakeholders involved. When partners are motivated to engage in problem-solving, a mutually satisfactory solution may be reached, which in turn may enhance a partnership’s success when conflicts arise (Mohr & Spekman, 1994). Project complexity also increases risk as an increased number of inputs and stakeholders increases uncertainty (Nguyen et al., 2018). Regarding complexity, there are several tools that can be useful in quantifying the complexity of a project, such as the complexity measurement model developed by He et al. (2015) that groups 28 factors into six categories: technological, organizational, goal, environmental, cultural, and information complexities. This may be useful for some WIL teams, particularly those designing complex projects. 405

Table 25.2  Example of a risk management template Risk no.

Risk description

1. 2.

Cause

Existing controls

Impact

Controlled risk rating

Treatment

Final rating

Use a risk ratings matrix to match likelihood and consequence of the risk and determine inherent risk level.

What is the base cause of the risk?

What existing activities, plans, documents (i.e., policies, procedures, legislation, standards), effectively address the risk/ opportunity)

What is the impact if this risk occurs?

Use a risk ratings matrix to match likelihood and consequence of the risk and determine controlled risk level.

Commitment to action. Assign owner and timeframe.

Use a risk ratings matrix to match likelihood and consequence of the risk and determine the final risk level.

Elyce Green et al.

406

Risk is ‘the effect of uncertainty upon objectives.’

Inherent risk rating

Building sustainable partnerships

Establish working relaonship with stakeholders involved in WIL opportunity

Maintain open and clear communicaon between all stakeholders

Adapt WIL offerings based on the needs of stakeholders

End result is successful outcomes of the WIL experiences for all stakeholders involved

Figure 25.2  Process for minimizing risk from change.

Another risk is that (as WIL opportunities and experiences evolve) goals, capacity, and/or resources for stakeholders can change. Maintaining an open and clear dialogue with stakeholders is important to keep WIL offerings dynamic so as to maximize successful outcomes for all involved. This is particularly important if circumstances change with one of the stakeholders, as this can have follow-on effects for WIL offerings. Depending on the change and which stakeholder the changes affect can impact WIL minimally or be major, ultimately stopping WIL opportunities from progressing. Open and clear communication keeps all stakeholders informed and maintains ongoing relationships whilst the changes occur. A change in circumstances has the potential to be a source of conflict. If the process is managed appropriately, satisfactory outcomes can result for all stakeholders involved (Mohr & Spekman, 1994). This process for minimizing the potential risk arising from change is shown in Figure 25.2. It is important to recognize that WIL partnerships are not always destined to be successful and that there is a multitude of literature recognizing that many projects fail (Damoah & Akwei, 2017; Sharma et al., 2011). These failures often occur despite the planning and resources that are contributed to building the partnership on an established evidence base (Eskerod & Huemann, 2013). However, appropriate planning and risk mitigation will assist in decreasing the likelihood of an unsuccessful partnership.

Managing multiple partnerships As identified, it is paramount to have open communication for successful WIL partnerships. This poses a challenge not just in relation to the complexity of projects, but regarding the practical requirements of engaging with multiple stakeholders at once. One of the challenges of WIL is having multiple, simultaneous partnerships with organizations and communities. As WIL grows and more WIL occurs, this can be a challenge to manage. Customer relationship management (CRM) programs can provide organizations with the ability to manage and view stakeholder interactions. CRM systems typically fall into three categories: operational systems, analytical systems, and collaborative systems (Khodakarami & Chan, 2014). A CRM for the purpose of managing WIL relationships aligns with collaborative systems that are used to manage and integrate communication channels and customer interaction (Khodakarami & Chan, 2014). It is common to use an online program to track and manage partnerships. This type of CRM allows teams to share, review, and grow. Tracking is used to monitor interactions with partners and identify opportunities for growth. The online program is a live platform with information about the organization’s relationships and previous interactions with people or other organizations. This is significant for an organization with multiple partnerships as it provides information to help make contact strategic, reduces duplication of contacts, and creates a clear trail of communication. With the ability to review contacts and interactions, 407

Elyce Green et al.

the frequency of contact can be viewed by organization, region, discipline, or service area. Using this CRM enables an extensive database of WIL placement providers and community partners. The CRM used by our organization was chosen for various reasons: it is cloud-based and therefore accessible in the field via tablet devices, the program has customization capability which allows flexibility to suit the organization’s needs, and it also has the ability to create data reports which fulfill our organization’s business reporting needs. Some considerations that are important when considering a CRM system include: • • • •

How will it help your organization? What do you need out of the program (i.e., customization, evaluation)? How big is your organization? What are the needs of your organization?

By using a customized CRM system, teams can identify the organizations they are working with while tracking and managing interactions and outcomes. It is also possible to identify contacts with organizations which have not yet been engaged, which can build partnerships.

Concluding a partnership Effective WIL partnerships can result in many successes with one of these being the completion of a project. It is at this point that the partnership may conclude. Alternatively, the shared satisfaction that can result from a successful WIL partnership and a project being completed may spark interest in an ongoing partnership with a new project or a similar project opportunity being undertaken. Other WIL partnerships may conclude due to changes in goals, capacity, or resources such as staffing changes, which can result in the partnership being unsustainable. As discussed, there are times when the WIL partnership may experience challenges. Whilst these challenges can often be resolved through good communication and relationship management, there may be occasions where the WIL partnership is no longer effective. It is important to identify when a partnership is no longer sustainable and needs to cease. An example of this is when the partnership is no longer meeting the needs of all stakeholders and it becomes clear that not all are benefiting. Another example may be a conflict that cannot be resolved and is potentially detrimental to the stakeholders and community (Hahn & Pinkse, 2014). The benefits of a strong and successful WIL partnership have been discussed. Factors that contribute to maintaining this relationship and creating a vision for the future include ensuring that the partnership continues to have a mutually beneficial purpose (Fleming et al., 2018). While forging the WIL partnership requires extensive engagement (Choy & Delahaye, 2011), this focus on engagement and communication needs to continue for the future sustainability of the partnership in which trust has been built (Fleming et al., 2018). No matter what the outcome of the WIL partnership is, the path moving forward must be determined. Figure 25.3 demonstrates a practical process that can be used to determine the actions undertaken at the end of a WIL partnership. Successful partnerships between students, communities, professional staff, and host organizations often have highlighted opportunities for future partnerships and collaboration. Together, stakeholders can celebrate successes and reflect on lessons learned to grow the partnership and create a vision for the future. Part of our ongoing organizational commitment and vision for WIL involves evaluating the quality of placements. The evaluation of WIL activities in collaboration with our partners aims to ensure that WIL placements are of high quality and offer stakeholders a uniquely rural experience focused on connection, belonging, immersion, and empowerment. 408

Building sustainable partnerships

Evaluate the partnership – did it meet the goals of each of the stakeholders?

Yes

No

Are both parties invested in continuing to work together?

Yes

Plan for follow-up, including when and with whom. Promote the success of the partnership.

Is the partnership viable or desirable moving forward?

Yes

No

Work together on a way forward or honestly communicate the inability to continue the partnership and, if possible, the reasons why. Leave the relationship open with an agreement to partner in future if circumstances allow.

Revisit stakeholder analysis and aligning expectations. The partnership will need to be redesigned to meet each party’s needs.

No

Clearly communicate that the partnership has concluded. If possible, leave the partnership amicably but do not commit to further joint ventures.

Figure 25.3  Practical ways to move forward at the end of a partnership.

Framework for external stakeholder relationship management To summarize this chapter and provide practical guidance for those seeking to engage with WIL stakeholders, Figure 25.4 illustrates the entirety of the stakeholder engagement process. This framework is based on our practical experience, understanding of the project management literature, and the work of Karlsen (2002). It should be noted that the framework provides a

Figure 25.4  Framework for external stakeholder relationship management.

409

Elyce Green et al.

guide to the process of stakeholder engagement that is circular and representative of the option at each milestone to move backwards or forwards. This reflects the versatile nature of some WIL projects and relationships.

Conclusion This chapter has presented a discussion of the activities required to engage with stakeholders for the purpose of WIL activities. The discussion is based on our practical experience of building relationships and coordinating WIL programs and the current literature focused on this topic. Stakeholder engagement is centered on the importance of careful planning, ongoing engagement, and authentic evaluation of the success of a partnership. There is a particular importance for communicating expectations, building trust, fostering reciprocity, and creating sustainability. It is likely that this process enables effective stakeholder engagement that allows for the achievement of joint goals for multiple stakeholders.

References Ackoff, R. (1974). Redesigning the future. Wiley. Andersen, E. S. (2008). Rethinking project management: An organisational perspective. FT Prentice Hall: Pearson Education. Arden, C. H., McLachlan, K., & Cooper, T. (2009). Building capacity through sustainable engagement: More lessons for the learning community from the GraniteNet project. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 49(1), 74–101. Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 22(6), 725–730. Beringer, C., Jonas, D., & Kock, A. (2013). Behavior of internal stakeholders in project portfolio management and its impact on success. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 830–846. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.11.006 Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Cameron, C., Ashwell, J., Connor, M., Duncan, M., Mackay, W., & Naqvi, J. (2019). Managing risks in work-integrated learning programmes: A cross-institutional collaboration. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 9(2), 325–338. Campbell, M., Russell, L., McAllister, L., Smith, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., & Barrett, M. (2019). A framework for the institutional quality assurance of work integrated learning. Queensland University of Technology. https://research.qut.edu.au/wilquality/resources/#:~:text=A%20quality%20WIL%20 experience%20should,an%20intended%20and%20enacted%20curriculum Carney, J. K., Maltby, H. J., Mackin, K. A., & Maksym, M. E. (2011). Community–academic partnerships: How can communities benefit? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41(4), S206–S213. Choy, S., & Delahaye, B. (2011). Partnerships between universities and workplaces: Some challenges for work-integrated learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(2), 157–172. Chung, K. S. K., & Crawford, L. (2016). The role of social networks theory and methodology for project stakeholder management. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 226, 372–380. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.201 Damoah, I. S., & Akwei, C. (2017). Government project failure in Ghana: A multidimensional approach. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(1), 32–59. Ebbs, P., Gonzalez, P., & Miller, T. (2019). Interdisciplinary work integrated learning: A pilot evaluation instrument. Journal of Paramedic Practice, 11(8), 348–358. https://doi.org/10.12968/jpar.2019.11.8.348 Effeney, G. (2020). Risk in work integrated learning: A stakeholder centric model for higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(4), 388–403. Eskerod, P., & Huemann, M. (2013). Sustainable development and project stakeholder management: What standards say. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1), 36–50. Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., & Savage, G. (2015). Project stakeholder management—Past and present. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 6–14.

410

Building sustainable partnerships Eskerod, P., & Vaagaasar, A. L. (2014). Stakeholder management strategies and practices during a project course. Project Management Journal, 45(5), 71–85. Ferns, S., Russell, L., & Kay, J. (2016a). Enhancing industry engagement with work-integrated learning: Capacity building for industry partners. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 363–375. Ferns, S., Russell, L., Kay, J., & Smith, J. (2016b). Responding to industry needs for proactive engagement in work integrated learning (WIL): Partnerships for the future. In A. Rowe & M. Harvey (Eds.), WIL 2020: Pushing the boundaries - Proceedings of the 2016 ACEN National Conference (pp. 88–95). Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN). Fleming, J., & Haigh, N. J. (2017). Examining and challenging the intentions of work-integrated learning. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 7(2), 198–210. Fleming, J., McLachlan, K., & Pretti, T. J. (2016). Collaborating with WIL stakeholders: Success factors for sustainable relationships. In K. E. Zegwaard, M. Ford, & N. McRae (Eds.), 2nd international research symposium on cooperative and work-integrated education (pp. 63–70). World Association for Cooperative Education (WACE). Fleming, J., McLachlan, K., & Pretti, T. J. (2018). Successful work-integrated learning relationships: A framework for sustainability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 321–335. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192675 Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press. Hahn, T., & Pinkse, J. (2014). Private environmental governance through cross-sector partnerships: Tensions between competition and effectiveness. Organization & Environment, 27(2), 140–160. He, Q. H., Luo, L., Hu, Y., & Chan, A. P. C. (2015). Measuring the complexity of mega construction projects in China-A fuzzy analytic network process analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 33(3), 549–563. Herald, L. R., Alexander, J. A., Beich, J., Mittler, J. N., & O’Hora, J. L. (2012). Barriers and strategies to align stakeholders in healthcare alliances. American Journal of Managed Care, 18(6), S148. Jeffries, A., & Milne, L. (2014). Communication in WIL partnerships: The critical link. Journal of Education and Work, 27(5), 564–583. Jepsen, A. L., & Eskerod, P. (2009). Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current guidelines in the real world. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijproman.2008.04.002 Karlsen, J. T. (2002). Project stakeholder management. Engineering Management Journal, 14(4), 19–24. Khodakarami, F., & Chan, Y. E. (2014). Exploring the role of customer relationship management (CRM) systems in customer knowledge creation. Information & management, 51(1), 27–42. Liu, W., Sidhu, A., Beacom, A. M., & Valente, T. W. (2017). Social network theory. In P. Rossler (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1–12). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0092 Lozano, J. M. (2005). Towards the relational corporation: From managing stakeholder relationships to building stakeholder relationships (waiting for Copernicus). Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 5(2), 60–77. Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2012). A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Management Decision, 50(10), 1861–1879. Marin, A., & Wellman, B. (2011). Social network analysis: An introduction. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 11–25). SAGE Publications. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135–152. Nguyen, T. S., Mohamed, S., & Panuwatwanich, K. (2018). Stakeholder management in complex project: Review of contemporary literature. Journal of Engineering, Project & Production Management, 8(2), 75–89. Pandi-Perumal, S. R., Akhter, S., Zizi, F., Jean-Louis, G., Ramasubramanian, C., Edward Freeman, R., & Narasimhan, M. (2015). Project stakeholder management in the clinical research environment: How to do it right. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 6, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00071 Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445.

411

Elyce Green et al. Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). The WIL (Work Integrated Learning) report: A national scoping study [Final Report]. Queensland University of Technology. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/216185/1/WIL-Report-grants-project-jan09.pdf Pedrini, M., & Ferri, L. M. (2019). Stakeholder management: A systematic literature review. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(1), 44–59. Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910. Sharma, A., Sengupta, S., & Gupta, A. (2011). Exploring risk dimensions in the Indian software industry. Project Management Journal, 42(5), 78–91. Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business School Press. Smith, T., Sutton, K., Pit, S., Muyambi, K., Terry, D., Farthing, A., Courtney, C., & Cross, M. (2018). Health professional students’ rural placement satisfaction and rural practice intentions: A national cross‐ sectional survey. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 26(1), 26–32. Smyth, H., Gustafsson, M., & Ganskau, E. (2010). The value of trust in project business. International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), 117–129. Thackrah, R. D., & Thompson, S. C. (2019). Learning from follow-up of student placements in a remote community: A small qualitative study highlights personal and workforce benefits and opportunities. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 1–9.

412

26 RISK MANAGEMENT OF WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING Craig Cameron, Jenny Fleming, Kathryn Hay, and Anne Hewitt

Introduction The opportunities work-integrated learning (WIL) presents for stakeholders cannot be assessed without due consideration of its potential hazards. This balancing of opportunity and hazard is at the heart of risk management. In this chapter, WIL is a tertiary education program involving a student, a higher education institution and an entity hosting the student (host organization), which integrates academic study with student participation in real work activities. It is the real, as opposed to simulated, work that exposes stakeholders to a variety of issues, or ‘risks,’ that impact WIL compared to traditional study programs. The source of risks in WIL arises from the learning environment. Students in placement-based WIL programs are exposed, many for the first time, to a workplace setting which is controlled by the host organization and not the institution (Cameron, 2017). New risks in WIL are emerging from the creation of new industries, as well as changes to workplace settings and practices. For instance, COVID-19 has transformed remote learning and working from an alternative WIL model to a mainstream WIL activity. The opportunities attached to remote working for stakeholders – enabling students to complete WIL in lieu of physical workplaces, work flexibly, save time and costs, and develop adaptability skills – must be balanced with its potential hazards including the lack of physical host supervision, the receipt of meaningful learning experiences, and the suitability of the student’s workspace set-up (Pretti et al., 2020), which may expose all stakeholders to risks associated with workplace health and safety (Cameron & Orrell, 2021). In the emerging WIL area of entrepreneurships: the student may be launching their own business; be self-employed; their WIL activities may be self-directed, requiring WIL practitioners to articulate their needs for the working environment, student work hours, final output, and student contact in the absence of a traditional host–supervisor relationship (Cameron et al., 2019). Hosts too may engage in entrepreneurial pursuits, delivering new products and services which provide students with opportunities to gain ‘cutting-edge’ knowledge, but which may expose institutions to risk by facilitating the WIL activity. Crypto-assets and cannabis (Dodds et al., 2021) are two such products which pose ethical, strategic, legal, and reputational risks to varying degrees across state and federal jurisdictions.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-30

413

Craig Cameron et al.

The purpose of this chapter is to enhance readers’ ‘risk literacy’ (Cameron & Orrell, 2021), more specifically, awareness of the risks to which WIL stakeholders may be exposed and how they can be managed. Enterprise risk management (ERM) is the theoretical lens by which risk management is explored. ERM is increasingly being incorporated by businesses and institutions as the bedrock of their risk management framework (Cameron, 2017). According to ERM, risk is any issue impacting WIL – be it operational, strategic, legal, ethical, financial, or reputational – that may represent an opportunity or a hazard to the achievement of WIL stakeholder objectives (Ackley et al., 2007; Cassidy et al., 2001). A distinguishing feature of ERM is that all WIL stakeholders share responsibility for risk management (Ackley et al., 2007). The chapter commences by exploring the various risk types impacting WIL, using examples derived from the international literature. A risk management framework for WIL will then be presented, consisting of practices and methods that stakeholders can employ to manage various risks in relation to WIL, and concludes with how the risk management framework can be applied by stakeholders to identify new risks in WIL. This framework is underpinned by the overall strategy of risk management: to maximize the opportunities and minimize the hazards.

Risks to students, institutions, and host organizations Risk management can be described as a four-step process of: identifying the events, circumstances, or issues that create risk; assessing probability and consequences; developing practices to manage risk; and then reassessing the risk(s) and risk management practice(s) (Cooper et al., 2010). Risk can be defined as the actual issue, the probability of the issue manifesting, as well as the consequences of the issue should it manifest. In this section, we focus on identifying the key risks impacting WIL (step 1). It is for the stakeholder to analyze the probability and consequences of an issue specific to their circumstances (step 2). Following this risk assessment, stakeholders can draw on a framework of practices and methods, as described later in this chapter, to manage the risk (step 3). Stakeholders may consider adopting the risk register template devised by Cameron and Orrell (2021) to document their risk management process, and to facilitate the evaluation of steps 1, 2, and 3 (step 4). The description of the selected risks which follow is categorized according to legal, ethical, strategic, reputational, operational, and financial risks. Multiple risk types may apply to an issue, and stakeholders may disagree about the categorization. However, it is identifying and not classifying the risk that is critical to risk management. The purpose of classifying risk through an ERM lens is to expand stakeholders’ understanding of it beyond non-compliance (or legal risk), so that they can effectively identify the comprehensive range of risks that may impact WIL.

Legal risks Legal risks arise when there is non-compliance with, or liability pursuant to, external rules or regulations, as well as the internal rules of stakeholders (Cassidy et al., 2001), for example, policies about workplace conduct and WIL curriculum design. The nature and scope of legal risks will vary depending on the applicable laws in the relevant jurisdiction(s), stakeholder policy, the type of WIL placement (e.g., project-based versus placement-based WIL), and the terms of any WIL agreement binding stakeholders. Stewart et al. (2018) reviewed the external regulation of work (employment standards, workplace health and safety, discrimination and harassment) and educational content, as it applies to WIL, across 13 countries including Japan, China, the 414

Risk management of work-integrated learning

USA, France, Australia, Canada, the UK, and South Africa. Cameron (2016) produced a table of legal risks, cross-referenced to the international literature, which was categorized according to stakeholders and the timing of the conduct (before, during, and after the WIL placement), and identified legal risks relating to WIL agreements. Common legal risks, derived from these studies, are considered below. A key legal risk is the creation of an unintended employment relationship between the student and the host, with concomitant legal obligations (Cameron, 2018). These obligations may include minimum working conditions (minimum pay, leave, and working hours) to protect students against harassment and discrimination, and to ensure the health and safety of students (Stewart et al., 2018). The specter that a host may be liable for wages, as well as for sick and holiday leave, may deter it from engaging in WIL, a resulting strategic risk. Another legal risk which impacts stakeholders’ rights is ownership of intellectual property (IP) used, shared, and generated while a student is completing the WIL placement (Turcotte et al., 2016). This is often of significant concern to the institutions and host organizations engaged in WIL, but can also be a real issue for students, especially those pursuing further study or working in technical specializations. IP laws in many jurisdictions recognize that an employer generally owns the IP, or the right to exploit the IP, created by the employee in the course of their employment (e.g., the USA, Australia, China, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, Japan) (DLA Piper, n.d.). Alternatively, an employee may assign their IP rights, in writing, to the employer. For students completing paid WIL placements as an employee in these jurisdictions, the host generally owns the IP that students create. Any subsequent unauthorized use of IP by the student constitutes a legal risk. In contrast, in these jurisdictions, unpaid WIL students generally retain ownership of their IP, unless the host and student agree otherwise. There is an ethical risk, particularly in highly competitive tertiary environments for WIL placements, that the student may feel compelled to assign their IP rights, lest they lose a coveted WIL opportunity and not appreciate the legal consequences of doing so (Cameron et al., 2020). Another legal risk, which is related to IP, is the unauthorized disclosure of confidential stakeholder information such as patient information and commercially sensitive information of the host (Cameron, 2017). Institutions and hosts should also be concerned about the legal risks that arise if a student suffers harm while undertaking a placement, whether it be physical, psychological, financial, or causes harm to another. Relevant harms could be caused by discrimination, physical abuse, bullying, harassment, theft, student incompetence or error, misuse of equipment, hazardous substances, as well as failure to provide reasonable adjustments or accommodations for students with a disability or medical condition when that is a legal requirement (Cameron, 2017). In many jurisdictions, whether the eventuation of a particular workplace harm creates a legal risk is dependent on whether the student is completing paid WIL, which often means they are an employee with a variety of legal workplace rights and protections, or unpaid WIL. For instance, protections against discrimination only extend to WIL participants in South Africa and Japan if they are employees (Stewart et al., 2018). Laws which prescribe workplace health and safety obligations and compensation for workplace injuries also vary across, and even within, jurisdictions such as Australia and the USA (Stewart et al., 2018). Finally, stakeholders are exposed to legal risk if they do not comply with education laws that apply to WIL. France, Argentina, Brazil, and Romania have introduced extensive regulation about WIL, with a variety of regulatory bodies and enforcement mechanisms in place (Stewart et al., 2018). For example, under French law only, WIL placements undertaken as a formal part of tertiary education are legal, and if a host breaches the mandatory WIL agreement between host, institution, and student, the student may be entitled to rights as an employee, and the host organization may be fined (Code de l’éducation, L124-17). In contrast, other 415

Craig Cameron et al.

jurisdictions have relatively ‘looser’ educational regulation of WIL (e.g., Australia; see Hewitt et al., 2018). Nonetheless, non-compliant institutions may be exposed to loss or limitation of accreditation. For example, the Office for Students (OfS) is an independent regulator in England empowered to review institution compliance with the regulatory regime, including ‘expectations’ and ‘core practices’ regarding work-based learning required by the UK Quality Code for Higher Education (Quality Assurance Agency, 2018).

Ethical risks An activity which is legal is not necessarily ethical practice. Ethical risk is an issue that is contrary to ethical practice, or presents a conflict between two or more characteristics of ethical practice (i.e., an ethical dilemma). Ethical practice is how WIL stakeholders should act in relation to others, and the characteristics underpinning ethical practice may include: care (or non-maleficence); adherence to rules; integrity (or ‘doing the right thing’); transparency (honesty, communication); and equity (fair treatment and equal opportunity) (Cameron et al., 2019; Cleak & Wilson, 2013). Professional bodies associated with an academic discipline may also prescribe standards of ethical practice that stakeholders can use to guide and evaluate their conduct. A summary of key ethical risks, arranged according to stakeholder responsibility, appears in Table 26.1. These are drawn from a catalogue of risks identified by Cameron (2017) and Cooper et al. (2010), as well as empirical studies in domestic and international WIL programs originating from Australia, Canada, India, Iran, Korea, Turkey, and the USA (Cameron et al., 2019). Significant sources of ethical risk relate to the workplace setting, student misconduct, and gatekeeping by academic staff who teach, coordinate, monitor, and assess WIL courses (the WIL practitioner).

Strategic risks Strategic risk is an issue that may affect a person’s ability to achieve their goals (Cassidy et al., 2001). While the WIL literature has prioritized a focus on the strategic risks for institutions (Cameron, 2017), students and hosts also have goals in relation to WIL (Effeney, 2020; Hewitt et al., 2018). Institutions are increasingly incorporating WIL as an integral component of academic courses because it can achieve strategic goals such as employability and the development of global citizens (Cameron, 2017; Effeney, 2020). Recognized strategic risks for institutions include the inability to find suitable WIL opportunities for students due to competition in particular disciplines or workplaces and hosts not offering a WIL placement (Cameron et al., 2020; Hay, 2018). Students can also be at risk of not achieving their goal of successful course completion, if appropriate WIL experiences are unavailable (Cooper et al., 2010; Hewitt et al., 2018). Inequity in the WIL environment is a significant strategic risk for students (Hewitt et al., 2018; Mackaway & Winchester-Seeto, 2018) and is especially relevant for Indigenous students (Gair et al., 2015; Mooney et al., 2020), and students with disabilities (Turcotte et al., 2016). Similarly, international students may confront barriers to securing WIL opportunities, including limited placement options (Cameron et al., 2019), delays in legal processes to obtain permits to complete WIL (Turcotte et al., 2016), and hosts’ reluctance to engage international students. Without a WIL experience, students’ prospects of securing employment, obtaining a work permit, and permanent residency may suffer (Cameron et al., 2019). Financial pressure on students can also limit students’ ability to fully engage in required WIL courses (Hewitt et al., 2018). From a host perspective, WIL 416

Risk management of work-integrated learning Table 26.1  Ethical risks in work-integrated learning Institution

Student

Host

WIL practitioner makes an exception to, or breaches, internal rules (e.g., prerequisite study or grade point average [GPA]), which enables the student access to WIL. WIL practitioner is pressured to place a student and/or to pass a student, or assigns passing grades to students who should have failed.

Inappropriate relationships or contact with a host supervisor or client/patient.

Diversion of limited resources from patients to supervision of students.

Workplace misconduct: theft, property misuse, forged timesheets, dishonesty, breach of confidentiality/privacy, harassment and abuse, passing off as qualified professional. Student does not disclose a relevant issue to a stakeholder (e.g., disability, academic) or to a patient/client (e.g., student status).

Student exposure to unethical conduct in the workplace: staff breaching patient confidentiality/ privacy, poor patient care, and misconduct.

A student with a criminal record, prior history of misconduct, or who is not competent is granted or denied access to WIL. WIL practitioner discloses/ fails to disclose a relevant issue (e.g., student disability).

Academic misconduct: plagiarism, not attending interviews, misrepresenting their experience and qualifications on résumés.

Institution makes misrepresentations to hosts about WIL program.

Actual or attempted revocation of an acceptance of a WIL offer, or termination of WIL placement and acceptance of employment with same host.

Student exposure to workplace hazards: hazardous substances, bullying, harassment, physical and verbal abuse, threats of violence and discrimination, host use of students as free labor. Student exposure to unsuitable learning environment: poor or no host supervision of the student, tasks not relevant to student’s discipline, or exceed their competence and training. Request that the institution select students for their consideration, or to screen students for them (e.g., high GPA).

participation can strengthen institutional relationships that may: lead to other shared initiatives (Cooper et al., 2010); be a method of employee recruitment (Hewitt et al., 2018); and produce strategic benefits associated with workforce and staff development (Hay, 2020). Students who are under-prepared for WIL or without the requisite skills or training to successfully complete the WIL placement, expose all stakeholders to strategic risk (Apaitia-Vague et al., 2011; Cooper et al., 2010).

Reputational risks Reputational risk is an issue that affects the image, brand, standing, or public perception of the institution, host organization, and potentially the specific WIL program in which the student is enrolled. This risk is generally a consequence of the stakeholder failing to manage another risk type (Cassidy et al., 2001). For example, there are reputational consequences for an institution and host organization when students are exposed to exploitative or unsafe work environments, or poor learning environments. The most common factors that are likely to impact on reputational risk for either the institution or the host include health and safety (e.g., risks of physical 417

Craig Cameron et al.

or psychological harm to student or client), conduct of the host organization (e.g., exploitation, poor quality learning experience), institutional conduct (e.g., poor stakeholder communication or preparation of student), and student characteristics and conduct (e.g., conduct/behavior, competence, breaches of confidentiality) (Cameron, 2017; Fleming & Hay, 2021). A range of reputational consequences may occur when WIL experiences ‘go wrong.’ The host’s reputation may be compromised in situations where health and safety standards are breached, and when this is reported back to the institution (Fleming & Hay, 2021). Students who do not have a quality WIL experience, or who are exploited (Cameron, 2018), may also raise concerns with either fellow students, the institution, or more widely, for example, through the media or on social media platforms. Such negative publicity may impact the institution’s ability to attract and retain students in the education program as well as the host’s ability to attract students for future employment. During a WIL placement, a student may damage the host’s reputation through their inability to undertake tasks to the level required or where there is inappropriate conduct, particularly if it is experienced by clients/patients. These scenarios may deter hosts from engaging with the institution in relation to WIL, or at all (Cameron et al., 2020). Similarly, the institution is exposed to reputational risk if students are ill-prepared for their WIL experience because: they do not understand the WIL learning objectives or outcomes; they have different expectations from the host or institution; or they do not have the competency to undertake the tasks on placement (Fleming & Hay, 2021). A student who subsequently fails the WIL course due to poor performance and/or misconduct may incur reputational damage impacting future WIL and employment prospects.

Operational risks In the context of WIL, operational risks are any issues that affect the day-to-day activities of the host, institution, or student necessary to achieve their respective goals (Ackley et al., 2007). These risks can occur before, during, or after placement and often relate closely to legal risk. A key operational risk for institutions is the resourcing of WIL programs, in particular ensuring appropriate levels of WIL practitioners and personnel from other institutional divisions (e.g., disability and equity services, legal office) who have the required skills and experience to effectively manage the day-to-day operations of WIL, as well as sufficient awareness of the legal frameworks relating to the WIL program including university policy, WIL agreements, and rules regarding curriculum design (or ‘legal literacy’) (Cameron, 2019). Excessive staff workload, limited access to legal services, and poor legal literacy are operational risks that may undermine the delivery of WIL programs (Cameron et al., 2020; Newhook, 2013). For instance, WIL practitioners who do not possess legal literacy may act in a way which breaches university policy (Cameron, 2019). Institutions are also reliant on the involvement of host organizations (Fleming et al., 2018). Where student demand for placements exceeds supply by hosts, this can create operational risks (Cameron, 2017), particularly when the WIL experience is a requirement for professional registration or graduation. WIL practitioners may expend their time and limited resources to source placements or accept placements, which may not meet the required WIL learning objectives, thereby exposing the institution to ethical and legal risks (Cameron et al., 2020). From a host perspective, operational risks arise through lack of clarity of communication among stakeholders. An understanding and alignment of expectations is important for successful WIL experiences (Fleming et al., 2018). Without proper communication by the

418

Risk management of work-integrated learning

institution, the host may not understand the learning-centric purpose of the WIL program and their obligations as co-educators with the institution (Cameron, 2019). Consequently, the host may not: provide suitable induction for the student; provide tasks which are aligned to WIL learning objectives; or ensure that there are host staff with appropriate qualifications and workload capacity to support and supervise the student. Students who are accepted into WIL programs without the requisite training and skills to complete workplace tasks or without appropriate preparation, such as induction/orientation by the host and institution, may impact the activities of all stakeholders once the students commence placement (Hay, 2020). Students’ poor performance and misconduct on placements impacts host operations and diverts WIL practitioner resources to managing the student and the host relationship. Finally, non-disclosure of a student’s disability or medical condition to the institution and/ or host creates operational risks, in that the host may not be able to provide the necessary accommodations for the student (Cameron et al., 2020; Turcotte et al., 2016). Without accommodations, students may be exposed to events or circumstances which place themselves and/ or clients at risk of harm (Newhook, 2016). Non-disclosure also creates complex legal issues around confidentiality, discrimination, and privacy, and the student experience may be compromised as a result (Cameron et al., 2020). Detrimental impacts on student wellbeing (physical, mental, social, financial) can also be described as an operational risk. When students are in a workplace learning environment, often away from their peers and the supports provided by the institution, there is a risk they will experience stress, anxiety, or loneliness (Gillett-Swan & Grant-Smith, 2018; Newhook, 2016).

Financial risks Financial risks are issues that affect the financial circumstances of stakeholders (assets, liabilities, and profits). WIL is resource-intensive for institutions, as well as for hosts, in terms of providing appropriate supervision and learning experiences for students. Institutions engage in extensive “planning, negotiating, organizing, facilitating, and modelling,” as well as maintaining relationships with industry partners, performing administrative tasks, and student support (Clark et al., 2016, p. 1056). The workload boundaries of WIL are also often much less constrained than traditional classroom-based study, limiting staff ‘down time’ between teaching periods (Rowe et al., 2014), which may impact staff wellbeing, with attendant financial costs such as lost productivity, staff leave, and turnover. The workload implications of WIL with associated financial implications have a bearing on the capacity of institutions to effectively manage risk in relation to WIL. In fact, government funding may be withheld if public institutions cannot demonstrate effective risk management practice (e.g., Australia; see Cameron, 2018). Further, the costs to institutions of managing legal risks or resolving them if they eventuate can be significant, including legal costs and staff time (Cameron, 2017). The financial capacity of students to complete WIL is an oft-cited financial risk (GillettSwan & Grant-Smith, 2018). Students undertaking WIL may incur additional costs (accommodation, transport, food), childcare and family expenses, and forego paid employment. The financial consequences are exacerbated if the placement is unpaid. Hosts, donors, and institutions may provide financial support to students to complete WIL in the form of scholarships, bursaries, or stipends. Ironically, hosts may be exposed to the financial risk of an unintended employment relationship, with attendant wage, leave, and taxation obligations, if the financial support is construed as remuneration indicative of an employment relationship (Cameron, 2018).

419

Craig Cameron et al.

Risk management framework Stakeholders can use a variety of practices to manage risk, including agreements, internal systems, education, training, and resources, internal and external collaboration, and relationship management with stakeholders. Each risk management practice is presented separately in this section, and collectively represent a risk management framework. Stakeholders are advised to evaluate these practices in conjunction with the laws of their jurisdiction which impact WIL, including labor and education law, as well as any rules prescribed by external professional or regulatory bodies. Failure to do so may expose the stakeholder to legal risk.

Agreements Agreements manage risks in WIL by documenting stakeholders’ relationships, intentions, rights, and obligations, providing clarity and transparency for stakeholders (Cooper et al., 2010). The WIL placement may be governed by more than one WIL agreement, prepared by the institution and/or host, and the agreement itself may be one-party (e.g., student IP Deed), bipartite, or tripartite (student–institution–host) (Cameron, 2019). In fact, the WIL agreement is a legal requirement in France and Brazil (by tripartite agreement), Argentina (which requires two bipartite agreements: host-student, host-institution), and Romania and Italy (bipartite: host-institution). The various laws in these jurisdictions seek to assure educational quality and minimize the risk of student exploitation by mandating key terms in a WIL agreement such as student tasks, WIL objectives and outcomes, student activities, placement duration, supervision, stakeholder obligations, and compensation (Hewitt et al., 2018; Stewart et al., 2018). Table 26.2 summarizes the key terms of a WIL agreement and is derived from international regulations prescribing agreement terms and WIL agreement templates produced by Australian institutions (Cameron, 2019). The WIL agreement consists of two parts: standard terms that can apply to all WIL placements, and information specific terms that apply to the WIL placement which can be presented in a schedule. An institution may prepare more than one WIL agreement template to cover specific WIL issues such as patient management in clinical placements, and IP for project-based placements.

Table 26.2  Work-integrated learning agreement Schedule

Standard terms

Compensation: amount and type (if any)

Confidentiality (disclosure and use) and privacy (handling of stakeholder information) Disciplinary procedures: stakeholder responsibility and communication, types and grounds for disciplinary action Dispute resolution procedures

Description of student activities/ work tasks Duration: start and end date of WIL placement Hours: total hours, weekly hours, and work hours/days Name, contact, address details of parties, including supervisors Number of students hosted on WIL placement WIL curriculum: course title, learning objectives and/or outcomes, assessment WIL placement location

Host reporting of critical incidents and serious misconduct to institution Host, student, and institution responsibilities Insurance type and coverage, and indemnities Legal relationships, e.g., host and institution do not have a partnership/joint venture/agency relationship Ownership and use of IP created by each stakeholder

420

Risk management of work-integrated learning

Standard terms that seek to manage more frequently cited legal risks around employment, IP, insurance, educational quality, indemnities, and due process (Cameron, 2019) include: • •

•

• •

If the student is remunerated, the host and student are to enter a separate contract of employment. A detailed list of stakeholder responsibilities, in particular: the delineation of responsibility for carrying insurance by type; stakeholders covered and level of cover; as well as the host’s responsibilities as co-educator including student induction, the provision of relevant activities, and appropriate supervision. Unless the student is employed or enters a separate IP deed assigning their IP to the host, the student owns any IP they create, and each party licenses their IP to the other for education (student) and business (host) purposes. The standard terms and IP deed should make explicit that the student is not prevented from using IP, or any confidential information, for submitting an assessment. The host cannot terminate the WIL placement, or require the institution to do so, without first notifying and/or consulting with the institution. Limiting the scope of an indemnity to the institution indemnifying the host for a negligent student and/or staff conduct, and the host indemnifying the institution for its possible negligence.

When drafting and negotiating the WIL agreement, institutions should ensure that WIL agreements are short and not overly legalistic, so as to facilitate host participation, and that institution lawyers are consulted before any verbal agreement or assurance is made about host agreements, or variations to the standard terms of an institution’s agreement. This minimizes many risks associated with poor contract practices by the institution (Cameron, 2019).

Internal systems Whether termed a practice, a policy, a procedure, a strategy, or by some other term, an internal system can manage risk and facilitate the delivery of high-quality WIL programs by institutions. Internal systems can manage issues of educational quality by assuring: • •

•

WIL is well-designed, with appropriate student induction/orientation, learning outcomes, and effective assessment of those outcomes (Cameron & Orrell, 2021); The suitability of hosts through due diligence, namely that they are properly resourced, able to offer a learning experience that will achieve the stipulated learning outcomes, and capable of supervising participants effectively (Cameron et al., 2020; Hay et al., 2019); The suitability of students for WIL, namely that there are no conduct or learning issues which prevent them from completing placements, such as disability or criminal convictions (Apaitia-Vague et al., 2011).

Internal systems also entail institutional or discipline-based processes to ensure ‘compliance with regulation by design.’ Developing internal processes to achieve compliance by design requires: •

Identifying external regulation relevant to WIL experiences. Because WIL is often touched upon by a number of sources of regulation, but rarely central to any, this can be a complex process, which may require the collaboration with other institutional divisions such as legal, disability and equity services, and insurance, as well as educational expertise. 421

Craig Cameron et al.

•

Ensuring internal processes include provision for completion of any checks and investigations required by regulation (e.g., Do students have any required clearances or insurance? Have all required agreements been completed?), data management systems (e.g., Where and how is information required by regulators about the host, student, WIL duration, and content stored?), and education and training for staff, students, and hosts (e.g., Are all parties aware of their legal obligations?).

However, a poorly designed, implemented, or supported internal system such as a WIL policy can lead to policy abstinence or ignorance (Hewitt et al., 2018). An effective policy ensures that compliance: is not overly burdensome or time-consuming; is sufficiently flexible to accommodate local idiosyncrasies (e.g., specific requirements of WIL placements required for admission to practice in a particular profession by an accrediting authority); and also ensures consistent consideration of and response to critical regulatory, quality, and ethical issues. Each institution should aim to have in place policies and risk management processes which satisfy these goals and are consistently applied across the institution. Finally, it is desirable to achieve a virtuous regulatory circle. That is, a system which not only achieves the desired response or outcome (delivery of high-quality WIL which is compliant with all relevant regulation) but also forms a cycle of continuous improvement (Freiberg, 2017). This requires development and utilization of a feedback loop in which information about performance and outcomes is linked to revision and enhancement of the system.

Education, training, and resources Education, training, and resources are critical risk management practices that can improve stakeholders’ ‘risk literacy,’ namely their understanding of risks related to WIL, risk management responsibility, and internal systems for managing risk (Cameron & Orrell, 2021). Many larger institutions have dedicated risk, health and safety, insurance, and legal personnel who should provide appropriate WIL support and resources for internal risk management systems. However, a study undertaken in New Zealand universities (Fleming & Hay, 2021) found that WIL practitioners were more likely to seek advice about risk from their WIL colleagues, with very few consulting specialist institution staff. This suggests that a disconnect within institutions may exist, and WIL practitioners should be made aware of staff from other institutional divisions who can provide information and resources on matters such as WIL agreements, insurance, legal compliance, risk-audit tools, and risk management responsibilities (Cameron et al., 2020). Pre-placement preparation of the host is a key strategy for minimizing operational risks. Handbooks, videos, templates (including WIL agreements), and other resources can clarify an institution’s expectations and host responsibilities. Student participation in a real workplace setting that they may not have encountered previously exposes students to significant risk of harm (Newhook, 2016). Effective risk management involves institutions educating students, as part of their induction, about workplace health and safety laws and compliance, risks specific to their discipline and/or workplace, as well as processes for incident reporting. Student education should extend to professional conduct and behaviors expected of them, including privacy and confidentiality, intellectual property, and bullying and harassment. Student conduct guidelines provide a useful resource to help raise awareness of their responsibilities and professional expectations (Hay & Fleming, 2021). Education can also raise student awareness about the importance of disclosing any disability or medical condition that impacts their participation in WIL, namely the institution and host can make reasonable adjustments to the WIL program 422

Risk management of work-integrated learning

which minimizes risks to themselves and others, and maximizes their prospects of successfully completing the WIL placement (Cameron et al., 2020). Good workplace supervision or mentoring is critical to a quality WIL experience (Fleming, 2015), while poor supervision can create strategic, reputational, legal, and operational risks (Cameron et al., 2020). Ideally, the institution should provide resources that include the principles of adult teaching and learning and good supervision practices, along with ongoing support as part of the WIL relationship. Alumni who have been through a similar WIL experience themselves can take on the role of ‘super mentors’ (Martin et al., 2019), assisting others in the workplace to understand what constitutes a quality student learning experience. Ideally, the institution should also gain feedback from WIL students. Student evaluation of WIL during placement can identify areas in need of improvement, such as host supervision, so that additional support and training can be provided.

Internal collaboration Internal WIL stakeholders include: WIL practitioners; administrators who support WIL practitioners with managing host relationships and holding WIL-related events; institution lawyers who provide legal advice and consult on internal systems; and risk or health and safety managers who are responsible for ensuring risks are mitigated or managed and the safety and wellbeing of all parties are protected. Disability, counseling, and international services may also engage in WIL regarding individual students or pre-placement teaching relating to areas such as diversity, stress management, and self-care (Dodds et al., 2021). WIL communities of practice in an institution provide a forum for all internal WIL stakeholders to collaborate, deepen their knowledge of WIL activities, strengthen existing internal systems, and facilitate teaching and research partnerships. Advocacy for identified needs can be an important role for such groups. It might be expected that collaboration between members of an institution community to ensure sustainable, quality WIL is commonplace. Unfortunately, the traditional structure of institutions has generally led to silos, or “disciplinary fiefdoms” (Crump & Johnsson, 2011, p. 288), with disciplines working independently of one another and of other institution divisions such as insurance and legal. Given the growing emphasis on WIL as a strategic opportunity, a number of institutions, including the University of New South Wales in Australia, University of Waikato in New Zealand, and the University of Waterloo in Canada, have a dedicated WIL unit that facilitates cooperation across disciplines and provides centralized administration and research. This visible structure enables stakeholders to have a central point of contact for WIL activity, which can minimize operational risks associated with communication breakdown and poor contract practices, as well as improve the legal literacy of WIL practitioners (Cameron, 2019; Cameron et al., 2020). Positive relationships within the institution can facilitate the quality assurance of WIL. For example, WIL practitioners can develop their legal and ethical literacy regarding WIL (Cameron, 2019; Dodds et al., 2021) and better understand the ramifications for students entering unsafe host organizations or engaging in unsafe activities (Turcotte et al., 2016). Lawyers may learn the nuances of WIL across disciplines and then offer bespoke legal advice (Cameron, 2019). WIL practitioners can be given the opportunity to review relevant health and safety and risk policy, thereby adding value to discipline-specific practices as well as raising awareness about potential ethical and legal risks (Dodds et al., 2021). Duplication of effort across the WIL enterprise in the institution can also decrease through collaborative endeavors (Turcotte et al., 2016). 423

Craig Cameron et al.

External collaboration External collaboration is a lynchpin for maximizing the opportunities of WIL and minimizing its hazards. Several external partners can be identified in the WIL environment. Host organizations are a key stakeholder with institutions relying on them for the provision of appropriate learning opportunities for students (Cooper et al., 2010). Their role includes being a source of knowledge (Fleming & Haigh, 2017) and gatekeepers to a course or profession (Mackaway & Winchester-Seeto, 2018). The host supervisors in these organizations have four key roles: support, education, administration/management, and guardianship (Winchester-Seeto et al., 2016). Professional associations relevant to academic disciplines delivering WIL programs and institution divisions (e.g., legal and insurance), as well as WIL-based associations, enable WIL stakeholders to educate and collaborate on risk management. For example, social work WIL networks in Australia and New Zealand: facilitate collaboration across multiple-institution WIL programs; develop best practice guidelines; and consult with regulatory and accrediting bodies (Rollins et al., 2017). WIL-based associations have gathered momentum since the 1970s (Hansford & Stonely, 2011; Patrick & Kay, 2011). The World Association for Cooperative Education (WACE) has an active membership of global partners, institutions, and national associations with a vision to stimulate debate, showcase best practice, and foster networks in WIL (Hansford & Stonely, 2011). It facilitates global professional development opportunities and significantly, in 2019, implemented a Global WIL Charter (Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019). National WIL associations have a pivotal role in promoting and developing WIL good practice, advocacy, and professional development (Patrick & Kay, 2011). For example, the Australian Collaborative Education Network in Australia and CEWIL Canada facilitated online forums in 2020 following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. These meetings enabled WIL practitioners to exchange ideas and develop risk management practices.

Stakeholder relationship management Relationship management facilitates the achievement of stakeholders’ goals in relation to WIL and is a strategy that underpins the management of ethical risk (Dodds et al., 2021), as well as strategic, legal, and reputation risks (Cameron et al., 2020). Key relationships include student and institution, student and host organization, and institution and host. Fleming et al. (2018) identified several critical factors that influence the success of stakeholder management in the Canadian, New Zealand, and Australian contexts. Their framework signals that sustainable relationships are founded on commitment, compatibility, and communication which incorporate trust, expectations, reciprocity, coordination, vision, learning, resources, reputation, and recognition. Trust within the institution–student relationship is essential when WIL practitioners match students to suitable placements (Hay, 2020). Mutual trust between the institution and the host organization is necessary so that there is reassurance the student is well-prepared, suitable, and ready to learn, and the learning environment, in turn, will enable student learning (Fleming et al., 2018). A well-designed and effectively administered curricula and pre-placement process (Henderson & Trede, 2017), including assessment of specific student needs, such as a disability (Apaitia-Vague et al., 2011; Cameron et al., 2020), is therefore important. These strategies contribute to the development of goodwill between stakeholders (Henderson & Trede, 2017). Understanding the parameters and expectations of the WIL experience means each stakeholder can fulfill their responsibilities, enabling relevant learning objectives to be achieved 424

Risk management of work-integrated learning

(Dodds et al., 2021). Appropriate pre-placement screening and preparation of the student and the host organization as well as clear guidelines (Hay, 2020), placement visits (Groenewald, 2009), and post-placement debriefing (Agnew et al., 2017) are useful relationship management strategies. Recognition of the mutual benefits of WIL leads to a sense of reciprocity between WIL stakeholders and enhances the collaborative endeavor (Maertz Jr. et al., 2014). If the relationships become unbalanced, dissatisfaction may jeopardize current WIL success and limit the possibility of future opportunities, which is a strategic risk (Cameron et al., 2020). Effective coordination and adequate resourcing of WIL through a collaborative governance process may enhance confidence across stakeholder relationships (Henderson & Trede, 2017). Host organizations, for example, should be ready for the arrival of the student, provide access to necessary technological or discipline-specific resources including supervision (Hay et al., 2019), and establish a suitable learning environment (Cooper et al., 2010). Successful WIL experiences not only enable the vision or goals of WIL to be met but also have reputational benefits for all stakeholders (Fleming et al., 2018; Soffi et al., 2020). Students have increased chances of employment following a positive WIL experience (Maertz Jr. et al., 2014) and supportive hosts can reasonably expect continuing relationships with institutions (Cameron et al., 2020). Quality assurance processes, including evaluations that lead to advancement in curriculum and placement systems, not only contribute to a virtuous regulatory circle to manage risk, but may also assist with the maintenance of positive stakeholder relationships.

Conclusion This chapter has explored the legal, ethical, strategic, reputational, operational, and financial risks to institutions, students, and host organizations that may impact WIL programs, and offered a framework of suggested practices and methods to manage risk. Stakeholders are encouraged to use this chapter as an education resource to improve the risk literacy of WIL participants, a tool to evaluate and improve existing risk management frameworks, and a starting point for collaborating with stakeholders to identify risks specific to their WIL program, being step 1 of the risk management process. Whilst this chapter has focused on actions to manage existing risks (step 3), elements of the risk management framework can be applied by stakeholders to identify new and emerging risks in WIL. For instance, internal systems such as institution policy and risk registers can require academic disciplines and institution divisions to profile risks, providing timely information about new risks for access by stakeholders across the institution. Internal and external collaboration through formal mechanisms such as WIL communities of practice, conferences, and seminars can build risk literacy through the sharing of emerging risks that may impact WIL programs. The intelligence gained about new risks can be incorporated in education, training, and resources at a discipline and institution level for communication to all relevant WIL stakeholders, who are then able to assess the risk and take actions to manage the risk as part of their overall risk management framework.

References Ackley, S., Adams, M., Crickette, G., Eick, C., Finch, L., Freeman, R., Bonney, H., Langsdale, G., Lark, C., Shew Holland, E., & Unks, R. (2007). ERM in higher education. University Risk Management and Insurance Association. Agnew, D., Pill, S., & Orrell, J. (2017). Applying a conceptual model in sport sector work-integrated learning contexts. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(3), 185–198. Apaitia-Vague, T., Pitt, L., & Younger, D. (2011). ‘Fit and proper’ and fieldwork: A dilemma for social work educators? Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 23(4), 55–64.

425

Craig Cameron et al. Cameron, C. (2016). Work integrated learning: A study of risk management by university lawyers (Doctoral thesis, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia). Griffith University. https://research-repository.griffith.edu. au/handle/10072/366441\ Cameron, C. (2017). The strategic and legal risks of work-integrated learning: An enterprise risk management perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(3), 243–256. Cameron, C. (2018). The student as inadvertent employee in work-integrated learning: A risk assessment by university lawyers. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 337–348. Cameron, C. (2019). Risk management by university lawyers in work integrated learning programs. Monash University Law Review, 45(1), 29–69. Cameron, C., Ashwell, J., Connor, M., Duncan, M., Mackay, W., & Naqvi, J. (2020). Managing risks in work-integrated learning programmes: A cross-institutional collaboration. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 10(2), 325–338. Cameron, C., Dodds, C., & Maclean, C. (2019). Ethical risks in work-integrated learning: A study of Canadian practitioners. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 83–95. Cameron, C., & Orrell, J. (2021). Governance and risk management. In S. Ferns, A. Rowe and K. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future. Routledge. Cassidy, D., Goldstein, L., Johnson, S., Mattie, J., & Morley, J., Jr. (2001). Developing a strategy to manage enterprisewide risk in higher education. NACUBO. https://www.nacubo.org/-/media/Nacubo/ Documents/business_topics/enterprisewide_risk.ashx Clark, L., Rowe, A., Cantori, A., Bilgin, A., & Mukuria, V. (2016). The power dynamics and politics of  survey design: Measuring workload associated with teaching, administering and supporting work-integrated learning courses. Studies in Higher Education, 41(6), 1055–1073. Cleak, H. M., & Wilson, J. (2013). Making the most of field placement (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning. Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning: A guide to effective practice. Taylor & Francis Group. Crump, S., & Johnsson, M.C. (2011). Benefits of co-operative and work-integrated education for educational institutions. In R.K. Coll and K.E. Zegwaard (eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 287–296). World Association for Cooperative Education. DLA Piper. (n.d.). Intellectual property in employment context. March 23, 2021, https://www.dlapiperintelligence. com/goingglobal/intellectual-property/index.html?t=employment-context Dodds, C., Cameron, C., & Maclean, C. (2021). Ethical risk management in co-operative education programs. Canadian Journal of Career Development, 20(1), 4–20. Effeney, G. (2020). Risk in work integrated learning: A stakeholder centric model for higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(4), 388–403. Fleming, J. (2015). Exploring stakeholders’ perspectives of the influences on student learning in cooperative education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(2), 109–119. Fleming, J., & Haigh, N. J. (2017). Examining and challenging the intentions of work-integrated learning. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 7(2), 198–210. Fleming, J., McLachlan, K., & Pretti, T. J. (2018). Successful work-integrated learning relationships: A framework for sustainability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 321–335. Fleming, J., & Hay, K. (2021). Understanding the risks in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(2), 167–181. Freiberg, A. (2017). Regulation in Australia. Federation Press. Gair, S., Miles, D., Savage, D., & Zuchowski, I. (2015). Racism unmasked: The experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in social work field placements. Australian Social Work, 68(1), 32–48. Gillett-Swan, J., & Grant-Smith, D. (2018). A framework for managing the impacts of work-integrated learning on student quality of life. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(2), 129–140. Groenewald, T. (2009). Lessons derived from a work-integrated learning monitoring pilot at a distance higher education institution. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 10(2), 75–98. Hansford, M., & Stonely, P. (2011). WACE, the global network of networks: Advancing cooperative and work-integrated education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 381–386). World Association of Cooperative Education. Hay, K. (2018). “There is competition”: Facing the reality of field education in New Zealand. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Journal, 30(2), 16–27.

426

Risk management of work-integrated learning Hay, K. (2020). What is quality work-integrated learning?: Social work tertiary educator perspectives. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(1), 51–61. Hay, K., & Fleming, J. (2021). Keeping students safe: Understanding the risks for students undertaking work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(4), 539–552. Hay, K., Maidment, J., Ballantyne, N., Beddoe, L., & Walker, S. (2019). Feeling lucky: The serendipitous nature of field education. Clinical Social Work Journal, 47(1), 23–31. Henderson, A., & Trede, F. (2017). Strengthening attainment of student learning outcomes during work-integrated learning: A collaborative governance framework across academia, industry and students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(1), 73–80. Hewitt, A., Owens, R., & Stewart, A. (2018). Mind the gap: Is the regulation of work-integrated learning in higher education working? Monash University Law Review, 44(1), 234–266. Mackaway, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2018). Deciding access to work-integrated learning: Human resource professionals as gatekeepers. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(2), 141–154. Maertz, C. P., Jr., Stoeberl, P. A., & Marks, J. (2014). Building successful internships: lessons from the research for interns, schools, and employers. Career Development International, 19(1), 123–142. Martin, A. J., Rees, M., Fleming, J., Zegwaard, K., & Vaughan, K. (2019). Work integrated learning (WIL) gone full circle: How prior work placement experiences influenced workplace supervisors. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(3), 229–242. Mooney, H., Dale, D., & Hay, K. (2020). Quality social work placements for Māori social work students. Te Komako, 32(3), 54–76. Newhook, R. (2013). Perceptions of risk in co-operative education. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 47(1), 78–93. Newhook, R. (2016). Are university co-operative education students safe? Perceptions of risk to students on work terms. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 46(1), 121–137. Patrick, C.-J., & Kay, J. (2011). Establishing a new nationwide network for promoting cooperative and work-integrated education. In R.K. Coll and K.E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 371–380). World Association for Cooperative Education. Pretti, J., Etmanski, B., & Durston, A. (2020). Remote work-integrated learning experiences: Student perceptions. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 401–414. Quality Assurance Agency. (2018). UK quality code for higher education advice and guidance: Work-based learning. Quality Assurance Agency. Rollins, W., Egan, R., Zuchowski, I., Duncan, M., Chee, P., Muncey, P., Hill, N., & Higgins, M. (2017). Leading through collaboration: The national field education network. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 19(1), 48–61. Rowe, A., Clark, L., Bilgin, A., & Cantori, A. (2014). “The only rule is that there are no rules”: Understanding the impact of WIL on staff workload. In K. Moore (ed.), Work integrated learning: Building capacity futures – Proceedings of the 2014 ACEN National Conference (pp. 37–40). Australian Collaborative Education Network Limited. Soffi, M. N. E., Mohamad, S. F., & Ishak, F. A. C. (2020). Challenges to achieving a successful hospitality internship program in Malaysian public universities. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 10(4), 12–24. Stewart, A., Owens, R., Hewitt, A., & Nikoloudakis, I. (2018). The regulation of internships: A comparative study. International Labour Organization Employment Working Paper No. 240. https://www.ilo.org/ employment/Whatwedo/Publications/working-papers/WCMS_629777/lang--en/index.htm Turcotte, F., Nichols, L., & Philipps, L. (2016). Maximizing opportunity, mitigating risk: Aligning law, policy and practice to strengthen work-integrated learning in Ontario. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Winchester-Seeto, T., Rowe, A., & Mackaway, J. (2016). Sharing the load: Understanding the roles of academics and host supervisors in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(2), 101–118. Zegwaard, K. E., & Rowe, A. S. (2019). Research-informed curriculum and advancing innovative practices in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 323–334.

427

27 UNDERSTANDING THE NATIONAL CONTEXT OF WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING Philip S. Rose Introduction There is sparse work in the field of work-integrated learning (WIL) that explicitly situates it within a given national context. This is particularly true for WIL research conducted in Western contexts, which is frequently carried out and interpreted with the implicit assumption that the knowledge generated is transferable across global contexts, without adaption or explicitly addressing any relevant national boundary conditions impacting the findings. This practice is not unique to the field of WIL, as an underlying presumption regarding the universal applicability of research across contexts is the prevailing approach in much work within the social sciences. This practice is driven by the traditional objective of scientific research to develop generalized theories, which can explain and predict phenomena independent of context (Hempel, 1965). The objective of developing generalizable theories in the social sciences has resulted in a norm of transplanting generalizations often rooted in the United States and other Western nations’ experiences to other global contexts (Hantrais, 1999). However, this non-contextualized approach to the investigation of socially based phenomena has become an increasingly contentious practice (Tsui, 2004; Whetten, 2009). Accordingly, the exporting of WIL knowledge generated in a small number of largely Western national contexts has been highlighted as a problematic practice in the field of WIL (Zegwaard, 2019). The transition of WIL research from a universal to a more contextualized approach is neither uncontentious nor simple. Firstly, on a philosophical level, WIL researchers at minimum are required to become more cognizant of their underlying epistemological position(s) relative to the emic (Indigenous) versus etic (universal) research debates (Kim & Berry, 1993). More specifically: Is the overarching goal of their work to develop generalized theories, which can universally explain and predict WIL phenomena, independent of context (context-free)? Conversely: Is the goal to interpret WIL phenomena as embedded within a national context and, consequently, producing WIL knowledge with cautious generalizability across global contexts (context-bound)? The conscious recognition of one’s epistemological assumptions underpinning a given WIL research project has significant cascading implications for the research questions asked, methods selected, and the implications, both practical and theoretical, that will ultimately be derived from a given research project. 428

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-31

Understanding the national context

Secondly, the process of developing a higher degree of contextual awareness also requires researchers to situate their research relative to convergence versus divergence paradigms for viewing the process of globalization. WIL researchers ascribing to the global convergence paradigm are guided by an underlying assumption that the inevitable pressures of global economic competition will eventually override national differences, creating a more homogeneous global context of WIL practices (Eisenstadt, 1973). WIL researchers consciously or unconsciously ascribing to the convergence view believe that, although nationally embedded models of WIL may exist, ultimately the most successful WIL models will rise to prominence and be emulated across national contexts. This will endorse a context-free approach to WIL research, which seeks to develop competing models of WIL, from which stronger models will evolve and gradually be refined to serve as generalizable global benchmarks for WIL practice. Conversely, researchers more closely aligned with the global divergence paradigm take the view that resilient distinctions between national contexts will persist despite the pressures of globalization (Whitley, 1999). Thus, these researchers will seek to expand and reflect on the unique elements of national contexts that shape WIL. Hence, they advocate that a global one-size-fits-all approach to the practice of WIL is neither a desirable nor a realistic objective, as, despite the forces of globalization, WIL to a degree will continue to be bound by a given national context. I do not endeavor to persuade WIL researchers to take an ideological, nor concrete, position relative to emic versus etic epistemological debates, nor do I assert whether they should prescribe global convergence versus divergence paradigms, as ultimately the decisions to be context-free or context-bound should be made on a case-by-case basis. Rather, my objective is to act as a catalyst for discussion towards a more context-sensitive conceptualization of WIL research. Firstly, I seek to provide a shared understanding of national context for WIL researchers, by building on the definition of context as “the set of factors surrounding a phenomenon that exert some direct or indirect influence on it” (Whetten, 2009, p. 31) by proposing a multi-level framework for analytical integration of these contextual factors into WIL research. This conceptualizes WIL as being simultaneously nested within three interdependent levels of national context; namely the macro-level (i.e., national economy and culture), the mezzo-level (i.e., organization and industry), and the micro-level (i.e., individual actors).

Work-integrated learning’s macro-level context Within a multi-level framework for contextual analysis, the macro-level is the highest contextual level within which WIL is situated. The macro-level is broadly defined as the national state level, including factors such as culture, history, political systems, economic systems, and stage of economic development. Although conceptually the macro-level is the highest level, it is important to emphasize that the macro-level of context will not always affect lower-level WIL phenomena in a top-down manner, as contextual factors within this framework may also act on each other across levels, in a bottom-up directionality or in a recursive fashion (Hitt et al., 2007).

Macro-economic context A nation’s macro-economic system is intertwined with its political system and is defined as a nation’s prevalent system for making decisions related to production, resource allocation, and consumption. For categorization purposes, national macro-economic contexts can be situated along a continuum relative to which stakeholders take the primary role in making these 429

Philip S. Rose

decisions. For instance, at one end, the state plays the dominant role in making these decisions and, at the other extreme, these decisions are largely delegated to the market. Hence, in the former context, the state will be directly involved in shaping WIL towards alignment with the state’s broader macro-economic objectives, whereas in the latter, industry stakeholders will play the dominant role in shaping WIL towards achievement of their market-based objectives. More specifically, in a market-driven relatively free-market macro-economic context, the outcomes of WIL programs may largely be catered to meeting individual industry employer’s needs, such as organizational effectiveness and profitability. Therefore, the state’s role in WIL has been at a distance, via providing more general education and broad certification systems. Although, no national context is a pure free-market, the USA globally is regarded as a relative free-market context, and thus can serve as an illustrative example of how WIL may evolve towards serving more market-based objectives. For instance, in this economic setting, large corporations with a dominant market position, such as Fortune 500 companies, have taken a primary role in defining the modern internship in the USA; internships were historically associated with medical students in that country. However, today, internships have evolved to be a principal employment entry point for graduates across a range of professional occupations (National Association of College and Employers (NACE), 2018). For instance, industry leaders in employment practices such as J.P Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Hewlett Packard have a tradition of employing up to 80% of new entry-level employees via their internship programs (Gerdes, 2009; Watson, 1995). Within such free-market contexts, the utility of WIL programs may be conceptualized via their contribution to the host organization’s competitive advantage, in terms of an internship/co-op’s ability to supplement an existing workforce with an inexpensive and usually highly motivated source of labor, whilst concurrently reducing training costs, or as a cost-effective means to complete special projects (Brooks & Greene, 1998; Coco, 2000). The host organization’s return on investment is derived from a WIL program’s ability to recruit, screen, select, and train future generations of employees (Barr & McNeilly, 2002; Beenen & Mrousseau, 2010; Rose et al., 2014). A second classification of national macro-economic contexts is referred to as the corporatist economic system (Thorhallsson, 2010). In these systems, the state and other players, such as employee unions, are more active in moderating the relationship between labor and industry, including their involvement in education, workplace training, and the socialization of new employees. For example, unlike the USA, the Danish and German economic contexts are dominated by small and medium enterprises (SMEs), coupled with high levels of employee unionization across industrial sectors, and a history of collaboration between industry and labor rather than the more adversarial relationship between these parties, which is a more prevalent norm in relatively free-market contexts (Nielsen, 1998). Therefore, in these macro-economic contexts, industry and unions traditionally work in tandem to structure and regulate all forms of workplace training with limited legislative intervention. For instance, the role, conditions, and employment status of WIL participants within the workplace will be controlled relative to unionized regular employee’s interests, rather than driven by the market demands related to an industry or organization. Therefore, within such contexts, WIL programs seeking to develop workplace skills in response to market and industry demands may face constraints, as unions often have vested interests in maintaining workplace training and occupational specializations tied tightly to apprenticeship systems. As such, unions may resist the encroachment of WIL into training and jobs, which potentially challenges traditional demarcations in workforce skill sets tied to unionized labor. Under a third macro-economic context, known as the developmental state or state-directed economy, the state plays a more direct role influencing the trajectory of economic 430

Understanding the national context

development, through strong interventionist policies influencing the structure of industrial production and the composition of the labor force. For example, in the case of Singapore, the state mandates required graduate skill sets at a national level in line with their long-term forecasts of industry labor demand, which dictate individual major discipline student quotas for public higher education providers (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006). The Singaporean state also exerts influence on industry, via the Productivity Standards Board and the National Skills Recognition system, which seeks to direct an industrial sector’s on-the-job training towards shifting the macro-economy into higher value-added sectors. Therefore, this endorses certain forms of WIL that align with these macro-level state objectives for the Singaporean economy. Other manifestations of the developmental state macro-economic context are South Korean and Japanese economies where traditionally the state deliberately directed large concentrations of capital and favorable policies towards support of megacorporations, in Japan zaibatsus (e.g., Mitsubishi and Toyota) or the Korean chaebols (e.g., Samsung and Hyundai). These policies were used as a means to achieve the national level macro-economic objective of rapid industrialization, in order to catch up with more developed industrialized economies. As a consequence, a small number of corporations dominate these countries’ modern economic landscapes, and thus serve as national exemplars for workplace best practices, including lifelong employment, in-house workplace training, and certifications. In recognition of the disproportionate role that chaebols play in the national economy and specifically graduate employment, the South Korean state’s policy has more recently sought to rebalance the national economy away from their dominance, with WIL being an endorsed component of this macro-economic policy. For instance, SMEs can receive government subsidies for wage costs for the internship period as well as grants, once workers are converted to regular employees with the SME. The intent of such state WIL policies is to better channel graduates into SMEs, which have traditionally been regarded as undesirable employers by graduates relative to chaebols (Kuczera et al., 2009). In addition, state funding programs for universities have also been tied to their efforts to improve linkages between education and industry. Accordingly, WIL is recognized by the state as a means by which to rectify a disjuncture between the contemporary supply of university graduates and the labor demands of the modern South Korean economy (Choi, 2017; Jung et al., 2004; Lim & Lee, 2019). It is important to note that the aforementioned macro-economic contexts are not static, but rather are dynamic, given that forces, including politics, stage-of-economic development, and globalization, require the continual adaption and evolution of a nation’s macro-economic context in response to these pressures. For instance, at different stages of economic development, different work skill sets may be prioritized by national economic policies. At the early stages of industrialization, there may be sharper distinctions between more practical vocational skills used in more labor-intensive manufacturing industries, rather than the professional skills regarded as the distinct domain of university education. However, as a nation’s workforce transitions into higher value-added production and service sectors, this distinction becomes blurred, as vocational skill sets move up the value chain and university curriculums incorporate more practical work-skill sets in response to industry demands. A transition that brings WIL programs to the forefront of higher education as a means by which to align graduate skill sets with evolving demands of industry, are driven by the economies’ advancement up the value-added ladder.

Macro-social-cultural context As previously mentioned, convergent national economic systems and/or stages of economic development allow for the grouping of WIL national contexts at a macro-level of analysis. 431

Philip S. Rose

However, a nation’s macro-social-cultural context also has the potential to exert influence on WIL, as research highlights persistent contextual cultural distinctions at a national level, independent of shared economic context (Hall, 1976; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Beugelsdijk et al., 2017; Van Dyne et al., 2010). Thus, a more context-sensitive approach to WIL requires addressing the underlying question: To what degree are WIL stakeholders’ motives and actions influenced by national culture? More precisely, to what degree do WIL actors share a common human nature across national contexts tied to their biological evolution, or to what extent have they evolved distinct characteristics from one another tied to their cultural contexts (Triandis, 1994)? Answering these questions first requires defining WIL’s cultural context. Hofstede’s (1980) seminal work defines culture as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others. Furthermore, Hofstede proposed the most widely used framework for the analysis of culture, as it applies to the workplace (Beugelsdijk et al., 2017; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Hofstede and Hofstede’s framework positions national cultural contexts along six cultural dimensions, namely power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus femininity, long-term versus short-term orientation, indulgence versus restraint, and individualism versus collectivism (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). As discussion of all these dimensions is beyond the scope of this chapter, a representative dimension of individualism versus collectivism will be utilized to draw illustrative distinctions between Eastern and Western macro-cultural contexts. In relatively collectivist contexts, such as Korea, China, and Japan, society is composed of tightly integrated relationships in multiple groups, and individuals define themselves relative to these groups. Whereas, in relatively individualistic cultural contexts such as North America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, individuals are more loosely tied to social groups, and thus define themselves as individuals distinct from the groups to which they belong. This contrasting conceptualization of the self has implications for WIL given the multiple intersecting group memberships that are involved in the practice of WIL, namely organizational department, workgroup, profession, vocation, host-organization, university, major discipline, and so on. Collectivism, as an analytical lens via which to view East Asian cultural contexts, cannot be decoupled from the region’s shared cultural heritage of Confucianism, which is intertwined with the distinctive East Asian brand of collectivism. Confucianism is of specific relevance to WIL, as traditional educational philosophies related to it manifest today in elitist hierarchical systems in East Asian countries, which clearly demarcate between groups whose skill sets and occupations are regarded as intellectual and those that are of a non-academic or vocational nature (Cooke, 2005; Shin, 2012). Within these contexts, the objective of academic education traditionally has been to produce a group of individuals who belong to an elite group, which possesses intellectual, humanistic, and moral superiority, rather than possessing narrowly defined applied skill sets associated with a particular occupation (Bodde, 1957). For instance, in South Korea, the acquisition of more practical work-related skills endorsed by WIL have historically been regarded as strictly the domain of lower status vocational training rather than academic university education (Goodman et al., 2009). Thus, graduation from a four-year academic degree program is the prerequisite qualification for a majority of white-collar occupations, irrespective of the qualification’s relevance to the actual work performed subsequent to graduation (Shin, 2012). In addition, within this cultural tradition, the prestige of a graduate’s university, and thus membership to an elite group in the social hierarchy, often supersedes the relevance of the graduate’s major and/or work-relevant experience for gaining employment (Chang, 2009). Thus, WIL programs, which integrate intellectual academic education with more work or specific skill sets, represent a nexus between 432

Understanding the national context

two culturally demarcated groups of employees, diverging from the cultural tradition of an occupational hierarchy based on academic exam-based achievement. The boundaries drawn between group memberships in collectivist cultures have further implications for WIL, as each WIL stakeholder is embedded within social networks, which are known to play a pervasive role across both social and economic spheres of life within East Asian cultural contexts (Bian, 1997; Chen et al., 2013; Luo et al., 2012). For example, in China, the culturally distinct form of social network practice, guanxi, embeds individuals in a social world intertwined with reciprocal relationships with corresponding obligations. Family relationships form the core of concentric circles of social networks, which can be leveraged to obtain favorable WIL placements and employment outcomes from these placements (Rose, 2020a). Furthermore, within the South Korean context, in a local variant of the social network, yonjul, individuals are automatically linked by the schools and universities they attend or by sharing other group commonalities such as hometowns (Singelis et al., 1995). Thus, during WIL work placements, yonjul obligations based on a shared alma mater university have been found to positively influence the quality and scope of mentoring received, independent of the formal host-organization designations of mentor and mentee (Rose, 2020b).

Work-integrated learning’s mezzo-level context The mezzo-level is the second level of national context within which WIL is nested, consisting of contextual factors at the organizational unit level, such as educational institution, workplace, industry, community, major, occupation, and industrial sector. The variance across nations in the educational institutional context is of particular relevance to WIL. For example, what constitutes the organizational unit bearing the label of ‘university’ is potentially not uniform across nations, in terms of their mission, organizational culture, history, longevity, perceived status, size, resources, student recruitment, admission procedures, governance, and funding. Furthermore, within universities, there are sub-units of mezzo-contextual analysis, including degree discipline, graduate, undergraduate, faculties, and colleges, which may shape WIL. In addition, variance in the organizational workplace side of WIL’s mezzo-context can differ across global contexts; for instance, in the prevalence and size of industrial sectors (e.g., resource extraction, labor-intensive manufacturing, high value-added manufacturing, and service sectors) and the composition and industry ownership structures (e.g., state-owned, domestic, international joint ventures and multinational corporations) – all these are additional mezzo-contextual factures that can play a potential role in shaping WIL. Despite the aforementioned potential for divergence in mezzo-level contexts globally, the dominant practice in WIL research has been to assume homogeny across national higher education institutional contexts. For example, WIL research conducted in US universities has commonly been presented as internationally transferable across institutions, without addressing any distinguishing characteristics of the organizational context from which the findings are derived. A superficial numerical analysis highlights the problematic nature of this assumed transferability. The US higher education sector is comprised of 2,828 institutions offering fouryear degrees, of which 30% are public institutions; only 3% of the universities in this context rank in the top 500 universities in the world (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019; Times Higher Education, 2021). In contrast, in the Australian WIL context, which comprises 42 domestic universities, two of these are private, with 70% of universities within the top 500 global ranks (Australian Trade and Investment Commission, 2021; Times Higher Education, 2021). These two distinct national mezzo-level contextual landscapes shape institutional values and missions of the institutions, and thus WIL within these institutions. For instance, in 433

Philip S. Rose

the USA, a larger total number of institutions creates greater diversity between individual university values and missions, whereas in the Australian context, institutional contexts may be relatively more homogeneous for the practice of WIL. For instance, in a more diverse educational institutional landscape such as the USA, there may be greater variance between more research-intensive universities, institutions which traditionally focus on developing the metacognitive capacity of graduates, compared to other universities which may focus on more work-related applied skills. There, in research intensive institutions, WIL may be more aligned with objectives associated with the commercialization of research, and strengthening linkages between research and industry, such as via business start-up incubators and entrepreneurships. On the other hand, in the same national context, other institutions may be more focused on the mission of enhancing undergraduate employment outcomes in specific occupational areas associated with their regional industry demands, facilitating integration between academic curricula and work placements with local industry. South Korea provides another distinct mezzo-level higher-education contextual backdrop for WIL, given it has the highest secondary school completion rates in the world, with 81% of these graduates progressing into 203 four-year universities, far surpassing other developed nations’ university graduation rates (OECD, 2018). The vast majority of these universities are private, with only a small percentage of prestigious ones classified as research-intensive by world standards (Times Higher Education, 2021). Furthermore, due to a mismatch between the large supply of university graduates and industry demands, South Korea has the highest graduate unemployment rates in the OECD (Statistics Korea, 2019). Government, university, and departmental performance metrics and incentives reflect this mission, subsequently pushing WIL to the forefront, given its potential to better facilitate the transition from university into employment (Rose, 2020b). The other side of WIL’s mezzo-context is the organizational workplace. For instance, the human resource management (HRM) function within organizations will play a key role in shaping WIL outcomes. It is acknowledged that HRM systems have evolved distinct national characteristics shaped by the interplay between mezzo- and macro-level contextual factors including culture, labor markets, economic, and legal systems (Mayrhofer & Brewster, 2005). For instance, in China the HRM function is shaped by the centrally planned economy era and a context where state-owned enterprises still play a large role in the economy. Therefore, HRM policies associated with WIL are not solely a response to organizational market objectives, but also to the central directives of the state (Warner, 2013). In South Korea, chaebols act as the national benchmarks for HRM best practices, including their own extensive systems of in-house workplace training and qualifications, which often supersede external educational provider programs, as qualifications for employment selection and promotion criteria (Rowley et al., 2004). For instance, a primary selection qualification for graduate employment at Samsung is to score on the Global Samsung Aptitude Test (GSAT), and examinations influenced by this employee selection practice exist across a range of employers in Korea (Chae & Chung, 2009). Thus, it is a common occurrence for students to spend at least two years pre- and post-university graduation preparing for such employment selection criteria, time in other national contexts that may be dedicated to WIL as a means to enhance employability (Rose, 2020b). Furthermore, South Korean organizations modeling chaebols HRM systems draw a sharp hierarchical distinction between employees’ status and conditions, particularly between regular/ permanent and non-regular employees on a fixed two-year term often with non-renewing contracts (Cooke & Jiang, 2017). Thus, within this context, the WIL participant’s employment status must also be situated in the organizational hierarchy, relative to regular and non-regular 434

Understanding the national context

employees. For instance, one established HRM practice is a form of internship completed after graduation. These interns are designated as ‘subcategory of non-regular employee,’ who may formally compete against other interns in order to transition into a limited number of regular employment positions post-completion of internship. During the internship, they may transition up the organizational hierarchy from ‘intern’ to ‘temporary employee in training,’ an intermediary step towards ‘regular/non-regular employee’ status. Furthermore, the prevalence of these contextually distinct forms of internships, coupled with a competitive graduate job market, have led to concerns regarding the exploitation of interns/trainees as cheap labor and calls for expanded legal protection for them (Kim & Jeon, 2015).

Work-integrated learning’s micro-level context The final level of contextual analysis is the micro-level, since, although individual WIL actors are embedded in higher macro- and mezzo-levels, these actors still possess individual microlevel agency. Thus, there is individual-level variance at both the surface and deep levels within a given national context, which will play a role in shaping WIL (Lund Dean and Jolly, 2012; Van Dijk et al., 2012). On a surface level, consideration can be given to the individual demographic characteristics of WIL participants. For instance, in East Asian contexts, undergraduate WIL participants will be relatively homogeneous in terms of educational background, age, nationality, and ethnicity. In contrast, Western nations have relatively diverse domestic populations, thus potentially more variance can be expected across these individual characteristics among WIL participants. An additional source of individual variation is large international student inflows, pre-pandemic, into national contexts such as the USA, Australia, and the United Kingdom, where a substantial proportion of WIL participants are non-domestic students (UNESCO, 2016). Thus, the degree of individual-level heterogeneity versus homogeneity amongst WIL participants differs across national contexts, which has implications for the degree to which WIL requires recalibration for the individual level, for instance, in terms of presumed shared first language background and/or cultural values. Such individual level factors may require the incorporation of unique micro-level nuances for specific national contexts, for instance all South Korean males complete two years of full-time compulsory military service, usually prior to university graduation and WIL participation. However, it remains unknown how, if at all, this may impact on the variance between genders taking part in WIL in the South Korean context. At the deeper level, micro-individual difference is also related to psychological and dispositional attributes, such as variance amongst WIL participants in terms of personality, values, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and cognitive abilities. These differences have the potential to override higher level contextual groupings of WIL participants at a macro-national or mezzo-organizational level. For instance, WIL studies have shown divergence from the traditional Chinese cultural norms amongst workers belonging to younger generational cohorts, in terms of displaying proactive dispositions in the workplace and in their preferences for less paternalistic forms of supervision, which were the cultural norm for preceding generations (Hofstede, 1991; Newman et al., 2016; Rose, 2016). Furthermore, research in China has reported the emergence of career attitudes amongst the younger generations toward independence, competition, and individuality, which more closely parallel those found in Western individuals’ contexts, than preceding generations of Chinese workers (Chen et al., 2010). Such nuances at a micro-level provide a cautionary note when approaching WIL research from higher-level lenses of contextual analysis, such as national culture, without consideration of individual level variance within a given national context. 435

Philip S. Rose

Conclusion Context can be incorporated in WIL research in a variety of different forms, and the movement from a context-free to a more context-sensitive approach to WIL research is neither a simple nor uncontroversial transition. The interrelated macro-, mezzo-, and micro-multilevel framework for national contextualization of WIL research, outlined in this chapter, is not intended to be a prescriptive template for WIL researchers, as the appropriate degree of contextualization, and the relevant contextual factors incorporated into a given WIL research project, if any, will ultimately depend on the research questions and objectives, coupled with the researcher’s disciplinary perspective and the empirical context of an individual research project. Rather, my intention is to act as a catalyst for more cognizant consideration of the potential role of national context when selecting WIL research topics, designing research, interpretation of results, and ultimately drawing implications from these results, rather than the predominant uncontextualized approach to WIL research. I have advocated that, at minimum, WIL researchers should be more conscious of the following questions and challenges for WIL research moving forward: • • •

• •

To what extent should their WIL research be conceptualized from a context-free versus context-bound vantage point? To what extent is the global convergence versus divergence paradigm an appropriate lens through which to view WIL across national contexts? What, if any, are the most salient factors of a national context at the macro-, mezzo-, and micro-levels which impact on WIL, and how do these levels interact with one another to shape WIL? How can heterogeneity at both the mezzo- and micro-levels within a given national context be better conceptualized and incorporated into WIL research? How can WIL contexts be conceptualized in a dynamic fashion to reflect continual change and adaption across national contexts?

Furthermore, the approach to research, advocated by these questions, has cascading implications for the practice of WIL internationally, as the incorporation of the role of macro-, mezzo-, and micro-levels of national context into WIL research facilitates a mechanism by which these contextual factors can be integrated into frameworks for WIL practice, for example McRae and Johnston’s (2016) Global WIL Framework and McRae et al.’s (2018) AAA* Framework. A more contextualized orientation in WIL research provides the prerequisite information to allow such frameworks to evolve in a more context sensitive manner, ultimately enhancing their applicability for practice across WIL’s global contexts.

References Australian Trade and Investment Commission. (2021). Universities and Higher Education. https://www. studyinaustralia.gov.au/english/australian-education/universities-higher-education/universities-andhigher-education Barr, T. F., & McNeilly, K. M. (2002). The value of students’ classroom experiences from the eyes of the recruiter: Information, implications, and recommendations for marketing educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(2), 168–173. Beenen, G., & Mrousseau, D. M. (2010). Getting the most from MBA internships: Promoting intern learning and job acceptance. Human Resource Management, 49(1), 3–22. Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2017). An overview of Hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in international business since 2006. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(1), 30–47.

436

Understanding the national context Bian, Y. (1997). Bringing strong ties back in: Indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. American Sociological Review, 62(3), 269–286. Bodde, D. (1957). China’ s cultural tradition: What and whither? Rinehart. Brooks, J. E., & Greene, J. C. (1998). Benchmarking internship practices: Employers report on objectives and outcomes of experiential programs. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 59(1), 37–48. Chae, C., & Chung, J. (2009). Pre-Employment Vocational Education and Training in Korea. [SP Discussion Paper No 0921]. The World Bank–Social Protection & Labor Chang, S. (2009). A cultural and philosophical perspective on Korea’s education reform: A critical way to maintain Korea’s economic momentum. Academic Paper Series on Korea, 3, 2. Chen, C. C., Chen, X.-P., & Huang, S. (2013). Chinese Guanxi: An integrative review and new directions for future research. Management and Organization Review, 9(1), 167–207. Chen, X., Bian, Y., Xin, T., Wang, L., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2010). Perceived social change and childrearing attitudes in China. European Psychologist, 15(4), 260. Choi, K. (2017). Why Korea’s youth unemployment rate rises. KDI Focus, 88. Coco, M. (2000). Internships: A try before you buy arrangement. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 65(1), 41–44. Cooke, F. L. (2005). Vocational and enterprise training in China: Policy, practice and prospect. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 10(1), 26–55. Cooke, F. L., & Jiang, Y. (2017). The growth of non-standard employment in Japan and South Korea: the role of institutional actors and impact on workers and the labour market. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 55, 155–176. Eisenstadt, S. N. (1973). Tradition, change and modernity. Wiley. Gerdes, L. (2009, September 14th). The best places to launch a career. BusinessWeek, 32–41. Goodman, R., Hatakenaka, S., & Kim, T. (2009). The changing status of vocational higher education in contemporary Japan and the Republic of Korea. Documents de travail UNESCO-UNEVOC (4). Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Doubleday. Hantrais, L. (1999). Contextualization in cross-national comparative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2(2), 93–108. Heijde, C. M. V. D., & Van Der Heijden, B. I. (2006). A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 45(3), 449–476. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. The Free Press. Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management journal, 50(6), 1385–1399. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill. Jung, T.-H., Misko, J., Lee, K., Dawe, S., Hong, S. Y., & Lee, K.-C. (2004). Effective measures for schoolto-work transition in the vocational education system: Lessons from Australia and Korea. National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Kim, U., & Berry, J. W. (1993). Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context. Sage. Kim, Y. B., & Jeon, J. Y. (2015). The youth labor market in Korea: Main characteristics and policy implication. Seoul. Kuczera, M., Kis, V., & Wurzburg, G. (2009). Learning for jobs OECD reviews of vocational education and training: Korea. OECD. Lim, J.-Y., & Lee, Y.-M. (2019). Exit duration and unemployment determinants for Korean graduates. Journal of Labour Market Research, 53(5), 1–14. Lund Dean, K., & Jolly, J. P. (2012). Student identity, disengagement, and learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 228–243. Luo, Y., Huang, Y., & Wang, S. L. (2012). Guanxi and organisational performance: A meta-analysis. Management and Organisation Review, 8(1), 139–172. McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 337–348. McRae, N., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2018). Work-integrated learning quality framework, AAA*. University of Waterloo, Centre for the Advancement of Cooperative Education.

437

Philip S. Rose Mayrhofer, W., & Brewster, C. (2005). European human resource management: researching developments over time. Management Review, 16(1), 36–62. National Association of College and Employers (NACE). (2018). 2018 Internship & co-op survey. http:// www.naceweb.org/Press/Releases/Intern_Hiring_Up_8_5_Percent.aspx?referal=knowledgecenter& menuid=109 National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Digest of Education Statistics. Newman, A., Rose, P. S., & Teo, S. T. T. (2016). The role of participative leadership in eliciting intern performance: Evidence from China. Human Resource Management, 55(1), 53–69. Nielsen, S. P. (1998). Identification, assessment and recognition of non-formal learning, the case of Denmark. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2018). Education at a glance 2018: OECD Indicators Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance2018_eag-2018-en Rose, P. (2020a). Guanxi social-network ties: Predicting graduate employment with internship hostorganisations in China. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 11(1), 81–92. Rose, P. S., Teo, S. T., & Connell, J. (2014). Converting interns into regular employees: The role of intern– supervisor exchange. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(2), 153–163. Rose, P. (2020b). Work-integrated learning in context: A South Korean perspective. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(2), 131–143. Rose, P. (2016). Interns proactively shaping their organizational experience: The mediating role of leader member exchange. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(3), 309–323. Rowley, C., Benson, J., & Warner, M. (2004). Towards an Asian model of human resource management? A comparative analysis of China, Japan and South Korea. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(4–5), 917–933. Shin, J. C. (2012). Higher education development in Korea: Western university ideas, Confucian tradition, and economic development. Higher Education, 64(1), 59–72. Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-cultural Research, 29(3), 240–275. Statistics Korea. (2019). Economically Active Population Survey in April 2019. http://kostat.go.kr/portal/eng/ pressReleases/5/2/index.board?bmode=list&bSeq=&aSeq=&pageNo=4&rowNum=10&navCount= 10&currPg=&searchInfo=&sTarget=title&sTxt= Times Higher Education. (2021). World university rankings 2021. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ world-university-rankings/2021/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/ cols/stats Thorhallsson, B. (2010). The corporatist model and its value in understanding small European states in the neo-liberal world of the twenty-first century: The case of Iceland. European Political Science, 9(3), 375–386. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. McGraw Hill. Tsui, A. S. (2004). Contributing to global management knowledge: A case for high quality indigenous research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21, 491–513. UNESCO. (2016). Global flow of tertiary-level students. http://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Livermore, D. (2010). Cultural intelligence: A pathway for leading in a rapidly globalizing world. Leading Across Differences, 4(2), 131–138. Van Dijk, H., Van Engen, M. L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 38–53. Warner, M. (2013). Understanding management in China: Past, present and future: Routledge. Watson, B. S. (1995). The intern turnaround. Management Review, 84( June), 9–12. Whetten, D. A. (2009). An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review, 5, 29–55. Whitley, R. (1999). Divergent capitalisms: The social structuring and change of business systems. OUP. Zegwaard, K. E. (2019). Cooperative education in the Asian region: Future development and direction. In Y. Tanaka & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Cooperative and work-integrated education in Asia: History, present and future issues. Routledge.

438

PART V

Topical challenges, opportunities, and future directions

28 PREPARING STUDENTS TO THRIVE IN WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING Theresa Winchester-Seeto and Anna D. Rowe

Introduction In the field of observation, chance favours only the prepared mind. (Pasteur, 1854)

Pasteur made the comment above about observational science, but it could equally apply to students undertaking work-integrated learning (WIL). The potential benefits of WIL are wellknown, but they do not automatically happen for every student for a variety of reasons, including their not knowing how to learn in an environment that is so different to the classroom, the uneven quality of WIL experiences, and emotional issues related to conflict or confronting situations. With careful preparation, students can find a way to not only survive, but thrive and maximize their learning from the WIL experience. Effective preparation can assist “students to take their learning beyond immediate outcomes to become more future-focused” (Rowe & Winchester-Seeto, 2022, p. 96). The need for, and importance of, thorough preparation has been highlighted by many authors (Billett, 2011; Rowe & Winchester-Seeto, 2022; Stirling et  al., 2016). It is cited as one of the six dimensions of Quality WIL (Smith et al., 2016), and features in many Quality Frameworks for WIL (Campbell et  al., 2019; McRae & Johnston, 2016; Winchester-Seeto, 2019). Despite its importance, most literature on preparation in WIL is practice-based and anecdotal (e.g., conference papers, abstracts, and case studies). Given the growing diversity of WIL models, the increase of WIL offerings more broadly, and a renewed focus on student wellbeing, it is important that stakeholders have “a shared understanding of good practice for student preparation for WIL” (Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019, p. 329). Effective preparation benefits students, partners, and universities. For students it “provides a foundation for positive learning experiences and facilitates a smooth transition to the workplace” (Cooper et al., 2010, p. 81). Specifically, it supports student learning and maximizes their learning outcomes (Billett, 2019; Rowe & Winchester-Seeto, 2022; Smith et al., 2016). When students are well prepared, hosting workplaces benefit through improved performance and reduced supervisory needs, particularly when contact between supervisors and students may be limited (Jackson et al., 2015). For universities, it can mean less troubleshooting by academic DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-33

441

Theresa Winchester-Seeto and Anna D. Rowe

supervisors, more enjoyable and productive experiences for students, and a stronger foundation for ongoing sustainable relationships and effective WIL programs (Grace & O’Neil, 2014). Zegwaard and Rowe (2019) draw attention to the “continued debate on what constitutes good practice in preparation and what would suffice as good minimum preparation” (p. 329). In reality, the type and extent of preparation offered to students will be influenced by a number of factors including the purpose of the WIL activity and the type of WIL model, such as its duration (e.g., long-term placement, short-term project, simulation), discipline, and its positioning within the degree program (e.g., third year versus first year). This chapter will discuss three approaches for preparing students, three areas of preparation for WIL activities, as well as strategies for preparation. In addressing these areas, a comprehensive review of the related international literature (conceptual, empirical, and practice-based) traversing multiple disciplines and types of WIL will be provided.

Approaches to preparing students There are three main approaches used for preparing students, although combinations and hybrids are also employed (Figure 28.1). • • •

Across program approach: preparation is spread throughout the degree program by embedding WIL learning activities in the curriculum. Front-loading approach: intensive preparation occurs immediately prior to undertaking the WIL activity, often in the form of workshops or companion courses/subjects. Iterative preparation approach: preparation occurs before the WIL activity and continues throughout; it is synchronized with the stage of student development and/or the phase of the WIL activity.

Across program approach This strategy features scaffolded WIL and WIL-related experiences spread across the entire degree program, intended to “gradually introduce students to their relevant graduate industry sector/s, building up to more authentic and complex learning opportunities” (Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019, p. 328). The term ‘scaffolding’ refers to a “constructed sequence of learning Just before WIL Activity

Degree Program

WIL Activity

Across Program Preparation

Front-Loading Preparation Iterative Preparation

Figure 28.1  Timeline for three different approaches to student preparation for work-integrated learning.

442

Preparing students to thrive

activities that are intended to support the progressive development of student proficiencies and self-reliance” (Kaider & Bussey, 2018, p. 63). Positive outcomes from this approach include the “(provision of) structure and meaning for student learning” (Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019, p. 328) and assisting students to determine areas of specialization (Billett, 2011; Tezcan et al., 2020). This approach also allows for long-term progressive activities such as constructing portfolios (Kaider & Bussey, 2018). Components may comprise: short, sequenced WIL activities (e.g., field or site visits and shadowing professionals at work); real or virtual simulations; development of reflective skills; and guest lectures from industry experts and professionals. It can be difficult to coordinate a meaningful sequence of learning across a program (Kaider & Bussey, 2018), especially with generalist degree programs (e.g., Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts), or programs with few common core subjects. It is also necessary to ensure that the activities across the program build on previous experiences, rather than being disconnected and isolated. Examples of across-the-program preparation include scaffolded WIL experiences in interior architecture to prepare students for a stand-alone live project (Tezcan et al., 2020, p. 525) and a course-wide approach with “disciplinary-specific, authentic, work-related activities; career development learning activities; graduate capabilities; and … a portfolio in which to collect, curate, evidence and articulate the progressive development of these WIL-related skills” (Kaider & Bussey, 2018, p. 62).

Front-loading approach The most common approach, especially for single, stand-alone WIL courses or subjects, is ‘front-loading’ where preparation occurs immediately before the WIL activity. The nature of preparation varies depending on the length of the activity, the extent the activity is integrated into the degree program, and the complexity and perceived risk of the activity. Most frontloaded preparation is compulsory to ensure students at least have the necessary health and safety information and understand their role and responsibilities. Many such programs also incorporate some skill development, especially in reflective practice. The front-loading approach may manifest in various ways including: • • • •

Special courses completed prior to commencing the WIL activity; Preparation workshops or seminars (online or face-to-face) – typically one or two days in length, or they may be just one or two lectures; Interactive online courses, modules, or resources that involve teaching staff; Stand-alone resources or information with no interaction with teaching staff, typically proffered on university or professional association websites.

Special courses can be particularly effective, such as: the Bridge to Practicum course for social work students in the United States, which reduced student anxiety in field placements (Kamali et al., 2017); a four-week placement preparation element developed for students in occupational therapy in the United Kingdom (Spiliotopoulou, 2007); and the ‘PIPP’ project used to prepare accounting students to work with small and medium-sized businesses in Australia (Hughes, 2019). Carefully designed, short, online, or in-person modules can also provide adequate preparation, such as the Better Prepared Better Placement resource (Grace & O’Neil, 2014), designed to “facilitate emotional and social learning” (p. 291). The resource incorporates self-assessments, guides, readings, videos, podcasts, clinical scenarios, and reflective spaces, as well as a negotiated learning plan. 443

Theresa Winchester-Seeto and Anna D. Rowe

Although commonly used, the degree of preparation possible in a couple of lectures or short, non-interactive, online modules may not be sufficient to fully prepare students, especially if this is the only preparation offered, and if the WIL activity is lengthy. Many tertiary education institutions and professional associations (e.g., ClinEdAu, 2021) offer students general material on their websites about WIL or background information of the profession, with short videos promoting WIL, checklists, field-work manuals, and so on. These are very useful first steps in orienting students, or as part of a mix of resources, but are usually insufficient on their own. Front-loading preparation potentially includes many different activities and resources, and ranges from simple, web-based information to full courses. All have their place and add value to the student experience.

Iterative preparation approach Options are limited, however, if all preparation is completed before the students start their WIL activity. Although some information must be communicated before students begin their activity, many skills take time to develop and this cannot be accomplished in a quick introduction via a short preparation workshop or module, or even in isolated learning activities spread from the first to final year of a program. Rowe and Winchester-Seeto (2022) present a holistic framework to support student learning in WIL, which includes preparation, learning reinforcement, academic and workplace supervision, and synthesis. If we perceive preparation and learning reinforcement to be part of a continuum, then more possibilities open up. Considered this way, students do not need to be armed with everything they could possibly need to know before they start; rather we can dripfeed preparation and skill development to match student needs and readiness as they progress through the WIL activity, that is, take an iterative approach to preparation. For example, the first steps in reflection may be very basic, and is as far as many students get in usual preparatory activities. With an iterative approach, as students become more practiced, they can then be prepared, via the introduction of more sophisticated methods or new viewpoints, for more substantial reflection. This approach better meets student needs, and stage of development, and helps to develop deeper levels of reflection, encompassing different perspectives and points of reference (Bennett et al., 2016). Other examples include preparation for common emotional experiences and predictable confronting events (e.g., getting critical feedback which may occur some way into a placement), as well as practical skills such as writing a report, which occurs more often near the end of the placement. Using a scaffolded, iterative approach to preparation before and during the WIL activity provides a just-in-time developmental approach so as not to overload or overwhelm the student. The staged iterative preparation could be incorporated into classes or online seminars occurring periodically throughout the WIL activity, or in concurrent courses, or via carefully designed online modules or assessment tasks. There is no single, correct approach and all have merit and difficulties. Ultimately the approach chosen will depend on the model of WIL in use, as well as practical issues, pedagogical preferences, and, most importantly, student needs.

Preparation for WIL activities There are three main areas of WIL preparation (Figure 28.2), namely, preparing students for practical matters, preparing them for managing emotional responses to situations that may arise during WIL, and preparing them to learn in WIL. These areas intersect and overlap. For 444

Preparing students to thrive

Preparation for: Learning in WIL

Practical maers

Emotional aspects

Figure 28.2  Intersecting areas of work-integrated learning preparation.

example, preparing students to manage challenging situations that arise in the workplace (such as conflict) may cut across all three areas.

Preparing for practical matters Preparing students for practical aspects of WIL includes orientation to the workplace, professional protocols and behaviors, understanding the expectations and roles of stakeholders, special skills needed for the WIL activity, ethics, and career development. Table 28.1 provides an overview of the key areas of preparation. In addition to the specific areas listed in Table 28.1, there are other, broader aspects of preparation for practical matters which are unpacked below.

Specific skills and capacities for particular activities Students may need to develop specific knowledge, skills, and procedural capacities to effectively undertake tasks during their WIL activity and to build their confidence. This might include providing opportunities to practice and master medical procedures, counseling skills or technological software via scenarios/role plays, simulation-based learning, and case studies (Billett, 2011, 2015; Craig et al., 2017; Jackson, 2015).

Professional behaviors, skills, and capacities Work environments may have different professional expectations, norms, behaviors, and cultures, necessitating development of workplace literacy such as awareness of the values, purpose, structure, and function of the workplace as well as legal and ethical literacy (e.g., health and safety, equal opportunity) (Cooper et al., 2010, pp. 82–83). It is important students orient themselves to workplace settings, requirements, and professional behavior, such as appropriate dress, communication protocols, legislative/policy requirements (e.g., confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property), and familiarization with the organizational background (mission, values). 445

Theresa Winchester-Seeto and Anna D. Rowe Table 28.1  Key areas of preparation for practical matters Legislative and policy requirements

Required information

Life preparation

Managing expectations

•

•

•

• What to do, where to go on the first day • Meeting supervisor for first time • Dress code • Understand required work hours, etc. • Understand workplace policies, e.g., use of mobile phones

Workplace agreements • Code of conduct • Intellectual property • Insurance • Additional workplace documents e.g., confidentiality • Risk assessment In some jurisdictions and for some types of placements there may be additional requirements • Police checks • Working with children checks • Vaccinations • Visas

• • •

• •

•

• •

• •

•

Roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders Emergency procedures Grievance Bullying/ harassment/ sexual misconduct Who to contact Mental health/ other support services Work health and safety issues and risk assessments of workplace; workplace induction Workplace rights/ Fair Work Act What to do in case of illness/ misadventure Accreditation requirements University coursework requirements, e.g., assessment, learning activities Over seas placements have additional requirements

•

•

•

Understanding nature of WIL/ time commitments Making arrangements for commitments such as caring and paid work responsibilities Understanding any financial commitments, e.g. travel to workplace, dress (uniforms, etc.), any equipment needed, e.g., laptop Managing personal wellbeing

Source: Informed by UNSW (2020) and Cooper et al. (2010).

Professional ethical issues Preparing students to be “critical moral agents within the workplace” is just as important as preparing them to have the required technical and behavioral skills (Zegwaard et al., 2017, p. 145). Some students may be confronted with unprofessional or unethical workplace norms, cultures, and behaviors during their WIL activity. Such situations can provide a valuable learning experience (Zegwaard et  al., 2017) when students are adequately prepared to deal with them. Preparation may entail development of students’ capacity to “navigate ethical challenges and shape the organizational culture of the future workplace” through reflection and critical thinking (Zegwaard et al., 2017, p. 145). 446

Preparing students to thrive

Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders The importance of establishing clearly defined expectations of roles and responsibilities for WIL stakeholders is well-documented (e.g., Fleming et  al., 2018; Rowe & WinchesterSeeto, 2022). Students should be aware of their own responsibilities, as well as understanding what to expect from their workplace supervisors and university staff. Poor understanding of industry expectations of workplace conduct and performance can increase stress and anxiety (Jackson, 2015), impacting both student wellbeing and performance. Identifying clear learning goals/plans is key, as is managing expectations around supervision (e.g., frequency and duration of meetings with workplace supervisors, feedback, and supervisory approaches) (Cooper et al., 2010).

Career development Career development can be an important element of preparation, including career planning, job searching/applications, résumé development, addressing selection criteria, mock interviews, networking, reflection on strengths and weaknesses in skills/capabilities and performance in these areas, and industry awareness. Career development can play a role in improving students’ beliefs about their ability to undertake specific tasks (Reddan, 2016). Self-confidence also impacts on student engagement in practice settings (Rowe et al., 2021).

Catering for diverse student needs The placement model of WIL can provide barriers to student engagement, with effective student preparation crucial to ensuring inclusive and successful WIL experiences (Mackaway et al., 2017). Students with little or no prior work experience, as well as those from under-­ represented/equity groups (such as low socio-economic groups), may find accessing and participating in placements particularly challenging (Winchester-Seeto et al., 2015). This can be related to language/cultural barriers, disabilities, financial costs, and carer responsibilities, to name a few (Valencia-Forrester et al., 2019). When students are required to source their own WIL placement/activity, they may need support in how to approach prospective placement sites (where to go, who to speak to, what to wear, how to communicate/business etiquette, etc.) in addition to the areas covered under career development above. When students cannot find placements, additional alternative activities, such as on campus placements/projects, may need to be found.

Preparation for emotional aspects WIL can be a daunting experience for students, and supporting them to manage their emotions is just as important as other aspects of preparation. WIL has the potential to trigger student mental health issues (Gillett-Swan & Grant-Smith, 2018; McBeath et al., 2017; Wenham et al., 2020), due to stress experienced in relation to unfamiliarity with workplace settings and practices, receiving feedback, facing setbacks/failure, the unpaid nature of some WIL placements, social isolation, and life stressors which may occur during WIL, for example, personal, family, or health issues (Gillett-Swan & Grant-Smith, 2018; Rowe & Winchester-Seeto, 2017; Wenham et al., 2020). These impacts can be more pronounced for some student groups, such as low socio-economic status (SES), where, for example, participating in WIL may impact on their paid work creating additional financial burdens (Drysdale et al., 2022). 447

Theresa Winchester-Seeto and Anna D. Rowe

Finally, it has been argued by Mezirow (1990) and others that having beliefs and assumptions challenged can evoke strong feelings, with the disorienting nature of some WIL activities a potential “catalyst for deep and transformative learning” (Wenham et  al., 2020, p. 1028). Disorienting experiences can be stressful and lead to the “exacerbation of students’ underlying mental health issues” (Wenham et  al., 2020, p. 1028). This highlights the importance of preparing students effectively to manage possible impacts on their wellbeing during WIL (Gillett-Swan & Grant-Smith, 2018). A number of pedagogical strategies and educational/wellbeing interventions have been proposed for supporting students and mediating their emotional responses in WIL. For example: • • •

•

• •

Debriefing and reflection that can help students make sense of their emotional responses and manage them (Bender & Walker, 2013; Overstreet, 2010); Writing tasks that encourage students to refocus their attention onto good things in their lives (Drewery et al., 2019); Supporting development of students’ personal coping strategies, such as self-regulation and management (e.g., time management), assistance-seeking (e.g., university support services), and self-care (Gillett-Swan & Grant-Smith, 2018); Flagging potentially confronting/negative experiences and contestations that may arise, and preparing students to manage these, for example, through activities such as role play (Billett, 2015); Narrative-analysis techniques to develop students’ capacity for resilience (Mate & Ryan, 2015); Ensuring WIL curricula and experiences cater for diverse student needs, for example, adopting a wise-practice approach (Valencia-Forrester et al., 2019).

It is equally important to focus on the positive aspects of WIL experiences, such as development of student confidence and self-efficacy, during preparation phases. Self-confidence can mediate learner engagement and motivation in practice settings (Billett, 2011, 2015; Ibrahim & Jaafar, 2017; Jackson, 2015; Rowe et  al., 2021). A recent exploratory study by Rowe et al. (2021) found confidence was a key facilitator and inhibitor of student engagement in WIL. This and other findings (e.g., Billett, 2011, 2015) highlight the importance of developing confidence within preparation phases, so that students can engage fully during the WIL activity.

Preparing students for learning in work-integrated learning By the time students have reached WIL courses, most post-secondary students have spent at least 12 years figuring out how to learn successfully in classroom settings. In WIL, and later as professionals, students need to work out how to learn in very different contexts and in very different ways. Learning in WIL occurs in a “complex social context with many formal and informal learning opportunities” (Brown et al., 2011, p. 23) from a plethora of activities and interactions surrounding and including them. WIL differs from learning in a class-based course in many ways, including: • • •

The holistic nature of the learning (Brodie & Irving, 2007); The complexities of “conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, [and] dispositional knowledge” Billett (2018, p. 2), used in any work task; Learning is mostly contextualized within a particular setting, at a particular time; 448

Preparing students to thrive

• • •

Learning is far less predictable and controllable than in academic settings; The ‘situatedness’ of learning (Woolf & Yorke, 2010) brings challenges for students in knowing how to generalize or particularize learning from that experience; Tasks, problems, and challenges are frequently ambiguous and unstructured (Jackson et al., 2019), contrasting with the more organized, focused, and simplified problems presented in tutorials, labs, and assessment tasks.

In addition, for most WIL activities there will be staff from the work site who look after the student(s), for example, supervisor, mentor, and preceptor (Winchester-Seeto et  al., 2016). These supervisors use a variety of methods to guide learning (Winchester-Seeto et al., 2022), some of which will be familiar to students, but much will be unfamiliar, so students must learn to adjust to these new styles.

Preparing students to extract maximum learning from the work-integrated learning activity The basic requisites for learning in WIL are student readiness and agency. Students should have the “necessary knowledge and skills required to perform at an acceptable level” in the work environment (Thomson et al., 2014, p. 71). This includes technical skills, insight into the placement environment, as well as understanding what to expect and what might be expected of them (Billett, 2019). Such preparation will enable students to focus on new learning and “make optimum use of the opportunity to practice and enhance their acquired skills and knowledge” (Abery et al., 2015, p. 88). Students also require time to develop and practice skills needed to underpin and foster new learning (Billett, 2019; Rowe & Winchester-Seeto, 2022). Reflection, debriefing, and sharing experiences and concerns with peers are powerful pedagogical methods, but students need to feel that they are in a safe environment to meaningfully engage with them (Billett, 2019; Winchester-Seeto & Rowe, 2022). Such environments require time and trust to work effectively. Engaging in these activities prior to starting the WIL activity will enable building the necessary community of trust for students and staff. Having the necessary elementary knowledge and skills, and the basics of reflection, will allow students to survive and learn something in their placement. However, to gain the most from the WIL experience, student agency is essential (Billett, 2011; Trede & Jackson, 2019). Students who are passive learners will not thrive in a WIL activity, nor later as a qualified professional. Preparation, therefore, must include “engaging, preparing and extending students as active and agentic learners” (Orrell, 2011, p. 35).

Preparing students to apply and adapt their knowledge, skills, and experience in new contexts Thomson et al. (2014) suggest that learning in WIL is “an integration of propositional, craft and personal knowledge” (p. 70). The process of integration underpins WIL, especially the integration of theory and practice. Various authors have attempted to grapple with the complexities of this process and there are two main ways of thinking about what happens, with related and overlapping concepts: • •

Transfer, transition, and application of knowledge, skills, and experiences; Translation and recontextualization of knowledge, skills, and experiences. 449

Theresa Winchester-Seeto and Anna D. Rowe

In its simplest form, learning in WIL can be viewed as a transfer of existing knowledge and skills gained in the classroom or previous experience to a new situation, and is a replicative (Jackson et al., 2019) and largely passive process. It is connected with the notion of transition, which may simply be a physical transition from an academic setting to a workplace setting, or of identity – firstly from a student in an academic setting to a student in a work setting, and later to a novice professional in a work setting (Guile & Griffiths, 2001). The emphasis in this way of thinking is on application of knowledge and skills gained in a previous time and setting to a new situation. Some researchers, however, argue that learning in WIL is more than mere application of knowledge and skills previously acquired. Rather than a simple transfer, the differences between academic and work settings means that students “are required to undertake a process of translation” (Thomson et al., 2014, p. 70) and adaptation of knowledge and skills to new situations. The actual integration of learning occurs within an individual (Boud, 2000), making reflection and metacognition essential (Billett, 2006; Kettle et  al., 2016). This highlights the need for students to develop such capabilities for effective learning in WIL. Translation, recontextualization, and integration are active processes that require practice, effort, and time to accomplish. Ultimately, both processes – transfer, transition, and application; and translation, recontextualization, and adaptation – occur to some extent in WIL. Students need to be able to do both as they learn.

Strategies and tools for learning in work-integrated learning To extract maximum learning, and to apply and adapt their knowledge, skills, and experience in new contexts, students need several strategies and tools, including: • • • • •

Observing and ‘noticing’ (Rooney & Boud, 2019); Comparing observations with existing experience and knowledge; Active listening and asking questions; Seeking, processing, and coping with feedback; Reflective practice, for example, debriefing.

Alerting students to these strategies and tools before they begin will assist students to make a quick and efficient start to their WIL activity. One fundamental strategy for WIL is observation. At a superficial level, it can be a passive process and may not necessarily: focus on what students need to see; zoom in on subtle but important detail; or perceive the bigger picture. Rooney and Boud (2019) contend that noticing rather than just observing is necessary for both WIL and professional practice. Enhancing the skill of noticing can be accomplished through a range of activities such as: watching professionals at work; viewing simulations and videos; prompts whilst observing; and debriefing. Observation guides can also help students identify the most important things to notice (Rooney & Boud, 2019). Observation on its own, however, is not enough, and helping students to become confident in asking questions will do much to enhance their learning. Students need to understand that asking questions is permitted and expected (Martin & Hughes, 2009), and they need to know when, what kind, and how to ask questions. Asking questions is vital if students are to surface tacit knowledge of their workplace supervisors and, done respectfully, can help where students notice differences between the practices they are taught and those used in a work setting, one of the contestations that Billett (2011) highlights. Related to this is the ability of students to engage with and appraise feedback. For many students, this is problematic but providing them 450

Preparing students to thrive

with hypothetical online experiences can help them understand the importance of feedback and how to respond effectively (Noble et al., 2018). Underpinning these strategies – observing, noticing, asking questions, raising contestations, and dealing with feedback – is robust reflective practice. This is a foundation skill (WinchesterSeeto et al., 2022), defined in many ways including as a process where students “reconcile and integrate their experiences and understandings” (Billett, 2011, p. 2). Despite the importance of reflection, few students are proficient or adequately prepared (Bennett et al., 2016). Students unpracticed in reflection tend to focus on themselves; me now, my project/placement, my learning, and my future. Helping them move beyond this focus on the self and to consider things from a broader viewpoint, such as the perspectives of others in the work setting or testing one’s own assumptions and values (Bennett et al., 2016), is often difficult to achieve and almost impossible if the teaching of reflection is relegated to a one-hour slot in a preparation workshop. Trede and Jackson (2019) urge practitioners to “sensitise students to observe and critically engage with the complexity of practice beyond an individual focus,” to consider “ethical dilemmas in the workplace,” and to question current practice approaches and ideas (p. 8). Preparing students to learn effectively in WIL is a complex endeavor (Table 28.2) and few programs accomplish everything discussed above, especially if WIL is a single subject or course within a degree program. Nonetheless, much of what has been outlined will benefit students in many different types of subjects and courses and could be built into curriculum and program design to enhance learning across a degree program.

Additional preparation for international work-integrated learning Students who undertake WIL in a different country may need additional preparation in both practical matters and in preparing for learning. Tan et  al. (2015) point out the necessity of preparation for “international fieldwork in not only supporting students to achieve the best possible outcomes but also in establishing realistic student expectations” (p. 9). Preparation commonly consists of a combination of pre-departure sessions, tips from peers, online modules, and in-country orientation sessions.

Table 28.2  Summary of preparation for learning in work-integrated learning Preparation for learning in WIL should take into account that: • learning in a work setting is different to learning in a classroom and needs different skills; • students need to transfer and apply what they have learned in their studies to new settings; • students need to translate, recontextualize, and adapt what they have learnt in their studies to new settings; • the primary purpose of preparation for learning in WIL is to develop student-readiness and agency. Preparation for learning in WIL should result in students who: • have the necessary skills and knowledge to perform at an acceptable novice standard; • have started to develop the skills needed for new learning, e.g., reflection; • understand the need for them to be proactive and agentic learners. Specific strategies needed by students for learning in WIL are: • observing and professional noticing; • comparing observations with existing experience and knowledge; • active listening and asking questions; • seeking, processing, and coping with feedback; • reflective practice, e.g., debriefing.

451

Theresa Winchester-Seeto and Anna D. Rowe

Additional practical issues where information and preparation are needed include: • • • • • •

Visas and work permits (where required) (Tan et al., 2015); Travel arrangements, contact information, and communication procedures (Tan et al., 2015); Health and travel issues, such as vaccinations, carrying adequate medications, and action plans for any pre-existing medical conditions; Safety precautions during travel and whilst in-country (Craig, 2014); Incident and disaster or emergency information and plans (Tan et al., 2015); Expectations and responsibilities of students (Craig, 2014).

Additional preparation for learning includes: • • • • • •

Understanding the historic, political, economic, and social context of the country (Wake et al., 2016); Cultural awareness and competence (Craig, 2014; Wake et al., 2016); Understanding the challenges and dilemmas that may arise (Tan et al., 2015); Preparation for any language barriers (Craig, 2014); Culture shock (Billett, 2019; Craig, 2014); Mindset: being able to immerse oneself in another culture (Wake et al., 2016).

Tan et al. (2015) also outline what they term ‘cultural abilities’ that it would be desirable to foster before and during the international experience: being “able to self-regulate in a culturally appropriate way (e.g., patient, tolerant, thoughtful, respectful, humble)”; having “genuine and respectful curiosity in people from different cultures”; and being “culturally sensitive (self-reflection on and awareness of own cultural values and beliefs)” (p. 10).

Strategies for preparing students Effective preparation takes many forms and uses a variety of strategies. Some of the most common are listed with their aims and benefits in Table 28.3. The choice of strategies will depend on the time available for preparation and the desired learning outcomes. The best researched strategies are simulations, which can be used as a substitute for WIL, or as preparation for a placement. Both are effective, but they serve different purposes. Wood et al. (2020) define simulations as “an immersive WIL experience in a context created to emulate the functions of a workplace with input by the workplace/community, educational institution, and the student” (p. 333). Moyer et al. (2017) also include the use of simulation tools, such as dummies in health-care training that build student proficiency and technical competence by repetition, and in situations that cannot otherwise be practiced, such as on a live person. Simulations take a range of forms including: • • • • •

Online, from synchronous role play to 3-D simulations such as Second Life (Carmody et al., 2020; Iipinge et al., 2020; Wood et al., 2020); In classrooms (Iipinge et al., 2020); Role play in person, e.g., peers acting as patients for physiotherapy education (Dalwood et al., 2018); Extended field-based role play, e.g., a three-day field exercise for paramedic students (Stibral & Kettle, 2018); Special facilities or rooms, e.g., hospital simulations (Carmody et al., 2020). 452

Preparing students to thrive Table 28.3  Preparation strategies Strategy

Aims and benefits

Examples and references

Case scenarios

• Acquaints students with potential issues and situations they may encounter • Allows students to devise and practice options for dealing with issues in a safe environment with no real consequences • “Allows feedback and discussion of alternative options” (ACDS, 2021, p. 1) • Exposes students to cultures of work settings and emotional/ethical issues they may encounter

Grace & O’Neil (2014) Jackson (2015) Martin et al. (2011) Trede & Flowers (2020)

• Engage student interest in special issues/ skills, e.g., for mental health: working with challenging behaviors, managing your own emotions • Present realistic work settings to promote reflection and discussion • Can be used with other strategies to enhance engagement and reflection • Affords rich learning experiences and can be used to promote reflection on current issues or preparing for the future, e.g., contestations • Develops teamwork and communication skills • “Provides opportunity to hear different perspectives and approaches” (ACDS, 2021, p. 1) • Prompts students to determine their own goals • Helps set realistic expectations • Encourages students to take ownership of their learning • Helps supervisors develop strategies to accommodate learning needs of students • Promotes reflection throughout the WIL activity • Ensures students have at least a rudimentary knowledge of requirements • Checklists help students become aware of necessary practical and procedural issues • Orients students to industry career options and expectations • “Provide insights into industry and organizations, including organizational structure and norms” (ACDS, 2021, p. 1)

ClinEdAus Enabling Clinical Education Skills Trede & Flowers (2020)

• Role plays: f2f and virtual, e.g., Second Life • Video or podcast • Written case studies [Note that these overlap with some forms of simulation, but they may be a much less structured and less immersive experience] Short video or podcasts • Around special issues • Case scenarios • Skills development Sharing via discussion, huddles, learning circles, etc.

Teamwork activities

Negotiated learning goals and plans

Checklists, quizzes, barrier exams, etc.

Guest speakers from industry and/or industry panels

Billett (2019) Trede & Jackson (2019)

Jackson (2015)

ACDS (2021) Grace & O’Neil (2014) Jackson (2015)

Campbell et al. (2019)

Campbell et al. (2019)

(Continued) 453

Theresa Winchester-Seeto and Anna D. Rowe Table 28.3  (Continued) Strategy

Aims and benefits

Examples and references

Career development learning activities, e.g., résumé and interview preparation Hearing from past students

• “Prompts reflection on how capabilities and experience relate to the placement opportunity” (ACDS, 2021, p. 1)

Martin et al. (2011)

• “Provides insights into placement experience” (ACDS, 2021, p. 1) • “Gives students an opportunity to ask questions in a non-threatening environment” (ACDS, 2021, p. 1)

ACDS (2021)

Modified from ACDS, retrieved 2021.

There have been questions as to how realistic the simulation must be to achieve results, with research suggesting that ‘psychological fidelity’ is needed to “achieve effective skill transfer and requires participants to interact and respond to the simulation scenarios as they would in reality” (Dalwood et al., 2018, p. 181). This raises some concerns, however, as the cost of setting up such simulations is considerable and there are implications for logistics and organization commitments, and for some learners the realism can be very confronting (Carmody et al., 2020). Online, digital simulations can overcome some of these issues, and simple role plays in a class or simulated work setting can be very effective for learning skills such as communication or workplace etiquette (Iipinge et al., 2020). Combining strategies such as simulations and those listed in Table 28.3 can create effective and rich experiences for students. Short films, videos, and podcasts can be very realistic and are often used to teach “formulaic, best-practice content” but may be better employed to “present complexities and ambiguities in the workplace” and allow students to “decide for themselves what is regarded as good practice, analyze problems and consider various possible solutions” (Trede & Flowers, 2020, p. 370). Combined with reflection, sharing activities, and debriefing, this strategy may promote “noticing, evaluative judgement, critical and creative thinking, and planning for future actions” (Trede & Flowers, 2020, p. 370). When choosing strategies for preparation, it is important to think about how students can extract maximum learning, and what kinds of outcomes are needed. Using only didactic resources and simple learning activities may not be enough to nurture student agency. Similarly, the sequence of steps can also be important, what Seidel et  al. (2013) refer to as the ‘rule-example’ or ‘example-rule’ sequences. Often, preparation starts with resources that deliver theory and rules; but where appropriate, incorporating situations, where students can develop principles and rules for themselves, is likely to produce better problem-solving skills that are important for the kinds of ambiguous and ill-structured problems that are common in WIL activities and workplaces.

Conclusions It is clear that preparation is vital to the smooth, safe operation of WIL, as well as promoting a successful, enjoyable, and fulfilling experience for students. This chapter has presented an extensive (and perhaps somewhat daunting) list of considerations for preparation. However, not  everything is needed for every student nor every WIL activity, and judicious selection of the most important aspects is likely to be more effective than trying to cover everything. 454

Preparing students to thrive

The best preparation considers the needs and backgrounds of students. In some situations, additional preparation may be necessary, for example where students require additional support such as Indigenous or First Nations students, international students, students with disabilities, or where students are undertaking their WIL activity with vulnerable communities. It is tempting to try to generate a mandatory checklist of minimum requirements for preparation, but this under-estimates the impact of the myriad nuances and different situations in which WIL operates. At the most basic level, students must feel safe in their placements, so preparation should achieve this function. Students should also be able to operate effectively in a workplace; appropriate knowledge and skills are necessary, so as to avoid annoying host supervisors and demoralizing students. These two factors are needed for work experience, but for WIL, there also has to be some understanding of how to learn in, and from, a WIL activity. The most obvious tool for learning is reflection, a crucial part of any preparation, however brief. Many of the skills outlined in this chapter take time to develop and students can feel quickly overwhelmed or overloaded if everything is introduced at once or over a short time span. Supporting student learning by taking an iterative approach to preparation which continues throughout the WIL activity can help reduce overload by providing drip feed support as needed. Many researchers rightly point out the importance of careful preparation, but it is ultimately the student who must undertake WIL and take on board the preparation we plan. Too much, too quickly is likely to be counterproductive as students often disengage from anything they do not see as relevant. Similarly, a didactic approach with long lists of things to remember is unlikely to succeed. While preparation should address difficult situations that students potentially face, this needs to be done cautiously and realistically as it would not be helpful to add to the natural apprehension and anxiety of students as they move into this new endeavor. WIL can be a great adventure for students, and preparation can, and should, aim to enhance student agency, autonomy, and independence, thus positioning them as active rather than passive learners. Indeed, these are the three requisite qualities for thriving not only in their WIL activity, but also when they join the professional workforce.

References Abery, E., Drummond, C., & Bevan, N. (2015). Work integrated learning: What do the students want? A qualitative study of Health Sciences students’ experiences of a non-competency based placement. Student Success, 6(2), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v6i2.288 Australian Council of Deans of Science (ACDS). (2021). Preparing students for WIL. Teaching and Learning Centre. https://www.acds.edu.au/teaching-learning/wil-guide-for-science/good-practice/ preparing-students-for-wil/ Bender, A., & Walker, P. (2013). The obligation of debriefing in global health education. Medical Teacher, 35, e1027–e1034. Bennett, D., Power, A., Thomson, C., Mason, B., & Bartleet, B.-L. (2016). Reflection for learning, learning for reflection: Developing Indigenous competencies in higher education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning. Practice, 13(2), Article 7. Billett, S. (2006). Constituting the workplace curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500153781 Billett, S. (2011). Curriculum and pedagogic bases for effectively integrating practice-based experiences - Final report. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/Billett%2C%20S%20 Griffith%20NTF%20Final%20report%202011_0.pdf Billett, S. (2015). Pedagogic practices supporting the integration of experiences. In S. Billett (Ed.), Integrating practice-based experiences into higher education: Professional and practice-based learning, 13, 195–223. Springer. Billett, S. (2018). Learning occupations through practice: Curriculum, pedagogy and epistemology of practice. Griffith Univrsity. https://vocationsandlearning.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Leaflet_English.pdf

455

Theresa Winchester-Seeto and Anna D. Rowe Billett, S. (2019). Augmenting students’ learning for employability through post-practicum educational processes Final report. Office of Learning and Teaching. https://stephenbillett.com.au/final-report-augmenting-­ students-learning-for-employability-through-post-practicum-educational-processes/ Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. Brodie, P., & Irving, K. (2007). Assessment in work-cased learning: Investigating a pedagogical approach to enhance student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(1), 11–19. Brown, T., Williams, B., McKenna, L., Palermo, C., McCall, L., Roller, L., Hewitt, L., Molloy, L., Baird, M., & Aldabah, L. (2011). Practice education learning environments: The mismatch between perceived and preferred expectations of undergraduate health science students. Nurse Education Today, 31, 22–28. Campbell, M., Russell, L., McAllister, L., Smith, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., & Barrett, M. (2019). A framework to support assurance of institution-wide quality in work integrated learning. https://research.qut. edu.au/wilquality/resources/; https://research.qut.edu.au/wilquality/resources/ Carmody, C., Duffy, S., Brown, L., & Del Fabbro, L. (2020). Preparing for work-integrated learning during COVID-19: How a new virtual orientation tool facilitated access for all. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 21(5), 545–557. ClinEdAus. (2021). Enabling clinical education skills. https://www.clinedaus.org.au/topics-category/ student-preparation-for-mental-health-placements-108?page-resource=2 Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning: a guide to effective practice. Routledge. Craig, A. (2014). Cultural and professional growth through a team based internship. In K. Moore (Ed.), Work integrated learning: Building capacity – Proceedings of the 2014 ACEN National Conference (pp. 95–100). Australian Collaborative Education Network. Craig, S. L., McInroy, L. B., Bogo, M., & Thompson, M. (2017). Enhancing competence in health social work education through simulation-based learning: Strategies from a case study of a family session. Journal of Social Work Education, 53:sup1, S47–S58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2017.1288597 Dalwood, N., Maloney, S., Cox, N., & Morgan, P. (2018). Preparing physiotherapy students for clinical placement: Student perceptions of low-cost peer simulation. A mixed-methods study. Sim Healthcare, 13, 181–187. Drewery, D. W., Cormier, L. A., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2019). Improving unmatched co-op students’ emotional wellbeing: Test of two brief interventions. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 43–53. Drysdale, M., Twyford, K., Glenn, B., & Callaghan, S. A. (2022). Work, resilience, and wellbeing: The long game of work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 75–84). Routledge. Gillett-Swan, J. K., & Grant-Smith, D. (2018). A framework for managing the impacts of work-integrated learning on student quality of life. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(2), 129–140. Grace, S., & O’Neil, R. (2014). Better prepared, better placement: An online resource for health students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(4), 291–304. Guile, D., & Griffiths, T. (2001). Learning through work experience. Journal of Education & Work, 14(1), 113–132. Fleming, J., McLachlan, J., & Pretti, T. J. (2018). Successful work-integrated learning relationships: A framework for sustainability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 321–335. Hughes, M. (2019). Preparing accounting students for WIL success through a collaborative SME-supported model. Office of Learning and Teaching Final Report. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/SD15-5126_Hughes_ FinalReport_2019.pdf Ibrahim, H. I., & Jaafar, A. H. (2017). The outcomes of work-integrated learning programmes: The role of self-confidence as mediator between interpersonal and self-management skills and motivation to learn. Social Sciences & Humanities, 25 (2), 931–948. Iipinge, S. M., Batholmeus, P. N., & Pop, C. (2020). Using simulations to improve skills needed for work-integrated learning before and during COVID-19 in Namibia. International Journal of WorkIntegrated Learning, Special Issue, 21(5), 531–543. Jackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367. Jackson, D., Ferns, S., Rowbottom, D., & McLaren, D. (2015). Working together to achieve better work integrated learning outcomes: Improving productivity through better employer involvement. http:// acen.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Working-together-to-achieve-better-WIL-outcomes.pdf

456

Preparing students to thrive Jackson, D., Fleming, J., & Rowe, A. (2019). Enabling the transfer of skills and knowledge across classroom and work contexts. Vocations & Learning, 12(3), 459–478. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworkspost2013/6553 Kaider, F., & Bussey, F. (2018). A model for scaffolding WIL across the curriculum. In J. Smith, K. Robinson, & M. Campbell (Eds.), WIL: Creating connections, building futures – Proceedings of the 2018 ACEN National Conference (pp. 62–67). Australian Collaborative Education Network. Kamali, A., Frye, J., & Clary, P. (2017). Preparing BSW students for practicum: Reducing anxiety through bridge to practicum course. Field Scholar, 7.1, 1–16. Kettle, M., McCusker, P., Shanks, L., Ingram, R., & McCulloch, T. (2016). Integrated learning in social work: A review of approaches to integrated learning for social work education and practice. Report commissioned by the Scottish Social Services Council. Glasgow. https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/en/ publications/integrated-learning-in-social-work-a-review-of-approaches-to-inte Mackaway, J., Carter, L., Winchester-Seeto, T., & Whiteford, G. (2017). Inclusive PACE: An experience for all students. In J. Sachs & L. Clark (Eds.), Learning through community engagement. Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0999-0_13 Martin, A. J., & Hughes, H. (2009). How to make the most of work integrated learning. Palmerston North, New  Zealand. Massey University. https://www.waceinc.org/papers/How%20To%20Make%20 The%20Most%20of%20Work%20Integrated%20Learning.pdf Martin, A., Rees, M., & Edwards, M. (2011). Work integrated learning: A template for good practice. Ako Aotearoa. https://ako.ac.nz/assets/Knowledge-centre/RHPF-c43-Work-Integrated-Learning/ RESOURCE-Work-Integrated-Learning-A-Template-for-Good-Practice.pdf Mate, S., & Ryan, M. M. (2015). Learning through work: How can a narrative approach to evaluation build students’ capacity for resilience? Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, Special Issue, 16(3), 153–161. McBeath, M. L., Drysdale, M. T. B., & Bohn, N. (2017). Pathways to mental health and wellbeing: Understanding and supporting students during critical school-to-work transitions. Work-integrated learning in the 21st century (International Perspectives on Education and Society), 32, (pp. 177–191). Emerald. McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework. Asia-Pacific journal of cooperative education, 17(4), 337–348. Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. Jossey-Bass. Moyer, R., Snodgrass, J., Klein, S., & Tebben, C. (2017). Simulated work-based learning instructional approaches and noteworthy practices. National Center for Innovation in Career And Technical Education. Report for the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education. http://ctecenter.ed.gov/index.php/page/our–research. Noble, C., Armit, L., Collier, L., Sly, C., Hilder, J., & Molloy, E. (2018). Enhancing feedback literacy in the workplace: A learner-centred approach. In S. Billett, J. Newton, G. D. Rogers, & C. Noble (Eds.), Augmenting health and social care students’ clinical learning experiences: Outcomes and processes. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05560-8_13 Orrell, J. (2011). Good practice report: Work-integrated learning. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-work-integrated-learning-2011 Overstreet, M. (2010). Ee-chats: The seven components of nursing debriefing. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 41(12), 538–539. Pasteur, L. (1854, December 7) Speech delivered at Douai on the occasion of his formal inauguration to the Faculty of Letters of Douai and the Faculty of Sciences of Lille. In L. P. Vallery-Radot (Ed.) (1939) Oeuvres de Pasteur, Vol. 7. Masson and Co. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k7363q/f137. chemindefe Reddan, G. (2016). The role of work-integrated learning in developing students’ perceived work self-­ efficacy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, Special Issue, 2016, 17(4), 423–436. Rooney, D., & Boud, D. (2019). Toward a pedagogy for professional noticing: Learning through observation. Vocations & Learning, 12, 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-019-09222-3 Rowe, A. D., Jackson, D., & Fleming, J. (2021). Exploring student engagement and sense of belonging during work-integrated learning. Journal of Vocational Education & Training. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 3636820.2021.1914134 Rowe, A. D., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2022). Support for student learning in work-integrated learning: A holistic framework. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 96–106). Routledge. Rowe, A., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2017). Emotional fallout of WIL: Triggers for positive and negative reactions in students. In K. E. Zegwaard & K. Hoskyn (Eds.), New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education 2017 Conference Proceedings (pp. 39–42). Queenstown, 26–28 April, 2017.

457

Theresa Winchester-Seeto and Anna D. Rowe Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., & Renkl, A. (2013). Instructional strategies for using video in teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 34, 56–65. Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2016). Designing work-integrated learning placements that improve student employability: Six facets of the curriculum that matter. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(2), 197–211. Spiliotopoulou, G. (2007). Preparing occupational therapy students for practice placements: initial evidence. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70(9), 384–388. Stibral, A., & Kettle, E. (2018). Building and managing industry relations in the field of humanitarian studies: The contribution of the CDU/RedR Australia Alliance to CDU’s Bachelor of Humanitarian and Community Studies. In J. Smith, K. Robinson, & M. Campbell (Eds.), WIL: Creating connections, building futures – Proceedings of the 2018 ACEN National Conference (pp. 113–117). Australian Collaborative Education Network. Stirling, A., Kerr, G., Banwell, J., McPherson, E., & Heron, A. (2016). A practice guide for work-­ integrated learning. Effective practices to enhance the educational quality of structured work experiences offered through colleges and universities. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. https:// heqco.ca/pub/a-practical-guide-for-work-integrated-learning-effective-practices-to-enhance-the-­ educational-quality-of-structured-work-experiences-offered-through-colleges-and-universities/ Tan, B-K., Flavell, H., Ferns, S., & Jordan, J. (2015). Australian outbound student mobility: Quality dimensions for international fieldwork in health sciences. Office for Learning and Teaching Report. https://ltr.edu.au/ resources/SD14_3758_Tan_Guide_2016.pdf Tezcan, N., Durakovic, I., Smith, C., Lloyd, E., & D’Arcy, S. (2020). Scaffolded, simulated work-­integrated learning in design education: Beyond the live project. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 21(5), 521–529. Thomson, D., Boyle, D., Legg, C., Owen, M., Newman, M., & Cole, M. J. (2014). Clinical placements: The perspectives of UK physiotherapy students on how prepared they were by their university for their first clinical placements: An example of one HEI. International Journal of Practice-Based Learning in Health and Social Care, 2(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.11120/pblh.2014.00031 Trede, F., & Flowers, R. (2020). Preparing students for workplace learning: Short films, narrative pedagogy, and community arts to teach agency. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 21(4), 365–376. Trede, F., & Jackson, D. (2019). Educating the deliberate professional and enhancing professional agency through peer reflection of work-integrated learning. Active Learning in Higher Education. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469787419869125 UNSW. (2020). Preparing for WIL. Student checklist. https://www.wil.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/ documents/Preparing-for-WIL-Student-Checklist.pdf Valencia-Forrester, F., Patrick, C.-J., Webb, F., & Backhaus, B. (2019). Practical aspects of service learning make work-integrated learning wise practice for inclusive education in Australia. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 31–42. Wake, A., Sison, M., & Muir, R. (2016). ‘Global Work Ready’: Enhancing employability through resourced international internships. In M. Harvey & A. Rowe (Eds.), WIL 2020: Pushing the boundaries  – Proceedings of the 2016 ACEN National Conference (pp. 57–61). Australian Collaborative Education Network Limited. Wenham, K. E., Valencia-Forrester, F., & Backhaus, B. (2020). Make or break: The role and support needs of academic advisors in work-integrated learning courses. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 1026–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1705254 Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). Quality and standards for work integrated learning. Australian Council of Deans of Science. http://www.acds-tlcc.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2019/03/Winchester-SeetoLiterature-Review-Quality-and-Standards.pdf Winchester-Seeto, T., Mackaway, J., Peach, D., Moore, K., Ferns, S., & Campbell, M. (2015). Principles, guidelines and strategies for inclusive WIL. http://acen.edu.au/access-participation-progression/?page_id=630 Winchester-Seeto, T., Rowe, A., & Mackaway, J. (2016). Sharing the load: Understanding the roles of academics and host supervisors in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(20), 107–118. Winchester-Seeto, T., Rowe, A. D., & Mackaway, J. (2022). Effective supervision: A key consideration in work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 85–94). Routledge.

458

Preparing students to thrive Wood, Y. I., Zegwaard, K. E., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2020). Conventional, remote, virtual and simulated work-integrated learning: A meta-analysis of existing practice. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 21(4), 331–354. Woolf, H., & Yorke, M. (2010). Guidance for the assessment of work-based learning in foundation degrees. A report to FDF. Staffordshire: fdf. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/guidance-­ assessment-work-based-learning-foundation-degrees-report-fdf#:~:text=Guidance%20for%20the%20 assessment%20of%20work-based%20learning%20in,good%20practice%20in%20the%20assessment%20 of%20Foundation%20degrees. Zegwaard, K. E., & Rowe, A. D. (2019). Research-informed curriculum and advancing innovative practices in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 20(4), 323–333. Zegwaard, K. E., Campbell, M., & Pretti, T. J. (2017). Work professional identities and ethics: The role  of work-integrated learning in developing agentic professionals. Work-integrated Learning in the 21st Century (International Perspectives on Education and Society), 32, 145–160.

459

29 USING INSTRUMENTAL MENTORING TO PREPARE STUDENTS FOR WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING Dawn Bennett and Cindy Ann Smith Introduction Traditional work-integrated learning (WIL) experiences situate university students in an industry or workplace context (Universities Australia, 2019). However, contemporary WIL experiences include a broad range of activities on and off campus, online, in industry, and in the community. According to Universities Australia (2019), more than half (57.1%) the WIL experienced by Australian university students is in the form of project work, fieldwork, simulations, or other undefined experiences, rather than traditional placements. New approaches provide much-needed flexibility for students and industry hosts. There remains, however, the need to ensure that student learning is “supported by careful preparation before the experience, supervision throughout, and opportunities to reflect after” (Rowe & Winchester-Seeto, 2021, p. 96), aspects of WIL that impact student learning in WIL contexts and beyond. This chapter builds upon the broader conceptualization of WIL to argue that the theoretical underpinnings of university study should not be more highly regarded than, or separated from, the experiential learning that bridges the theory–praxis nexus and prepares pre-­professionals for their future careers. Extending the work of Coll and Zegwaard (2011), who explore curricular integration in the context of cooperative education, the chapter employs the example of a first-year WIL preparation initiative designed to support the development of the non-­ instructional, interprofessional attributes needed by pre-service teachers (students studying to become teachers). Pre-service teachers are among several student cohorts for whom internships feature work with clients or students as well as with peers. These cohorts, therefore, need to learn and practice refined interpersonal, information seeking, and organizational skills, professional writing, and time management skills, and the ability to source and critically analyze the research and scholarship that supports effective practice. The chapter outlines how WIL principles might be integrated into pre-internship initiatives to help develop the capabilities that underpin professional practice. This is illustrated in Table 29.1, outlining strategies to support effective pre-placement initiatives. Suggestions are offered for adapting this model across academic programs while adhering to identified best practices; the chapter concludes by summarizing the strengths and challenges of implementation. 460

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-34

Table 29.1  Features of an ongoing pre-internship initiative delivered parallel to the curriculum Strategy

Characteristics

Advantages Environmental

Student

Faculty

• Aligned with faculty research or scholarship to ensure broad discipline relevance and faculty buy-in. • Offered to students from the first year of study.

• Faculty recruited as preinternship partners. • Faculty and students introduced to the principles of WIL and of instrumental mentoring

• Within the preinternship sessions, students and faculty adopt professional personas as partners.

• Students encounter broader peer group interactions and new professional experiences. • Students learn information seeking behavior.

• Students engage in WIL preparation from their first year at university and journal their development over multiple semesters. • Emphasis on development, effort, and commitment.

• Clear expectations as to responsibilities and expected benefits for all parties. • Recruitment begins mid-semester for the following semester’s initiative. • Announcements made via regular student channels. • Opportunities for leadership development among students. • Opportunities such as graduate school are seen as achievable.

• Faculty and student partners recruit new participants with short presentations given in first-year classes. • Recruitment events feature opportunities for interested students to ask questions.

• Transitional support from mentors as students engage as interns. • Students learn to synthesize and present research ideas. • Students develop a sense of belonging, which is critical to student retention.

• Faculty encounter broader peer group interactions, perspectives, and collaborations. • New collaborative opportunities among teaching/ research staff. • Broader engagement increases diversity. • Early opportunities to begin developing deeper professional/ mentoring relationships with students. • Pre-internship initiatives can be structured as action research projects, enabling scholarly reflection and publication of the findings.

• Visibility and validity of WIL preparation improves, increasing recruiting level of new students and of faculty.

•

• Students and staff engage in WIL preparation across multiple semesters.

• • •

Deeper professional understanding. Leadership skills. Peer-to-peer collegial relationships. Student-led research opportunities.

• WIL preparation becomes more sustainable and student-led. • Faculty learn the temporal dimensions of WIL and the elements of pre-internship education.

(Continued)

Using instrumental mentoring

461

Programming

Table 29.1  (Continued) Strategy

Characteristics

Advantages Environmental

Student

Faculty

• Meetings designed as small, flexible working groups.

• Intensives are run between semesters to enable students to work around regular coursework and other commitments.

•

• Small groups develop professional relationships and build sense of belonging.

• Faculty are enabled to further their research and scholarship within a collegial setting.

• Authentic tasks developed from staff research, some of them cross-disciplinary.

•

• Students learn through authentic experiences. • Opportunities to explore content outside their area of study. • Ability to engage in multiple aspects of the research process.

• Greater research capacity. • Potential to enhance research skills through mentoring and peer engagement. • More understanding of educational research and scholarship.

•

•

• Students practice their agency and voice. • Increased opportunities for student learning, both in attending research events and through presenting in a safe environment.

• Provides opportunities for cross-faculty partnerships.

Research presentations designed to be student centered and student led.

•

•

Pre-internship tasks must be achievable. Appropriate scaffolding provided to students and faculty.

Impromptu conversations in class as research topics find relevance in class content. Scheduled presentations are given sufficient notice.

Designated venue that is familiar and accessible to students as a workplace. • Multiple research projects with different weekly schedules. • Communication strategy established (e.g., email group). • Few first-year engagements involve human subjects. • Researchers are responsible for all ethical protocols. • Opportunities for visiting faculty or university leaders to understand educational research and scholarship. • Driven by student interests.

Dawn Bennett and Cindy Ann Smith

462

Programming

Using instrumental mentoring

Background and context Preparing students for internships and graduate work The most dominant model of WIL has been internships (work placements, co-op, practicums, etc.), which in the case of pre-service teachers take the form of placements within a school. As seen in this handbook, WIL is far broader than that, and encompasses “a range of activities that integrate learning and practice” (Ferns et al., 2014, p. 1). The importance of WIL is clear in that “degree programs are rarely sufficient in and of themselves to deliver a good employability outcome” (Bennett et al., 2016, p. 12). This does not mean that students need to be in a workplace to learn work-related skills and knowledge (Mason et al., 2009; Yorke & Knight, 2004). Rather, and seen increasingly as institutions have reacted to COVID-19 and other internship challenges, WIL can be effective in multiple contexts including in online settings and on campus (Wood et al., 2020). The pre-internships initiative described in this chapter is applicable to any discipline. As the example is with pre-service teachers, time is taken here to explain the context. Emery (2018) is among several teacher education scholars to align long-standing teacher attrition of almost 50% within five years of graduation with the non-instructional demands and skillsets of a teaching role. To address these challenges in WIL preparation, the pre-internship activities described in this chapter were designed to have relevance to students’ discipline studies (teacher education), to common factors in teacher attrition (interprofessional skills), and to common challenges within student teacher placements (e.g., interprofessional skills and information seeking behavior). Classroom teaching is an important aspect of teachers’ work; however, quality educational systems depend on professionals who are experts both in delivering instruction to children and in a range of interprofessional skills including educational scholarship, self-management, and curricular management (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002). In higher education, the traditional model of requiring students to complete theoretical classwork and assignments before experiencing WIL in the form of school practicums, separates theory and practice. Ironically, deficits in student teacher preparation for WIL can relate not to teaching ability, but to the interprofessional skills noted above. The same skills are identified in studies of teacher attrition, suggesting that these skills are essential foundations both for successful WIL and successful graduate entry (Ballantyne et al., 2020).

Employability in the context of work-integrated learning The initiative adopted a broad view of employability development that recognizes the need for lifelong employability work with which people maintain “the ability to find, create, and sustain meaningful work across the career lifespan and in multiple contexts” (Bennett, 2019, p. i). Dacre-Pool and Sewell (2007, p. 280) take a similar approach with their definition of employability as having the “skills, knowledge, understanding and personal attributes that make a person more likely to choose and secure occupations in which they can be satisfied and successful.” The role of higher education institutions in creating ‘employable’ graduates has never been more heavily scrutinized. Initially related to graduate skills and competencies, graduate employability is now understood to be influenced by labor market characteristics together with the possession of multiple capitals (Barkas et al., 2021; Tomlinson, 2017) and capabilities amassed through a process of becoming (Holmes, 2013; Long et al., 2012). Graduates are under pressure to demonstrate previous work experience together with strategies and examples of how they 463

Dawn Bennett and Cindy Ann Smith

will manage the non-technical aspects of a role, and there is growing understanding that the development of interprofessional skills varies greatly among the student population. The implications for WIL include the value of engaging commencing students in the development of the interprofessional skills that enable success in internships and in graduate roles, highlighting the need for WIL preparation.

Theoretical framework The pre-internship initiative was grounded in self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and social cognitive career theory (SCCT) (Lent et al., 1994), the latter derived from Bandura’s social learning theory (1977). SCCT aligns with recent writing on the temporal dimensions and reflexive nature of WIL as a socially constructed process of becoming (Holmes, 2013; Trede, 2012; Trede & Jackson, 2019). SCCT considers the determinants of educational and occupational interest, choice, performance, satisfaction and wellbeing, and self-management across the career lifespan (see Lent, 2013; Lent & Brown, 2006; Lent et al., 1994). It also encompasses metacognition, learner agency, reflexivity, and self-regulation (see Lent et al., 1994). An important aspect of these concepts in the context of interns is that self-regulated learners “invoke systematic and regular methods of learning to improve performance, and … adapt to changing contexts” through a process of initial and then lifelong learning (Cassidy, 2011, p.  989). Bennett and Ananthram (2022, p. 2) explain that self-regulated learning behavior involves “reciprocal causation between personal processes such as goal-related behaviour and academic self-efficacy; the learning environment and associated task demands; and the accumulation of individual outcomes over time”. Central to this is the process of information seeking, which has received scant attention in the WIL literature (Vu et al., 2022). SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000) posits that activities such as WIL can enable learners to develop self-regulated learning behaviors. An individual’s level of intrinsic motivation is often described as an internal state unaffected by the efforts of university educators; however, the internal state is influenced by environmental structure and culture. In the context of pre-service teachers, this can be thought of as “the interplay of personal and contextual factors around early career teachers’ experiences” (Johnson & Down, 2013, p. 530). As such, the basis for intrinsic motivation and subsequent professional and personal growth rests within a student’s ability to experience gains in the three basic human needs of competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In the initiative reported here, the context for learner development was an instrumental mentoring initiative in which the focus was the interprofessional skills and information seeking behavior on which WIL and graduate roles depend. Instrumental mentoring is particularly suited to young adults because the development of a mentoring relationship is an outcome of goal-based interactions with a focus on support and advocacy (Cavell & Elledge, 2014; Schenk et al., 2021).

Pre-internship activities in parallel with the curriculum In an ideal world, pre-internship activities would be embedded within the curriculum alongside post-internship reflection. There is rarely the curricular space to embed these activities in a meaningful way or across the student lifecycle, and it is not uncommon for pre-internship initiatives to run in parallel with the curriculum. In part, this stems from lack of recognition that WIL is temporal and encapsulates student learning before, during, and after an internship. 464

Using instrumental mentoring

The pre-internship initiative described here provided opportunities for learners to develop their interprofessional skills, self-regulated learning behaviors, and information seeking skills using instrumental mentoring (Smith et  al., 2020). This was accomplished by engaging students as partner researchers (Cook-Sather & Matthews, 2021) within a learning community – essentially, inviting them to be part of research that was active within faculty. The usual student–teacher interactions were ‘left at the door,’ and student interns were involved as research partners with proposal development, data collection, communication strategies, background readings, and theoretical frameworks. By making multiple pre-internship initiatives available to students from the first year of study, students were able to repeatedly explore and experience concepts they had only seen in theory. They began to make meaning of their pre-teacher education, and by adopting a professional – rather than a student – identity, they began their professional journey from expert student to novice but deliberate professional (Reid et al., 2011; Trede & McEwen, 2016). The initiative was not connected to a specific unit of study and is transferable across disciplines. Moreover, recruitment information focused on commitment to learning rather than present skill level. This had several advantages and helped to blend the theoretical and professional learning as an integrated experience early in students’ academic careers. This is consistent with the concept of embedding WIL activities across the discipline to support the deeper conceptualization of employability thinking (Bennett, 2019).

Linking theory and practice through whole-of-program engagement Although it is recognized that teachers learn through a combination of theoretical and practical experiences, supporting pre-service teachers to understand the connection and relevance of both, and to view their learning as a more holistic experience, can be challenging for two reasons. First, the theoretical and practical elements of a degree program may be perceived as separate, with theoretical learning taking place in a university classroom and practical learning experiences taking place in school placements. Second, although a lack of academic writing skill is often identified by students as a barrier to university success, teacher education programs typically have the time and resources to dedicate to additional activities or objectives. Instrumental mentoring enabled the organizers to overcome these barriers by constructing an environment for learning, rather than an environment for teaching. Within this framework and consistent with SDT, students were able to develop self-regulated learning behaviors through observation, vicarious experiences, and interaction within the learning community (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Because the initiative ran in parallel to the curriculum across the degree program, students were asked to commit early in their studies. This ensured a vibrant learning community that supported development of student agency and a sense of belonging, together with peer mentorship of incoming students. In essence, the initiative provided a safe environment for developing the interprofessional skills and attributes required for successful WIL engagement while building a positive culture of community learning within the faculty. The collaborative atmosphere fostered the networks and efficacy beliefs that students carry with them as they progress through university and into their careers. Successful blending of theoretical and professional learning requires attention to two levels of detail. First, the initiative should be conceptually aligned to promote collegiality between faculty and students within a common learning community. This was achieved by ensuring that research studies were related to students’ study discipline. Second, in seeking to promote skill development, information seeking, and self-directed study skills, the initiative should support 465

Dawn Bennett and Cindy Ann Smith

an authentic, collegial atmosphere with a high level of student agency. This was achieved by setting clear expectations, locating the community in a neutral space, and employing instrumental mentoring. Table 29.1 outlines the strategies that might underpin a pre-internship initiative that runs parallel to the curriculum.

Implementing a pre-internship initiative outside the curriculum There are obvious challenges in creating and sustaining a pre-internship initiative outside the curriculum, including the buy-in of faculty and students. The responses to these challenges were to consider intensive faculty activities that occur between semesters, and which might provide opportunities for students to develop interprofessional skills. The solution found was in the form of faculty research, which is required as part of an academic role and is often ‘squeezed’ into non-teaching periods. The pre-internship initiative runs in each semester break and brings together faculty and students as research partners within the framework of instrumental mentoring. Each iteration of the pre-internship initiative features an information session, a two-week intensive pre-internship experience, and a closing event. These temporal elements are essential to the program and consistent with good practices for mentorship programs and WIL preparation (Billett, 2015; Rowe & Winchester-Seeto, 2021). For consistency with the WIL literature and concepts, the mentor/mentee dyads are referred to as academic and student partners.

Information session The information session enables academic and student partners to get to know each other and learn essential procedures. Academic partners give short presentations on their research projects, including examples of roles that might be considered by student partners. In describing student roles, a balance is sought between accurate descriptions of possibly unfamiliar tasks and the collaborative, scaffolded nature of the project; this ensures that student partners feel supported rather than overwhelmed. Sessions are informal and student partners are encouraged to comment and ask questions. Students commit to 60 hours of work across the two-week internship, and they agree on working hours with their academic team. Concluding the sessions with a light meal promotes a personable, relaxing environment in which to begin the partnership development process.

Two-week internship Academic and student partners work on campus in a dedicated space for two weeks during each semester break. Academic partners ensure that at least one academic partner is always in the room. The mix of flexibility and structure promotes both the development of small working groups and the relationships across multiple research groups. In line with WIL principles, the two weeks are presented and organized as a pre-internship. Student partners complete literature searches for which they learn how to use the library databases, compile annotated bibliographies, and undertake editing tasks including referencing and in-text citations. Student partners participate in research proposal discussions, grant-writing development, and methodology discussions; more experienced student partners engage with data collection, data analysis, academic writing, and ethical protocols. Over the pre-internship period, scheduled meetings are interspersed with professional learning sessions, whole-group meetings, and opportunities to attend interviews and analysis 466

Using instrumental mentoring

discussions with other research internships groups. Both academics and student partners attend these sessions, finding them useful and interesting. Both partners enjoy being part of a collegial environment in which everyone’s work and opinions are equally valued; for faculty, a bonus is that research tasks, often undertaken in isolation between semesters, are undertaken within a vibrant research community.

Closing event The final afternoon of the two-week partnership is dedicated to reflecting on and affirming the pre-internship experience. Academic partners summarize the team’s activities and outcomes, groups report on their work, and student partners receive a certificate that recognizes their commitment. A light meal served after the formalities supports further conversation and relationship development. The day ends with semi-structured focus group interviews, the findings of which inform subsequent iterations of the initiative. Actively listening to the students’ feedback and suggestions reinforces their sense of agency as colleagues who have valuable contributions (Zegwaard et al., 2017). Students are invited to continue working with their academic partners and some students take up this opportunity.

What has been learned: implications for practice The pre-internship initiative features authentic tasks that are determined by the research needs of academic partners and the learning needs of student partners. Because the initiative sits outside the curriculum there are no formal assessments, students receive no credit, and faculty receive no workload allocation. The outcomes are evaluated by thinking of the initiative itself as a research study with ethical permissions to analyze academic and student partner journal entries, focus group data, follow-up interviews with students after one year of the initiative, and data on student engagement. The findings reported by Smith et  al. (2019) demonstrate a positive impact on students’ personal growth, academic self-efficacy and future visioning, and benefits for faculty including increased research productivity and a new sense of research community and collaboration.

Personal growth and reflection Students note that the pre-internship has the intended impact of heightening their interprofessional skills. Seen in students’ journal entries, many student partners are initially unsure that they can make a valuable contribution to a research project because they lack confidence in their writing skills and find academic research to be intimidating. There is a marked difference in the level of confidence expressed by student partners by the end of the initiative (Smith et al., 2020) and students report that this confidence is transferred into other new environments including their industry placements. Besides using their journals for self-reflection, student partners often take detailed notes of sessions they attend on subjects including quantitative coding procedures, library search methods, and research term definitions. The student partners often organize study groups around common tasks, taking the lead in peer-learning activities. Becoming variously learners and leaders in these groups fosters students’ self-confidence as learners and professionals – their efficacy beliefs – which underpin the psychological empowerment potential of WIL ( Jaaffar et al., 2019). 467

Dawn Bennett and Cindy Ann Smith

Most student partners begin as individuals not knowing the other participants. Cohesive and collegial working relationships develop over the two-week pre-internship period and some students seek out, rather than wait for, further opportunities to engage with academic partners. Conversations within and across teams change as students gain confidence in their information-seeking behavior. This is seen in more focused questions and in students’ ability to articulate why they might agree or disagree with a particular theoretical view and engage in deeper discourse with their peers. Many students comment on their increased comfort in asking for help or information, and they note that this behavior persists when they later interact with academic partners in a more traditional student–teacher relationship. The student partners demonstrate changes in both their attitudes and behaviors, consistent with the foundations of SCCT (Lent et  al., 1994). Specifically, they begin to see themselves as professionals, develop a stronger sense of self-confidence as to their skills, and display a higher level of self-regulation. Some students continue their research work in paid assistant roles. At the time of writing, student partners had contributed to four peer-reviewed journal articles, one application for a ‘research in schools’ initiative, and a conference presentation.

Academic skills Student partners who attend interviews a year after their initial pre-internship engagement report that their new-found confidence, sense of belonging, and skill development have contributed positively to their university experience, connectedness, and academic skills. There is also persistent evidence of growth in important foundational skills including academic writing, understanding research papers, and being able to draw on research for assessments. Student partners make specific mention of newly learned strategies such as finding and highlighting key points in their readings, highlighting points when synthesizing or summarizing information, or being able to critically evaluate their readings. As one student partner noted, “this is the way I should have been researching for assignments in the past!” (Smith et al., 2020).

Future visioning Changes in the ways students see themselves as learners and as professionals are foundational to the concept of SDT, including the development of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). A pre-internship initiative can give students a sense of ‘peeking behind the curtain’ and the confidence that they can be treated as professionals. Because the research topics in our initiative are educational in nature, the initiative gives pre-service teachers opportunities to explore and practice the theoretical bases of the science and theory of learning and teaching. Similarly, as active researchers, the students report greater understanding of the function, process, and value of the peer review process in academic research. Students report that their interactions with peers and faculty across semesters, and with lecturers and researchers as partners and co-workers, support a broader vision of themselves, the field in general, and their positionality within that field (Smith et  al., 2020). They also report a broader career view, which might include themselves as administrators or researchers; this fuels curiosity about graduate school. Of interest, later-year participants report that their pre-internship experience enables them to participate in WIL activities such as parent–teacher meetings or school faculty meetings with confidence. 468

Using instrumental mentoring

Faculty culture Pre-internship initiatives can disrupt traditional thinking about student/academic interactions and support a positive change in school culture. Teaching staff tend to think of the responsibilities of teaching, research, and service as separate tasks, and there is often frustration when there is insufficient time for everything. A pre-internship initiative aligned with faculty research can provide a manageable way for teaching staff to combine their duties of teaching and student support. Run in the semester break, the initiative can reduce the isolation that characterizes many research writing activities, and the meaningful professional relationships between the staff and students can underpin more productive teaching relationships during a semester. Moreover, it can promote greater collaboration between faculty.

Transferability across programs and tasks The pre-internship initiative described in this chapter was completed within a university school of education and the students were pre-service teachers; however, the same model can be used in multiple programs. The elements of effective practice for mentoring outlined by Garringer et al. (2015), and discussed earlier, have been successfully employed in diverse student engagement programs with young adults transitioning out of care systems (Schenk et al., 2021), peer mentoring for high school students (Karcher & Nakkula, 2010), and students from specific cultures (Dutton et al., 2019), and have broad applicability across programs and tasks (Kaufman et al., 2021). In line with instrumental mentoring, pre-internship initiatives need to be carefully planned with specified goals so that the focus is on tasks and relationships rather than task content and processes. Although all students and staff want to belong and to experience positive collegial relationships, each group will have unique attributes. It is, therefore, important to consider the needs of each cohort and to leverage participant strengths in support of positive outcomes. It is important that the initiative has mutual benefits for participants, authentic projects and tasks, clear expectations for students and academic partners, and multi-semester faculty support. Only by providing authentic tasks can academic partners feel that they are supporting student learning while being supported at the same time, creating a truly win–win scenario of colleagues working together.

Conclusion This chapter has explored a pre-internship initiative that focuses on interprofessional skills and employs the framework of instrumental mentoring. The program ran in parallel with the curriculum and was first offered to students before they encountered a school placement. Students were positioned as emerging professionals and student research partners, and they were encouraged to interact with their peers and teachers as professionals. Student engagement in and across research teams helped to communicate the value of WIL across the faculty and enabled students to develop interprofessional skills including some of the non-instructional skills and capabilities on which success as a teacher depends. The model engages faculty because it presents a strategy with which to meet the demands of service and research, or enables them to advance a project about which they are passionate. At the center of the initiative is students for whom the transition to university and the experience of WIL can hold multiple challenges. Offering the pre-internship initiative to students in 469

Dawn Bennett and Cindy Ann Smith

their first semester of study was a deliberate attempt to reduce praxis shock and create a sense of belonging through early and ongoing support of their engagement as pre-­professionals. The timing disrupted the typical learning model in teacher training, in that students learn the theory and practice with peers as ‘students’ before entering a school and practicing with supervisors as ‘teachers,’ similar to the pre-WIL learning in most disciplines. It is concluded that collaborative instrumental mentoring programs based on best practice WIL principles, and which engage students as partners, can be an effective and sustainable way of preparing students for WIL.

References Ballantyne, J., Flynn, L., & Olm-Madden, T. (2020). Problem-seeking in teacher education: Empowering students to grapple with the complexities of the profession. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5), 38–61. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2020v45n5.3. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. General Learning Press. Barkas, L. A., Scott, J. M., Hadley, K., & Dixon-Todd, Y. (2021). Marketing students’ meta-skills and employability: between the lines of social capital in the context of the teaching excellence framework. Education+ Training 63(4), 545–561. Bennett, D. (2019). Embedding employABILITY thinking across Australian higher education. Australian Government Department of Education and Training. https://altf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ Developing-EmployABILITY-draft-fellowship-report-1.pdf. Bennett, D., & Ananthram, S. (2022). Development, validation and deployment of the EmployABILITY scale. Studies in Higher Education, 47(7), 1311–1325. Bennett, D., Richardson, S., & MacKinnon, P. (2016, March). Enacting strategies for graduate employability: How universities can best support students to develop generic skills. Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Billett, S. (2015). Key findings about integrating experiences. In S. Billett (Ed.), Integrating practice-based experiences into higher education (pp. 135–160). Springer. Cassidy, S. (2011). Self-regulated learning in higher education: identifying key component processes. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.503269. Cavell, T. A., & Elledge, L. C. (2014). Mentoring and prevention science. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 29–43). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412996907.n3. Coll, R. K., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2011). The integration of knowledge in cooperative and work-integrated education programs. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 297–304). World Association for Cooperative Education. Cook-Sather, A., & Matthews, K. E. (2021). Pedagogical partnership: Engaging with students as co-­ creators of curriculum, assessment and knowledge. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach, (pp. 243–259). Taylor & Francis. Dacre-Pool, L. D., & Sewell, P. (2007). The key to employability: Developing a practical model of graduate employability. Education + Training, 49(4), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910710754435. Dutton, H., Bullen, P., & Deane, K. L. (2019). “It is OK to let them know you are human too?” Mentor self-disclosure in formal youth mentoring relationships. Journal of Community Psychology, 47(4), 943–963. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22165 Emery, D. L. (2018). The effect on teacher career choices: Exploring teacher perceptions on the impact of non-­ instructional workload on self efficacy and self-determination. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Ferns, S., Campbell, M., & Zegwaard, K. (2014). Work integrated learning. In S. Ferns (Ed.), HERDSA guide: Work integrated learning in the curriculum (pp. 1–6). Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. Garringer, M., Kupersmidt, J., Rhodes, J., Stelter, R., & Tai, T. (2015). Elements of effective practice for mentoring (4th ed.). The National Mentoring Partnership. https://www.mentoring.org/resource/ elements-of-effective-practice-for-mentoring/ Holmes, L. (2013). Competing perspectives on graduate employability: possession, position or process?. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 538–554.

470

Using instrumental mentoring Jaaffar, A. M., Ibrahim, H. I., Rajadurai, J., & Sohail, M. S. (2019). Psychological impact of work-­ integrated learning programmes in Malaysia: The moderating role of self-esteem on relation between self-efficacy and self-confidence. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 8(2), 188–213. Johnson, B., & Down, B. (2013). Critically re-conceptualising early career teacher resilience. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(5), 703–715. Karcher, M. J., & Nakkula, M. J. (2010). Youth mentoring with a balanced focus, shared purpose, and collaborative interactions. New Directions for Youth Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.347 Kaufman, M. R., Levine, D., Casella, A., & DuBois, D. L. (2021). E-mentoring to address youth health: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review. 7, 63–78. Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrative-biographical study on teacher socialisation. Teaching and teacher education, 18(1), 105–120. Lent, R. W. (2013). Social cognitive career theory. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.). Career development and counselling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 115–146). (2nd ed.). Wiley. Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). On conceptualizing and assessing social cognitive constructs in career research: A measurement guide. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 12–35. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122. Long, J. S., McKenzie-Robblee, S., Schaefer, L., Steeves, P., Wnuk, S., Pinnegar, E., & Clandinin, D. J. (2012). Literature review on induction and mentoring related to early career teacher attrition and retention. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(1), 7–26. Mason, G., Williams, G., & Cranmer, S. (2009). Employability skills initiatives in higher education: what effects do they have on graduate labour market outcomes? Education Economics, 17(1), 1–30. Reid, A., Dahlgren, M. A., Dahlgren, L. O., & Petocz, P. (2011). From expert student to novice professional. Springer Science & Business Media. Rowe, A. D., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2021). Support for student learning in work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-­ integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 96–106). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781003021049 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1) 68–78. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. Schenk, L., Sentse, M., Lenkens, M., Nagelhout, G. E., Engbersen, G., & Severiens, S. (2021). instrumental mentoring for young adults: A multi-method study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 36(4), 398–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558420979123 Smith, C., Beltman, S., Dinham, J., Dobinson, T. J., & Jay, J. (2020). Supporting undergraduate university students through instrumental mentoring. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 45(1), 82–98. https:// ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol45/iss1/6/ Smith, C., Ferns, S. J., & Russell, L. (2019). Placement quality has a greater impact on employability than placement structure or duration. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 15–19. Tomlinson, M. (2017). Forms of graduate capital and their relationship to graduate employability. Education+ Training, 56(4), 338–352. Trede, F. (2012). Role of work-integrated learning in developing professionalism and professional identity. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 13(3), 159. Trede, F., & Jackson, D. (2019). Educating the deliberate professional and enhancing professional agency through peer reflection of work-integrated learning. Active Learning in Higher Education. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469787419869125 Trede, F., & McEwen, C. (2016). Scoping the deliberate professional. In F. Trede, & C. McEwen (Eds.), Educating the deliberate professional. (pp. 3–14). Springer. Universities Australia. (2019). Work-integrated learning in universities. Universities Australia. Vu, T. V., Bennett, D., & Ananthram, S. (2022). Learning in the workplace: Newcomers’ information seeking behaviour and implications for education. Studies in Continuing Education. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0158037X.2022.2041593 Wood, Y. I., Zegwaard, K. E., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2020). Conventional, remote, virtual and simulated work-integrated learning: A meta-analysis of existing practice. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 331–354. Yorke, M., & Knight, P. (2004). Self-theories: Some implications for teaching and learning in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 29(1), 25–37. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1234567032000164859

471

Dawn Bennett and Cindy Ann Smith Zegwaard, K. E., Campbell, M., & Pretti, T. J. (2017). Professional identities and ethics: The role of work-integrated learning in developing agentic professionals. In T. Bowen & M. T. B. Drysdale (Eds.), Work-integrated learning in the 21st century: Global perspectives on the future (pp. 145–160). https://doi. org/10.1108/S1479-367920170000032009

472

30 LEARNER ASSESSMENT IN WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING Jennie Brentnall, Belinda Judd, Jacqueline Raymond, and Emma Ashcroft Introduction Work-­integrated learning (WIL) refers to a wide range of approaches that have in common the integration of curriculum elements in workplace contexts and work practices (Patrick et al., 2008). While the authentic nature of WIL raises particular opportunities for learner assessment, this remains one of the biggest challenges in designing WIL programs (Orrell, 2011). The first section of this chapter outlines assessment and feedback practices that are used to: • • •

Evaluate learning (assessment ‘of ’ learning); Promote continued learning (assessment ‘for’ learning); Make decisions about progress through learning programs (programs of assessment).

The features of learning in workplace contexts have implications for assessing learners’ readiness for WIL and supporting their engagement with assessment and feedback to promote their continued learning. These two topics are given particular consideration here, each supported with practice examples. The second section of this chapter provides an overview of several key considerations for assessment in WIL, from the broad curriculum considerations of constructive alignment to authentic assessment and consideration of the safe container of learning, to specific strategies for developing evaluative judgment skills, and designing workplace-­based assessments of learner performance. A final practice example provides an illustration of workplace-­based assessment design to support quality judgments regarding learner performance. Quality WIL assessment is a result of implementing assessment and feedback practices that are fit-­for-­purpose, and factoring in key considerations for the design of assessments and assessment programs (Figure 30.1). These practices in turn promote balance in the opportunities and challenges of assessment in a WIL context and reduce the impacts of threats to fairness and equity on assessment outcomes.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-35

473

Jennie Brentnall et al.

Learner Assessment in WIL

Considerations for Assessment in WIL

Assessment of Learning

Constructive Alignment

Assessing Readiness for WIL

Authentic Assessment

Assessment for Learning

The Safe Container for WIL

Learners’ Engagement with Feedback Developing Learners’ Evaluative Judgment

Programs of Assessment

Designing Assessments of Learner Performance

Quality WIL Assessment Figure 30.1  Quality work-integrated learning assessment and feedback practices and considerations.

Learner assessment in work-integrated learning A variety of learner assessment and feedback practices are employed in WIL, influenced by assessment purpose (i.e., assessment ‘of ’ learning and assessment ‘for’ learning), learning outcomes and contexts, disciplinary norms, and the requirements of institutions and external accreditation bodies. The application of the same assessment designs to WIL as to campus-­based and coursework learning is not always appropriate and could even undermine the very benefits and intended outcomes of WIL (Ajjawi et al., 2020). Types of assessment commonly used to match the needs and opportunities in WIL include performance-­based assessments, reflective tasks, portfolio assessments, and work-­related product outputs such as reports and presentations, each with different purposes, strengths, and challenges (Table 30.1). The assessment of more complex constructs may appropriately combine learning and assessment activities and types in ‘programs of assessment.’ Performance-­based assessments involving qualified professionals judging the professional competence of the learner (Babadi Akashi et  al., 2020; Martin et  al., 2012) are frequently used in WIL, though their usage across disciplines may vary considerably (Ferns & Moore, 2012). Reflective tasks and portfolio assessments are highly flexible, are able to be evaluated by university assessors, and are increasingly used as WIL expands (Ferns & Moore, 2012; Ferns & Zegwaard, 2014). Work-­related product outputs including reports and presentations may be similar to other university assessments, but in WIL they entail a connection to the workplace context and activities and speak directly to workplace stakeholders as an audience. Each of these assessment types embeds opportunities for feedback dialogue, which is critical to enable learners to make improvements on their performance. 474

Table 30.1  Common assessment types in work-integrated learning Focus

Strengths

Challenges

Performance-­based assessments

• How learners perform activities: processes executed and/or outcomes achieved • Learners’ demonstration of professional behaviors and applied knowledge and skills

• Requires assessor judgments, made either by external providers or examiners with limited assessment opportunities • Difficult to maintain consistent standards across examiners • Where contexts for skill demonstration vary, the challenge may vary between learners

Reflective tasks including diaries and summary reports

• Learners’ consideration of their personal objectives and/or curriculum requirements given the opportunities of their WIL experience • Learners’ meaning-­making regarding their experiences • Learners’ self-­appraisal of their development/needs • Compilation of achievements • Evidence of attainment shown in artifacts • Demonstration of learning or development

• Scope to assess global skills (e.g., workplace supervisor’s report), professional competencies (e.g., checklists or structured evaluation reports) or specific skills (e.g., OSCEs) • Opportunity for educator (expert) evaluation, self-­evaluation, and/or peer-­evaluation • Focus on application • Use of judgment to assess professional, learning, and interpersonal skills that can be difficult to assess academically • Promote meaning making and thereby deeper learning • Personalize to the opportunities of the WIL experience and individual learner and thereby support alignment between learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessment • Semi-­structured composition is flexible • Work-­relevant: can be used by learners to convey achievements to prospective employers and others

• Variations in WIL experiences may make it difficult to set standards across learners • May focus more on outputs than on learning and development or skills and attributes • Variations in WIL stakeholder needs may make it difficult to set standards across learners

Portfolio assessments for single or multiple WIL experiences

Work-­relevant product outputs such as project reports, presentations, or products

• Professional outputs relevant to the workplace context • Meeting workplace stakeholder needs (content and style of communication or product output)

OSCEs: Objective Structured Clinical Evaluations.

• Flexible to the priorities of external stakeholders and thereby learning opportunities available • Work-­relevant for learners and of practical use to external stakeholders

• Variations in WIL experiences may make it difficult to set standards across learners • Learners’ reflections may be indicative of their skills in reflective writing as much as their learning from the WIL experience

Learner assessment in work-integrated learning

475

Assessment type

Jennie Brentnall et al.

Assessment of learning in work-integrated learning As with other curriculum components, assessment ‘of ’ learning in WIL drives feedback and learning and enables education providers to certify the achievement of learning outcomes with integrity and accountability (Ferns & Zegwaard, 2014). It is the basis for providing graduates with externally recognized records that determine qualification for employment or further study (Boud & Falchikov, 2006). It also enables providers to meet the public-­good imperative to maintain accountability for professional entry into specified fields, as is overseen by accrediting bodies. Assessment of learning can, however, be complicated by the defining features of WIL: learning in workplace contexts and learning of work practices. WIL settings are frequently diverse and physically separate from educational institutions, with learning occurring under the guidance of affiliates without direct oversight from the educational body (Ajjawi et al., 2020). Opportunities to develop and demonstrate attainment of preconceived learning outcomes and standards may not arise equally in each setting (Ferns & Zegwaard, 2014; Scholtz, 2020; Smith, 2014). Similarly, the learning of work practices often entails the holistic performance of a wide range of activities, with variations as to which activities are performed and their execution between contexts (Ajjawi et  al., 2020). Learners are frequently required to work effectively within teams, and the influences of other parties are beyond the control of the learner or academic institution (Ferns & Zegwaard, 2014). Situations in which the roles of facilitating and assessing learning are confounded may also contribute to leniency bias (Jackson, 2018; Lasen et  al., 2018), or educators may simply lack the requisite skills for assessment and feedback (Jackson, 2018; Lasen et  al., 2018; Trede & Smith, 2014).

Assessing readiness for work-integrated learning WIL contexts are usually less structured and learner-­centered than educational institutions. Readiness for WIL describes the receptiveness of an individual to learning in such contexts, which is predicated on having skills and attributes that support engagement in learning processes with an awareness of the workplace setting as a learning environment. Readiness for WIL is thereby related to, yet distinct from, knowledge and skill mastery, or the work readiness of graduates. Readiness for WIL is particularly important for novice learners preparing to start transferring skills and behaviors learned in formal studies to WIL settings. To make the best use of available learning opportunities, it is imperative these learners are adequately prepared before engaging in WIL (Banneheke et  al., 2017; Chipchase et  al., 2012). This is particularly important given the challenges and stresses for both learners and educators associated with the situated nature of experiential learning. Further, WIL is often a costly component of learners’ education (e.g., travel expenses and lost income), with both educational institutions and host organizations also investing significant resources to ensure quality learning encounters while maintaining core business functions in the workplace, standards, and safety. When learners are well-­prepared for WIL, the financial, reputational, and emotional costs that underperformance entails for both learners and WIL providers may be significantly lessened. It is unsurprising that placement educators agree on the importance of learners being prepared for WIL. Although the characteristics of readiness for WIL may be difficult to judge, growing research confirms that professional, ethical, and learner behaviors are central to 476

Learner assessment in work-integrated learning

educators’ perceptions of learners’ readiness for WIL, along with communication skills, knowledge, and understanding (Banneheke et al., 2017; Chipchase et al., 2012; Cross, 1998). Many of the relevant characteristics and skills appear to be common across professional disciplines. One response, an interdisciplinary approach to identifying and developing an assessment of readiness for WIL, is described in Box 30.1.

Box 30.1  Designing an assessment to evaluate allied health students’ readiness for work-integrated learning Considering that readiness for WIL is an important construct distinct from the endpoint outcomes of WIL, Judd et al. (2017) developed the Evaluation of Foundational Placement Competencies (EFPC) with the aims of both evaluating and providing feedback on students’ readiness for extended placement learning in the allied health professions. As with any assessment, the first task was to define the construct: readiness for placement. The scope was informed by the literature, and particularly the expectations of placement educators (Banneheke et al., 2017; Chipchase et al., 2012). Given that readiness for placement has common features across allied health disciplines, shared themes were identified: professional behavior, learner behavior, communication, and information gathering (the ability to seek out and interpret key information regarding a patient’s situation). With the goal of producing an authentic assessment, a longitudinal evaluation of demonstrated behavior in a relevant context such as simulation was chosen. With the outcome of interest being students’ demonstrated professional behavior, learner behavior, communication, and information gathering, the next step was to develop behavioral statements (i.e., “the student …”) to sample those domains. For each domain, five representative behavioral statements were developed, such as “the student is punctual and manages their application of time to tasks” or “the student takes responsibility for their own learning.” For each behavioral statement, two example behaviors were nominated, such as “asks questions and clarifies their understanding” as an example of taking responsibility for learning. A Likert rating scale was developed to rate the appropriateness and independence of the student’s performance over the evaluation period. This approach was selected to support a common interpretation and transparency while not reducing readiness for placement to a checklist. Further, it maintained an approach familiar to educators from existing assessments of competence used during WIL placements in allied health (Allison & Turpin, 2004; Dalton et al., 2011; McAllister et al., 2010). Finally, a summary rating of readiness for placement was developed for assessors to indicate their overall impression. Stakeholder input was sought in a survey of: students who had completed a simulation-­based placement preparation program and at least one placement, academics involved in pre-­placement preparation and placement support, and educators involved in simulation-­based placement preparation programs. Each was asked about the relevance and feasibility of evaluating students using each behavioral statement, and the standard of performance they would expect from a student demonstrating readiness for placement. Results confirmed that the construct definition and operationalization was perceived as relevant and feasible by both educators and students. Developing authentic performance-­based assessments in WIL and ensuring the findings are robust involves multiple research studies and revisions. Initially a single-­site, multidisciplinary study of the EFPC examined the consistency of the interpretation of the behaviors of students. Students were evaluated by educators from their own disciplines to the standards described in the assessment.

477

Jennie Brentnall et al.

While demonstrating overall positive findings, this study resulted in the refinement of terminologies and the exclusion of behaviors shown to have different importance to different disciplines (Judd et al., 2019). Subsequently, a multi-­site study was used to ensure that the assessment items were relevant, and findings were equivalent, across varying designs of WIL experiences in which the EFPC might be used: pre-­placement preparatory simulation and short introductory placements. Further research avenues supporting robust assessment of the construct of readiness for placement include: the predictive relationships between assessment outcomes and future WIL performance, the capacity of the assessment to meaningfully inform preparation for WIL program design, and the relationships between educator, student, and peer ratings.

Assessment for learning in work-integrated learning Contrasted with assessment of learning, assessment ‘for’ learning encapsulates the idea that assessment informs subsequent learning. Formative assessment informs learning in the immediate context by way of evaluating progress against relevant criteria. Key features of formative assessment include that it occurs prior to related learning to which outcomes may be applied, and that the assessment design allows the learner to engage with feedback for the purposes of informing that learning. Formative assessments are used to a greater extent in WIL than in conventional university-­ based learning (Martin et  al., 2012). Formal examples include learning contracts and mid-­ placement reviews or journal submissions, while informal examples include ongoing discussions regarding performance against standards. In WIL, formative assessment has a key role in assisting learners to identify how curriculum criteria can be demonstrated in each workplace context, addressing the challenge of WIL occurring in varied and dynamic contexts. Beyond the immediate curricular context, ‘sustainable assessment’ or ‘assessment for long-­ term learning’ is intended to foster ongoing learning (Boud & Falchikov, 2006). Sustainable assessment responds to societal expectations that higher education graduates will be prepared to apply their knowledge and skills in situations such as work (Boud & Falchikov, 2006; Boud & Soler, 2016). To do so, and to take control of lifelong learning, graduates require the skills to assess their own learning needs and achievements (Boud & Falchikov, 2006). The design of sustainable assessment therefore shares characteristics with formative assessment, purposefully engages learners in assessment, uses elements of authentic assessment, and develops learners’ evaluative judgments and feedback literacy. Alignment between what is valued in the activities of a WIL experience and the tasks of assessment can positively influence how learners value WIL, contributing to sustainable assessment (Boud & Soler, 2016). To design sustainable assessments, educators may further include elements that: • Focus on learners’ abilities to analyze problems and approaches to address them considering relevant contexts; • Involve learners in constructing the assessments; • Require learners to engage in communities of practice; • Use authentic activities and criteria; • Have learners portray outcomes to external stakeholders; • Provide for learners to take initiative; • Promote the seeking and use of feedback. (Boud & Falchikov, 2006) 478

Learner assessment in work-integrated learning

Learners' engagement with assessment-related feedback in work-integrated learning For assessments to influence learning outcomes and ultimately graduate attainment most favorably, learners must engage with the assessment process and outcomes, and feed forward into subsequent performances. Most commonly, this occurs through feedback. Effective feedback practices involve a dialogue rather than a passive transmission of information from educator to learner (Evans, 2013; Nicol, 2009). As such, assessments in WIL that include opportunities for learners to reflect on and evaluate their own performance have been associated with enhanced learner experiences (Jaekel et  al., 2011; Winstone et  al., 2020). However, for the same reasons assessment in WIL is challenging to design and administer, it can also be challenging for learners to engage with. Further, assessment-­related feedback in WIL may differ considerably from what learners are accustomed to in coursework, such as when feedback provision occurs throughout the workday and is unstructured and not explicitly labeled for the learner. Without preparation, learners may not realize that feedback is even available in these situations. The ability to recognize, seek, and reflect on feedback is known as feedback literacy and requires social, cognitive, and affective capacities (Carless & Boud, 2018; Dawson et al., 2020). However, learners typically have low levels of feedback literacy and require support to develop these capacities, which should be a shared responsibility between educators and learners (Carless & Boud, 2018; Molloy et al., 2020; Nash & Winstone, 2017). Key barriers preventing learners from engaging with feedback include a lack of understanding of the commentary and not knowing how to develop an action plan for improvement (Jonsson, 2013). Learners’ emotional regulation of their responses to feedback and learning, which may be heightened when performing in meaningful WIL contexts, are also key to feedback literacy (Molloy et al., 2020; Winstone et al., 2020). With heightened opportunities for repeated practice, assessment for learning, and formative assessment and feedback, WIL represents a key context both reliant on and opportunistic for further developing feedback literacy. Learners should develop feedback literacy skills before WIL to make the most of the learning experiences. Establishing effective processes for feedback dialogue between learners and educators during WIL then further assists learner work-­readiness ( Jackson, 2015). Box 30.2 illustrates a structured process to scaffold learners through reflection on and engagement with assessment-­related feedback in WIL.

Box 30.2  The Critical Reflection and Feedback Tool to scaffold learners’ engagement with feedback The Critical Reflection and Feedback Tool (CRaFT) (Ashcroft & Waters, 2019) responds to challenges in supporting learners to engage with both constructive and affirming feedback. As a tool developed for learners to use in feedback processes, the CRaFT facilitates learner feedback agency by prompting them to critically reflect on their actions in the context of the feedback provided. This shifts learners away from adopting a passive role in feedback exchanges and aims to support learner feedback literacy. The table below illustrates: how the CRaFT scaffolds learner engagement with feedback, how educators can respond to learner feedback challenges, and how educators can make improvements to their feedback provision.

479

Jennie Brentnall et al.

CRaFT stage

Breakdown in use of feedback

Educator intervention

Possible educator behavior changes

1. What is the feedback?

The learner has not identified feedback provided to them, e.g., in WIL contexts, has not recognized commentary from educator/client/other stakeholder. The learner has misinterpreted feedback provided.

The educator highlights/reinforces the feedback that has been provided.

The educator makes efforts to highlight when feedback is being provided; the educator supports learners to develop the skills to identify feedback

The educator paraphrases the feedback to enable the learner to understand. The educator supports the learner to reflect on what they have done in this context to receive this feedback. The educator supports the learner to develop an appropriate and meaningful action plan to address the feedback as it is related to them.

The educator changes the way they provide feedback, e.g., using language that is more ‘learner-­centered.’ The educator considers how to support learners to develop critical skills.

2. What is my understanding of the feedback? 3. How does the feedback apply to me in this context? 4. What is my action plan?

The learner has not identified why this feedback is specifically relevant to them in the context of their performance. The learner has not developed an action plan to improve/ adjust/maintain their performance based on the feedback provided.

The educator considers how to support learners to identify strategies and develop action plans to maintain or improve performance.

Since implementing CRaFT in allied health coursework and WIL units at Curtin University and the University of Sydney, educators have reported a shift from learners requesting additional feedback, to seeking support to develop action plans in response to feedback. Research is currently underway investigating the use of CRaFT in different courses and settings. The following case example illustrates the use of CRaFT in a WIL context. Occupational therapy students at the University of Sydney undertake a simulation-­based WIL unit in the second quarter of their course. Each student engages in five full-­day clinical workplace simulations over 12 weeks, with each day providing continuous opportunities for feedback from educators, peers, and simulated patients (medical actors). CRaFT is embedded into delivery of the unit with students completing it at the end of each day of simulation to identify, reflect on, and formulate an action plan based on multi-­source feedback. This process encourages students to be alert for feedback given at any time during their WIL placement. Most markedly, it shifts the onus of identifying initial strategies for improvement from the educator to the learner. Using CRaFT universally in this way allows educators to identify and focus support on at-­ risk students. CRaFT enables a ‘dialogue’ with at-­r isk learners that commences with their educators’ understanding of their current perceptions and insights and thereby promotes self-­regulation.

480

Learner assessment in work-integrated learning

This dialogue creates opportunities to identify where affirmations may have been overlooked as well as where breakdowns in each learner’s performance are occurring, and to shift learners away from unproductive or unrealistic strategies. It also offers the chance for educators to reflect on their own feedback provision and strategies to support improved feedback literacy for learners.

Programs of assessment in work-integrated learning Assessment programs, programs of assessment, and programmatic assessment are general terms used to describe a deliberately constructed, longitudinal suite of learning and assessment activities designed to inform decisions about progress through a learning program. The assessment activities produce artefacts (see Table 30.1 for a range of possible examples) which can be diverse but are coherently combined to build a profile of the learner’s progress towards meeting program level learning outcomes. In combining assessment methods, the weaknesses of one method can be balanced by the strengths of another method (Wilkinson & Tweed, 2018). This whole-­of-­program approach supports the assessment of complex, integrated constructs such as professional competence (Schuwirth & van der Vleuten, 2019). Van der Vleuten et al. (2012) describe a model of programmatic assessment that simultaneously operationalizes the concept of assessment for learning and permits robust decisions about learners’ overall progress towards meeting learning outcomes. While their programmatic assessment for learning model is predominately explained in health profession education, it is generic and applicable to other learning programs (van der Vleuten et al., 2012). In this model, assessment is embedded in the educational processes and is used to navigate a learning pathway (Schuwirth & van der Vleuten, 2011). The learner participates in multiple experiences, some of which may produce artifacts. Many assessment moments occur alongside these experiences, both formal and informal, and some of these may involve the artifacts as evidence of learning. Feedback is provided with each assessment moment, and, with the help of a coach or mentor, the learner constructs new goals and identifies the next steps for their learning. The assessment moments all contribute to the learning pathway so as maximize the principle that assessment drives learning. Decisions about learners’ progress are separate to the assessment moments (Wilkinson & Tweed, 2018), and the consequences of these decisions inform the extent to which assessment moments are combined and considered. When the consequences are minor, one assessment moment may suffice; when the consequences are major, for example, when making a decision about a learner’s readiness for professional practice, information from many assessments is combined (van der Vleuten et al., 2012). The model described by van der Vleuten et  al. (2012) is used predominantly in medical education and may involve more assessment moments and types than from WIL settings alone. However, models of WIL in which learners are embedded in workplaces with dedicated placement educators for extended periods share characteristics of programmatic assessment (de Vos et  al., 2019). With these types of WIL experiences, there are multiple and diverse learning opportunities allowing for a continual process of observation and judgments of performance. Each observation and judgment is an assessment moment, interspersed with ongoing feedback to help develop new learning goals (de Vos et  al., 2019). Therefore, summative assessments at the completion of placements, which sometimes have significant consequences, have relied on rich, aggregated information from a variety of sources across a prolonged period of time (de Vos et  al., 2019). An alternative application of programmatic assessment principles is to have regular, low-­stakes assessment moments such as self-­reflection activities, self-­appraisal, 481

Jennie Brentnall et al.

and peer and supervisor assessment of performance, many of which are then combined into a portfolio to be used for a high-­stakes decision regarding professional competence ( Jamieson et al., 2017). In these ways, the nature of WIL, particularly when experiences are prolonged and immersive, creates opportunities to apply the principles of programmatic assessment to strengthen assessment proportionate to the decisions required.

Considerations for assessment in work-integrated learning The previous section has considered applications and forms of learner assessment common in WIL. This section will address a range of considerations for designing assessment considering the opportunities and complexities of WIL.

Constructive alignment (vertical and horizontal) Constructive alignment between learning activities and assessment tasks is an underpinning concept in curriculum design to achieve intended learning outcomes (Ali, 2018), and applies equally to WIL. At the simplest level, horizontal constructive alignment seeks to connect learning activities to desired learning outcomes and assessment criteria within a unit (Figure 30.2). This alignment should also provide synergy with other units at the same level of the learning program, promoting quality learning and assisting learners to construct meaning. In a well-­ designed curriculum, units are also aligned vertically with explicit and effective connections downward to prior units and upward to ensuing units (Angelo, 2012). Explicitly considering constructive alignment in WIL leads educators to design opportunities for assessment and feedback dialogue that assists learners to construct meaning and achieve the intended learning outcomes. To enable this, educators need to ensure feedback in WIL is provided with explicit reference to desired thresholds of performance and connected to individual strategies for further learner development. Extending this principle beyond the

External Stakeholder Influence

Work-ready graduate outcomes

Future units in the course: WIL and coursework

WIL unit Learning outcomes

Learning activities

Assessment

Same level units in the course

Previous units in the course: WIL and coursework

Figure 30.2  Constructive alignment vertically and horizontally throughout a course.

482

Learner assessment in work-integrated learning

unit level, consideration of vertical alignment demands that performance and assessment build through a course of learning. Given WIL is experiential and situated, learning opportunities including remedial support may also need to be experiential and situated to align with the intended learning outcomes. Finally, external stakeholder input throughout a course of learning assists the final vertical alignment to work-­ready graduate outcomes.

Authentic assessment and feedback Ashford-­Rowe et  al. (2014) argue that authentic assessment is made meaningful to learners by requiring that they: 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Meet a challenge; Generate a performance or product outcome; Demonstrate transfer of learning into skill; Apply metacognition (reflection and self-­evaluation); Produce an output that is accurate and recognizable to an external stakeholder; Engage with environments and tools that have fidelity; Engage in discussion and with feedback; and/or Collaborate to contribute to each other’s learning.

It is difficult to achieve authentic assessment in WIL where there is a lack of shared vision and priorities between learners, educators, and industry stakeholders (Ajjawi et  al., 2020; Lasen et al., 2018). On the other hand, WIL provides the opportunity to support the integration of reflective practice, goal setting, and performance management between education and workplace contexts (Dawson et al., 2020; Jackson, 2015). WIL, therefore, presents the opportunity to foster highly authentic assessment and feedback, and to develop learners’ skills for ongoing self-­appraisal and use of natural feedback without dependence on expert evaluation (Ajjawi et al., 2020; Dawson et al., 2020). Different assessment designs offer varying opportunities for authenticity. From Table 30.1 it is apparent that many assessment challenges relate to the variability of WIL settings and stakeholders. However, many of the strengths align with the critical elements for authentic assessment. Authentic assessment design may not fully mitigate other challenges, but greater authenticity enhances the overall strength of assessments. The iterative use of CRaFT (Box 30.2) is an example of integrating feedback into assessment tasks, which strengthens authenticity. Feedback is readily integrated into WIL assessments where learners produce a product or performance, engage with an external stakeholder for feedback, then revise their efforts based on that feedback. This may occur with business customers, health professional patients, legal clients, planning and development communities, education recipients, professional service users, workplace colleagues, and so on. Whatever the industry, collaboration between educators and the relevant stakeholders enables leveraging of opportunities for discussion and reflection to enhance learners’ experiences and assessment authenticity (Lasen et al., 2018).

Balancing assessment within the safe container for work-integrated learning The WIL environment should be challenging but supportive. The ‘safe container’ (Rudolph et al., 2014) is a metaphor for the space in which learners feel secure that they will be supported 483

Jennie Brentnall et al.

in managing difficult feelings and anxiety and are positively regarded as individuals. It represents the psychologically safe context in which learning can occur and is an important feature of nurturing experiential learning (Rudolph et  al., 2014). Experiential learning can, therefore, result in deeper learning when the environment supports trust, respect, and a suspension of judgment (Kisfalvi & Oliver, 2015). To maintain this safe container for WIL, educators should enable learners to attempt tasks without fear and with minimal risk, and particularly to engage in safe communication and use life experiences to contribute to growth (Kisfalvi & Oliver, 2015). Optimizing the safe container for learning as far as possible requires particular attention in WIL due to the changing nature, reduced level of control, and uncertainty of workplaces. Assessment threatens the safe container for learning. In WIL assessment, power imbalances may exist, and when assessments carry high-­stakes consequences, fear of embarrassment and failure, and/or competition between learners, the safe container for learning is undermined. This creates a tension between evaluating learners’ competencies and providing a safe container to optimize learning. When designing WIL assessment, educators should, therefore, consider the impact of assessment on the learning milieu and culture, and take actions to minimize learners’ perceptions that assessments are a threat (Rudolph et al., 2014). For example, assessments may be co-­created with learners for familiarity, relevance, and relatability, or clear expectations in briefings may be used to ensure learners understand assessment requirements early on. An improved balance between learning and assessment is also achieved by replacing high-­stakes one-­off assessments with a programmatic approach that allows for learning to continue alongside assessment. Examples include repeated observations over time in longitudinal assessments of competency, or portfolio-­based tasks where assessment is broken down and scaffolded using modular components within an overall assessment (Gipps, 1994).

Developing learners’ evaluative judgment skills Achievement in assessment is more strategic and efficient when learners judge their own performance against the criteria being applied to them (Cowan, 2010). The skill “to judge the quality of one’s own and others’ work” is termed evaluative judgment (Tai et al., 2018, p. 468). To the extent that the criteria used are relevant, such as professional standards, developing evaluative judgment also enables lifelong learning and continuing professional development without the prescribed structures of education (Ajjawi et al., 2018; Cowan, 2010; Tai et al., 2018). However, it is a skill that learners need to develop (Tai et al., 2018). Evaluative judgment involves comparing performance or characteristics against criteria, often necessitating aggregation across features to form a view in relation to a standard and is thereby influenced by assessment design. Ideally, assessment criteria will be considered and consistently applied using evidence appropriate to the evaluation (Cowan, 2010). Context-­r ich descriptions of expectations (e.g., in rubrics) and repeated experience with these and links to professional standards further support evaluative judgment (Ajjawi et al., 2018). Educators support developing learners’ evaluative judgment by discussing performance and feedback against criteria in supervision and assessment. Learners need to actively engage with feedback that focuses on judgments against explicit criteria and their justification, and the formulation of action responses for future performance (Ajjawi et al., 2018; Tai et al., 2018). Well-­designed peer assessment may also assist to the extent that it is often easier to evaluate the performance of others than oneself, and that learners gain both opportunities to make evaluative judgments and to receive appraisal and feedback from others (Cowan, 2010). Peer mentoring opportunities where senior learners offer junior peers’ feedback in WIL are particularly 484

Learner assessment in work-integrated learning

rich, as learners develop their own evaluative judgment through re-­evaluation of their own performance as well as the provision of feedback against criteria (Penman et al., 2019). Learners can also be involved in determining the relevant criteria for assessment (Cowan, 2010). Learners develop their ability to evaluate their own performance by forming and communicating evaluative judgments in self-­and peer-­assessments, rather than focusing on grade agreement (Ajjawi et al., 2018; Tai et al., 2018). This active application of assessment criteria also increases learners’ consideration of both the merits and limitations of performance. Ultimately, the value placed on learners’ evaluative judgments is demonstrated through the influence of self-­appraisal on assessment outcomes. Different viewpoints may be considered sequentially, such as by an educator adding to a learner’s self-­assessment, or in parallel, where a learner and an educator complete independent evaluations that are then combined into a final assessment. All stakeholders may be working with the same assessment, or each stakeholder may be contributing elements to a multi-­component assessment such as a portfolio. To promote evaluative judgment, feedback to learners should address outcomes and agreement, and the ability of learners to select and apply relevant criteria and evidence to judge performance (Tai et al., 2018).

Designing assessments of learner performance in work-integrated learning Performance-­based assessments that evaluate learners’ progress toward and attainment of professional competence maximize the constructive alignment between learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessment. They are common in compulsory WIL in professionally accredited programs, and the main form of WIL assessment in the health professions (Ferns & Moore, 2012). Positively, they are perceived by learners as highly authentic and relevant (Ajjawi et al., 2020); however, they are also subject to the challenges of assessing learning in WIL contexts. Given they may be used to make high-­stakes decisions, the core principles for assessment design (such as constructive alignment) are necessary but not sufficient. The first key component in designing a performance-­based assessment of competence is to describe what constitutes competence (McAllister et  al., 2010). Approaches range along a continuum from atomistic statements of discrete skills akin to a checklist, to holistic, integrated statements of knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes demonstrated across a range of tasks (Hager, 2017; McAllister et  al., 2010). While the atomistic approach may appear simple and efficient, the competencies tend to be superficial and their combination is unlikely to capture the holistic nature and complexity of professional competence (Hager, 2017; Trede & Smith, 2014). The second component in designing a performance-­based assessment is to describe a continuum of observable behaviors from which competence can be inferred (McAllister et  al., 2010). Again, approaches vary. At one end of a spectrum are assessments using numerical scales or simple labels, such as unsatisfactory/satisfactory/superior, or ranges from poor to excellent (Dempsey et al., 2012; Jackson, 2018; Scholtz, 2020). At the other end of the spectrum are assessments that employ rubrics giving meaningful descriptions along the continuum. For example, Ten Cate (2013) describes five levels of supervision, or entrustment, associated with learners performing critical professional activities. A speech pathology assessment called COMPASS® includes three behavioral descriptors based on theoretical concepts of developing competence including decreasing levels of support and increasingly managing complexity, along with examples of observable behaviors (McAllister et al., 2010). More detailed rubrics, while potentially more time-­consuming to use, are perceived by assessors to increase accuracy and consistency of their judgments (Kilgour et al., 2014). 485

Jennie Brentnall et al. Table 30.2  Design concepts for performance-based assessment Design concept

Application

Co-­design

Involve educators in defining criteria to create an assessment that is closely aligned with what learners do and develop a shared understanding of successful performance (Ajjawi et al., 2020). Use anchors and behavioral descriptors that resonate with assessors to enable faithful representations of their judgments and reliable assessments. For example, replace abstract terms such as unsatisfactory/satisfactory/superior with concepts such as the level of independence (Crossley & Jolly, 2012; Weller et al., 2014). Ensure words in the assessment are familiar and make sense to assessors. WIL assessments should incorporate the words used by educators in the field to describe learner performance (G. Regehr et al., 2012b). Use rich, narrative descriptions to profile learner performance, reflecting that assessors synthesize information from various sources (de Vos et al., 2019) into a narrative rather than numerical scales (Yeates et al., 2013).

Cognitive alignment

Meaningful words Rich descriptions

One criticism of performance-­based assessments is that assessors’ judgments regarding observations of performance may be lost when translated to assessment scales (Hanson et al., 2013). Designers must therefore “meet assessors where they are rather than trying to force a worldview on them that is inconsistent with their preconceptions” (Eva, 2018, p. 181). This requires a fundamental shift in thinking about assessment design. Developers must ensure that assessments authentically represent how assessors conceptualize performance, rather than further refining scales and extending training to obtain agreement (G. Regehr et al., 2012b). Table 30.2 sets out several, interrelated design concepts that may assist in creating assessments that align with how assessors construct judgments of observed performance. It is perceived that performance-­based assessments are particularly prone to subjective judgments that are not replicable between educators (Crossley & Jolly, 2012). Yet those educators observe learner performance over prolonged periods and are arguably best suited to evaluate that performance in the unpredictable workplace environment (Ferns & Zegwaard, 2014). Applying the design concepts to work with rich information and create profiles of learners may help to better align assessments to the thoughts of educators and offer meaningful comparison between learners (G. Regehr et al., 2012b). An example of how this concept could be applied in practice is outlined in Box 30.3.

Box 30.3  Supporting quality judgments about work-integrated learning performance in exercise physiology Accredited exercise physiologists (AEPs) are autonomous allied health professionals who use exercise-­based interventions in the prevention and management of chronic disease. Graduation from an accredited university program is the main pathway to becoming an AEP (or equivalent) in many countries. University programs include participation in clinical placements where learners are immersed in workplace environments for many weeks and assume growing responsibility for a clinical caseload. Assessment of performance across the placement by the placement educator is an expectation.

486

Learner assessment in work-integrated learning

Raymond et  al. (2019) used a design-­based research approach to develop a prototype for a performance-­based assessment to support valid judgments of exercise physiology student performance during clinical placements. One of the key design features of the assessment was inspired by work on standardized narratives in psychology, social work, and medicine. Standardized narratives represent ‘stories’ about learners as told by experienced clinicians for use as a frame of reference (G. Regehr et al., 2012b). It has been shown that social workers (Bogo et al., 2004; C. Regehr et al., 2012a) and physicians (G. Regehr et al., 2012b) are consistent in their ability to differentiate between narratives describing different levels of student competence. Furthermore, using standardized narratives resulted in a broader distribution across performance levels and may counter the leniency effect that occurs with numerically based performance assessment tools (Gonsalvez et al., 2013; C. Regehr et al., 2012a). The exercise physiology student performance assessment tool incorporates three profiles, each about 400 words long, describing a continuum of developing competency through to entry-­level. The profiles were constructed following a series of focus groups unpacking how placement educators conceptualize the continuum of competency development and what they see when they ‘know’ a student is ‘good enough’ for professional practice. The behavioral constructs described by the participants were aligned with theories of competency development and used to construct the profiles. The language and descriptions in the profiles remained true to the placement educators’ descriptions to ensure the profiles made sense to them. The profiles are designed to support quality judgments by providing a shared mental picture against which placement educators can reference their observations of students’ performance.

Recommendations for quality work-integrated learning assessment In conclusion, assessment presents considerable challenges in WIL and this chapter has highlighted some practical recommendations for quality WIL assessment and feedback practices. These are to: • Consider the varied applications of assessment to both evaluate and promote further learning; • Utilize multiple approaches to assessment as needed to address the limits of individual approaches; • Actively engage learners in assessment, which is enabled through scaffolding, ensuring their readiness for WIL, and the development of feedback literacy skills; • Ensure assessment interpretations and consequences are proportionate to the approaches used; • Attend to the constructive alignment of curricula and support for learners; • Optimize the authenticity of assessment and feedback so that it is most meaningful to learners; • Remove excess pressures and reduce the stakes of individual assessment moments to maintain a safe container for learning; • Develop the evaluative judgment skills required for workplace learning; • Consider holistic evaluations with attention to the ways in which educators construct their judgments as a basis for meaningful performance-­based assessments; • Engage with stakeholders throughout the process. 487

Jennie Brentnall et al.

The application of WIL is increasing in higher education as providers aim to give learners authentic opportunities to develop and demonstrate competence in situ and attain graduate work readiness skills. In this context, it is imperative to take all reasonable steps to address the challenges of assessment to: support the objectives of WIL, maximize the fairness and equity of outcomes for learners, and optimize sustainable practices for education providers and external stakeholders.

References Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Dawson, P., & Boud, D. (2018). Conceptualising evaluative judgement for sustainable assessment in higher education. In D. Boud, R. Ajjawi, P. Dawson, & J. Tai (Eds.), Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work (1st ed., pp. 7–17). Routledge. Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Nghia, T. L. H., Boud, D., Johnson, L., & Patrick, C.-­J. (2020). Aligning assessment with the needs of work-­integrated learning: The challenges of authentic assessment in a complex context. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938. 2019.1639613 Ali, L. (2018). The design of curriculum, assessment and evaluation in higher education with constructive alignment. Journal of Education and e-­learning Research, 5(1), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.20448/ journal.509.2018.51.72.78 Allison, H., & Turpin, M. (2004). Development of the student placement evaluation form: A tool for assessing student fieldwork performance. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 51, 125–132. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-­1630.2004.00414.x Angelo, T. (2012). Designing subjects for learning: Practical research-­based principles and guidelines. In D. Chalmers & L. Hunt (Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-­centred approach (pp. 93–111). Routledge. Ashcroft, E., & Waters, R. (2019). Critical reflection and feedback tool. Curtin University Ashford-­Rowe, K., Herrington, J., & Brown, C. (2014). Establishing the critical elements that determine authentic assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02602938.2013.819566 Babadi Akashi, Z., Nasr Esfahani, A. R., Nili, M. R., & Tabatabaei, S. M. S. (2020). Investigating the desirable assessment methods of the performance of the BA Law students during internships. International Journal of Work-­Integrated Learning, 21(1), 13–24. Banneheke, H., Vishna Devi, N., Ramamurthy, S., Sumera, A., Ravindranath, S., Jeevaratnam, K., Efendie, B., Chellamuthu, L., Krishnappa, P., & Peterson, R. (2017). Student preparedness characteristics important for clinical learning: perspectives of supervisors from medicine, pharmacy and nursing. BMC Medical Education, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-­017-­0966-­4 Bogo, M., Regehr, C., Hughes, J., Power, R., Woodford, M., & Regehr, G. (2004). Toward new approaches for evaluating student field performance: Tapping the implicit criteria used by experienced field instructors. Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.20 04.10672297 Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-­term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679050 Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133 Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602 938.2018.1463354 Chipchase, L. S., Buttrum, P. J., Dunwoodie, R., Hill, A. E., Mandrusiak, A., & Moran, M. (2012). Characteristics of student preparedness for clinical learning: Clinical educator perspectives using the delphi approach. BMC Medical Education, 12, 112. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-­6920-­12-­112 Cowan, J. (2010). Developing the ability for making evaluative judgements. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510903560036 Cross, V. (1998). Begging to differ? Clinicians’ and academics’ views on desirable attributes for physiotherapy students on clinical placement. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230306

488

Learner assessment in work-integrated learning Crossley, J., & Jolly, B. (2012). Making sense of work-­based assessment: Ask the right questions, in the right way, about the right things, of the right people. Medical Education, 46, 28–37. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-­2923.2011.04166.x Dalton, M., Davidson, M., & Keating, J. (2011). The Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice (APP) is a valid measure of professional competence of physiotherapy students: A cross-­sectional study with Rasch analysis. Journal of Physiotherapy, 57(4), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1836-­9553(11)70054-­6 Dawson, P., Carless, D., & Lee, P. P. W. (2020). Authentic feedback: supporting learners to engage in disciplinary feedback practices, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1080 /02602938.2020.1769022 Dempsey, S., Giles, E., Chiswell, M., Wright, C., Charlton, N., Rowntree, P., Forrest, W., Churcher, K., & Jimenez, Y. (2012). Development and implementation of the Australian universities radiation therapy student clinical assessment form. The Radiographer, 59(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ j.2051-­3909.2012.tb00168.x De Vos, M. E., Baartman, L. K. J., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & de Bruijn, E. (2019). Exploring how educators at the workplace inform their judgement of students’ professional performance. Journal of Education and Work, 32(8), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2019.1696953 Eva, K. W. (2018). Cognitive influences on complex performance assessment: Lessons from the interplay between medicine and psychology. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7, 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.03.008 Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350 Ferns, S., & Moore, K. (2012). Assessing student outcomes in fieldwork placements: An overview of current practice. Asia-­Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(4), 207–224. Ferns, S., & Zegwaard, K. (2014). Critical assessment issues in work-­integrated learning. Asia-­Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3), 179–188. Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. Falmer Press. Gonsalvez, C. J., Bushnell, J., Blackman, R., Deane, F., & Bliokas, V. (2013). Assessment of psychology competencies in field placements: Standardized vignettes reduce rater bias. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 7(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031617 Hager, P. (2017). The Integrated View on Competence. In: Mulder M. (eds) Competence-­based vocational and professional education. Technical and vocational education and training: Issues, concerns and pospects, vol 23. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­41713-­4_10 Hanson, J. L., Rosenberg, A. A., & Lane, J. L. (2013). Narrative descriptions should replace grades and numerical ratings for clinical performance in medical education in the United States. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 668. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00668 Jackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-­integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842221 Jackson, D. (2018). Challenges and strategies for assessing student workplace performance during work-­ integrated learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(4), 555–570. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02602938.2017.1378618 Jaekel, A., Hector, S., Northwood, D., Benzinger, K., Salinitri, G., Johrendt, J., & Watters, M. (2011). Development of learning outcomes assessment methods for co-­operative education programs. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 45(1), 11–23. Jamieson, J., Jenkins, G., Beatty, S., & Palermo, C. (2017). Designing programmes of assessment: A participatory approach. Medical Teacher, 39(11), 1182–1188. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017. 1355447 Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467125 Judd, B., Brentnall, J., Thomson, K., Scanlan, J., & McAllister, S. (2017). Evaluation of foundational placement competencies. The University of Sydney. Judd, B., Brentnall, J., Thomson, K., Scanlan, J., Blackstock, F., Mandrusiak, A., Phillips, A., Chipchase, L., & McAllister, S. (2019). Re-­imagining student assessment tool development for allied health placement readiness. Australian & New Zealand Association for Health Professional Educators Conference, July 2–4, Canberra, Australia. Kilgour, A. J., Kilgour, P. W., Gerzina, T., & Christian, B. (2014). Assessment of work-­integrated learning: Comparison of the usage of a grading rubric by supervising radiographers and teachers. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, 61, 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.39

489

Jennie Brentnall et al. Kisfalvi, V., & Oliver, D. (2015). Creating and maintaining a safe space in experiential learning. Journal of Management Education, 39(6), 713–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562915574724 Lasen, M., Evans, S., Tsey, K., Campbell, C., & Kinchin, I. (2018). Quality of WIL assessment design in higher education: A systematic literature review. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(4), 788–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1450359 Martin, A., Rees, M., Edwards, M., & Paku, L. K. (2012). An organization overview of pedagogical practice in work-­integrated education. Asia-­Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(1), 23–37. McAllister, S., Lincoln, M., Ferguson, A., & McAllister, L. (2010). Issues in developing valid assessments of speech pathology students’ performance in the workplace. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820902745461 Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-­centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602 938.2019.1667955 Nash, R. A., & Winstone, N. E. (2017). Responsibility-­sharing in the giving and receiving of assessment feedback. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1519). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01519 Nicol, D. (2009). Assessment for learner self-­regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(3), 335–352. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02602930802255139 Orrell, J. (2011). Good practice report: Work integrated learning. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Patrick, C.-­J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). The WIL (Work Integrated Learning) report: A national scoping study. Queensland University of Technology. Penman, M., Judd, B., Brentnall, J., Evans, G., Tai, J., Thompson, T., Thomson, K., Vasquez, M., Volkert, A., Wykes, M., Young, J., & McAllister, S. (2019). Feedback conversations: The development of evaluative judgement in Near Peer Mentoring models of clinical education. 8th International Clinical Skills Conference, May 19–22, Prato, Italy. Raymond, J., Sealy, R., Pascoe, D., Naumann, F., & McAllister, S. (2019). An assessment tool to judge exercise physiology student performance in a clinical placement setting. Australian & New Zealand Association for Health Professional Educators Conference, July 2–4, Canberra, Australia. Regehr, C., Bogo, M., Donovan, K., Lim, A., & Regehr, G. (2012a). Evaluating a scale to measure student competencies in macro social work practice. Journal of Social Service Research, 38(1), 100–109. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.616756 Regehr, G., Ginsburg, S., Herold, J., Hatala, R., Eva, K., & Oulanova, O. (2012b). Using “standardized narratives” to explore new ways to represent faculty opinions of resident performance. Academic Medicine, 87(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31824858a9 Rudolph, J. W., Raemer, D. B., & Simon, R. (2014). Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: The role of the presimulation briefing. Simulation in Healthcare, 9(6), 339–349. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000047 Scholtz, D. (2020). Assessing workplace-­based learning. International Journal of Work Integrated Learning, 21(1), 25–35. Schuwirth, L. W. T., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2011). Programmatic assessment: From assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Medical Teacher, 33(6), 478–485. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421 59X.2011.565828 Schuwirth, L. W. T., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2019). How ‘testing’ has become ‘programmatic assessment for learning’. Health Professions Education, 5, 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2018.06.005 Smith, C. (2014). Assessment of student outcomes from work-­integrated learning: Validity and reliability. Asia-­Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3), 209–223. ten Cate, O. (2013). Nuts and bolts of entrustable professional activities. Journal of Graduate Medicine, 5(1), 157–158. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-­D-­12-­00380.1 Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76, 467–481. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10734-­017-­0220-­3 Trede, F., & Smith, M. (2014). Workplace educators’ interpretations of their assessment practices: A view through a critical practice lens. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 154–167. https://doi. org/10.1080/02602938.2013.803026 Weller, J. M., Misur, M., Nicolson, S., Morris, J., Ure, S., Crossley, J., & Jolly, B. (2014). Can I leave the theatre? A key to more reliable workplace-­based assessment. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 112(6), 1083–1091. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeu052

490

Learner assessment in work-integrated learning Wilkinson, T. J., & Tweed, M. J. (2018). Deconstructing programmatic assessment. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 9, 191–197. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S144449 Winstone, N. E., Balloo, K., & Carless, D. (2020). Discipline-­specific feedback literacies: A framework for curriculum design. Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-­020-­00632-­0 van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Schuwirth, L. W. T., Driessen, E. W., Dijkstra, J., Tigelaar, D., Baartman, L.  K.  J., & van Tartwijk, J. (2012). A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Medical Teacher, 34(3), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.652239 Yeates, P., O’Neill, P., Mann, K., & Eva, K. (2013). Seeing the same thing differently: Mechanisms that contribute to assessor differences in directly-­observed performance assessments. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18, 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-­012-­9372-­1

491

31 ADAPTING TO AN ACCELERATING, DISRUPTIVE FUTURE Melding work and learning through the role of the T-professional Philip Gardner and April L. Perry Introduction The workforce is under intense pressure to adapt to changing conditions brought on by converging technologies and global disruptions, such as the COVID-­19 global pandemic. Employers’ response to training and skill acquisition has been to shift responsibility to education systems and ultimately the employee (Becker, 2009; Cappelli, 2012). Higher education grasps the implications of this shift and has responded, albeit slowly, and without major reform to undergraduate education (Bok, 2020). Essentially, the onus to adapt to changing workplace expectations through acquiring additional skills and credentials squarely falls upon the employee or potential new entrant into the workforce. This chapter reviews the forces shaping the workplace and suggests an approach to assist learners to successfully engage the workforce. The T-­professional model provides a realistic and grounded structure for advancing human potential imbued with learning through work, where the horizontal bar of the T represents the boundary-­crossing level of understanding of many disciplines and systems, and the vertical bar represents the deep understanding of at least one discipline and one system. Yet, even with clarity on skill expectations, young adults still struggle during the early stages of their career without further assistance from post-­secondary institutions to strengthen their T-­development. Additional sections focus on the need to integrate work into learning opportunities, the employability standards embedded in the T, and the experiences of young university graduates in the workplace articulating the T during their early careers. Implications for future graduates’ employability are also noted given the changes related to the impacts of technology and COVID-­19. The future seldom announces the changes bearing down on society. Emily Dickinson (n.d.) forewarns in her poem ‘The Future – never spoke’ that time to plan for and to make adjustments is often reactionary and futile in avoiding the consequences. The T-­professional offers one opportunity to form a foundation upon which to deal with the future.

492

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-36

Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future

The Future never spoke – Nor will he like the Dumb Reveal by sign a Syllable Of his profound to come – But when the News be ripe Presents it in the Act – Forestalling Preparation – Escape – or Substitute Emily Dickinson

Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future Economic disruptions (e.g., recessions) and advances in technology, both periodically and consistently, disrupt the workplace. Events, like the global pandemic, are rare occurrences, yet cause unexpected and further work disruptions. All three forces are exerting pressure on workers to adapt to the workplace in flux. Technological advancement through digital and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (e.g., 3D printing, virtual reality, quantum computing) drive exponential changes throughout the workplace, daily reshaping the way work is done and, structurally, how it is arranged. Add a Black Swan event (a metaphor for an unpredictable event that is beyond what could be reasonably expected), such as COVID-­19, the result is possible long-­term political, economic, and social impacts that will further accelerate the adoption of these technologies and cause further structural realignments in the workplace (Zakaria, 2020). Organizations respond to acceleration and disruptions by stretching their workforce, realigning facilities, and adjusting work arrangements; in other words, becoming ‘talent elastic.’ Talent elasticity allows the workforce to react to rapidly changing events by aligning the “right talent at the right place at the right time” (Romac, 2020, p. 1). Being elastic places a premium on staff having the appropriate combination of skills and abilities necessary to utilize the technologies that enable organizational processes to fluctuate around changing business demands. To succeed, organizations must encourage staff to take risks in trying new approaches and tools to complete their tasks, provide training, permit flexible work arrangements, and design more effective communication strategies (Miller, 2020). While organizations may provide some training and learning support during disruptive periods, the individual employee is responsible for making sure that they are also talent elastic. Being talent elastic for the individual means possessing or attaining the right skills and competencies, expressing behaviors and attitudes that best handle disruptions, organizing work augmented with technologies, and leveraging new work arrangements (such as virtual teams or remote work). ‘Job crafting’ captures the essence of individuals customizing their work through adjustments to their tasks and altering the scope of these tasks. Digital technologies provide stimuli to make these changes (Berg et al., 2008). In addition, workers can change their relationships to colleagues and clients as employers widen work arrangements through virtual (remote) options and redesigned physical spaces. With the workplace in a constant state of flux, individuals will regularly engage in crafting their work to their personal needs – it is not a one-­time event (Berg et al., 2008). The pathway through higher education into the workplace sets the foundational structure that allows students to gain necessary competencies and the mental acuity to build and sustain

493

Philip Gardner and April L. Perry

their ‘elasticity’ and the confidence to ‘craft’ their future work. The T-­model offers a framework that integrates disciplinary mastery with work-­integrated experiences when infused in tertiary education curricula. This chapter presents a deeper understanding of the T-­model than presented in the second edition of this Handbook. Details on each component of the T with particular focus on systems thinking and understanding of oneself are provided. Additional sections focus on the melding of work and learning with attention on the nature of employability, the accelerating influence of technology, and the effects of the current pandemic on the workplace. Special attention is paid to the socialization of a group of students during their matriculation from university into their early careers. This exercise provides insights into the importance of the T model for professionals.

The adaptive innovator: the T-professional Personal reinvention, creating new roles, and being more entrepreneurial (e.g., job crafting) have become basic requirements for survival in the workplace. The university experience enhances one’s ability to transform and prepare for the workplace. What is required is the agility to learn through profound experiences, self-­discipline for continuous learning, and the mindset to coexist with technology. An investment for building this individual profile flourishes under the guidance of the T-­professional or adaptive innovator model. The T-­professional model integrates depth (expertise) with breadth, which is also referred to as wide learning (Merisotis, 2020). Breadth captures interdisciplinary awareness, boundary-­spanning skills, and understanding of the self that encompasses attitudes, behaviors, and mindset. Figure 31.1 illustrates the elements of the T-­professional model.

Boundary Crossing Competencies Teamwork, communication, perspective, networks, critical thinking, global understanding, project management, etc.

Many Disciplines

Many Systems

Understanding & communications

Understanding & communications

ME

Deep in at least one discipline

Deep in at least one system

Analytical thinking & problem solving

Systems thinking

Figure 31.1  T  he T and its components. (Estry & Gardner (2017), used with permission from Michigan State University).

494

Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future

Since introducing the T-­concept in the second edition of this Handbook a deeper understanding through several recent publications has been gained through research and practice (Gardner & Maietta, 2020a; Moghaddam et al., 2018). The historical roots of the T-­concept and its position within the discussion of skills and competencies are documented in these references. The T emphasizes the importance of including work-­integrated learning (WIL) experiences into higher education. Through system connections, the T allows the application of disciplinary knowledge in contexts outside the academy. A review of the working definitions of the building blocks of the T serves as a guide to the model’s attributes and advantage in addressing workplace disruptions. The following definitions are adapted from Estry and Gardner (2017) and Gardner and Maietta (2020a). •

•

•

•

•

Deep disciplinary knowledge is the domain of knowledge, inclusive of foundational knowledge, held by all professionals in that discipline. This knowledge includes that unique to a given specialization (sub-­discipline) within that domain and encompasses the psychomotor and affective abilities critical to a practitioner’s success. Disciplinary knowledge is the foundation for an individual’s expertise. Deep systems knowledge and systems thinking provide the understanding of intra-­and inter-­ system complexity that embraces the physical, biological, economic, financial, social, and organizational dimensions of a system. Systems also incorporate the political processes, services, units, and events that operate within and shape them. These dimensions comprise interconnected resources and variables whose flows produce feedback loops and embrace human connections. Systems generate their own behavior patterns requiring open, innovative, and flexible thinking and self-­learning that embraces other people’s perspectives and persistence in the face of external and internal challenges that can impede finding feasible solutions. Interdisciplinary understanding embraces the synthesizing and integration of knowledge and ways of thinking from two or more disciplines into one approach that provides novel solutions to multidimensional, complex problems. Interdisciplinary understanding offers alternative explanations of the surrounding world and presents solutions that require new interpretations through deeper experiences that involve originality, personal meaning, creativity, and risk-­taking. A boundary-­spanning individual possesses communication, teamwork, critical thinking, global understanding, and related abilities. These abilities permit the development of partnerships and collaboration through sustainable relationships that are managed through influences and negotiation, all the while striving to understand motives, roles, and responsibilities (Rowe & Drysdale, 2020). The ME (oneself) component contains three elements: • Purpose: “a stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is at the same time meaningful to the self and consequential for the world beyond the self ” (Damon, 2009, p. 33). • Awareness: knowledge and understanding of others (empathy) and knowledge of self, one’s capabilities – strengths, weaknesses, ways of knowing and understanding – and recognition of the importance of others and the value that that diversity brings to the resolution of challenges/problems. • Confidence: taking risks, seeing mistakes as necessary trials toward success, being comfortable and confident in one’s knowledge, and seeking and embracing others’ knowledge, or suspending one’s own mental models to consider alternatives thereby being a secure learner (that is) tolerant of ambiguity (Wilson, 2009). 495

Philip Gardner and April L. Perry

Two key components bring heft to understanding the T-­model and expand the conversation surrounding skill and competency development and the role of post-­secondary education. The first component focuses on the deeper knowledge of systems and the requirement to collaborate within and across disciplines. The second component involves a deeper understanding of self (ME).

Deep systems knowledge and thinking While awareness of systems and systems thinking pre-­dates 1991, the necessity for workers to understand systems, however, received national prominence with the release of the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) (1991). Maglio and Spohrer (2008) made systems thinking essential by explicitly positioning this knowledge within the T-­model. Most people visualize a system as a group of connected parts. For some, the introduction to systems came from their university coursework, for others through work or a problem-­solving exercise. Learners require an easy-­to-­understand and practical framework for thinking in systems that connects their curricular and co-­curricular interests and aspirations. IBM recognized the need for a practical systems approach after determining that disciplinary-­ based problem solving (whether engineering, computer science, chemistry, etc.) often failed to resolve the problem at-­hand by seeing it relocated to another part of the system (Spohrer, personal communication, October 2018). IBM visualized systems in a way that grounds the T into identifiable practical applications familiar to everyone through linkage to everyday occurrences articulated in their Smart Planet initiative (Gardner & Maietta, 2020b). From this initiative, Spohrer grounded systems and systems thinking into something easily recognizable, the systems that shape our daily lives (Spohrer & Maglio, 2010). Thirteen system groups, arranged in three clusters, reflect the daily interactions Spohrer (personal communication, September 2010) identified: •

•

•

Systems that focus on the flow of things: • Transportation and supply chains; • Water and waste recycling; • Energy and electrical grids; • Information and communication technology (ICT), and the cloud. Systems that focus on human activities and development: • Building and construction; • Retail and hospitality (including media and entertainment); • Banking and finance (including business and consulting); • Health care and family life; • Education and work life (including entrepreneurship). Systems that focus on governing: • Governing at local level; • Governing at regional and state level; • Governing at national level.

Systems thinking emerges from the investment in learning a system, serving as a guide to understanding systems and the interactions of multiple systems (Gardner & Maietta, 2020b). Arnold and Wade (2015) offer a definition of systems thinking: “Systems thinking is a set of synergistic analytical skills used to improve the capability of identifying and understanding systems, predicting their behaviors, and devising modification to them in order to produce 496

Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future

desired effects” (p. 675). This skill widens learning requiring, as Senge emphasizes (2006), those engaged in systems thinking to: • • • • • •

A deep commitment to learning; Being prepared to be wrong or alternatively open to challenging your own mental models; A willingness to reshape those models; Possessing empathy, which is defined as the ability to listen to others and come to understand their perspective and knowledge; Having the ability to work as a team, effectively collaborating to address intra-­and intersystem challenges; Exercising patience and perseverance.

Deep understanding of self To face the tumult stemming from workplace changes, individuals require a deep understanding of oneself, that is, one’s strengths, abilities, mindset, behaviors, and values. The ME fosters this growth and serves as the essential component in the T-­model: the catalyst cementing the blocks of the model together. The basic building blocks of the ME comprise three domains – purpose, confidence, and awareness – shown in Figure 31.2. Hunsaker and Rivera (2020) and Estry and Gardner (2017) deliver in-­depth discussions on the ME, but the focus here is on the areas where the domains overlap. Though the individual primarily initiates T-­development, the overlapping areas require individuals to engage with others and their communities. The array of communities of practice that target professional development coalesce in these interfaces.

Purpose I have stable and far-reaching life goals that are personally meaningful and socially beneficial.

Awareness + Purpose I am becoming self-aware and also seek to beer understand others’ commitments, interests, and goals.

Awareness

ME

I have a deep knowledge and understanding of others and knowledge and understanding of self.

Purpose + Confidence I am willing to enter uncertain situations by experimenting, engaging, or challenging my purpose. I can learn and adapt as I move forward.

Confidence I have the mindset to be able to reach my goals, take risks, learn from failure, and contribute to the goals/needs of others.

Confidence + Awareness I am a global citizen that can work with others to adapt to situations of change and to embrace new experiences.

Figure 31.2  The elements of ME. Source: Used with permission from Estry and Gardner (2017).

497

Philip Gardner and April L. Perry

Within the ‘Awareness + Confidence’ interface, individuals learn from others, adapt to differences and situations of change, and work with others to address common challenges. Here, individuals build trust in working with others and cultivate a growth mindset. The intersection, ‘Purpose + Awareness’ is where individuals mobilize resources, work as a team, and understand differences with co-­workers and others. Here, individuals gain insights from co-­workers and other individuals, appreciate others’ values and perspectives in influencing their purpose, and recognize the need to interact with others to contribute meaningfully to society. The ‘Purpose + Confidence’ intersection triggers experimentation with their career interests, learning more from various resources and gaining insights into short-­term goals and plans so the individual can take action. During these activities, individuals come to grips in dealing with uncertainty and challenges to their purpose, gaining the resiliency to move forward. One important opportunity to experiment with one’s purpose is to engage in WIL opportunities available through the students’ university. WIL experiences serve to inform all three intersections and identify additional actions an individual needs to progress along their career pathway. WIL will be considered further in the next section.

Integrating work and learning T-­skilled individuals thrive when immersed in multiple environments that enrich their experiences; that is how they learn and grow. Nurturing T-­individuals, of course, depends on the knowledge passed to them from experts in formal settings and participating in opportunities to assemble and create knowledge based on their explorations, experiences, and own initiative. Cobb (n.d.) captures the importance of learning as “a lifelong process of transforming information and experiences into knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes” (p. 1). One approach to enriching formal education is to integrate work into learning activities. Merisotis (2020) advances the importance of learning as work and, similarly, through work, individuals find opportunities for learning. Is it feasible to bring more of these WIL experiences into undergraduate education to prepare T-­skilled professionals? Bok (2020) acknowledges the need for students to gain mastery of boundary-­spanning competencies (intra-­and interpersonal) and build the foundation for their actions and behaviors (e.g., conscientiousness, purpose, civic and moral character, creativity). He shares little optimism, however, that sufficient incentive exists for reforming undergraduate education. Not only do universities transform slowly, but he argues that there is a dearth of research defining and measuring these components, resistant faculty, and hesitant administrators. His sole focus centers on faculty providing these learning experiences, ignoring completely the vast community surrounding students including student professional associations, Greek societies (fraternities and sororities), student organizations, community groups, career services, WIL professionals, experiential activities, and other support and enrichment programs. In fact, universities have responded by promoting, requiring, and hosting more WIL related programs, specifically internships in the USA, to assist students in becoming ready to enter the workforce (Hora et al., 2021). This push to involve the broader community is an essential vehicle in providing the experiences to nurture T-­skilled professionals (Wenger, 1998). Merisotis (2020) on the other hand, argues “work and learning are merging into a single system based on continuous learning and credentials” (p. xii), and that the long-­accepted school to university to work pathway is fractured and almost beyond repair. Alternative pathways that provide valued credentials are opening or undergoing revitalization. As an example, the UK elevated the standing of their apprenticeship program by making the learning more transparent and applicable across many diverse fields (University Vocational 498

Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future

Awards Council, 2015). Countries, including the UK South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, align education and employment through a framework of employability standards that clearly define knowledge and skills and how these skills appear in practice (Merisotis, 2020, p. 99). Merisotis (2020) acknowledges that the USA lags in taking credentials earned outside of the university seriously. However, the tide is shifting, as “college degree programs simply cannot keep pace with how fast things are changing in the workforce” (Zao-­Sanders & Palmer, 2019, p. 3). In lieu of reformation in undergraduate education, faculty and learning groups experiment in ways to exercise learning in environments outside the classroom whether they be project-­ based, service learning, or targeted skill development in the form of badges and credentials. To facilitate experimentation in WIL, Spohrer proposes using his 13 systems to leverage learning with practice in real-­world situations (Spohrer & Maglio, 2009). To escape the boundaries of the discipline, the systems serve as the focal point for learning. One can envision the university disciplines surrounding the service areas with every discipline represented in each system. These service areas represent real-­world systems that connect students and faculty to external companies, organizations, associations, and individuals who operate and work in these systems. Through these connections, opportunities open for students to learn beyond the classroom, tackling real-­world problems (Gardner & Maietta, 2020b). Grabill (2020) provides an example of a successful experiment with interdisciplinary experiential learning courses. Several courses target real-­world problems in wildlife conservation (Africa), food waste, and scientific communication. These courses enroll all upper division students with cross-­ disciplinary faculty leadership. Impacts from the wildlife conservation course centered on student ownership of their learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and faculty shifting roles from instructor to mentor. Student-­specific outcomes included confidence development, teamwork, and communication abilities. Two powerful outcomes, according to Grabill, were the desire for students to continue beyond their course completion and their alteration of the trajectory of their post-­graduation plans (Grabill, 2020). Jeff Grabill, Associate Provost for Teaching, Learning and Technology at Michigan State University, has discussed the challenges of integrating work or widening learning from his experience overseeing curriculum design and innovation (personal communication, February 2019). Grabill emphasizes the need for developing a shared language and concepts, something the T-­professional model offers, because the biggest challenge in working along the boundary between education and employers is that no one speaks the same language. He speaks from experience from his professional discipline of the communication and technical writing field. In most discussions with employers, too often the focus centers on surface issues (spelling and comma placement) yet obfuscates deeper issues of effective communication. Few conversations are taking place along the boundary that deal with these deeper issues around communication. Another challenge that widens the gap between these two cultures stems from the lack of interest of many faculty in preparing comprehensive learners, which Bok (2020) stressed. The faculty feel qualified and responsible for conveying disciplinary and technical knowledge but not so with other aspects of the T-­professional. As a result, they hesitate to redesign their curriculum to integrate work experiences. Grabill acknowledged that good work-­integrated models already exist, especially internships and cooperative education in the USA. Unfortunately, these opportunities are not executed effectively, leaving the process almost entirely up to the student. Consequently, not all students benefit from their WIL experiences. While universities continue to address the work readiness of their students, other groups are being more proactive. To provide clarity around the credential offerings in the U.S. Credential Engine lists, there are nearly one million credentials, including degrees, apprenticeships, 499

Philip Gardner and April L. Perry

credentials, and badges, for documenting skills (Merisotis, 2020). Merisotis keenly observes the expanding array of WIL opportunities that exist even if these opportunities take place outside of the traditional university pathway. With the integration of work and learning comes the imperative to clarify the terms communicated between the post-­secondary institutions and employers. Clarity facilitates the boundary discussions by offering a common language (as Grabill urges, personal communication, February 2018), articulating potential learning pathways and verifying the value of their degrees. Countries including Singapore, Australia, and members of the European Union strive to develop common frameworks to define knowledge and skills (Merisotis, 2020). Europass provides an example of a tool that documents skills and qualifications utilizing a standard résumé platform (see https://europa. eu/europass/en). Still, concerns exist about how far to specify these definitions. Merisotis offers one example of the difficulty in defining a commonly sought skill. “Problem-­solving is really a complex, multistage process built on the integration of other more basic skills” (Merisotis, 2020, p. 54). Basic skills include identifying and retrieving relevant information, analyzing data, gaining insights from others, developing solutions that require expertise, accepting failure, and progressing through curiosity. The specification of skills, if made too narrow, raises concerns (Jackson, 2016). The T-­professional model rests on a wider foundation and faces constraints if confined. To prepare students to engage in a rapidly changing work environment, post-­secondary institutions should establish partnerships with various communities of practice in order to advance students’ professional development. Graduates will always face a bumpy introduction to the workplace as they begin to undertake their work assignments, become comfortable with their co-­workers, and understand organizational policies, practices, and procedures. The T-­professional mode is an important tool for coaching post-­secondary students in their preparation for transitioning into the workplace. From the voices of recent university graduates, career readiness is an essential component for their post-­g raduate success.

Young university graduates in the workplace: articulating the T If Merisotis (2020) believes the pathway is broken, Petersen (2021) believes it is deceptive. Even for students who checked off all their requirements, there is no guarantee extended for a solid landing in the workplace. Perry’s research between 2012 and 2020 supports this notion, but also illuminates early career success strategies for use in better preparing and supporting students through a decade of transitions (Hachadurian, et al., 2019; Perry, 2012, 2013; Perry & Bigelow, 2020; Perry & Spencer, 2018; Spencer & Perry, 2015). Perry’s studies began with interviews of 20 university graduates during the height of the economic recession between 2009 and 2010 (Perry, 2012). The study’s intent was to explore the experiences of these recent graduates through their first year in the workplace by illuminating the complexity of their transition. Findings indicated four primary transition themes (searching, shifting identities, unmet expectations, and stabilizers) that supported recommendations to institutions around career preparation, emotional support, and practical life skills. The second phase with the original participants was in 2015, focusing on their ongoing transition as early career professionals. Findings denoted job shift themes, career fulfillment, student loan repayment, and increased responsibility to self and others. The third phase of their transitions through education, career, and life occurred in 2020 just as these participants faced disruption due to the global pandemic. Initial findings from phase three reveal themes of career commitment, caregiving, health, finances, and navigating ongoing change. 500

Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future

Phase 1: 2009–2010 Four primary themes of the university to work transition – searching, shifting identities, unmet expectations, and stabilizers – emerged from participant interviews (Perry, 2012). Within the searching theme, several sub-­categories represented more emotional elements of their transitions: aspects of life that the participants did not have (e.g., certainty and direction) but were seeking (e.g., fulfillment, happiness, and meaningful relationships). ‘Shifting identities’ illustrated that life was different (in terms of comfort zones, relationships, interests, perspectives, routines, and living situation) from before commencing work. Their perceptions shifted (or were shifting), as one participant explained: “Since I didn’t have an environment defining me, I had to start answering questions … and that’s everything … My identity isn’t a student anymore” (Perry, 2012, p. 133). Unmet expectations exemplified the participants’ perceptions of themselves, their degree (entitlement), job searching, the workplace transition, their earning potential, finances, the economy, and other challenges in the post-­university transition. One participant said, “I think my expectations were a little high … like I would get a degree, graduate in four years, send out my resume, and have a high paying job” (Perry, 2012, p. 163). Despite having trouble in their post-­university transition, the participants found ‘stabilizers’ that supported and brought balance to their transition. Stabilizers included support networks, groups/activities, faith, health, and acceptance of uncertainties by living for the moment. A participant confided, “I’ve continued to stay connected to family and friends. In terms of emotional stability, they’ve been a support, and my faith has naturally played a strong part in that as well” (Perry, 2012, p. 181).

Phase 2: 2015 Six years after graduation, the conversation shifted toward career satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Participants attained job stability, but concerns emerged with respect to job fulfillment: searching for something more for their careers. Challenges emerged in balancing individual career goals with other personal desires (relationships, financial stability, etc.). While a few married, supported dependents, and/or paid mortgages, all reported an increased sense of responsibility upon becoming more of an adult. Two distinct themes emerged from their responses. The first centered around student loan repayment and the severity of the role loans played in their lives. Their desire for increased financial literacy from their institutions before taking out the loans was clear, as evidenced by this comment: I wish I would have known [about student loan literacy], because I didn’t have anyone in my personal life to guide me. I wish the university would have done it, because I’m still paying so much on my student loans, and it’s ridiculous. I have tons of loans that I didn’t need to take that I’m still paying out. (Perry & Spencer, 2018, p. 13) The second theme focused on the meaning and value of participating in a qualitative study. Through the interview, participants found clarity and confidence to articulate their story. I really can’t tell you how much it [being a research participant] has helped me develop. It has allowed me to see what I am capable of, both good and bad. It has been therapeutic in that I can share my life with an outsider. (Perry & Bigelow, 2020, p. 9) 501

Philip Gardner and April L. Perry

Phase 3: 2020 Now in their mid-­30s, participants articulated a clear shift in career development. From 2015 to 2020, participants solidified career passions, pursued further education/certification, and overall seemed to have more job satisfaction. They placed more importance on negotiating their career advancement and engaging in long-­term planning. A participant shared: “There are less unknowns, and so it’s more so about building that security moving forward. You have your goals in place and now just trying to slowly chip away at them” (Perry, 2022, p. 3). Participants reported increased caregiving responsibilities and more attention to their health concerns. Finances were still a major component of their lives, but it seemed to be less about loan repayment, and more about management and future planning. The global pandemic also affected them: some experiencing decreased work, some increased work, and many changing work schedules/environments. A participant added: I have no more excuses. I should know how to do my life now, career-­wise, and financially … So, balance would be the biggest theme in this stage of life. I have to think about other people more, and I can’t be as selfish. (Perry, 2022, p. 3) During their 30s participants really started to demonstrate the characteristics outlined in the ME portion of the T-­professional, specifically around identity, purpose, and confidence. I’ve learned to give myself and others more grace. I’m getting to know myself [in motherhood], and how to take care of myself better and cope when life throws you these crazy curve balls whether they are good or bad. (Perry, 2022, p. 3) Findings from the three phases directly connect to the T through the ME block. During Phase 1, the discussions center around gaining awareness of the workplace and how the new employee fits in. The second phase reveals the confidence that these early careerists gained that allowed them to achieve initial success. During the third phase, participants shared how they were affirming or realigning their purpose based on their experiences and ability to adjust to the demands of the workplace. Institutions can play an important role in preparing students to deal with the challenges they may face during their transition from university to work and through their early career. No simple solution exists to prepare them successfully for this transition. Multiple strategies across multiple domains will be necessary; many of them are already being tried on campuses across the globe. An essential dimension covers professional development which includes career preparation and engagement in WIL opportunities. Offering more rigorous WIL experiences that involve more in-­depth experiential learning and transferable skill development would secure the foundation for making the transition. Accompanying WIL engagement would be continuous career advice, incorporating deep reflection to ensure students’ aspirations are aligned with potential career pathways, which are based on insights from WIL experiences. WIL and on-­campus opportunities that enrich professional relationships build and sustain the critical networks to advance a student’s post-­graduate career. Three interventions concerned with career and professional development warrant further attention: gaining experience early (i.e., internships or work-­integrated opportunities), managing expectations about job searching and the workplace transition, and building professional relationships. 502

Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future

Gaining experience early Introduction to WIL experiences cannot wait until shortly before graduation but must occur earlier. One participant said, “I think it’s never too early to prepare. Universities can take this approach and begin programs that will prepare students starting their freshman year for graduation and life after college” (Gardner & Perry, 2011, p. 317). Internships, at least in the USA, provide the main route for students to gain real-­world, practical (WIL) experience in their chosen field if effectively delivered. One participant said, “I believe that internships should be much more in-­depth and more hands-­on” (Perry, 2012, p. 200). In addition, job shadowing and more career exploration assists students in their selection of internship assignments. Deep reflection should be an essential component during and after these early experiences to increase students’ understanding of the T and infuse T building blocks into the experiences (Hunsaker & Rivera, 2020).

Managing expectations Students stumble throughout their early career because of misaligned expectations and beliefs about the job search and work. One participant expressed: I think that universities should start off being real with the students about the job market, what they can do with their major, what extra trainings they need, etc. I think our students feel lost when they leave because educators do not give applicable advice for graduates. If students knew going into graduation that they would more than likely still be looking for a job a year later, students might decide to continue their education or chose [sic] another career path that best suits them. (Perry, 2012, p. 204) To reduce the deception about work, students need assistance in developing a realistic perspective of the value of their degree as an entry-­level professional. Another participant shared: My expectations [of a degree] were not met … no, no, no, no! … My expectation was that it was going to be hard because I’m young, but I thought once people got to know me – who wouldn’t hire me? And then, I didn’t have the job of my dreams right off, and I still don’t have a job of my dreams (6 months after graduation). It’s like – I went to college for four years to make $8.75 an hour, and not that it seems unfair, it just feels like – that was 4 years of my life, and I could have been doing this the whole time … why did I have to do that? (Perry, 2012, p. 164)

Building relationships Building social capital through a professional network is critical for career success, both in helping find a job upon graduation and anytime thereafter. One contributor said: I want to communicate the extreme importance of relationships and networking. One of my favorite phrases is ‘Life is all about one thing – Relationships.’ Meeting, connecting, and networking with people are the top ways to connect and get interviews for jobs. (Perry, 2012, p. 201) 503

Philip Gardner and April L. Perry

This demonstrates opportunities for educators to facilitate robust internships, establish mentoring programs with professionals in the field, and foster student-­alumni professional networking opportunities. Through this 12-­year comprehensive view of the post-­university transition, a better understanding is gained of the experiences of university graduates navigating life and their early career and how an infused T experience assists them in their navigation. Findings illuminate student success strategies and opportunities for institutions to better prepare and support students in and through this transition, particularly illuminating the usefulness of the T-­professional. Conclusions point to the need for guiding students in managing their own expectations (about transition and life after university) by helping them understand the shifting identities and uncertainty that often accompanies the post-­university transition. Based on the interpretation of the data, any strategy, program, or initiative that fosters the opportunity for such support is likely to help prepare and nurture students in this transition.

The world of work is moving faster and faster Bette Davis’s famous line from All About Eve, “Fasten your seatbelts!,” may seem cliché but the future is going to be bumpy! Observers of the accelerating pace of digital technology adoption (Diamandis & Kotler, 2020) and the future impacts of the COVID-­19 pandemic (Zakaria, 2020) advise buckling up because the ride is going faster and faster over bumpier terrain. Workers desire secure, stable positions, fearing loss of income, benefits, and connections through disruptions that they often deny (Zakaria, 2020). What can young workers expect from a system moving at warp speed?

Technology change Digital technology adoption, through AI, deep learning (Fullan & Scott, 2014), and neural networks, impact the workplace in many different ways as frequently addressed in the media. Often the media warns of the impending doom technology will have on jobs. Rusman (2018) observes, however, that AI is both overhyped and underrated, pushing its implications into the future (Perrault et al., 2019). An overhyped AI stems from changes that appear insignificant in the broad context of an industry or dismissed as inflated expectations. Many people, however, miss the dynamics of digital technologies that make it difficult to picture their impact until adoption explodes and accelerates. When events or processes change exponentially, observers witness small, incremental movement until the rate of doubling suddenly explodes. Underrated beliefs stem from witnessing rather simple, minimally complex technological changes in business applications while ignoring the convergence of these technologies that no longer work independently, leading to dramatic impacts on work systems and jobs (Diamandis & Kotler, 2020; Kurzweil, 2005). Technological advances bring constant disruption (Autor, et al., 2020; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; Diamandis & Kotler, 2020; Ford, 2015; Mindell, 2015; Zakaria, 2020). Whether these technologies simply augment human ability to perform work, removing repetitive and tedious tasks, or replacing humans entirely, the technological augmentation of the workplace will likely be pervasive and chaotic. Technology advocates embrace a bright future with obsolete jobs replaced by new jobs, undreamed of at the time. The principle of equilibrium ensures that everyone will advance through these technological advances.

504

Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future

Some less sanguine observers point to the fact that achieving equilibrium is not easy (Babichenko & Rubinstein, 2020; Klarreich, 2017). How an economy moves toward equilibrium depends on which tasks are affected, the timing, and ultimately the location of alternative employment. Katz and Margo (2014) point out that historically pervasive technological changes have uplifted workers, providing more opportunities, although the process extracts tasks from existing jobs, thus hollowing these jobs out, as new jobs are created which require more skills. Friedman (2016) depicts the process as pulling jobs apart where high-­valued elements are skilled up and low-­valued elements pulled out for digital technologies to perform and which require few skills and will eventually become obsolete. The debate over the merits of technology adoption continues. However, Mindell (2015) astutely captures the impact of technology on work through these five changes: • • • • •

Change the technology and the tasks change; Change the tasks and the nature of the work changes; Change the work and the type of workers required changes; Change enough of the work and the organization changes; Change the organization and the system they are in operates changes.

It is the process of change in which students need to gain confidence, adapt, and craft their work in response to the ensuing chaos that change brings. The T or adaptive innovator fits in this mindset shift by providing the foundation for agile adaptation to new workplace conditions.

COVID-19 influences work and emphasizes the T What changes can the world expect from the COVID-­19 pandemic? Zakaria (2020) notes that some observers do not expect it to cause a significant reshaping of history, yet asserts that changes to health systems, workplace dynamics, education, and so on will undoubtedly occur. Historical events such as the Black Death, a plague of the 14th century, transformed the feudal system into a capitalistic based economy, medical practices changed and hospitals were founded, and literacy increased with an explosion of cultural and intellectual creativity (Quinlan, 2020). The Spanish Flu of 1918 ushered in public health systems, improved vaccine development, and heralded long-­term health impacts for those born during the pandemic (e.g., height was shorter than those born before or after the pandemic, and there was increased risk of heart attack later in life) (Quinlan, 2020). Zakaria (2020) does offer ten important societal consequences of the pandemic with several directly impacting employment and the economy. Remote (virtual) work arrangements, common before COVID-­19, surged at the start of the outbreak. Woods (2020) reported that nearly 30% of US workers could work from home and 25% occasionally worked from home, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 2017 to 2018. Reasons for working remotely varied from being a condition of a job, personal preference, coordinating family schedules, and catching up on work assignments. Within a month of instituting shelter-­in-­place orders, about one-­third of workers shifted to remote work with a comparable number remaining at organizations’ facilities (Brynjolfsson et al., 2020). After the pandemic, some remote assignments will become permanent, or employees will be offered the flexibility of remote work in some hybrid form. Remote work applications such as SLACK will become more sophisticated through virtual reality (VR) to address concerns about the lack of social interaction and

505

Philip Gardner and April L. Perry

intellectual stimulation (Zakaria, 2020). In addition, economic incentives from the reduction of office space costs entice organizational leaders to advocate for these arrangements. Contingent work came into vogue more than a decade ago and glowed in the impulsive belief that individuals controlled their own careers. COVID-­19 simply accelerated employers converting more work into project-­based employment. The contingent laborer moves away from positions with fixed hours, dependable long-­term tenure, clear promotional pathways, and benefits, to take on a life prone to frequent turnover, irregular hours, limited access to co-­workers, and too often low pay. To navigate the contingent system, individuals must shift the methods they use to prepare for and find employment. Jones and DeFillippi’s seminal study (1996), using the film industry, which is populated by contingent professionals, identifies six key elements to surviving in chaotic situations: purpose (why), networks (whom), expertise (how), awareness (what), confidence (where), and timing (when) (Gardner & Spohrer, 2020). The T-­model prepares students to deal with contingent based work when faced with choices on their job assignments. Few new university graduates will engage in this contingent employment immediately, filling traditional roles within an organization. As they gain organizational experience and insights, contingent work options may be presented to them. COVID-­19 only accelerates the adoption of digital technologies augmenting or automating all types of jobs. Several scholars estimate between 32 and 50 million jobs in the USA face modification through AI technologies (Acemoglu & Restrepo, 2020). The pandemic has motivated employers to produce technology maps around digital technology adoption and to ensure they are building resilient organizational systems. As the world moves forward from the pandemic, we expect technology on steroids to continually send shocks throughout the workplace.

Conclusion With rapid, disruptive change throughout the workplace, organizations expect their workforce to be talent elastic. Workers must be able to further develop their competencies or obtain new required skills that allow them to perform at higher levels with technology augmenting their work. The need for elasticity is prevalent throughout the economy across all sectors and organizational sizes. To capitalize on these changes, employees now have opportunities to ‘craft’ their jobs by leveraging technology, acquiring skills, and altering the scope of their tasks. Something everyone will engage in on a regular basis. The T-­model provides students with a foundation to confront change by allowing them to prepare to be talent elastic. A T-­professional understands the dynamics of change in a systems sense and comes equipped with the confidence to gain necessary skills, strengthen professional connections with organizational members and colleagues outside their organization, and manage uncertainty. A strong ME (awareness, confidence, and purpose) instills a T-­professional with the ability to craft work in chaotic times (Gardner & Spohrer, 2020). The advances of smart technologies and a global pandemic brought the world to the edge of chaos, injecting instability, insecurity, and fear into peoples’ lives as they dealt with job disruption and loss. Pryor and Bright (2011) developed a response for chaotic times that calls upon those responsible for students’ career and professional development to adopt a new mindset and interventions. These interventions should engage the wider community, infrastructure, and growth mindset that T-­professionals advocate. Bok (2020) argues that the gap between liberal and vocational education has diminished because the knowledge economy requires both foundational and technical skills, expertise, and a quality mind. “Work offers many opportunities for learning” (Merisotis, 2020, p. 114), thus throwing open and inviting post-­secondary education to avail itself of WIL opportunities which remain critical to their students’ success. 506

Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future

References Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence for U.S. labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128(6), 2188–2244. Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A system approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669–678. Autor, D., Mindell, D., & Reynolds, E. (2020). The work of the future: Building better jobs in an age of intelligent machines. Random House. Babichenko, Y., & Rubinstein, A. (2020). Communication complexity of approximate Nash equilibria. Games and Economic Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2020.07.005 Becker, G. (2009). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. University of Chicago Press. Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is job crafting and why does it matter. https:// positiveorgs.bus.umich.edu/wp-­content/uploads/What-­is-­Job-­Crafting-­and-­Why-­Does-­it-­Matter1.pdf Bok, D. (2020). Higher expectations: Can colleges teach students what they need to know in the 21st century? Princeton University Press. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technology. W.W. Norton et Company. Brynjolfsson, E., Horton, J. J., Ozimek, A., Rock, D., Sharma, G., & TuYe, H. Y. (2020). COVID-­19 and remote work: An early look at US data (No. w27344). National Bureau of Economic Research. Cappelli, P. (2012). Why good people can’t get jobs; The skills gap and what companies can do about it. University of Pennsylvania Press. Cobb, J. (n.d.). Learning vs education. https://www.missiontolearn.com/learning-­vs-­education/ Damon, W. (2009). The path to purpose: How young people find their calling in life. Simon & Schuster. Diamandis, P. H., & Kotler, S. (2020). The future is faster than you think: How converging technologies are transforming business, industries, and our lives. Simon & Schuster. Dickinson, E. (n.d.). The future – never spoke. https://www.poetry.com/poem/12187/the-­future%E2% 80%94never-­spoke Estry, D., & Gardner, P. (2017). A primer on the T-­professional. Collegiate Employment Research Institute, Michigan State University. Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of a jobless future. Basic Books. Friedman, T. (2016). Thank you for being late: An optimist’s guide to thriving in the age of acceleration. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2014). Education PLUS The world will be led by people you can count on, including you!. Collaborative Impact SPC. Gardner, P. D., & Perry, A. L. (2011). The role of cooperative and work-­integrated education in graduate transition into the workplace. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-­integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (pp. 313–320). World Association for Cooperative Education. Gardner, P., & Maietta, H. N. (Eds). (2020a). Advancing talent development: Steps toward a T-­model infused undergraduate education. Business Expert Press. Gardner, P., & Maietta, H. N. (2020b). Deep systems knowledge brings system thinking. In P. Gardner & H. N. Maietta (Eds.), Advancing talent development; Steps toward a T-­model infused undergraduate education (pp. 15–27). Business Expert Press. Gardner, P., & Spohrer, J. (2020). Grasping the foundations for understanding the T-­professional model. In P. Gardner & H. N. Maietta (Eds.), Advancing talent development: Steps toward a T-­model infused undergraduate education, (pp. xv–xxxv). Business Expert Press. Grabill, J. T. (2020). Hope is not a strategy: on the need to design for T-­outcomes. In P. Gardner & H. N. Maietta (Eds.), Advancing talent development; Steps toward a T-­model infused undergraduate education (pp. 57–65). Business Expert Press. Hachadurian, C., Perry, A., & Calhoun, S. (2019). Three ways to help youth navigate life after college. School House Connection, May 20, 2019. Hora, M. T., Colston, J., Chen, Z., & Pasqualone, A. (2021). National survey of college internships (NSCI) 2021 Report: Insights into the prevalence, quality, and equitable access to internships in higher education. Center for Research on College-­Workforce Transitions, University of Wisconsin-­Madison. Hunsaker, M., & Rivera, J. (2020). The ME. In P. Gardner & H. N. Maietta (Eds.), Advancing talent development; Steps toward a T-­model infused undergraduate education, (pp. 39–53). Business Expert Press.

507

Philip Gardner and April L. Perry Jackson, D. (2016). Re-­conceptualizing graduate employability: The importance of pre-­professional identity. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(5), 925–939. Jones, C., & DeFillippi, R. J. (1996). Back to the future in film: Combining industry and self-­knowledge to meet the career challenges of the 21st century. Academy of Management Perspective, 10(4), 89–103. Katz, L. F., & Margo, R. A. (2014). Technical change and the relative demand for skilled labor: The United States in historical perspective. In Boustan, L., Frydman, C., Margo, R. (Eds.), Human capital in history: The American record (pp. 15–58). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/ chicago/9780226163925.003.0002 Klarreich, E. (2017). In game theory, no clear path to equilibrium. Quanta Magazine. https://www. quantamagazine.org/in-­game-­theory-­no-­clear-­path-­to-­equilibrium-­20170718/ Kurzweil, R. (2005). Singularity is near. Penguin Group. Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 18–20. Merisotis, J. (2020). Human work in the age of smart machines. Rosetta Books. Miller, B. (2020). What is an elastic workforce? HR Daily Advisor. https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2020/ 09/16/what-­is-­an-­elastic-­workforce/ Mindell, D. A. (2015). Our robots, ourselves: Robotics and the myths of autonomy. Viking. Moghaddam, Y., Demirkan, H., & Spohrer, J. (2018). T-­Shaped professionals: Adaptive innovators. Business Expert Press. Perrault, R., Shoham, Y., Brynjolfsson, E., Clark, J., Etchemendy, J., Grosz, B., Lyons, T., Manyika, J., Mishra, S., & Niebles, J. C. (2019). “The AI Index 2019 Annual Report”, AI Index Steering Committee, Human-­ Centered AI Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, December 2019. https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-­index-­2019 Perry, A. (2012). Treading through swampy water: Graduates’ experiences of the post-­ university transition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Canterbury, New Zealand. file:///C:/Users/alperry/ Downloads/april_perry_phd_dissertation.pdf Perry, A. (2022). A comprehensive view of the post-­university transition: A longitudinal study. National Resource Center Research Brief Series. Perry, A. L. (2013). Outduction: Preparing to leave, graduation, and beyond. In M. Morgan (Ed.), Supporting diversity in higher education: A practical guide (pp. 156–176). Routledge. Perry, A., & Bigelow, M. G. (2020). The therapeutic nature of qualitative interviewing: Benefits of research participation. Journal of Research Initiatives, 5(2), Article 2, 1–15. Perry, A., & Spencer, C. (2018). College didn’t prepare me for this: The realities of the student debt crisis and the effect it is having on college graduates. The William and Mary Educational Review, 6(1), 1–9. Petersen, A. H. (2021). Can’t even: How millennials became the burnout generation. Mariner Books. Pryor, R., & Bright, J. (2011). The chaos theory of careers: A new perspective on working in the twenty-­first century. Routledge. Quinlan, H. E. (2020). Plagues, pandemics and viruses: From the Plague of Athens to Covid-­19. Visible Ink Press. Romac, C. (2020). Elastic workforce—the right talent at the right place at the right time. Capgemini. https://www.capgemini.com/us-­en/2020/05/elastic-­workforce-­the-­r ight-­talent-­at-­the-­r ight-­time-­ at-­the-­r ight-­place/ Rowe, P. M., & Drysdale, M. T. B. (2020). Boundary spanning and performance: Applying skills and abilities across work contexts. In Gardner, P. & Maietta, H.N. Advancing talent development: Steps toward a T-­model infused undergraduate education. Business Expert Press. (pp. 29–38). Rusman, H. (2018). AI is both overhyped and underrated. Endouble. https://endouble.com/blog/ ai-­is-­both-­overhyped-­and-­underrated/ Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday & Currency. Spencer, C., & Perry, A. L. (2015). Helping students maximize their degree as a competitive tool: The value of experiential learning. The William and Mary Educational Review, 4(1), 25–33. Spohrer, J. & Maglio, P.P. (2009). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 18–20. Spohrer, J., & Maglio, P. P. (2010). Service science: Toward a smarter planet. In Karwowski. W (Ed.), Introduction to Service Engineering (pp. 3–30). John Wiley & Sons.

508

Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future University Vocational Awards Council (Great Britain) (UVAC). (2015). Apprenticeship, higher apprenticeship and degree apprenticeship: A guide for HEIs. https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A72528 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational). Cambridge University Press. Wilson, D. (2009). Summit briefing: The future of learning in organization. Sun Microsystems: Challenges 2009–09. https://lifa.pz.harvard.edu/pdfs/FoL-­summit-­brief.pdf Woods, R. A. (2020). Job flexibilities and work schedules in 2017–18. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Spotlight on Statistics, 37. https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2020/job-­flexibilities-­and-­work-­schedules/ pdf/job-­flexibilities-­and-­work-­schedules.pdf Zakaria, F. (2020). Ten lessons for a post-­pandemic world. W.W. Norton. Zao-­Sanders, M., & Palmer, K. (2019). Why even new grads need to reskill for the Future. Harvard Business Review, September 26, (pp. 2–5).

509

32 APPLYING PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY, DIVERSITY, INCLUSION, AND ACCESS IN WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING Ainsley S. Goldman, Gifty MacKay, Vicki L. Lowes, Letitia Henville, Jewell Gillies, Cynthia Jairam-­Persaud, Susan Soikie, Njamba J. M. Koffi, Naeemah Shah, and Julie Walchli Introduction In this chapter, the phrase ‘equity, diversity, inclusion, and access’ (EDIA) will be used to describe the process of ensuring equitable access to opportunities and resources. In this context, it means more than making work-­integrated learning (WIL) open to more people: actions must be taken to address bias and actively dismantle systemic barriers, including invisible yet explicit expectations and norms of behavior, that unfairly impede people from equity-­deserving groups. Kendi (2019) contrasts inequity with equity, specifically with regards to race, explaining that: A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An anti-­racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people. There is no such thing as a non-­racist or race-­neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups. (p. 18) This chapter is intended to help remove systemic barriers that have prevented equity-­deserving groups from fully participating in WIL. This includes, but is not limited to, students whose identities include the following: • • • •

510

Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC);1 International; Living with disabilities; Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, Two Spirit, intersex, androgenous as well as other identities not explicitly listed in the acronym LGBTQ2SIA+;2 DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-37

Applying principles of equity

• • •

First-­generation students (i.e., students whose parents did not attend higher education); Students with low socio-­economic status; Students with caregiving responsibilities.

Language plays a role in the systematic exclusion of equity-­deserving groups. This chapter uses the term ‘equity-­deserving students’3 to describe those who are marginalized or are constrained by existing structures and practices. Importantly, positionality and intersectionality can create overlapping systems of discrimination. Positionality involves the various characteristics about someone’s identity (e.g., race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ability status) that shape their understanding of different experiences and help them interpret their identity relative to someone else. Intersectionality refers to the ways that different axes of identity work together and influence each other (Collins & Bilge, 2016), which might increase or decrease barriers and privileges. An intersectional approach considers the context of people’s lives with regards to their identities and shapes programs based on their needs, capacities, and experiences. This chapter is a collaborative effort between authors at the University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia (UBC), and Okanagan College. At the University of Toronto and UBC, students from equity-­deserving groups researched, analyzed, and provided insight into WIL programs from an EDIA lens. Their experiences and findings informed many of the recommendations herein. Members of the chapter authorship team identify as LGBTQ2SIA+ and BIPOC, but do not claim to represent every intersectional identity of all equity-­ deserving groups. Practitioners and students with expertise related to disabilities, BIPOC, and LGBTQ2SIA+ students provided insight through focus groups, panel discussions, professional development sessions, document sharing, chapter review, advice, and feedback. While every attempt has been made to cite peer-­reviewed sources, some of the most valuable ideas came from conversations with those with lived experiences. While further research in this area is needed, this chapter is grounded in the experiences of equity-­deserving students.

Barriers to work-integrated learning Structural barriers have prevented equity-­deserving students from accessing WIL (Dunn et al., 2016; Mackaway et al., 2013; Najmabadi, 2017), and these students may face barriers at multiple points in the process, as represented in Figure 32.1. These barriers may result in them not enrolling in a WIL program, self-­selecting out of the opportunity mid-­way, encountering prejudice during their experience, not being able to access reflective activities, and discouraging others from participation, among other possibilities. Promotion & Outreach

Before the Experience

During the Experience

“I didn’t know about this.”

“I knew but…”

“I feel like I don’t belong.”

Reflection

After the Experience

“This wasn’t “Would I what I expected.” recommend this?”

Figure 32.1  E  xample of the experiences and barriers that students from equity-deserving groups may encounter when accessing work-integrated learning programs.

511

Ainsley S. Goldman et al.

Participation rates in WIL are unevenly distributed, with under-­representation of BIPOC, international students, first-­generation students, students living with disabilities, as well as students with a low grade point average (Hora & Chen, 2020). While research in this area is limited, there is also concern that LGBTQ2SIA+ students and students from low socioeconomic statuses also encounter barriers to participation. Examples of impediments to participation in WIL are: •

• •

•

• • •

International students may experience barriers related to visa regulation, accent, language proficiency, access to networks, discrimination, and recognition for skills and experience they have developed internationally (Jackson et  al., 2017; Phillips-­Davis, 2021; Tran & Soejatminah, 2017; Wall et al., 2017). Indigenous students can face subtle and overt racism and discrimination within their placements (Gair et al., 2015). Internship participation varies significantly by race (Hora & Chen, 2020) and BIPOC students may not enroll in WIL courses because they are concerned about discrimination or harassment in the workplace (Stirling et al., 2021). Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds may face barriers related to financial challenges (e.g., resources for transport, attire, student fees, internet access) and scheduling challenges due to employment and familial commitments (Cooper et al., 2010; Howard et al., 2010). A lack of gender equity within organizations hosting placement students can result in microaggressions by co-­workers and supervisors (Bowen, 2019). People with disabilities have a lower employment rate and lower earnings than those without disabilities (McCloy & DeClou, 2013). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people encounter employment discrimination, including being fired, denied employment or promotion, or given negative performance evaluations, receiving unequal pay and benefits, and being subjected to vandalization of workplaces and verbal and physical abuse (Fosbrook et al., 2020; Schilt, 2010).

WIL practitioners must address these systemic and structural barriers, as research has shown that when equity-­deserving students experience barriers to WIL, this can further exacerbate inequality (Hora & Chen, 2020). The research field of EDIA in WIL is evolving and expanding, yet much more work is needed to address significant gaps, as equity-­deserving groups have been systemically excluded from WIL programs. Furthermore, new barriers may emerge as racism and colonialism continue to evolve and be expressed in different forms.

A five-stage framework for applying the principles of EDIA in WIL As shown in Figure 32.2, this chapter presents a framework to examine decision-­making processes that have led to inequitable access to WIL and have kept unequal systems in place. This framework helps practitioners to design and deliver equitable WIL opportunities. It is applicable for those developing new programs as well as those evaluating existing programs. The chapter has been structured as a series of reflective prompt questions in a five-­stage framework, along with actionable strategies, case studies, and resources to address the under-­representation and experiences of students from equity-­deserving groups. Though a variety of suggestions have been provided, it is important not to generalize students and to understand that various approaches are needed to remove barriers for their intersectional identities. 512

Applying principles of equity

Program Design

Program

Promotion &

Equitable WorkIntegrated Learning

Evaluation

Outreach

Reflection &

Student

Assessment of

Preparation

Learning

& Supports

Figure 32.2  A five-stage framework for applying principles of EDIA in work-integrated learning.

WIL practitioners are encouraged to use it not as a prescriptive list of everything that must be done, but as a tool for reflection and critical questioning on how choices are made and might be made differently to make WIL programming more equitable. As you review the content, there may be tweaks to your program that can be made easily, whereas others will take some time. It is an iterative process.

Program design How are decisions made about program design or redesign? WIL practitioners might have the best intentions for making WIL more equitable but may be unfamiliar with what barriers to look for. It may be difficult to know who is not accessing WIL programming and why. Practitioners planning WIL activities may display unconscious biases. Learning about unconscious biases and then relearning in a way that is equitable is an important first step (Kunkel, 2020). Instead of assuming that equity-­deserving students have deficits, take an asset-­based approach by identifying their positive assets and capabilities.

Suggestions • • •

If equity is a priority, advocate for resources. Find out if there is leadership or strategic buy-­in to support this work. Partake in unconscious bias training. Involve students in the process of uncovering barriers and determining solutions. Consult with students about their experiences, including those from equity-­deserving groups who 513

Ainsley S. Goldman et al.

• •

have not participated in WIL programming. Consider the emotional labor involved in this work and how students might be compensated. Consider establishing an EDIA committee to set priorities and discuss how the prompt questions in this chapter might apply to your specific program. Seek out the advice of a critical peer from another background or department who has different ideas and can offer honest feedback and challenge your beliefs.

Is your curriculum inclusive and culturally relevant? What is included (and not included) in curricula can exacerbate systems of inequity. While the field of community-­engaged learning has incorporated critical theories within curricula (Brabazon et al., 2019; Mitchell et al., 2012; Santiago-­Ortiz, 2019), other forms of WIL have not yet taken this approach. A curriculum that relies exclusively on Western ways of knowing can marginalize equity-­deserving students (Mitchell et al., 2012), and researchers have suggested that curricula should make space for students’ experiences with inequality, poverty, and racism (Pop & Brink, 2017). Scholars have also recommended the decolonization of field education and the curricular inclusion of Indigenous knowledge, traditions, and people (Clark et  al., 2010). WIL curricula should support students to better understand and question (Cockayne, 2018) the culture of the contexts or workplaces they are entering (Winchester-­Seeto et  al., 2015) without assuming the dominant culture (e.g., Caucasian, heterosexual, non-­disabled student identity).

Suggestions •

•

• • •

•

Review (or ask others with different perspectives to review) your syllabus to determine which voices are included and excluded. For example, do all the authors on your syllabus or reading list belong to one race or gender? Avoid defaulting to a certain student identity in examples and case studies. For example, incorporate they/them pronouns, and consider how different identities are represented in your examples and visuals (e.g., Who is successful? Who needs help? Who is a leader?). Share your pronouns and ask students which pronouns they use. Encourage students to think about positionality in the work that they do. If your curriculum includes history or place-­based content, you can reflect a history that acknowledges immigration, Indigeneity, colonization, and/or slavery, drawing upon place-­ based pedagogies. If you are not racialized or Indigenous, you can share that you are also learning and seek advice, collaboration, and support, or share a personalized land acknowledgment where appropriate (see Appendix 32.1). Consider providing opportunities for students to discuss issues like sexism or racism to create an environment where students can learn and empathize with others. Consider how the course addresses confronting biases and structural inequities within WIL programs (Bowen, 2019). What support, training, and resources might be needed to take on these discussions?

Have you incorporated principles of universal design into the course design? Incorporating the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (see Appendix 32.1) when designing opportunities can support the participation of equity-­ deserving students.

514

Applying principles of equity

UDL involves considering a variety of ways students will interact with the learning materials, student learning groups, related technology, and partner organizations.

Suggestions • • • •

•

Incorporate UDL principles into curriculum design and teaching practices. Ensure you use Closed Captioning and Live Captioning tools whenever possible. If you are holding an in-­person class and need to wear a mask due to public health regulations, consider a mask with a transparent window for hard-­of-­hearing students. If students are working in groups on an organization-­partnered project, clearly set out roles for group members so that all students, including those with accommodations, do not experience barriers to making valuable contributions to the group. If programs will be delivered online, or if students are doing WIL activities remotely, consider providing high-­speed access sticks or technology to help ensure equitable access for students who may not have reliable access to the internet.

What are the prerequisites of the program and when are they communicated? It can take some equity-­deserving students longer to secure certain prerequisites for WIL programs. When WIL programs require grade minimums to participate, they risk excluding students (Hora & Chen, 2020), such as first-­generation students who may have lower grade point averages (GPAs) due to systemic barriers.

Suggestions • •

• •

•

Communicate program requirements well in advance, so students have time to obtain them. If taking a full course load in a term preceding a WIL program is a prerequisite, students with course load accommodations need to know how to navigate this prerequisite so that they do not self-­select out of WIL participation. Check with your institution’s Health & Wellness Center to see if there are reduced fees for academically required procedures (e.g., immunizations, TB tests). Consider whether a GPA minimum is an essential qualification, as it risks excluding certain students and raises EDIA issues (Dunn et al., 2016). Consider how excellence might be demonstrated in equivalent and alternative ways for people who have been systemically excluded (e.g., community involvement, lived experience, or interpersonal skills). Consider whether police record checks or vulnerable sector checks are necessary.

What funding opportunities are available for students with financial barriers? Engaging in WIL, particularly unpaid WIL, can be impossible for some students due to financial and time restraints (Malatest, 2018). Students may need to give up paid work to take on an unpaid experience, as well as balancing commuting and technology costs, registration fees, required work-­related clothing or equipment, childcare, and unexpected financial costs.

515

Ainsley S. Goldman et al.

Suggestions • • • •

•

Keep participation costs as low as possible to encourage participation from all students. Inform students about bursaries and funding opportunities that are dedicated to students who need financial support and connect them with resources to submit a strong application. Advocate for grants and bursaries, as outlined in Box 32.1. Advocate for your students with employer and community partners to offer paid opportunities as appropriate, and ensure students are fairly remunerated for any work performed. Where paid opportunities are not possible, encourage community partners to, at a minimum, offer alternative remuneration like a transportation pass or stipend. See also Chapter 34 in this Handbook on paid and unpaid WIL.

Box 32.1  Removing financial barriers: a University of British Columbia example The University of British Columbia (UBC) Arts Co-­operative Education Program performed a thorough internal audit of its policies, practices, and student-­facing materials to make its program more inclusive and accessible. As a part of this work, they surveyed all current students using a 20-­item online questionnaire and held a series of focus groups. Although most students stated that the program was inclusive, they identified some areas where the program could be improved – including addressing financial barriers to participation in the program. Arts Co-­op staff were surprised to hear that finances were such a substantial barrier for students, given that co-­op students are paid for their work. The Arts Co-­op program petitioned for and received a pool of funding from the UBC Faculty of Arts to subsidize the cost of participation in the program for ten students per year. With the support of the university’s enrollment services office, they developed criteria for identifying applicants to the program who are low-­income. The subsidy award is tiered: it covers 25% of the students’ first co-­op work term fee, 50% of their second co-­op work term fee, and 100% of their third. The tuition subsidy award is now advertised to students alongside program application information, to ensure that those who may be hesitant to apply due to cost constraints are aware that support is available for them.

Are your staff or faculty members properly trained to work with equity-deserving groups? EDIA training helps people familiarize themselves with their positionality. EDIA education, knowledge, and approaches are an ongoing journey – not a destination. In addition to professional development, WIL teams should engage in ongoing discussions about these issues.

Suggestions •

Ensure all staff and faculty working with students undergo EDIA ongoing training and understand the variety of barriers that may exist for students participating in WIL. 516

Applying principles of equity

• Look into anti-­ racism training, Indigenous training on reconciliation (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015; United Nations, 2007), and/or allyship trainings on the history and terms associated with LGBTQ2SIA+ identities as well as inclusion strategies.

Is your space accessible and welcoming to a broad student population? Whether you are working out of a physical or virtual space, it is essential to incorporate accessibility into all spaces and operations. Create an environment that is inclusive and welcoming to all members of your student community. Your environment includes physical, architectural, informational, technological, policy or practice, and attitudinal elements.

Suggestions • Audit hiring practices and seek staff whose lived experiences are reflective of the student population, including creating working spaces that are more inclusive. • Partner with departmental student groups as a part of learning how to earn trust with students who may not be feeling welcome. • Incorporate accessibility principles into all digital and physical spaces and operations. • Include welcoming signage in your physical and virtual space, including hanging diversity ribbons or signs in reception areas and spaces where staff meet with students. • Consider including pronoun identification and name pronunciation in your email signatures, as well as including an opportunity for students to easily make an accessibility or accommodation request when booking appointments with staff. • Consider where you can incorporate land acknowledgment statements. (See Appendix 32.1)

Does your list of partners support a broad range of student identities and circumstances? A list of partners and opportunities that assumes only a narrow identity (e.g., white, heterosexual, financially secure) (Lorde, 1980) is a barrier for equity-­deserving students. Students may be hesitant to participate if they don’t see their identities reflected in the possible program partners and opportunities or if these opportunities are not normalized (Phillips-­ Davis, 2021).

Suggestions •

•

When developing potential partners for WIL opportunities, include a diverse range of partners. Identify what groups are represented in your list of partners and who might be missing. Are there cultural or LGBTQ2SIA+ groups that you could approach as potential partners? Can students suggest possible partners? Have you considered businesses owned by BIPOC? Are positions geographically distributed and accessible for students to travel to? What industries, values, and practices are represented in the list of organizations? When reviewing supervisors and mentors, consider representation: actively recruit mentors from equity-­deserving groups to avoid perpetuating systems of inequity. 517

Ainsley S. Goldman et al.

Do the EDIA values and practices of the community or employer partners meet the standards of your institution? Research shows that some employers have inequitable practices when recruiting students for placements (Mackaway & Winchester-­Seeto, 2018; Wall et  al., 2017). Students may also encounter conflicting values when, for example, they participate in international WIL programs or work at a remote field camp. Students may interpret inclusion statements as superficial (Mallozzi & Drewery, 2019).

Suggestions • •

•

•

Build partnerships with organizations that show a commitment to EDIA. Research potential employer and community partners and pay attention to the language they are using. Be mindful of partners who are reluctant to engage with students from equity-­deserving groups. Review which students are offered opportunities and which students are not – for example, do BIPOC students never seem to make it past the interview? Require that partners commit to your institution’s EDIA values and practices. Educate partners about expectations and stop working with those who do not abide by them. Where possible, ask partners to include hiring statistics or highlight special initiatives that show a commitment to EDIA, beyond diversity statements, as outlined in Box 32.2. Partners should be aware of and uphold appropriate employment standards and practices consistent with those applicable in your area.

Box 32.2  Showcase inclusivity: the importance of EDIA statements and equity initiatives Samantha was a first-­year Business Administration student working to become an HR specialist who had recently entered a co-­op program. When looking at the co-­op postings on her university’s website, she did not see any HR field opportunities that specifically discussed inclusion practices. As a Two-­Spirit Indigenous person, Samantha knew that her cultural identity directly reflected her motivation for her education and career. Samantha felt defeated that she could not find a ‘good fit’ with any co-­op employer and withdrew from the co-­op program. Including EDIA statements within job postings may highlight that the employer can be the right fit for any individual, as these statements signal that every employee is seen and appreciated in that work environment for their unique perspectives and abilities. Additional details about equity initiatives within the organization help to show that the employer has made commitments beyond their statement. Staff in the university co-­op office can provide a job application template that includes space for an EDIA statement alongside descriptions of the desired qualifications and duties and responsibilities, and advocate about the importance of EDIA when engaging with employers.

518

Applying principles of equity

Do you help your partners remove barriers for students from equity-deserving groups? Many workplaces are striving to become more inclusive, providing opportunities for WIL practitioners to work collaboratively with partners to help identify and remove barriers and build more inclusive practices. There is nuance to this, as it is easy for people to feel uncomfortable when discussing barriers and privilege. Resources and tools can be shared with partners as solution-­focused best practices, instead of being positioned as reactive to certain partner needs.

Suggestions •

•

• • •

Provide partners with clarity about expectations, roles, and responsibilities in relation to EDIA. Have conversations at both the organizational and individual workplace supervisor level and discuss how they can remove barriers. Provide advice on how to address specific barriers, particularly for small businesses where supervisors may not have received training in EDIA practices (Winchester-­Seeto et  al., 2015). Encourage employers to ensure the staff they bring on campus to meet with students include representation from equity-­deserving groups. Rigid recruiting windows can disproportionally impact an employer’s ability to recruit BIPOC students. Discuss with employers how they might recruit students year-­round. Consider building tip sheets for partners with a range of information about best practices in hiring, microaggressions, leave to attend cultural events or activities, private spaces for prayer, and chosen pronouns and names (Mallozzi & Drewery, 2019), as illustrated by Box 32.3.

Box 32.3  Educating work-integrated learning employers Julie was a WIL student working at a large accounting firm. She self-­identified as Metis (a person of mixed Indigenous and Euro-­American ancestry) in her interview, and it became common knowledge amongst her colleagues. Her manager approached her one morning and asked her if she would share with the team about Louis Riel Day and its significance in Canadian history. Julie was uncomfortable with this impromptu request, as she did not personally feel qualified to provide education on the topic. She understood that the firm and the manager were trying to be more open to learning about the history of colonization in Canada, but the power imbalance between this new student and her manager made her feel conflicted. A more appropriate approach would have been to seek professional development workshops that could provide clear and concise education and tie it into the firm’s structures, rather than as a one-­off relying on an individual employee’s emotional labor. If Julie’s WIL program had EDIA-­specific recommendations for WIL supervisors in their onboarding material, her manager may not have made this request. If her WIL program had an EDIA page on its website with resources for employers, that could have been a place for her to send her manager to learn more about opportunities for professional development.

519

Ainsley S. Goldman et al.

Promotion and outreach How will the work-integrated learning opportunity be promoted? It is important to advertise opportunities through a variety of means to reach all students, including those from equity-­ deserving groups. Learning about opportunities from faculty members can be particularly effective and give students the opportunity to hear about WIL opportunities from others who reflect a part of their identity and may encourage the student to feel that they belong.

Suggestions •

•

• • • • •

Provide numerous avenues for students to learn about the opportunities – online and in person events, through faculty members, peer ambassadors, student clubs, etc. Concurrently, recognize the extra time and effort asked of equity-­deserving students and clubs when the institution repeatedly requests promotional support. Ensure all marketing materials have appropriate representation in the images used, and that the images depict the success of equity-­deserving students. To avoid tokenizing students, consider using stock images when possible. In your promotional materials and at promotional events, include both an EDIA commitment statement and a statement about disability and the willingness to accommodate. Host events at varying times so students with caregiving or work obligations can attend and consider offering asynchronous webinars. Use a variety of media to promote opportunities. Incorporate principles of universal design so that all students can book appointments and meetings, submit materials, attend events, and participate in courses and workshops. If your institution organizes a career fair, consider events like an EDIA breakfast that can reduce stigma and facilitate more intimate conversations with partners and students from equity-­deserving groups, as illustrated by Box 32.4. Other events to promote equity include Indigenous Mentorship and Networking Events.

Box 32.4  Prioritizing EDIA values The University of Toronto wanted to bring an EDIA focus to the large annual career fair they co-­organized with Toronto Metropolitan University. They sought an opportunity to advocate for EDIA in the workplace, and to support students from equity-­deserving groups in identifying workplaces that are welcoming of people with a range of backgrounds and identities. The career fair team included questions related to EDIA in their recruitment form, which employers completed to sign up for the fair. They asked employers questions like “Does your organization have a leadership position focused on EDIA initiatives?” and “Does your organization have a clearly defined strategy to meet EDIA goals?” Employers who answered ‘yes’ to these questions received rainbow ribbons that read ‘celebrate diversity,’ which were placed on their nametags along with other ribbons identifying, for instance, ‘alumni.’ The rainbow ribbons generated a buzz in the career fair, which was attended by over 1,000 people: students were excited to chat with employers who had these ribbons, and employers who did not have them wanted to learn what they would need to do differently to be eligible for the ribbon in future years. 520

Applying principles of equity

•

•

Consider hosting a panel of students who were previously engaged in WIL and can speak accurately to their experiences, including students with disabilities, racial and ethnic identities, citizenship statuses, and Indigenous communities. If student permission is obtained, consider recording it so it will be available to future students. Ensure all promotional events are accessible, and that you collect accessibility and accommodation requests in advance.

Does your work-integrated learning opportunity use language that promotes equity? It is important to familiarize yourself with the underlying meanings of symbols, expressions, and phrases as you can risk the chance of creating barriers. For example, reaction GIFs on social media of Black people often depict overexaggerated expressions and emotions, reinforcing problematic stereotypes (Jackson, 2017). It is best to avoid symbols unless you are completely sure of their origins and meaning.

Suggestions •

• •

If you are hoping to recruit and retain students who are part of a particular equity-­deserving group, consult with staff, faculty, and students who may be able to share insight on that community’s perspective. When considering using language that may appeal to a certain target group, do additional research on the meaning prior to including it during your recruitment phase. When creating template documents, choose diverse names and pronouns. When you are not sure, consult instead of guessing.

Have you considered the various motivations a student might have for participating? Students engage in WIL for a range of reasons. International and first-­generation students may have distinct, unique motivations and expectations for participating in WIL (Buglione & Wittman, 2014; Kwenani & Yu, 2018; Najmabadi, 2017), and students from different backgrounds may have different understandings of community or civic engagement (Allen et al., 2014). Some students may be motivated to pursue a career path; others may be motivated by a sense of civic duty and engagement, by a need to earn income, or by curiosity to try new things and acquire new skills and knowledge.

Suggestions • •

Explicitly define the purpose of the WIL opportunity and relay this information clearly to students when promoting opportunities. Outline the expectations of engaging in the WIL opportunity using clear language so that: students can make informed decisions, ensure that the opportunity aligns with their personal goals and motivations, and feel confident about what is being expected of them. 521

Ainsley S. Goldman et al.

What information is provided to students about work-integrated learning opportunities? Students may be hesitant to engage in WIL due to uncertainty about what the opportunity entails. Students all have unique circumstances and may not know which opportunities or environments would be best to avoid or pursue. If a student knows they will require accommodations, it is best to disclose this (Khubchandani, 2008), but if the workplace demands and essential requirements are not explicit, it might not be clear when and how to disclose a disability or request an accommodation. Other aspects of identity (e.g., race, sexual orientation) may impact decision-­making, including perceived sense of safety.

Suggestions •

•

Provide as much detail as possible about the WIL opportunity so students can make informed decisions and do not experience unexpected barriers. Detailed information may include hours, duration, location, provided transportation, essential requirements, physical demands, pace, and noise levels within the environment of opportunity, as well as details as to whether the opportunity is guaranteed or paid. Additional information may include whether students will have access to a private space and requirements if participating remotely. Students should also be provided with guidance on what it means to request a reasonable accommodation and knowing when and how to disclose a disability or a personal or health situation that may impact their participation in the WIL experience.

Student preparation and supports Do your services support all students? Considering all aspects of a student’s life and circumstances can ensure they are set up for success throughout the WIL experience (Winchester-­Seeto et al., 2015). Students with disabilities may experience barriers in the enrollment process, potentially leading to decreased participation (Stirling et al., 2021). Students who enroll may need accommodations and flexibility to fully participate in WIL. Often this is viewed as providing accommodations similar to those provided for other assignments. Academic-­related accommodations may not translate directly to job search or workplace environments.

Suggestions •

In communication about the WIL program, include information about student services on campus that can be accessed for support such as Accessibility Services, International Student Centre, Health and Wellness, or Family Care Office. • Provide information on what the WIL experience involves to help students identify potential accommodations well before the program begins. It is common that the supports needed may not be known until the student is in the new work environment, or that a student may struggle but not disclose or request an accommodation. • Ensure staff supporting WIL programs are aware of local Human Rights Code guidelines. And as part of preparation for students, provide resources to educate them on rights and responsibilities and expectations. Under no circumstances should students be asked to disclose medical information. 522

Applying principles of equity

•

•

•

Depending on the size of your institution or program, consider a dedicated staff member to specialize in working with WIL students with disabilities (Gatto et al., 2020) or partner with a service area on campus dedicated to supporting specific student groups. Accommodations for students might include assistive technology, ergonomic assessment, approval to work from home, a flexible schedule, a workspace with minimal distractions, frequent breaks, or large print materials. The student can speak with their advisor to determine appropriate accommodations and/or technology needed. Students should be central to, and engaged in, every step of an accommodations process. Factors to consider in this process include: functional limitations arising from the disability, previous accommodations, task analysis, essential requirements, student input into what works for them and what does not, and anticipated barriers. Whether students are working with a dedicated staff member or with a support team made up of staff from different offices to support the student in the WIL experience, ensure you have consent and permission to discuss student cases with others.

Are there resources to help students experiencing barriers to securing a work-integrated learning opportunity? First-­generation students, BIPOC students, and mature students often experience a lack of institutional support as a primary barrier to WIL opportunities during the application phase (Najmabadi, 2017). Research has shown that there is a range of visible and invisible barriers, including GPA and interview requirements and geographic location (Mackaway et al., 2013). International students with limited social and cultural capital in the host country can also experience barriers.

Suggestions • Offer preparatory sessions to help students improve their skills in résumé writing, interviewing, and networking. In these sessions provide space to discuss topics such as recruiting bias, cultural competency, and discrimination. Provide both in-­person and online training, and ensure synchronous workshops are offered at various times or a recording is made available, so they are accessible to all participants, regardless of personal circumstances. • Help students navigate how to position their involvement with Pride organizations or religious or cultural community groups that reveal aspects of their identity in their résumés, job applications, and interviews. Provide strategies for students to highlight their skills and experiences while being comfortable about how much of their identity they want to disclose. • If students are expected to secure their own opportunities, consider providing lists of organizations that have hosted students in the past and provide guidance on how to go about handling outreach to potential organizations. • For students struggling to secure a work or community placement, reach out and work to understand the approach being taken and the challenges the student is facing, then provide additional supports as needed. Continued rejection can be particularly demotivating for students already facing barriers. • Consider offering students flexible options, including virtual placements or projects for students with restrictions on work location, or the use of on-­campus placements for certain students. (Mackaway et al., 2013) 523

Ainsley S. Goldman et al.

Do you provide professionalism training for students and does it incorporate the principles of EDIA? A WIL program might be a student’s first exposure to a professional or simulated work environment, or to a community organization or culture. Not all students know how to act in these types of environments, and many may be unfamiliar with the concept of professionalism, attire, organizational culture, different communication styles, and how to give and receive feedback. They may also not know the expectations of the organization they are going in to. Furthermore, students will one day join the workforce, so it is important to incorporate EDIA into their professional development (Phillips-­Davis, 2021).

Suggestions • • •

• •

Provide training on intercultural competencies and workplace dynamics (handling conflict, power dynamics, working in-­person or remotely, etc.). Use diverse examples when discussing professionalism: the norms in a financial institution can be quite different than those in a small community organization. Consider hosting an alumni or student panel to speak about lived experiences (e.g., as a first-­generation student, an international student, or a student with anxiety). Ask alumni how they navigated determining the dress code, building relationships, and requesting supervisor feedback. Provide safe discussion spaces for students to share their experiences and get feedback from their peers. Consider sending students into placements in pairs, assigning a peer they can reach out to for support, or creating a cohort model.

Do students know their rights and how to address and report workplace issues and conflict, discrimination, harassment, and health and safety issues, should they arise? Many workplace issues are left unreported by students for a variety of reasons. One reason is that students do not know ‘who’ they are supposed to report to. Another reason is that they may not know ‘when’ it is important to report a problem. It is not always evident when something at work is a problem worth reporting. Students may be unaware of what constitutes discrimination or harassment or may be worried about failing their program and are reluctant to report. Educators need to appropriately support students in identifying and responding to harassment (Emslie, 2009).

Suggestions • • • •

Make it mandatory for students participating in WIL to complete training in workplace rights. Teach students about their rights and responsibilities, as well as how, when, and if to request accommodations prior to any WIL placement. Consider including templates and clear instructions on how to request accommodations. Prior to participation in WIL, reassure students that they should report any experiences that make them uncomfortable or unsafe, especially when they have doubts about how to address that issue. It is important that students are reminded of their right to confidentiality when reporting an incident. Work through case examples so students can anticipate situations they may encounter in the workplace. 524

Applying principles of equity

•

•

Ensure that students have a consistent point of contact who can redirect them to appropriate resources when necessary and ensure they have received proper training on how to recognize, respond and refer students in distress, and how to handle harassment, health and safety, or other workplace concerns. Have ongoing checkpoints or site visits with students throughout the placement.

How can you support students to feel connected during their work-integrated learning experience? Students participating in WIL can sometimes feel disconnected from campus and their regular routine. For those who have health challenges or strong ties to family, campus, or social networks, this can be particularly isolating and may lead to poor performance, or students or the host may terminate a placement early.

Suggestions •

•

• •

•

Provide opportunities for students to connect with other students (either in-­person or virtually) to share experiences and support one another. This can be through small or large group gatherings or online discussions, social media groups, or informal check-­ins. Provide structure for students to set their own personal learning goals at the start of the course or program and to assess their personal motivations for participating and what they are hoping to get out of it. Encourage students to consider personal challenges they might experience upfront and help them to develop strategies for mitigating those challenges. Consider tailored resources for equity-­deserving groups, including students with disabilities, LGBTQ2SIA+ students, Black students, and/or Indigenous students. A mid-­way evaluation for both partners and students is helpful to understand how students are adapting to their environment. For students engaging in WIL off-­campus, consider an onsite visit, online intervention, or a check-­in at least once during the experience. Consider that some students may be more forthcoming about their experiences in a phone call, visit, or virtual chat, whereas others may prefer to fill out a survey or write about their experience. Organize a casual virtual chat where students are asked questions such as: What does your typical day look like? Are your current responsibilities what you expected? Would you recommend your placement to another student? Why or why not? Do you feel comfortable in your workspace? What kinds of things have contributed to you feeling comfortable/uncomfortable? See also Chapter 33 in this Handbook on wellbeing and resilience in WIL.

Reflection and assessment of learning Do you provide multiple methods for students to reflect and express their experiences? Students’ identities, cultural backgrounds, or specific disabilities may affect their ways of knowing and approach to reflection. While journal writing is a common mode of reflection, it may not be an ideal medium for everyone. For example, space should be made for students who come from predominantly oral cultures (Pearson & Daff, 2011). 525

Ainsley S. Goldman et al.

Suggestions • •

•

To reduce barriers for equity-­deserving students, create autonomy in how students record and present their reflections. Provide opportunities for non-­written methods, which can facilitate a deeper approach to reflection in experiential learning (Harvey et al., 2016). Consider including arts-­based reflection methods (e.g., drawings, music, photos), paired with scholarly explanations to deepen students’ understanding and construction of new knowledge. You may also consider giving students the opportunity to verbalize their experiences through a voice memo, podcast episode, or video. Prompt students to reflect on deeper changes in knowledge and attitudes, as opposed to simply reflecting on the tasks they accomplished that day.

Have you incorporated principles of universal design into the reflection and assessment plan? Universal Design can support the participation of equity-­deserving groups (Moore, 2019). Students may struggle with assessment components that are not outlined clearly or that are not designed equitably. For example, requiring students to use webcams when participating virtually or when working remotely may pose equity issues, as they may be reluctant to show their personal spaces on camera.

Suggestions • • •

If you are planning to incorporate online synchronous reflection sessions with students, provide them with the option to use audio-­only when participating remotely. Whenever possible, provide options for the way that students engage with learning materials. If group work is part of your assessment plan, clearly set out roles for group members, and consider how all students, including those with accommodations, can be supported to make valuable contributions to the group.

Program evaluation How will you follow up with students who experienced barriers? If a student experiences a barrier or has a negative experience, this may shape their understanding of a future career or educational pathway in a way that could be detrimental. Negative experiences can also deter others from participating, which can be particularly damaging if the student comes from an equity-­deserving group.

Suggestions •

• •

If you employ teaching assistants or others to review assignments, ask them to indicate when students express negative experiences during site visits or reflective assignments. Follow up with students to discuss their experiences. Provide students with regular updates about how programs have changed in response to student feedback, which can in turn inspire them to share their insights. Create a student advisory committee to help guide program development and improvements and ensure representation on the committee from equity-­deserving groups. Consider how you might compensate students for their time and work. 526

Applying principles of equity

•

•

Where appropriate, consider providing additional opportunities to hear from students from equity-­deserving groups through surveys or group roundtables. Remunerate them for their time and expertise. Provide an anonymous forum for all students to be able to voice comments or complaints about the program, an employer, or a community partner.

Are you measuring the impacts of your equity, diversity, inclusion, and access initiatives? As you work to integrate EDIA in WIL programs, think of ways to measure the effectiveness of these initiatives. Quantitative data can provide an initial insight that can be further refined with qualitative approaches to determine which students are accessing programs and which are not (Allen et al., 2014).

Suggestions •

•

•

Regularly examine who is participating in your programs (Malatest, 2018). Evaluation should take into account individual student experiences as they relate to program goals and outcomes (Allen et al., 2014). See Box 32.5 for a program evaluation case study. Think about how to reach students who do not enroll in WIL programming to find out why. Analyze which students are not completing the WIL experience or program and why. Include a student survey or evaluation at the end of the program, with questions like: Did you feel prepared for the WIL opportunity? What would have made you feel more prepared? Did you feel comfortable in the WIL opportunity? What would have made you feel more comfortable?

Box 32.5  Program evaluation case study The UBC Arts Co-­op Program wanted to consider its current evaluation and assessment practices through an EDIA lens, to be able to assess whether new EDIA initiatives were meeting the needs of its diverse student body. They also wanted to be able to report on these initiatives as a regular part of their annual report. The Program hired a graduate student with experience in evaluation and assessment in an EDIA context part-­time for an academic year. The student staff member reviewed the questions that co-­op staff ask prior to and during site visits, the assignments that students complete while working, and the evaluations that students and employers complete at the end of each work term. The student staff member suggested revisions to each, including adding questions directly related to the students’ experiences of the culture of their co-­op workplaces. Explicitly integrating EDIA considerations into existing Program assessment and evaluation tools will enable the Program to regularly assess its students’ experiences and Program practices, adjust practices as needed, and signal to its stakeholders the value it places on EDIA considerations.

527

Ainsley S. Goldman et al.

• • •

Include audit preparation workshops and resources for students to ensure they are accessible and reflective of the diversity of the student population. Consider an EDIA committee to evaluate programming and initiatives. Consult with your institution’s Equity Office to help evaluate your programs and suggest modifications to your current practices. Many Equity Offices will review evaluation surveys or reflection questions to provide advice on making them more inclusive.

What are your reflections as a practitioner? Formal evaluation may provide a lot of data, but your own reflections may also provide valuable insight into EDIA within your WIL programming. EDIA is an ongoing process and improvements can always be made (Ryan, 2010). As you continue to reflect on your WIL programming, you will be the sharpest tool in your toolkit.

Suggestions • • • •

•

Think about how your own positionality affects your reflections. Consider how unconscious beliefs might influence students’ access and experience (Malatest, 2018). You cannot control whether you will make mistakes: you will make mistakes. However, you can control what you do when you make a mistake and how you learn and adjust. Make a commitment to reflect on what equity in your practice is and solicit feedback from your team, a supervisor, or a critical friend. Consider informal communication you have heard from students and partners as well as anecdotal evidence to explore if there are changes you can make to your programming to improve the experience for all students. Connect with your campus Work-­Integrated Learning Office and Equity Office to discuss possible solutions. It is natural to feel uncomfortable when thinking about privilege and access. The discomfort felt can be a moment of learning. Get comfortable with feeling uncomfortable, question your feelings, and revisit the suggestions raised in this guide.

Conclusion This chapter has discussed the importance of language in equity work and shared evidence of the barriers to WIL, specifically for equity-­deserving students. We have suggested a framework that provides reflective questions, strategies, and case studies across the areas of program design, promotion and outreach, student preparation and supports, and program evaluation. In the ongoing process of making WIL more equitable, advocates will continue to struggle “against obstacles in highly contested environments to promote their inclusive goals. They should not be discouraged when they have difficulty attaining complete inclusion, however, and they should be prepared to struggle in order to protect their gains” (Ryan, 2010, p. 21). Instead of approaching EDIA in WIL as an insurmountable challenge, we encourage practitioners to use the framework, prompts, and case studies to ask critical questions about how choices might be made differently to make WIL programing more equitable. This process is iterative, and as the field of EDIA in WIL develops and more research emerges, we anticipate new language, approaches, and solutions far beyond what has been suggested in this chapter.

528

Applying principles of equity

Appendix 32.1 Resources Accessibility

• Waterloo Accessibility Self-­Study Guide: https://uwaterloo.ca/work-­learn-­ institute/sites/ca.work-­learn-­institute/files/uploads/files/co-­operative_ education_self-­study_guide_v2_2018_0.pdf • Job Accommodation Network: free consulting service that provides information on equipment, methods, and modifications for people with disabilities to improve their work environment: https://askjan.org/ • American Psychological Association – Providing Reasonable Accommodations to Individuals with Disabilities in Internship Sites and Postdoctoral Internship Positions: www.apa.org/pi/disability/resources/reasonable

EDIA Committees & Advocacy

• Cooperative Education & Work Integrated learning Statement of Solidarity and Call to Action for Equity and Inclusion in WIL: https:// www.cewilcanada.ca/CEWIL/Policies/CEWIL-­Statement-­of-­ Solidarity-­and-­Call-­to-­Action-­for-­Equity-­and-­Inclusion-­in-­WIL. aspx?WebsiteKey=70188082-­f13b-­461c-­8c8d-­74e0e6c01c18 • Career Exploration Through the Lens of Equity: https:// www.insidehighered.com/advice/2020/06/22/ some-­practical-­strategies-­becoming-­more-­equity-­minded-­scholar-­opinion

Indigenous

• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: https:// www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-­content/uploads/ sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf • International Interactive map of Indigenous land that can be used to facilitate land acknowledgement: https://native-­land.ca/

Language

• Equity and Inclusion Vocabulary and Inclusive Language: https://www.leadmn. org/EDI-­series2 • Guide: Inclusive Language & Vocabulary for Startups and Tech: https://open. buffer.com/inclusive-­language-­tech/ • Inclusive Language: https://communications.uoregon.edu/inclusive-­language

LGBTQ2SIA+

• Tip sheets on gender specific and gender neutral pronouns: https:// www.the519.org/education-­training/training-­resources/our-­resources/ creating-­authentic-­spaces/gender-­specific-­and-­gender-­neutral-­pronouns • A stock photo library featuring images of trans and non-­binary models: https:// genderphotos.vice.com/ • Career Guide for Trans and Nonbinary Students: http://www.hrandequity. utoronto.ca/wp-­content/uploads/SGDO/Your%20Journey%20-­%20A%20 Career%20Guide%20for%20Trans%20and%20Nonbinary%20Students.pdf • Hiring Across All Spectrums: A Report on Broadening Opportunities for LGBTQ+ Jobseekers: https://prideatwork.ca/wp-­content/uploads/2018/01/ PrideAtWork_2018_Round_FINAL-­s.pdf • Transitioning Employers: A Survey of Policies and practices for trans inclusive workplaces: https://www.gendereconomy.org/transitioning-­employers/

Modules and Training

• OCAD Micro-­Certification in Hiring for Decolonization, Diversity, and Inclusion in the Creative Industries: https://continuingstudies.ocadu.ca/search/ publicCourseSearchDetails.do?method=load&courseId=9112920 • University of Toronto Experiential Learning Hub Modules: https://experientiallearning.utoronto.ca/faculty-­staff/learn/ course-­and-­program-­resources/

Promotion & Outreach

• York University Inclusion Lens: Event Management Tool: https://inclusionlens. yorku.ca/implementing/#main

529

Ainsley S. Goldman et al.

Recruitment

• Equity, Diversity and Inclusion: A Best Practices Guide for Recruitment, Hiring and Retention: https://www.chairs-­chaires.gc.ca/program-­programme/equity-­ equite/best_practices-­pratiques_examplaires-­eng.aspx

Universal Design

• CAST Professional Learning: https://www.cast.org/our-­work/ professional-­learning

Notes 1 The term BIPOC has been used in this chapter, as at the time of publication it seemed most appropriate. It should be noted that while BIPOC highlights the fact that Black and Indigenous people disproportionately experience most inequity, future acronyms may emphasize additional systems of oppression including, but not limited to, anti-­Asian, Islamophobia, and anti-­Semitism. 2 The term LGBTQ2SIA+ has been used in this chapter, as it seemed to be most recognized with an international readership. However, 2SLGBTQIA+ is also a common term used in Canada to acknowledge that Two Spirit Indigenous people were the first sexual and gender minority people in North America. 3 This term is based on University of Toronto Professor Wisdom Tettey’s (2019) argument that the term “equity-­seeking” portrays these groups as interlopers: “those on the margins of our community, who feel or are made to feel that they do not belong, deserve equity as a right. They should not be given the burden of seeking it and they should not be made to feel that they get it as a privilege from the generosity of those who have the power to give it, and hence the power to take it back” (https://utsc.utoronto. ca/news-­events/inspiring-­inclusive-­excellence-­professor-­wisdom-­tetteys-­installation-­address).

References Allen, D., Strumbos, D., & Clay, J. (2014). Race, ethnicity, and service-­learning: Understanding access and equity using a critical quantitative approach. In A. E. Traver & Z. P. Katz (Eds.), Service-­learning at the American community college (pp. 95–110). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/ 9781137355737_7 Bowen, T. (2019). Examining students’ perspectives on gender bias in their work-­integrated learning placements. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729 4360.2019.1677568 Brabazon, H., Esmail, J., Locklin, R., & Stirling, A. (2019). Beyond employability: Defamiliarizing work-­ integrated learning with community-­engaged learning. Engaged Scholar Journal, 5(3), 21–41. https:// doi.org/10.15402/esj.v5i3.70364 Buglione, S. M., & Wittman, A. (2014). Connecting past and present: Nontraditional learner and practitioner experiences through service-­learning. In A. E. Traver & Z. P. Katz (Eds.), Service-­learning at the American community college (pp. 81–93). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137355737_6 Clark, N., Drolet, J., Mathews, N., Walton, P., Rene’Tamburro, P., Derrick, J., Michaud, V., Armstrong, J., & Arnouse, M. (2010). Decolonizing field education: “Melq’ilwiye” coming together: An exploratory study in the interior of British Columbia. University of Windsor. https://ojs.uwindsor.ca/index.php/csw/article/ download/5812/4743?inline=1 Cockayne, D. G. (2018). Underperformative economies: Discrimination and gendered ideas of workplace culture in San Francisco’s digital media sector. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(4), 756–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18754883 Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Polity. Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning: A guide to effective practice (1st ed.). Routledge. Dunn, L. A., Schier, M. A., Hiller, J. E., & Harding, I. H. (2016). Eligibility requirements for work-­ integrated learning programs: Exploring the implications of using grade point averages for student participation. Asia-­Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(3), 295–308. Emslie, M. (2009). Supporting students who are sexually harassed on placement. Journal of Practice Teaching & Learning, 9(3), 6–25.

530

Applying principles of equity Fosbrook, B., Kaplan, S., & Pichette, J. (2020). Transitioning employers. Institute for gender and the economy and pride at work Canada. https://www.gendereconomy.org/transitioning-­employers/ Gair, S., Miles, D., Savage, D., & Zuchowski, I. (2015). Racism unmasked: The experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in social work field placements. Australian Social Work, 68(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2014.928335 Gatto, L. E., Pearce, H., Antonie, L., & Plesca, M. (2020). Work integrated learning resources for students with disabilities: Are post-­secondary institutions in Canada supporting this demographic to be career ready? Higher Education, Skills and Work-­Based Learning. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-­ 08-­2019-­0106 Harvey, M., Walkerden, G., Semple, A.-L., McLachlan, K., & Lloyd, K. (2016). A song and a dance: Being inclusive and creative in practicing and documenting reflection for learning. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(2), 1–17. Hora, M., & Chen, Z. (2020). Problematizing college internships: Exploring issues with access, program design and developmental outcomes. International Journal of Work-­Integrated Learning, 21(3), 20. Howard, P. N., Busch, L., & Sheets, P. (2010). Comparing digital divides: Internet access and social inequality in Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of Communication, 35(1). https://doi. org/10.22230/cjc.2010v35n1a2192 Jackson, D., Rowbottom, D., Ferns, S., & McLaren, D. (2017). Employer understanding of work-­ integrated learning and the challenges of engaging in work placement opportunities. Studies in Continuing Education, 39(2017), 35–51. Jackson, L. M. (2017). We need to talk about digital blackface in reaction GIFs. Teen Vogue. https://www. teenvogue.com/story/digital-­blackface-­reaction-­gifs Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. One World. Khubchandani, A. (2008). Providing reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities in internship sites and postdoctoral internship positions. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/pi/ disability/resources/reasonable Kunkel, J. (2020, October 20). Can we make WIL programming more inclusive? Experiential & work integrated learning Ontario. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIpsGevkymc&list=PLI7KjfPdvCy FD61CMkpu6BJV9-­5CALuQ-­&index=4 Kwenani, D. F., & Yu, X. (2018). Maximizing international students’ service-­learning and community engagement experience: A case study of student voices on the benefits and barriers. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(4), 29–52. Lorde, A. (1980, April). Age, race, class, and sex: Women redefining difference. Copeland Colloquium. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780429038556-­22 Mackaway, J., & Winchester-­Seeto, T. (2018). Deciding access to work-­integrated learning: Human resource professionals as gatekeepers. International Journal of Work-­Integrated Learning, 19(2), 141–154. Mackaway, J., Winchester-­Seeto, T., & Rowe, A. (2013). Responding to student diversity: Strategies for placing work-­integrated education students. Strategic directions in cooperative education. New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education. Malatest, R. A. (2018). Barriers to work-­integrated learning opportunities. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Mallozzi, R., & Drewery, D. (2019). Creating inclusive co-­op workplaces: Insights from LGBTQ+ students. International Journal of Work-­Integrated Learning, 20(3), 219–228. McCloy, U., & DeClou, L. (2013). Disability in Ontario: Postsecondary education participation rates, student experience and labour market outcomes (No. 14). Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Mitchell, T. D., Donahue, D. M., & Young-­Law, C. (2012). Service learning as a pedagogy of whiteness. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(4), 612–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2012.715534 Moore, E. (2019). From teaching content to teaching students. UDL as a vehicle for improving curriculum and praxis design. In S. Bracken & K. Novak (Eds.), Transforming higher education through Universal Design for Learning: An international perspective (pp. 228–243). Routledge. Najmabadi, S. (2017, March 17). How colleges can open powerful educational experiences to everyone. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-­colleges-­ can-­open-­powerful-­educational-­experiences-­to-­everyone/ Pearson, C. A. L., & Daff, S. (2011). Collaborative delivery of work-­integrated learning to Indigenous Australians in a remote community. Asia-­Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 12(2), 125–145. Phillips-­Davis, C. (2021, February 17). Black in WIL. Experiential and work integrated learning Ontario.

531

Ainsley S. Goldman et al. Pop, C., & Brink, R. (2017). Repositioning work-­integrated learning in diverse communities. In Work-­ integrated learning in the 21st century (Vol. 32, pp. 115–128). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi. org/10.1108/S1479-­367920170000032007 Ryan, J. (2010). Establishing inclusion in a new school: The role of principal leadership. Exceptionality Education International, 20(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v20i2.7660 Santiago-­Ortiz, A. (2019). From critical to decolonizing service-­learning: Limits and possibilities of social justice–based approaches to community service-­learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Winter, 25(1), 43–54. Schilt, K. (2010). Just one of the guys?: Transgender men and the persistence of gender inequality. University of Chicago Press. Stirling, A., Milne, A., Taylor, A., & Goldman, A. (2021). Understanding barriers to engagement in an unpaid field placement: Applying the transtheoretical stages of behavior change model. International Journal of Work-­Integrated Learning, 22(2). Tettey, W. (2019, February 25). Inspiring inclusive excellence. University of Toronto Scarborough. https://utsc. utoronto.ca/news-­events/inspiring-­inclusive-­excellence-­professor-­wisdom-­tetteys-­installation-­address Tran, L. T., & Soejatminah, S. (2017). Integration of work experience and learning for international students: From harmony to inequality. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(3), 261–277. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1028315316687012 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and reconciliation commission of Canada: Calls to action. http://trc.ca/assets/pdf/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf United Nations. (2007). Declaration of Indigenous peoples. https://www.un.org/development/desa/ indigenouspeoples/wp-­content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf Wall, T., Tran, L. T., & Soejatminah, S. (2017). Inequalities and agencies in workplace learning experiences: International student perspectives. Vocations and Learning, 10(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12186-­016-­9167-­2 Winchester-­Seeto, T., Mackaway, J., Peach, D., Moore, K., Ferns, S., & Campbell, M. (2015). Principles, guidelines and strategies for inclusive WIL (Access, Participation and Progression in Work Integrated Learning, p. 13). Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.

532

33 SUPPORTING THE WELLBEING OF STUDENTS A framework for work-integrated learning programs Iro Konstantinou, Trevor Gerhardt, and Elizabeth Miller Introduction The increased youth population entering higher education (HE), combined with growing awareness of the mental health issues young adults face, means that youth wellbeing challenges are increasingly brought into the domain of higher education institutions (HEIs). Continued growth in higher education student numbers in the United Kingdom (UK), partly due to the removal of the university student number cap in 2015/2016 in England, led to universities being free to recruit as many students as they wish without financial penalty (Pigden & Moore, 2019) and which has led to ever increasing student numbers with differing needs. In recognition of the growing challenge of supporting the wellbeing of HE students, the Office for Students (the independent regulator of HE in the UK) has funded a number of initiatives, including supporting Student Minds in developing a University Mental Health Charter (Office for Students, 2021b). The challenge students face has been compounded by COVID-19 and the uncertainty that resulted from lockdowns and the resulting disruptions and changes in studies. For example, The Office for Students (2021a) reported that over half of students said their mental health has worsened due to the pandemic, with 70% surveyed saying they were concerned about their mental health and wellbeing. The pressures of employment add to the precarity of student wellbeing (Antonucci, 2016). In this chapter, we look at the ways HEIs can support the wellbeing of students with a particular focus on students on work-integrated learning (WIL) programs, who can face additional pressures related to their work. Considerations of wellbeing help “capture the immaterial aspects of the university experience” (Antonucci, 2016, p. 11). Wellbeing in HE students encompasses a range of factors, from academic success to work–life balance and employment skills, social interactions, accommodation, and student support services (GuildHE, 2018). In this chapter, emotional wellbeing is defined as the experience of positive emotions, rather than diagnosed mental health conditions

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-38

533

Iro Konstantinou et al.

(Burns et al., 2020). More specifically, we use the WIL wellbeing definition given by GillettSwan and Grant-Smith (2018,) who define it as: An individual’s capacity to manage the social, economic, personal, and physical factors that impact on the work-integrated learning experience and how the work-integrated learning experience impacts on an individual’s social, economic, personal, and physical wellbeing domains. (p. 133) Supporting student wellbeing should move beyond therapeutic interventions (as important as these are) and include a whole institutional approach (Houghton & Anderson, 2017), offering different interventions interactively (Carlo & Dwyer, 2018). Studies and work are two of the most important constructs that affect individual wellbeing (Hill et al., 2013). Therefore, understanding what HEIs can do to contribute positively to these two constructs is vital. In this chapter, we provide practical steps to ensure issues related to students’ wellbeing are addressed in the context of WIL programs. WIL is action-oriented and aimed at developing reflective practice, collective learning, solving contextualized problems, and using the instructor as a facilitator (Kelliher & Byrne, 2018). WIL, therefore, aims to enable students to adopt work codes and conventions, to problem-solve by making decisions in situ, and to be responsive and adaptable (Bowen & Drysdale, 2017). WIL can produce and develop professional skills and attitudes, self-confidence and ethical behaviors (Toledano-O’Farrill, 2017), and has the potential to enable students to be ‘work-ready PLUS’ and ‘agentic professionals’ (Bowen & Drysdale, 2017). However, it is particularly important to create the necessary resources for students who are part of WIL programs to safeguard their emotional wellbeing and equip them with the necessary skills to be resilient and ready to adapt to the changes, both in the classroom and the workplace. We acknowledge that the social, economic, and other inequalities can exacerbate student wellbeing issues (Antonucci, 2016); a deeper exploration of issues relating to equity in higher education can be found in Chapter 32 of this Handbook. This chapter offers a framework for the wellbeing of students on WIL programs based on a case study of a small British HEI with extensive experience of teaching degree apprentice students (both undergraduate and postgraduate). These degree apprentice students spend 80% of their working time in professional roles and the remaining time studying on a degree program related to their work. Their study is thus mapped both to the relevant subject benchmark statement and to an apprenticeship standard. For students on this program, 50% of their learning is contextualized to their workplace, meaning that their work and studies are closely linked. These students must simultaneously negotiate the transition to their degree program with the pressures of their professional careers. Recognizing these challenges, our HEI began to support these students in this journey, by employing apprentice mentors who meet these students at least quarterly to discuss their academic and professional progress and who act as a bridge between their employer and the HEI. This complements the support these students receive on joining the program and in the classroom. Over the years, the HEI has run these programs, with support for the wellbeing of WIL students evolved and the framework offered below based both on the literature as well as contextual institutional knowledge and experience. Grant-Smith et al. (2017) have previously provided a WIL wellbeing framework that combines institutional support, community support, and personal coping strategies. Our attempt here moves in a different direction and provides a framework with institutional practices for academic induction to support the transition to HE, the classroom, assessments, and teaching, sharing an overview of the wider community-building which permeates all aspects of the HEI 534

Supporting the wellbeing of students

experience. We focus on how HEIs can support WIL students in acknowledgment that the engagement and involvement of employers in supporting wellbeing is important but varied and not in the control of the HEI. We hope through this framework educators and institutions can take practical steps to contribute towards student wellbeing. WIL allows theory to be experienced in an actual real-work context. Research indicates the benefits of WIL include the increase of self-efficacy, career management, and professional identity (Bates et al., 2018). Some of these skills are developed inherently; however, the authors argue it is vital to understand the theories behind the necessary skills and attributes that WIL students can, and should, develop to thrive in the classroom and the workplace and actively embed these in institutional practices. In this section, we cover some of these including self-judgment, agency, self-efficacy, motivation, as well as the importance of reflection and metacognition as vital in the student journey and in student wellbeing.

Making self-judgments and having agency The transition into HE presents a particular moment of challenge for young people and the pressure they place on themselves, often owing to wider sociological pressures, to “be responsible for planning and constructing their future biographies” (Antonucci, 2016, p. 31) and which can affect their wellbeing. Developing a sense of agency in students is crucial to supporting their wellbeing. When students have ownership of their learning, it contributes to greater understanding of their abilities and can help them academically and professionally in the long term (Boud & Soler, 2016). Making self-judgements, that is, judging one’s level of ability, is not always accurate and can lead to miscalibration; students often overestimate their level of skills in comparison to employers’ assessments of their employability (Lisá et al., 2019). For students who have higher certainty in their abilities (i.e., confidence), those judgments will be considerably more positive (Maclellan, 2014). How students manage this miscalibration is important and dependent on their self-efficacy, self-confidence, and sense of agency. Students tend to either have overconfidence and believe they know it all and as such are not motivated to study, or they are underconfident and undervalue the internal or external resources they have at their disposal. Being able to make accurate judgments is important since inaccurate ones might stop students from trying and/or checking how they can fill any gaps in their knowledge (Hattie, 2013). It might also make them over reliant on skills and attributes they believe they have, which might not be reflective of their true abilities (Finn & Tauber, 2015). Providing students with the tools they need to accurately judge their abilities and levels of knowledge can be beneficial not only because it leads to better learning but also because it ensures that they do not get disappointed and overly stressed about their assessment and overall performance. This leads to perseverance, despite the setbacks, which can translate into positive results (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009) both at the workplace and in the classroom. Being able to understand contextual strengths and challenges and make decisions, accordingly, closely links to the concept of agency. According to the OECD (2019), there is no common definition of agency, but the term implies a sense of responsibility and encourages students to participate in society and influence people, events, and the world around them. This level of responsibility requires students to be able to set goals and strive to achieve them. It also means that they feel more confident in shaping events and being motivated to meaningfully participate in activities around them. The concepts of autonomy, choice, and sense of purpose – all embedded in agency – have been found to contribute to student wellbeing (McCombs, 2010). Klemenčič (2017) argues that agency moves beyond engagement to embrace student agency as a concept in itself, which needs to be addressed by HEIs. Through this recalibration, 535

Iro Konstantinou et al.

concepts such as autonomy, choice, and self-regulation would be embedded into HE courses and programs. The concept of agency will enable students to become critical thinkers and embrace learning opportunities which are relevant to them; a skill which is required both in HEIs and workplaces. An emphasis on student agency will shift the focus from students’ behaviors to elements which strengthen their opportunities for meaningful choice, empowering them to exercise control over their own functioning in HE (Klemenčič, 2017).

The importance of self-efficacy and motivation As an overarching guiding principle, we adopt the model of self-determination theory as discussed by Ryan and Deci (2000) who suggest that students need to feel autonomy, competence, and relatedness. We will discuss relatedness and the importance of social connection below, but here we want to consider how autonomy is fundamental to wellbeing. Self-autonomy helps students to take responsibility for their own progress (Villamizar & Mejía, 2019) and understand the goals they need to set. In a WIL context, they can see the links between the classroom and the workplace. Taking control of your own learning is directly related to self-efficacy (Bostrom & Lassen, 2006) which includes work self-efficacy and career decision-making self-efficacy (Bates et al., 2018). Martin and Rees (2019) define self-efficacy as the belief learners have in their ability to succeed in specific situations or to accomplish a task. In enabling self-efficacy, consider what is associated with it. For example, there is: awareness of one’s present physical and mental state; being able to reflect on one’s mastery of certain knowledge and skills, something that is largely dictated by past successes and failures; observing successes and failures of role models; and successes and failures of peers (Bandura, 1986). The concept of self-efficacy is also closely linked to self-esteem. Students with greater self-esteem show improving self-advocacy (agency) and understanding (Carlo & Dwyer, 2018). Self-efficacy, and thus agency, does not happen by default within educational settings. Therefore, the idea of developing an academic self-concept and task awareness (concepts related to self-efficacy and agency) is of particular interest in educational settings. Mountford and Rogers (1996) found that a corresponding self-concept with an individual’s thinking, feelings, and actions results in a trajectory towards their full potential, that is, that the correct alignment of self-concept and context can lead to self-efficacy and agency. Enhancing self-efficacy among students may help the transition from student to professional practitioner, and WIL experiences can improve self-efficacy through performance accomplishments including feedback loops leading to increased self-efficacy and, in turn, further enhancing an individual’s performance and reinforcing career decision-making (Martin & Rees, 2019). However, despite the best efforts of educators to help students believe in themselves and value their efforts, it is common to observe that some students lack the motivation to complete assignments or display a lack of confidence in their academic abilities when they are far more capable than they perceive themselves to be (Cavilla, 2017). Extrinsic motivated individuals do tasks that they are rewarded for doing, changing the direction of the person’s motivation. In contrast, intrinsic motivated students value their achievements and the probability of reaching their desired results through their set goals attained through study (Hytti et al., 2010). Intrinsic motivation will lead the learner to seek out or accept ambiguous and complex learning experiences and opportunities that may challenge their worldview and so promote abstract thought (a key aspect of reflection and metacognition). Additionally, they are likely to apply less rigid and more flexible analytical thinking, which will engender deep conceptual processing and greater integration of information (Kinman & Kinman, 2001), improving wellbeing by creating resilience. Intrinsic motivation is linked to mastery goals while extrinsic motivation is linked 536

Supporting the wellbeing of students

to performance goals, such as a preoccupation with simply passing a module or achieving a significant result (goals set by others rather than self-generated). Powerful extrinsic motivation reduces the likelihood of the development of learner autonomy (heutagogy) and encourages learned helplessness (Kinman & Kinman, 2001). Intrinsic motivation to succeed, on the other hand, transforms a student’s approach to completing assignments not simply to receive a grade but for the sake of growth and learning (Cavilla, 2017). In addition, personal efficacy is pivotal in mechanisms of human agency (Warren et al., 2021) and so HEIs seeking to promote the wellbeing of students on WIL programs would do well to create systems that promote intrinsic motivation and self-regulation.

Links to reflection and metacognition Reflection is “a complicated mental processing of issues or uncertain ideas” (Moon, 1999, p. 6) and “a deliberate mental process” (Jasper, 2006, p. 45). Reflection is not simply thinking in general but is a deliberate thought process upon a critical incident or ‘ill-material’ (Moon, 1999). It is not merely describing an experience but seeking to analyze it, to make sense and gain meaning from it (Moon, 1999). The intensity of this critical incident will vary based on the individual and the context and can be personal and/or work-related. WIL is about providing these work-related/based experiences. That is, people reflect on their actions either at the time (reflection-in-action) or at a suitable opportunity thereafter (reflection-on-action) (Thompson & Pascal, 2012). Proponents such as Moon (1999) and Mezirow and associates (2000) argue that reflection is often triggered by a significant life experience or disorienting dilemma. Such experiences cannot be fabricated nor should be fabricated in the WIL learning experience. However, experiences such as conflict, disappointment, or failure experienced within the context of WIL can be valuable ‘ill-material’ upon which to reflect. Within the context of transformative learning, these contradictions/tensions in practice, behavior, and/or values serve to provide material for reflection towards developing agency and agentic ethical professionals (Mezirow & Associates, 2000). Without this internal interrogation, behavior, values, and attitudes will remain locked into habitual patterns, rather than forms of practice that transcend routine or habitual actions that contain little thought or analysis (Thompson & Pascal, 2012). Reflection as a tool is vital for improved student metacognitive practices and academic performance to evaluate the quality of thinking (Cavilla, 2017) and educators’ practice/actions. Mezirow and associates (2000, p. 5) understand learning as “the process of using prior interpretation to construe a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience.” Reflection as part of this learning process therefore is pivotal in the learning experience. Learning begins with metacognition, knowing one’s own thoughts, which then allows the individual to identify factors that influence their own thinking (Cavilla, 2017). Using reflection is the process through which individuals make sense of negative events and deal with them (Drewery et al., 2019). Making sense is the term used by Moon (1999) to describe the reflective process from surface learning to deep learning. Making sense relies on the ability to employ critical self-awareness (subject reframing) and critical analysis of the situation (metacognition, objective reframing) (Mezirow & Associates, 2000). As Drewery et al. (2019) state, managing internal states (thoughts and feelings) and external conditions that are perceived to be taxing on personal resources are important aspects of coping. The ability to cope highlights the difference between poor emotional wellbeing and resilient emotional wellbeing (Drewery et al., 2019). The application of reflective ability may promote abilities for lifelong learning, self-efficacy, and the concept salutogenesis that Bostrom and Lassen (2006) argue is linked to mental health and wellbeing. Salutogenesis is a strength-based conceptualization that focuses on teaching 537

Iro Konstantinou et al.

and learning strategies as well as assessment using the strengths of the student (Bostrom & Lassen, 2006). However, these skills require routine in their development and as such a more intentional inclusion in modules and outcomes. Reflection does not allow time for brevity to percolate or culminate into a synthesis of how to transfer it into other arenas (Cavilla, 2017). Without the time, reflection will remain a theoretical idea far removed from the busy realities of practice (Thompson & Pascal, 2012). Ensuring this is incorporated into the curriculum, Roberts (2019) reminds us of one of the key reflective processes: the intentional halt from Dewey (1933), emphasizing abstraction; followed by intentionality again from Dewey (1933) related to consequence; revisioning from Schön (1991) including dialogic collaboration; and finally, transformation from Mezirow (1991) and Freire (1968).

Suggested wellbeing framework for work-integrated learning Taking into consideration all the attributes and skills discussed above, we will outline a framework for WIL programs that can enhance student wellbeing. The framework draws on Jisc’s (2021, p. 24) four principles for wellbeing in HE: 1 . Wellbeing is for everybody, that is, the entire population is affected; 2. Wellbeing is lifelong and “needs lifelong learning and lifelong skills development to build resilience”; 3. Wellbeing needs to be embedded throughout the curriculum as “health gain cannot be separated from learning gain”; and 4. Wellbeing must be moved “from being the sole concern of student health and mental support services and involves the entire community”. For successful integration of wellbeing initiatives, this needs to encompass all areas of the student journey. This starts from induction and moves to module delivery and outcomes, assessment practices and teaching, and has the overarching elements of the communities comprising students and available support systems (which moves beyond counseling and other formal processes which are in place for student mental health). Figure 33.1 shows the proposed framework that we present alongside quotes from WIL mentors (Boxes 33.1–33.3) who share their reflections of how student wellbeing can be promoted. We start each section by presenting reflections by those who have been involved in or are responsible for the three elements given in the framework which depict in very practical terms how these are approached.

Communities and support

Induction

WIL wellbeing framework

Modules, assessment, teaching

Figure 33.1  Work-integrated learning wellbeing framework used in Pearson Business School.

538

Supporting the wellbeing of students

Induction

Box 33.1  Academic induction and joining the program The business world has long recognised that a formalised and well-structured onboarding or induction process is a must have and is vital to the success of the employee and the organisation. This can be easily replicated for higher education establishments. There’s a distinct shift in the ‘how’ students are inducted at university; the student journey being an emergent theme. The journey that the HEI has taken inducting and on-boarding degree apprentices over the past 12 months has changed dramatically. Where previously the HEI took a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, by completing induction within one day, this has been replaced with a long and thin programme helping the college adapt to the changing demographic of the student as well as to explore new possibilities for its induction process. Having spoken to a number of apprentices about induction it was clear that students felt a ‘journey’ approach to onboarding would be far more beneficial; where technology could be used to enhance the process, this was welcome; and moving away from orientation styled days to a longthin approach that targeted need and personalization was preferred over a one-size-fits-all model. (Reflections from a WIL mentor in June 2020)

Academic induction is vital in the student journey as it serves very practical purposes in supporting students making the transition to higher education and/or the transition to practices specific to an institution. For example, students learn how to access modules, resources, tutors, timetables, and learning support. However, the importance of induction is well-documented for other reasons beyond the practicalities of what happens during the day or week of induction. Thomas (2002) shows how induction is an important part of a sense of belonging for students to develop an attachment to the institution. A well-designed onboarding program can help new students reduce anxiety and uncertainty and provide clarity and understanding of their program (Schroth, 2019). It can help create a level playing field for students coming from different backgrounds (e.g., mature students who have not been exposed to an education system in a long time) and build confidence and readiness for the learning journey ahead. Outlined here are five key considerations for an induction that ensures students familiarize themselves with the institution, set expectations, and start developing a sense of self-regulation and autonomy. 1.

Induction starts before day one. Students need to feel part of the community before they join the institution. Through clear communication and expectation setting, they will familiarize themselves with the practices and processes of the HE. Helping students connect with their peers before formal induction begins onsite has also been shown to help “ease anxieties” among students about to join HE (Ribchester et al., 2014). Early induction activities can make the transition smooth and reduce the chance of new students feeling overwhelmed. Seeing the importance of induction in ensuring student engagement, this should not be left until after students have started their academic journey. For WIL students, this is particularly important as they need to navigate and familiarize themselves with two separate institutions at the same time. 539

Iro Konstantinou et al.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The journey is as important as the destination. Eldridge (2018) concluded that the onboarding journey was just as important as the destination. This view is shared by Reid (2020) who suggested onboarding is a continuous, individualized journey that begins upon commencement and ends when the individual meets the goal of being successfully integrated into the community. Onboarding needs to be a continuous program of engagement that supports the student along their journey and continues into term time and the start of their academic program. Mirror the example of the workplace. Onboarding new recruits is a critical activity that allows the employee to integrate with the organization, culture, and access to information, helping them to be effective in their day-to-day jobs (Becker & Bish, 2019). Organizations tend to have clear processes in place for onboarding and inducting new staff. Mirroring some of the processes of the workplace institutions, HEIs can create continuity between student experiences during their studies and their workplace. Use technology effectively. Today’s workforce is made up of digital consumers (Deloitte, 2019) and studies have shown that for Generation Z students, who make up the bulk of the current generation of new HE students, this mobile-dependent generation is reliant on their smartphones for everything and views them as an extension of themselves (Francis & Hoefel, 2018; Opris & Cenusa, 2017). Considering the ubiquity of the smartphone, higher educational establishments must strategically employ the use of technology through use of social media or other applications to engage students using means with which they feel confident and familiar. Be consistent, student-tailored, and provide clear expectations. Ensuring that students are fully informed of what to expect concerning teaching, assessment, and policies that affect their studies is vital to ensure they feel agency and in control of their studies. Being transparent about any potential changes and challenges is also important as it allows

Box 33.2  Modules, assessments, and teaching As a degree apprentice, I worked for a large organisation with international reach. The days that I spent on campus as part of the programme allowed me to see how my peers were approaching similar projects within the context of SMEs, or the public sector. The biggest challenge I faced was building working relationships with peers that enabled these fruitful discussions to take place. Being a degree apprentice can be an isolating experience – only being on campus one day per week (or equivalent) limits the contact you have with each other, preventing the breakdown of barriers to effective relationships. The final degree honours project is a valuable opportunity to conduct research into a business-related topic. As a degree apprentice, your employer has a say when it comes to choosing module report/assignment topics, to ensure your undertakings are contextualized and relevant to the workplace. I wished to undertake a project based upon equity, diversity, and inclusion, that aligned with my personal values. Instead, my employer’s heavy influence led to me following a topic which lacked academic rigour and passion. Ultimately, there is a risk that degree apprentices experience stifled final projects due to excessive employer input. Carefully managing the triangulation of apprentice, employer, and institution, to ensure apprentices can follow their passion, has become a significant focus for me as a mentor. (Reflections from a previous Degree Apprentice, now a DA mentor, in June 2020)

540

Supporting the wellbeing of students

students to plan ahead and prioritize what is important to them. Outline what success looks like so that they know what to strive for. Looking at the concept of self-efficacy and the different experiences of learning and providing students with models of success from the beginning enables them to set their expectations and understand how they can achieve their goals. Here we outline nine strategies an institution can adopt at the program level and in teaching to foster the development of important skills and provide opportunities to support student wellbeing: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Explicit reflective skill development. Students have varying abilities in understanding and use of reflection as a skill. The practice of reflection as a skill should be developed from induction right the way through to the final submission. The practice of reflection will be supported by the theoretical teaching of reflection, and by the modeling and facilitation of reflection by staff. Students can for example complete, develop, and monitor a series of self-assessment tests to add to their reflective profiles, journal regularly, or undertake reflective reviews with peers and staff. Critical reflection on learning can promote wellbeing and help students develop relationships and create self-awareness which can contribute to emotional stability (Van Winkle et al., 2018). Allowing students an opportunity to ‘write it out’ in, for example, journals can not only alleviate frustration but can significantly deepen their grasp of material being taught (Cavilla, 2017; Drewery et al., 2019). Embed reflective practice into assessment. Giving students the opportunity to reflect on their current level, set goals, and outline what progress they can or have made is vital in increasing self-confidence (Toledano-O’Farrill, 2017). Building reflection into assessment and learning outcomes can aid the process and ensure it becomes not an ad hoc activity but one integral to students’ academic journeys. For example, students could/should be asked to reflect on what professional skills they have developed during a term and draw on examples from their workplace or the classroom. Another example can be progress videos during term time that ask students to reflect on their progress and plan the next steps. When assessment involves group work, include reflective accounts as part of the assessment. If the skills of reflection are taught, as outlined above, then this will not be a tokenistic exercise but can meaningfully aid students in their progress. Provide opportunities for peer support and feedback. Create activities for students to work together and talk about what they are working on. Often their coursework focus might be different, but they often share the same questions and struggles. Seeing that they are not alone can be of great help (Daniëls et al., 2020). Provide opportunities for challenge. Be mindful of the students’ abilities and provide appropriate challenges for all. One way this can be achieved is by setting assessments that are not always prescriptive in terms of output required. Show students the bigger picture. Discuss how what they do in class links to other modules, the workplace, their aspirations beyond HE, and their identity development. Ensure that students understand why certain activities are completed and how this can be of benefit, beyond the assessment. Make links between the classroom and the workplace. This can be done through assessment that bridges the two settings and asks students to draw on their experiences from both (Konstantinou & Miller, 2021). Show how what happens in the classroom can be of benefit to their workplace, whether this is skills or knowledge, and how workplace learnings can be transferred to the classroom. 541

Iro Konstantinou et al.

7.

8.

9.

Model what good looks like. Teaching staff can provide examples of what good looks like in assessments so students know what they can aspire to. However, role models are needed when it comes to behavior and skills that are needed for academic and professional success. They can model these behaviors, such as time management, communication skills, empathy, reflection, and many more in their own teaching but also in their wider interactions with students. Encourage goal setting. This should be common practice across all modules. From the beginning of the term, students should be encouraged to set goals and work on their time management. Building accountability can mirror what they do at the workplace but also ensure they do not get overwhelmed as different deadlines approach. Give students agency. As much as possible, teaching staff should aim to give students autonomy in the classroom. This can be achieved by allowing spaces for students to work at their own pace and on the parts that they feel they need to spend more time on. This can also be done in assessments by providing a wider choice of assessments for students.

Communities and support

Box 33.3  Communities and support Students working on a work integrated course will have access to great opportunities but also experience higher levels of stress than is usually experienced by more traditional degree students. This is primarily due to the student being a full-time employee while studying. For many this is the first full time employment they have experienced, the first degree they have experienced and the first time many have lived away from the family home. The pressures placed upon these students can be immense and this is where a college mentor comes into play, being the link between business and academia. The WIL mentor offers constant, non-judgmental support and follows the student throughout their journey, working with their tutors, employer, and the university to maximize the opportunities offered. Mentors are a shoulder to cry on, to celebrate success with and an experienced guide throughout the learning journey. Mentors protect the student while at work and college, being a central point for their wellbeing. Mentors work with many different students and employers, they are a conduit to wider work and college experiences, wider social and professional communities, and a camaraderie with those experiencing the same, often life changing, work and educational experience. (Reflections from a WIL mentor in June 2020)

Creating a sense of community and fostering support structures can help improve student wellbeing while on the program. Below, we outline four key ways student wellbeing can be supported by structures that envelop their academic program, including teaching staff and mentors who are based at the HEI. Even though this is overseen and supported by the workplace, since students spend most of their time there, this is beyond the scope of this chapter. Many of these discussions which bridge the two settings can be instigated by mentors who are in regular communication with lecturers and work managers. This is why their role is invaluable and integral to the triad of WIL. 542

Supporting the wellbeing of students

1.

2.

3.

4.

Create opportunities for students to feel supported as part of a community. Nielsen et al. (2017) found that the support given by a lecturer can be effective in balancing the absence of family support for students who might live away from home or who do not have a familial background which can provide such support. Creating classroom environments that make explicit the support available is very important for students. Teaching staff should be the ones who give encouragement and help students see a clear way forward. The atmosphere in the classroom should be constructive and friendly and provide a safe space for students to explore their ideas and arguments and get constructive feedback. Teaching staff should create space in classrooms for supportive peer interaction and build a sense of community. HEI staff be understanding. WIL students have the added stress of a work placement that can require a lot of their time and attention. Being considerate of the different circumstances they find themselves in because of the two spheres they operate in is crucial. Asking questions about their work and how it links to the classroom are experiences that can contribute positively. HE mentors are crucial in the student experience. HE staff who are WIL mentors are important as they make a link between the workplace and the classroom and can help students bridge the gap. The mentor’s role should not be a purely administrative one: they should be people who students can trust and confide in. Mentors fulfill unique roles, as students do not report directly to them, as they would a manager in the workplace or a lecturer to whom they must submit assessments. Mentors should guide students and ensure they help them build metacognitive skills to manage their journey. These mentors should also engage with the student’s workplace to understand the learner’s experience of WIL holistically. This will also provide opportunities to highlight challenges faced at work and to support individual students through their professional development. Foster a sense of belonging. Goodenow (1993, p. 25) defines belonging as: the students’ sense of being accepted, valued, included, and encouraged by others (teacher and peers) in the academic classroom setting and of feeling oneself to be an important part of the life and activity of the class. More than simple perceived liking or warmth, it also involves support and respect for personal autonomy and for the student as an individual. HEIs need to acknowledge the individuality of students and, as such, HEI staff need to create opportunities for students to engage and belong in different ways. Thomas (2012) suggests that the academic sphere is the most important site in nurturing participation of the type that engenders a sense of belonging.

Conclusion For students struggling with the challenges of balancing work and study in WIL programs, the framework above provides an opportunity to support their wellbeing. This support must come as they join the program, while they are on the program through carefully designed teaching, learning, and assessment activities, and should also wrap around the program by providing space for community and support for these students. Even though none of the suggestions made above are new or have not been trialed elsewhere, the simplicity of implementing this framework can act as a starting point for those who wish to devise their own framework or want to borrow actionable suggestions they can try out in their contexts. While the framework above derives from contextual experience in a UK-based HEI, the authors believe the 543

Iro Konstantinou et al.

learnings are applicable to other international settings. The remit of lecturers/teaching staff is largely similar in that it involves feedback, assessment, classroom activities, and support, and as such can be adapted for other institutions. It is also common to have days or weeks where students come to campus or login online to learn more about their courses. At Pearson College London, this is the induction, but there are iterations for this which can provide a similar basis for the suggestions given above. Lastly, community and mentors, in their various capacities, are a central point of contact for students and can be a bridge between the workplace and the university. Similarly, while this chapter has focused on young professionals and undergraduate students, the basic structure of the tiers would work well to support students from diverse backgrounds on a range of programs. Where student wellbeing is affected by some of the precarities of current HE systems, for example, in relation to finance, housing, and graduate outcomes, student wellbeing and educational experiences are understandably affected (Antonucci, 2016). It should be noted that for students who are not paid to undertake WIL, they can face particularly high levels of stress due to the financial impacts of undertaking unpaid work (Grant-Smith et al., 2017). However, by creating resilient students with agency, self-efficacy and confidence, and the metacognitive skills to reflect, HEIs can equip students with strategies for overcoming challenges and approaching difficult situations. The list of skills and attributes which are described here is not exhaustive. Different institutions and contexts will have their own priorities and might choose to concentrate on different elements when thinking about fostering student wellbeing in WIL programs. We do not suggest that the focus is solely concentrated on the above and that some other initiatives occur organically. The point for using this framework is that it provides the basis for further action and acts as a starting point on which to build. As such, it can be suggested that those who wish to adapt this framework can use it as a starting point for their discussions and align it with their institutional priorities, student needs, and resources. Fortunately, the setting is a small HEI which affords the opportunity to provide individualized support and work closely with employers, as well as with students. Based on the circumstances of the HEI and the relationship with employers, what is included in the framework might differ. There might also be different structures and approaches taken with regards to staffing, teaching, or institutional values which will inform how such a framework might be developed. Lastly, it is worth noting that this is an iterative process and should be revisited and discussed regularly to ensure that the changing landscape of employment, studies, and society are taken into account.

Acknowledgments We want to express gratitude to the three HEI WIL mentors for sharing their reflections.

References Antonucci, L. (2016). Student lives in crisis: Deepening inequality in times of austerity. Policy Press. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. Bates, L., Hayes, H., Walker, S., & Marchesi, K. (2018). From employability to employment: Professional skill development course in a bachelor program. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 413–423. Becker, K., & Bish, A. (2019). A framework for understanding the role of unlearning in onboarding. Human Resource Management, 31(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100730 Bostrom, L., & Lassen, L. M. (2006). Unraveling learning, learning styles, learning strategies and meta-cognition. Journal of Education & Training, 48(2/3), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 00400910610651809

544

Supporting the wellbeing of students Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 400–413, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133 Bowen, T., & Drysdale, M. T. B. (Eds.). (2017). Work-integrated learning in the 21st century. Emerald. Burns, D., Dagnall, N., & Holt, M. (2020). Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on student wellbeing at universities in the United Kingdom: A conceptual analysis. Frontiers in Education, 5(204). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.582882 Carlo, R. Jnr, & Dwyer, R. J. (2018). The impact of vocational training on transition-aged adults. The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice, 13(6), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JMHTEP-01-2018-0002 Cavilla, D. (2017). The effects of student reflection on academic performance and motivation. SAGE Open, July-September, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017733790 Daniëls, E., Hondeghem, A., & Heystek, J. (2020). Exploring the outcomes of group reflective learning for school leaders, Reflective Practice, 21(5), 604–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1784865 Deloitte. (2019). ConnectMe: employee onboarding. Retrieved January 23, 2021, from https://www2.deloitte. com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/human-capital/us-cons-connectme-onboarding.pdf Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the revelation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Heath & Company. Drewery, D. W., Cormier, L. A., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2019). Improving unmatched co-op students’ emotional wellbeing. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 43–53. https://www.ijwil. org/files/IJWIL_20_1_43_53.pdf Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (GRIT–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802634290 Eldridge, D. (2018). Student onboarding. Why the journey matters. January 6, 2021, https://3radical.com/ blog/student-onboarding-why-the-journey-matters/ Finn, B., & Tauber, S. K. (2015). When confidence is not a signal of knowing: How students’ experiences and beliefs about processing fluency can lead to miscalibrated confidence. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 567–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9313-7 Francis, T., & Hoefel, F. (2018). ‘True gen’: Generation Z and its implications for companies. January 12, 2021 https:// www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-andits-implications-for-companies Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum. Gillett-Swan, J., & Grant-Smith, D. (2018). A framework for managing the impacts of work-integrated learning on student quality of life. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(2), 129–140. Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0272431693013001002 Grant-Smith, D., Gillett-Swan, J., & Chapman, R. (2017). WIL wellbeing: Exploring the impacts of unpaid practicum on student wellbeing. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. June 22, 2021 https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/GrantSmith_WIL.pdf GuildHE. (2018). Wellbeing in higher education: A GuildHE research report. Retrieved 28 September 2021, from https://www.guildhe.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/GuildHE-Wellbeing-in-HigherEducation-WEB.pdf Hattie, J. (2013). Calibration and confidence: Where to next? Learning and Instruction, 24, 62–66. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.009 Hill, C. E., Bowers, G., Costello, A., England, J., Houston-Ludlam, A., & Knowlton, G. (2013). What’s it all about? A qualitative study of undergraduate students’ beliefs about meaning of life. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 53, 386–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167813477733 Houghton, A. M., & Anderson, M. (2017). Embedding mental wellbeing in the curriculum: Maximising success in higher education. Advance HE. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode. advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/hub/download/embedding_wellbeing_in_ he_1568037359.pdf Hytti, U., Stenholm, P., Heinonen, J., & Seikkula-Leino, J. (2010). Perceived learning outcomes in entrepreneurship education: The impact of student motivation and team behaviour. Journal of Education & Training, 52(8/9), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011088935 Jasper, M. (2006). Professional development, reflection and decision-making. Blackwell. Jisc. (2021). Student and staff wellbeing. Retrieved 28 September 2021 from https://repository.jisc. ac.uk/8276/1/student-and-staff-wellbeing-report.pdf

545

Iro Konstantinou et al. Kelliher, F., & Byrne, S. (2018). The thinking behind the action (learning): Reflections on the design and delivery of an executive management program. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 10 (1), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-05-2018-0010 Kinman, G., & Kinman, R. (2001). The role of motivation to learn in management education. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(4), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620110391088 Klemenčič, M. (2017). From student engagement to student agency: conceptual considerations of European policies on student-centered learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 30, 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0034-4 Konstantinou, I., & Miller, E. (2021). Self-managed and work-based learning: Problematising the workplace-classroom skills gap. Journal of Work Applied Management, 13(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JWAM-11-2020-0048 Lisá, E., Hennelova, K., & Newman, D. (2019). Comparison between employers’ and students’ expectations in respect of employability skills of university graduates. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 71–82. Maclellan, E. (2014). How might teachers enable learner self-confidence? A review study. Educational Review, 66(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.768601 Martin, A. J., & Rees, M. (2019). Student insights on the added value of WIL. International Journal of WorkIntegrated Learning, 20(2), 189–199. McCombs, B. (2010). Developing responsible and autonomous learners: a key to motivating students. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/education-career/k12/learners Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as Transformation. Jossey-Bass. Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development. Routledge Falmer. Mountford, B., & Rogers, L. (1996). Using individual and group reflection in and on assessment as a tool for effective learning. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24, 1127–1134 Nielsen, I., Newman, A., Smyth, R., Hirst, G., & Heilemann, B. (2017). The influence of instructor support, family support and psychological capital on the well-being of postgraduate students: a moderated mediation model. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2099–2115. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079 .2015.1135116 OECD. (2019). Future of Education and Skills 2030. Retrieved June 15, 2021, from https://www.oecd. org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/student-agency/Student_Agency_ for_2030_concept_note.pdf Office for Students. (2021a). Making student mental Health a priority. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/ news-blog-and-events/blog/making-student-mental-health-a-priority/ Office for Students. (2021b). Student mental health. https://officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/ student-wellbeing-and-protection/student-mental-health/what-we-re-doing/ Opris, I., & Cenusa, V. (2017). Subject-spotting experimental method for gen Z. TEM Journal, 6(4),683–692. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM64-06 Pigden, L., & Moore, A. G. (2019). Educational advantage and employability of UK university graduates. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 9(4), 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/ HESWBL-10-2018-0101 Reid, K. (2020). Orientation vs. student onboarding: Four questions for student success. https://encoura.org/ orientation-vs-student-onboarding-four-questions-for-student-success/#:~:text=Orientation%20 is%20%E2%80%9Cold%20school%3B%E2%80%9D,goal%20is%20accomplished%20or%20not Ribchester, C., Ross, K., & Rees, E. L. (2014). Examining the impact of pre-induction social networking on the student transition into higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(4), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.778068 Roberts, K. M. (2019). An analysis of autobiographical tools in written reflection: implications for teaching critical thinking and goal-setting. Reflective Practice, 20(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943. 2019.1575196 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. https://doi.org/ 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Ashgate. Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for gen Z in the workplace? California Management Review, 61(3), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619841006

546

Supporting the wellbeing of students Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus. Journal of Education Policy, 17, 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2016.1159288 Thomas, L. (2012). Building student engagement and belonging in higher education at a time of change. What works. June 21, 2021 https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/what_works_summary_report_1.pdf Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 13(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.657795 Toledano-O’Farrill, R. (2017). Professional application projects: work-based learning in the curriculum. Journal of Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 7(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/ HESWBL-07-2016-0047 Van Winkle, L. J., Schwartz, B. D., Horst, A., & Michels, N. (2018). An evidence-based model program to foster empathy, mitigate bias, and promote wellbeing through critical reflection on service-learning by public health/health administration and practitioner student teams. The Journal of Health Administration Education, 35(4), 475. Villamizar, A. G., & Mejía, G. (2019). Fostering learner autonomy and critical reflection through digital video-journals in a university foreign language course. Reflective Practice, 20(2), 187–200. https://doi. org/10.1080/14623943.2019.1575195 Warren, L., Reilly, D., Herdan, A., & Lin, Y. (2021). Self-efficacy, performance and the role of blended learning. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(1), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JARHE-08-2019-0210

547

34 PAID AND UNPAID WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING Challenges and opportunities Katharine Hoskyn, Craig Cameron, Patricia R. Lucas, Franziska Trede, Loletta Yuen, Sally Rae, Holly Capocchiano, and Michelle J. Eady Introduction The distinctive educational approach of work-integrated learning (WIL) focuses on learning in authentic work environments. It can enhance students’ ability to link theory with practice, learn about professional identity, and/or transition into employment. Payment to the student is one issue associated with this authentic learning experience. The purpose of this chapter is to consider many variables influencing the payment debate and to highlight issues involved with paid and unpaid WIL placement experiences. Payment for non-placement WIL does occur; however, this chapter focuses on work placement WIL where most of the payment debate resides. Payment to the student, or absence of payment, is most significant when WIL takes the form of placement, practicum, or internship. In simple terms, students in a paid WIL experience receive remuneration in exchange for work, while in unpaid WIL, a student receives no remuneration. However, the distinction between paid and unpaid WIL is not simply about whether the student receives remuneration in exchange for work. There are a range of variations that need mentioning. For example, students may receive non-remunerative financial support, namely the support is not a salary or wage in exchange for work. Terms used by tertiary institutions to describe non-remunerative financial support include stipend, bursary, honorarium, grant, study award, and scholarship. The financial support could be cash or ‘in-kind’ such as vouchers, program fee waivers, provision of meals, accommodation, and travel cards (Cameron & Hewitt, 2022). Further, underpaid situations can occur whereby students receive payment that is less than the prescribed minimum wage. There are also situations where students completing unpaid WIL should receive a prescribed minimum wage as an employee. Accordingly, the non-payment or underpayment of remuneration by the entity hosting the student for their WIL experience (‘host organization’), whether inadvertent or deliberate, is in breach of labor laws because the student is deemed an employee (Cameron, 2018; Lloyd et al., 2019). Thus, in practical terms payment of students on work placement is not a simple distinction between whether a student is remunerated or not. Complicating this debate is ambiguity between students in the workplace for placement (for higher education purposes) and students gaining work experience outside their studies 548

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-39

Paid and unpaid work-integrated learning

(for individual purpose). Both situations can be described by the single term ‘internships.’ The literature and news media discussions have not always made the important distinction between these two forms of placement. Higher education, credit-bearing WIL differs significantly from work experience in that it is not part of a qualification (McDonald & Grant-Smith, 2020). Negative news media coverage gives prominence to issues surrounding non-payment of interns and students on placement. Thus, debate occurs in the public arena as well as within educational institutions. Media coverage about unpaid internships has shifted from portraying a win–win situation for intern and employer to an emphasis on unethical practices. Cohen and de Peuter (2019) undertook a systematic review of 855 news media articles relating to internships from six different English-speaking countries between 2008 and 2015. They note the rhetoric shift from normalizing unpaid internships to portraying these experiences as exploitative, unfair, and illegal. At the center of this media criticism is an assumption that an unpaid intern is undertaking productive work for no reward. This chapter begins with a comparison of practice across disciplines, where educational, legal, and ethical tensions are explored. The perspective of students, workplaces, and academic institutions influences the expectations and commitment of stakeholders, and thus can influence a quality learning experience.

Comparison of practice There are many reasons why students are traditionally not paid in some placement contexts. Historically nurses and teachers were trained ‘on-the-job’ until specific organizations, often attached to a hospital or school, were established to deliver this training. In some cases, students were paid for the duration of their training. Towards the end of the last century, formal training of nurses and teachers became the realm of higher education institutions. With this shift, the placement/practicum increased in significance. In both nursing and teaching, it is not uncommon for placement organizations to receive a small payment from the institution in recognition of the significant effort needed to supervise a student (Barcan, 1995). In sport and recreation, placements are typically unpaid in line with the volunteer nature of that industry. In creative industries such as journalism, placements tend to be of short unpaid duration. In specialized fields such as criminology, intense competition for placements gives rise to a predominance of unpaid placements, created specifically to enable students to complete their academic study (Coll & Zegwaard, 2011). However, in fields such as engineering, students on placement have traditionally been paid in a similar way to apprenticeship schemes prevalent in the construction industry. Even in this sector, unpaid placements occur, usually when students have difficulty finding paid work (Lloyd et al., 2019). The prevalence of payment for placement appears to differ widely within many other disciplines, which embrace both paid and unpaid experiences, such as business, hospitality, tourism, IT, science, and environmental health. As an example, a South African study in tourism found 73% of placement students were paid (Taylor & Geldenhuys, 2018). A similar percentage of paid placements in tourism and hospitality management was found in the Australian study by Milne and Caldicott (2016). Conversely, in a case study in New Zealand the majority of hospitality placement students were unpaid (Thompson et al., 2017). Cross-cultural expectations on payments also differ. The acceptability of contributing to the community without pay varies from one culture to another. Some cultures expect citizens, especially young people, to give voluntary time and skill to their community whereas in other countries this contribution may more commonly require payment (Dekker & Halman, 2003). In Canada, the national association for WIL, Cooperative Education and Work-Integrated Learning 549

Katharine Hoskyn et al.

Canada (CEWIL), prioritizes payment on placement by making it a condition for accreditation of a Cooperative Education course, which is a specific model of WIL (CEWIL, 2018).

Educational approach Student learning sits at the heart of WIL. Through this educational approach, students can apply their knowledge and theory learnt in a tertiary setting to workplace practice (Billett, 2009). This experience, amongst other things, helps students develop their sense of professionalism and their collegial networks. WIL placement opportunities can immerse students in the technical, practical, economic, political, and emotional aspects of work (Goldsmith & Trede, 2019), thus contributing to career readiness and transition into employment. There is no conclusive generalization about the comparative effectiveness of paid and unpaid placements in the facilitation of learning. Academically, a successful experience occurs when students achieve pre-stated outcomes of a WIL program. The presence or absence of payment on its own has not yet been definitively proven to be a predictor of student learning in any given situation. Contrary results have been identified in differing research studies. In an Australian study of tourism and hospitality, Milne and Caldicott (2016) identified “students are typically performing well on placement, irrespective of which setting [paid vs unpaid WIL] they are located in” (p. 180). However, Taylor and Geldenhuys (2018) found in a small tourism degree program in South Africa that “unpaid students had better job understanding and were better at completing tasks than paid students” (p. 8). Conversely, McHugh’s (2017) United States study of a range of disciplines found greater developmental value in paid placements. Developmental value occurs when a student has “learned new skills, experienced new challenges and gained clarity surrounding career and employment goals” (McHugh, 2017, p. 376). All these studies were quantitative with considerable emphasis on statistical analysis. In the latter two studies, pay was one of a number of variables studied in relation to impact on the WIL experience. A comment in all these studies was that further research is needed on the presence or absence of payment. Central to a successful WIL experience is the relationship between the parties: student, workplace, and academic institution (e.g., Gerken et al., 2012; McHugh, 2017). The presence or absence of payment can influence relationships between the parties, especially between student and workplace. This relationship can influence the type of work undertaken by students, the way students are supervised, and the development of a sense of professional identity.

Meaningful versus trivial work Burke and Carton (2013) express concern about the possibility of trivial work in unpaid placements. They opine that those workplaces may not be motivated to offer meaningful work to unpaid students. However, this can also occur in paid situations if employers prioritize the organization’s needs. Such situations can result in menial tasks for students, but they can also develop an understanding of workplace reality that workers may not always enjoy their allocated work. Taylor and Geldenhuys (2018) described the reflection of tourism students who were predominantly paid and given insufficient work and, therefore, “tasked with menial jobs, such as cleaning and restocking brochure shelves and making tea and coffee for staff” (p. 3). Pre-defining tasks and expectations for a WIL placement is crucial for both workplace and student. For degrees such as teaching and nursing, accrediting bodies require specific criteria to be met and specify the time on placement needed for a qualification to be granted. Such pre-definition is equally important for all disciplines and placements. 550

Paid and unpaid work-integrated learning

Supervisory relationship The influence on the supervisor–student relationship when a student is paid was explored in a study of employer perceptions of good WIL supervision (Goldsmith & Trede, 2019). Supervisors of paid engineering students felt less responsibility for mentorship and provision of opportunities for reflection, as they regarded students as employees. Students as employees focused more on task achievement rather than on the process of developing professional reasoning. These supervisors argued that treating students as employees is the optimal approach for transition to employment, whereas supervisors of unpaid students in this study felt a moral obligation to provide explicit learning moments during WIL in acknowledgment of lack of payment. However, studies based on student perceptions show potentially stronger mentoring in paid placements. McHugh (2017) and Taylor and Geldenhuys (2016) found that paid students felt they received stronger mentoring than unpaid students. However, Taylor and Geldenhuys (2016) also found statistically significant differences in perceptions of supervisor support and mentoring between differing types of tourism placement (e.g., ecotourism, adventure tourism, event management), with higher-risk adventure tourism students perceived as receiving significantly more supervisor interest. The relationship between payment and mentoring may be complex and involve other variables in the placement situation. WIL has most value when workplace supervisors are aware of the importance of their supervisory and educational duties (Choy & Delahaye, 2011; Martin et al., 2019; McHugh, 2017). However, it is not clear to what extent supervisors understand the difference between supervision of students versus supervision of employees. For a WIL experience, in addition to guiding workplace activities, work supervisors are expected to manage the placement in line with the program requirements of academic institutions and report on student progress and performance. Most programs encourage mentorship, enabling students to benefit from past and present experiences of their supervisor. The extent of workplace involvement in student assessment can vary; however, there is little known about whether the presence or absence of payment to the student influences supervisor assessment (McHugh, 2017; Rogers et al., 2021). Though there is a paucity of relevant research, it could logically be suggested that payment increases employers’ expectations and elevates the level of expected outcomes, which in turn influences work performance assessment. Supervisory mentorship underpinned by critical awareness and shared sense-making can develop students’ professional values and practice (Trede, 2012). The supervisor–student relationship is full of possibilities, as well as tensions and contradictions. The educational approach behind workplace supervision is complex (Manathunga, 2007) and the payment of students can add another layer to this complexity.

Professional identity Professional identity is a multi-dimensional, interdependent, and fluid concept (Trede, 2012; Trede et al., 2012). From an educational perspective, developing a sense of professional identity requires eliciting values and professional reasoning, questioning practices, and finding a professional voice within the placement context (Trede et al., 2012). During WIL, students can observe and interact with experienced professionals and thus start to make sense of their intended profession (Jackson, 2017). The presence or absence of payment can influence the way a student positions themselves during WIL and their relationships with other people in the organization. Students need to consider whether they are first and foremost a student or 551

Katharine Hoskyn et al.

an employee. This can influence how they introduce and conduct themselves. In an unpaid placement, it is harder to identify as an employee. If paid, the student may have an ambiguous position in the organization with regard to their own self-identity and the perception of other employees. This ambiguity in turn impacts on students’ relationships within the organization, the level of support and mentorship received, and supervisor expectations of the standard of work (Trede, 2012).

Legal perspective Payment in relation to WIL poses complex legal issues. Whereas WIL is an educational approach that integrates students’ work and learning, work and learning are generally regulated separately. For instance, workplace laws tend to treat payment as remunerative– a reward for work – classifying the person as an ‘employee’ with various workplace rights, including: • •

•

Human rights: protections from discrimination and harassment; Workplace health and safety rights: an employer’s obligation to ensure health and safety in the workplace (‘WHS’), and the provision of compensation for workplace incidents (‘workers’ compensation’); Labor rights: minimum wages plus other working conditions such as paid and unpaid leave, rest periods, and maximum working hours.

These rights are not generally covered in education laws that regulate the administration of tertiary programs, including WIL. Consequently, the separation of laws regulating work and learning may produce a ‘regulatory gap’ (Hewitt et al., 2018) in which workplace rights afforded to students completing paid placements as employees (‘paid WIL’) are not extended to students who are not remunerated on placement (‘unpaid WIL’). The sections that follow describe and evaluate the regulation of paid and unpaid WIL, across various jurisdictions, against three objectives relevant to WIL: 1 . Facilitate student access to, and the hosting of, WIL placements; 2. Protect students from physical, psychological, and financial harm; 3. Assure educational quality of WIL experiences in which learning is the primary purpose, and the student is the primary beneficiary.

Human rights and health and safety in the workplace rights Human rights and WHS protections for unpaid WIL students vary within and across jurisdictions. For example, it appears that South Africa, Japan, and China do not make human rights provision for unpaid WIL students (Stewart et al., 2018). In Australia, federal and state laws have different human rights protections, where some states make provision for unpaid workers, while others do not extend protections to unpaid WIL students (Hewitt et al., 2018). In New Zealand (NZ), the NZ Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits an employer from engaging in unlawful discrimination, which includes “the person for whom work is done by an unpaid worker” (s 2). In the USA, human rights protections apply to education programs, and as such unpaid WIL may represent part of an education program covered by legislation (Burke & Carton, 2013). Selected US states including New York also make explicit that unpaid WIL is covered by discrimination legislation (Stewart et al., 2018). In Canada, students completing WIL placements in federally regulated industries (e.g., broadcasting, telecommunications, 552

Paid and unpaid work-integrated learning

banks) are protected from discrimination and harassment under legislation (Canadian Human Rights Act 1985). At a provincial level, it appears that only Manitoba specifically defines ‘employment’ in human rights legislation to include ‘unpaid work.’ The remaining provinces may rely on case law in which courts have interpreted ‘employment’ broadly to include, for example, volunteers (Canadian Intern Association, 2016). In respect of WHS rights, all WIL students in Germany, France, the United Kingdom (UK), Romania, and Argentina are covered under WHS and workers’ compensation laws, whereas in South Africa and Brazil unpaid WIL students may be covered by WHS but not workers’ compensation, and Japanese students may not be covered at all (Stewart et al., 2018). In New Zealand, the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 extends WHS protections to “a person gaining work experience” and “a volunteer worker” (s 19); either or both classifications will generally apply to unpaid WIL students. In the USA, Federal WHS laws cover employees only, although many US states extend workers’ compensation coverage to unpaid WIL (Stewart et al., 2018). In Canada, students completing WIL in federally regulated industries receive WHS protection (Canada Labor Code 1985, s 123(3)). Many Canadian provinces have relevant WHS and workers’ compensation coverage that broadly defines ‘worker’ to include ‘learners’ (e.g., British Columbia and Alberta), or students completing unpaid WIL (e.g., Ontario). In some provinces, it is unclear whether unpaid WIL students are covered by WHS laws, but nevertheless they are otherwise protected under workers’ compensation (e.g., Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia) (Canadian Intern Association, 2016). Overall, unpaid WIL students in some jurisdictions may not receive the human rights and workplace health and safety protections enjoyed by their paid WIL colleagues. This inequity potentially exposes unpaid WIL students to harm.

Labor rights: employment test The regulation of labor rights for unpaid WIL students generally falls into one of three categories: receive some, or all, of the labor rights of paid WIL students; unpaid WIL students have no labor rights; or the legislature does not include or exclude unpaid WIL from labor protections. With respect to the third category, the courts determine whether the student is an ‘employee’ or ‘worker’ under labor legislation, and their decisions create a precedent (‘employment test’) (Stewart et al., 2018). The employment test operates in South Africa and Japan, as well as the USA and New Zealand (Stewart et al., 2018). In the USA, the employer is required to pay the prescribed minimum wage if the student is an employee, being “any individual employed by an employer,” and to ‘employ’ is to “suffer or permit to work” (Fair Labor Standards Act 1938, ss 203(e) (1) and 203(g)). Volunteers in not-for-profit and government entities, which may include a subset of students completing service-learning projects, are excluded from the definition (US DOL, 2018). The primary beneficiary test is used by courts to determine whether the WIL student is an employee, namely: Who is the primary beneficiary of the host–student relationship (US DOL, 2018)? Seven factors about work-based arrangements, with no single determinative factor, have been identified by courts to support the primary beneficiary test. These relate to: payment of compensation, nature of the training provided, connection to a formal education program, timing, duration, nature of the student’s work, and entitlement to future paid employment (US DOL, 2018). Applying this test, unpaid WIL students are unlikely to be employees, provided the institution assures educational quality through curriculum design and supervision, and the students’ work is not exploitative, that is part of their learning rather than replacement labor. 553

Katharine Hoskyn et al.

In New Zealand, the WIL student is an employee and is entitled to the prescribed minimum wage unless they are a volunteer, namely a person who does not expect to be rewarded, and receives no reward, for their work (Employment Relations Act 2000, s 6(1)(c)). On the question of employment, the court is directed to determine the “real nature” of the host–student relationship (s 6(2)). Employment NZ, a government authority, has provided guidance that for unpaid WIL students to be deemed volunteers, the student must gain the primary benefit from WIL, and outlines many of the same factors identified by US courts (Employment New Zealand, 2020). The employment test may be seen to protect the student from exploitative practices by ensuring that the student is at least compensated as an employee if the host cannot assure that learning is the primary objective of the WIL placement. However, the test is problematic for two reasons. First, unpaid WIL students are automatically excluded from labor rights attached to working conditions because they are not employees. Second, the test is based on a consideration of various subjective factors that are open to legal interpretation– a court may find an employment relationship when applying the test, despite the host having no intention to employ the student. This legal uncertainty may deter hosts from offering WIL placements.

No labor rights: regulation Many unpaid WIL students have no labor rights in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. In Australia, unpaid WIL is considered a ‘vocational placement’ and, therefore, excluded from labor laws prescribing the minimum labor rights of most employees, including wages (Cameron, 2018; Hewitt et al., 2018). A ‘vocational placement’ is “undertaken with an employer for which a person is not entitled to be paid any remuneration” as a requirement of an authorized education or training course (Fair Work Act 2009, s 12). Unlike federally regulated industries in Canada that incorporate working conditions, and with the exceptions of Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the Yukon, the labor laws of Canadian provinces exclude students who complete work as part of a formal education program (Bowal et al., 2020). In the United Kingdom, a student required to complete WIL as part of their education program is excluded from the minimum wage for placements of less than one-year duration (The National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, Reg 53). Further, unpaid students are not ‘workers’ and, therefore, not covered by statutory working conditions such as maximum weekly working hours, rest periods, and annual leave, because their “work experience or training” is provided in a course run by an educational institution (Working Time Regulations 1998, Regs 2 and 42). While the exclusion of unpaid WIL students from labor laws minimizes the risk that the host is an inadvertent employer of the student (Cameron, 2018) which arguably facilitates WIL placements, it does expose students to the risk of exploitative practice. Students can effectively ‘work for free’ as they are not deemed employees. It is then incumbent on the institution to regulate the host–student relationship to minimize the risk of exploitation, for instance, by prescribing working conditions such as WIL duration and working hours, as well as the education responsibilities of the host, in a WIL agreement (see Chapter 26 in the Handbook).

Labor rights: regulation Regulations may exclude students from the legal status of an employee, provided that a bipartite WIL agreement(s) (Argentina and Italy), tripartite WIL agreement (host-student-institution: Brazil, Argentina, France), or institution-produced document (Canada) is entered into. 554

Paid and unpaid work-integrated learning

However, regulations in these jurisdictions extend various labor protections to all WIL students, and include selected working conditions, maximum WIL time limits to minimize the risk of exploitative practice, and/or provisions designed to promote educational quality. For instance, in Brazil, there is a two-year time limit on the WIL placement, as well as maximum weekly work hours (Stewart et al., 2018). Similarly, in Argentina WIL students are entitled to a number of labor rights, including minimum and maximum time limits on WIL placements (2 and 12 months respectively), and maximum daily and weekly working hours (Stewart et al., 2018). In Italy, there is the appointment of host and institution supervisors who support students with drafting a training plan of learning activities that accompanies the WIL agreement (Ministry of Labor and Social Policies, 2021). Canadian regulation prescribes minimum employment conditions for unpaid WIL students in federally regulated industries or workplaces, including maximum working hours, leave, rest periods, and breaks (Standards for Work-Integrated Learning Activities Regulations 2020). France has the most comprehensive coverage of WIL students’ rights, with its own WILspecific education laws that extend labor, human, and WHS rights to unpaid WIL students, as well as protections around the quality of the learning experience. Under Chapter IV of the Code de l’éducation (Education Code: Internships and training periods in a professional environment), the parties must enter a WIL agreement which deals with educational quality including student skills to be acquired in relation to the WIL program (L124-2), as well as academic and host supervision (L124-3). In particular, the WIL agreement cannot require the student to perform regular tasks corresponding to a permanent job, deal with a temporary increase in business activity, or replace an employee (L124-7). The student is also entitled to the same workplace conditions as the host’s employees in respect of maximum daily and weekly working hours, rest periods, public holidays (L 124-14), parental leave, meal vouchers, and payment for transport costs (L 124-13). WIL placements longer than two months must also provide for the possibility of leave and authorized absences (L 124-13). In fact, WIL placements may not exceed six months per academic year (L 124-5).

Non-remunerative payments Non-remunerative payments to students such as stipends, allowances, scholarships, study awards, gifts, and bursaries are types of financial support (i.e., alternative forms of payment) provided by hosts, private donors, government, and institutions that enable students to access and complete unpaid WIL opportunities they could not otherwise afford to take up (Smith et al., 2015). ‘Non-remunerative’ describes the intent, and not the legal status, of the payment. In fact, most countries do not regulate non-remunerative payments by hosts in relation to WIL programs, thereby exposing hosts to a risk that they may be deemed an employer by virtue of making a payment, with unintended financial consequences (Cameron, 2018). Two exceptions are Argentina and France, which mandate non-remunerative payments to students completing WIL placements of more than two months. In Argentina, WIL students receive a non-remunerative payment, classified as an allowance (Stewart et al., 2018), whereas the payment in France is a bonus, which is either fixed in an industrial agreement, or failing any agreement, a minimum of 15% of the hourly social security ceiling (Education Code, L 124-6). As the payment is not classified as a salary, it would appear that non-remunerative payments above the prescribed amount would not trigger an employment relationship, provided the tripartite WIL agreement is complied with (Stewart et al., 2018). Mandatory non-remunerative payment regimes, such as in Argentina and France, provide students with guaranteed financial support from the host organization for WIL. Depending 555

Katharine Hoskyn et al.

on the level of compulsory financial support, this may discourage hosts from offering WIL or students from accessing unpaid WIL experiences. Alternatively, regulation could authorize voluntary non-remunerative payments by excluding such payments from the coverage of labor laws which prescribe minimum wages, and by requiring that the terms and amount of payment be stipulated in a WIL agreement, which was the case in France prior to 2015 (Education Code, D612-50). Overall, France has the most effective regulatory framework by incorporating existing labor, human, and WHS rights into education regulation designed to assure quality WIL experiences, as well as prescribing a minimum non-remunerative payment for unpaid WIL students. It is, therefore, not surprising that the French approach finds support among labor scholars (Hewitt et al., 2018; Jeannet-Milanovic et al., 2017; Stewart et al., 2018).

Ethical dilemmas Ethical issues can be considered from a theoretical and practical perspective (Burke & Carton, 2013). The ethical issues in this section relate to academic credit-bearing WIL placements, rather than work experience. From a theoretical perspective, Buzdugan (2020) examines unpaid placements in light of Watts’s (1996) framework of socio-political approaches to career guidance in tertiary institutions. Three of the approaches from the socio-political framework are liberal, progressive, and radical. A liberal approach emphasizes the freedom of students, as adults, to make their own decisions. Buzdugan (2020) describes this as “we will give you all the information you need and then you can choose your own path” (p. 23). This approach enables an institution to justify unpaid WIL as being the students’ own choice, with the institution equally supportive of paid and unpaid placements. A progressive approach enables students’ personal growth through initiatives that develop employability skills for a competitive labor market. These initiatives may be motivated by recognition of the difficulty that students face in gaining a placement. Buzdugan, however, argues for greater use of a radical approach whereby career counselors (or their institutions) help students to challenge injustices such as unfair practices in unpaid placements. Lack of action by an academic institution against an inappropriate practice can be seen as the equivalent of endorsement. However, Buzdugan acknowledges the juggling act of balancing the needs of different stakeholders (students, employers, and educational institutions) and the potential conflict of interest. Therefore, an academic institution needs a full understanding of a placement situation to identify whether action needs to be taken. At a practical level, ethical discussions usually focus on whether a relationship is exploitative or mutually beneficial (Burke & Carton, 2013). Simplistically, with genuine reciprocity in the arrangement (benefit for the student and the workplace), unpaid placement may be ethical. Conversely if there is no reciprocity, an unpaid placement may be unethical. In practice, this principle may be difficult to apply, especially when expectations amongst stakeholders differ. A workplace may consider the experience itself and the academic credit (enabling completion of a degree) as sufficient reward, while the student may view that additional benefits are essential for genuine reciprocity. Hoskyn et al. (2020) note the importance of context when considering the appropriateness of payment in any given circumstance. They note the same work in different contexts can appropriately result in differing remuneration arrangements, using accounting as an example. Remuneration is appropriate when an accounting firm charges clients for the student’s work. The same work undertaken for a not-for-profit sports club can justifiably be unpaid, especially 556

Paid and unpaid work-integrated learning

if all activity in that environment is voluntary. It is questionable whether comparable work for the head office of a large charity would meet the requirements for voluntary work. While there is considerable discussion about the ethics of unpaid placements, little attention has been given to exploitative paid placements. Burke and Carton (2013) highlight the difference between a minimum wage and a living wage (which is sufficient to cover expenses), an issue affecting many in the workforce, not just students on placement. Hoskyn et al. (2020) note situations where paid WIL students have been expected to work long hours, thus limiting their ability to undertake academic assignments. Much of the discussion about exploitation is premised on the assumption of young inexperienced students undertaking a short-term WIL placement in a workplace environment that is unfamiliar to them. However, this is not the lived experience of us as WIL practitioners. A much wider age demographic and diverse student population participate in higher education activities, including WIL. Further, a growing number of students in non-traditional WIL disciplines such as Business are undertaking WIL at their regular (and often long-term) place of work as a type of self-sourced placement (Hoskyn & Martin, 2011). In this situation, academic institutions may find themselves with an ethical (and potentially legal) dilemma. A student may be exposed to exploitative practices, but the academic institution is not a party to the employment relationship. The student may perceive intervention by an academic institution in an existing employment contract as interference, especially if the employment relationship was long-standing prior to WIL being undertaken. However, failure to intervene may place an institution in breach of its pastoral care responsibility, which in countries such as New Zealand is legislated in a Student Pastoral Care Code (Ministry of Education, 2021).

Stakeholder perspectives This section explores the perspectives of the student, placement organization (community or industry partner) and academic institution, and the effect of payment on expectations.

Student perspectives Flexibility in placements, whether paid or unpaid, is valued by students and can enhance their wellbeing (Grant-Smith et al., 2017). However, both types of placements can also adversely affect wellbeing. Students generally value a WIL placement experience regardless of whether it is paid or unpaid, especially if it advances their employment prospects, “being unpaid does not undermine the meaningfulness of the experience” (Smith et al., 2015, p. 155). However, the same students also said that being paid made them feel responsible and boosted their confidence. In addition, a paid placement can alleviate financial pressures that helps to cover living costs (Rogers et al., 2021). Socio-economic background also impacts on students’ ability to undertake unpaid placements. Higher socio-economic students may be able to participate in an unpaid placement more readily. Those from lower socio-economic groups often cannot afford unpaid placements; however, they may also have weaker networks and connections from which to identify paid placement opportunities and so be forced into an unpaid situation. This equity and accessibility issue appears to be universal, being experienced in many countries (Cameron & Hewitt, 2022; Grant-Smith & McDonald, 2018; and Chapter 32 in this Handbook). WIL placements can negatively impact a student by increasing stress, disrupting the work– life balance, and adding financial pressure. This is particularly evident in unpaid placements (Grant-Smith et al., 2017; Johnstone et al., 2016). Furthermore, Hodge et al. (2020) found 557

Katharine Hoskyn et al.

students could be completing their work placement while also undertaking paid part-time employment to cover their living costs. This finding reiterates Johnstone et al.’s (2016) argument that most unpaid placement students also need paid work. This need can be mitigated by student allowances available in some countries (e.g., New Zealand) to provide assistance with living expenses (Ministry of Social Development, n.d.). Additional financial pressures can become more apparent during a placement, for example, increased transport costs, acquisition of a workplace wardrobe, and reduced opportunity for other paid employment (Hoskyn et al., 2020). Female students in Rae’s study (2020) identified the role of unpaid placements in developing a ‘give it a go’ attitude and felt they were more able to try new things with lower risks and greater tolerance of mistakes. The negative issues of paid work include pressure to work to a higher standard and for longer hours (Hoskyn et al., 2020). Students often prioritize their placements over their own needs in the quest to complete their degree, especially when being paid (Grant-Smith et al., 2017). Payment may elevate student expectations of responsibility, competence, and having a certain level of knowledge (Rae, 2020; Smith et al., 2015). This in itself can add a level of pressure and stress to the WIL experience. Paid placements may reduce the need for the student to have paid part-time employment to cover their living expenses thereby reducing the financial stress. Students can feel unhappy when their input exceeds that reciprocated by the placement organization (Rae, 2020). In addition, unpaid students can feel a lack of equity with their paid counterparts (Thompson et al., 2017); however, this may depend on whether other outcomes are achieved from the WIL experience, such as the development of career and personal goals, placement satisfaction, career prospects, and mindset (Smith et al., 2015).

Placement organization Variation in the approaches taken by placement organizations (community or industry partner) is vast and depends on the characteristics of the “industry” and the individual approach of workplace supervisors. A competitive labor market and/or well-resourced organization may result in a superior WIL experience if supervisors have time to invest in the student (Hunt & Scott, 2020). An organization paying a WIL student generally expects a return on their investment (Milne & Caldicott, 2016; Rogers et al., 2021). If payment is made to the student, it underpins the expectations of all parties, including the nature and the quality of the work (Rogers et al., 2021) and the commitment to the student. An unpaid placement may be focused primarily on the student experience and learning (Milne & Caldicott, 2016), especially if in a regulated environment. When part of a highly regulated qualification such as teaching or nursing, the relationship between the placement organization and the academic institution is determined by factors set by a regulatory body. In these cases, the academic institution may make a financial contribution to the placement organization in recognition of the high level of supervision required. Compared with the for-profit sector, very small, community-funded, and/or volunteer-managed organizations may be less able to offer payment. Workplace supervisors of unpaid WIL placement may actively seek to offer alternative non-monetary reward, such as greater support in the relationship, networking opportunities, and connections or paid employment after graduating (Goldsmith & Trede, 2019). Offering unpaid WIL placement experiences may offer organizations a more cost-effective approach to trialing a potential new employee (Rogers et al., 2021) than paid placements. A placement may start out being unpaid and transition to some form of payment. Where an organization has been impressed with a student’s performance, an offer of employment is generally broached before the placement finishes 558

Paid and unpaid work-integrated learning

(Rae, 2020). If the student continues with similar paid work in this workplace, this could raise the question about why the placement was not paid in the first instance. Milne and Caldicott’s (2016) Australian study of 128 placement evaluations found little difference in the expectations of paid and unpaid (predominantly not-for-profit) WIL workplace employers. They all rated punctuality and attendance as the student’s most important skill. The second most important student skill of a paid employer was a ‘positive attitude and teamwork,‘ whereas the unpaid employer rated ‘cooperation and teamwork’ as being second. Martin et al. (2019) interviewed workplace supervisors who had previously undertaken a placement within their degree. Their motivation to supervise placement students was influenced by their own experiences as a student. The motivation of the industry supervisor and the organizational culture, structures, and practices can positively or negatively impact the student experience, irrespective of payment arrangements (Milne & Caldicott, 2016).

Tertiary institution Within the higher education structure, a range of WIL placement types may be offered across different disciplines (Grant-Smith et al., 2017). Duty of care to students means that institutions need to be confident that WIL students, particularly those on unpaid placement, are not being exploited. In addition, reputational demise can arise from not protecting students’ interests (Cameron, 2018). Academic institutions can set expectations in the guidance given to workplaces. Higher expectations for students, academic institutions, and employers can be set when this guidance includes ‘payment preferred.’ ‘Payment is optional’ creates a lower expectation of remuneration to students. Consideration needs to be given around context, past practice, and accepted practice within the discipline as to how this expectation is expressed and the option of alternative remuneration should be explored (e.g., free housing, food and clothing provided, transport costs covered).

Conclusions All students on WIL placement, whether paid or unpaid, should have a beneficial experience focused on learning. Critical success factors include clear objectives, well-defined predetermined working arrangements, and a constructive relationship between all stakeholders: student, employer, and academic institution. This relationship can be strengthened when legal regulation of a country covers the integration of students’ work and learning, rather than treating work and learning as separate constructs. From an educational perspective, a successful WIL experience occurs when learning outcomes are met. There are varying opinions about whether unpaid placements have greater focus on learning. Empirical research is very limited and there is a need for more quantitative and qualitative research. From a legal perspective, regulation can assure that learning, and not work, is the primary objective of WIL. Regulation can extend labor rights relating to working conditions, human rights, and WHS rights to unpaid WIL students so that all WIL students have protection from workplace harm. Unfortunately, the national and provincial laws of many countries provide unpaid WIL students with only some of these rights. France is the only known jurisdiction that integrates the regulation of work and learning in relation to WIL (Hewitt et al., 2018). The French model is designed to ensure educational quality, provide unpaid WIL students with labor rights around working conditions (Jeannet-Milanovic et al., 2017), and mandate 559

Katharine Hoskyn et al.

non-remunerative payments (make alternative payments to wage or salary) for longer term WIL placements. It is, therefore, worthy of further study as a precedent for regulating paid and unpaid WIL. From an ethical perspective, the totality of a WIL experience, relevant context, and additional gains for the student must be understood before forming an opinion about the practice of unpaid work placements. News media coverage commonly presents unpaid placements as unethical; however, an unpaid placement should not be assumed to be exploitative, nor should a paid experience be assumed to be ethical. The socio-political framework encourages academic institutions to consider their involvement in placement issues with options such as (a) allowing students the right to self-determination, (b) supporting students with initiatives to improve employability, or (c) advocating against unfair practice. While freedom of choice for students sounds ideal, it is near-impossible to achieve if power imbalances and competitive labor markets create financial pressures. Unpaid placements can cause hardship for students, especially if the required placement is full-time and of long duration and/or the student has minimal financial resources. Nevertheless, market pressures can force students into such placements. Differing stakeholder perspectives can arise. While students may desire or need payment, for some workplaces this may not be feasible for arguably legitimate reasons, especially for volunteer and community-funded organizations. Workplaces may not fully consider the implications of unpaid placements for students, while students may not understand the supervisory costs incurred in a workplace, and the intentions underpinning unpaid placements are not always easy to determine. Unethical exploitative practice not only places an institution in breach of its duty of care to students, but potentially damages the reputation of the institution and the host organization, as well as the specific institution or workplace. There is a role for academic institutions in providing guidance on appropriate practice and, if necessary, advocating on behalf of students. Few generalizations can be made about the implications of payment arrangements. The advantages and disadvantages are situation-specific and are heavily influenced by the educational design and practical implementation of the whole WIL experience. There is a notable lack of conclusive research about the impact arising from a presence or absence of payment, and the existing research in this area is contradictory. Expectations of remuneration for work placements vary greatly between disciplines, creating uncertainty about the ability to transfer conclusions to other contexts. However, it is clear that payment is only one of many factors determining the outcome of a WIL experience. The role of payment must never be considered in isolation from the total WIL experience. In any given situation, all stakeholders need to understand why a role is paid or unpaid, understanding each other’s perspectives and the impact of the payment arrangement on the total WIL experience, and especially on the student’s financial circumstances. Consideration of scholarships and allowances alongside placements may need greater emphasis. When all WIL stakeholders work together to develop high-quality learning experiences, positive outcomes for all parties can be achieved.

References Barcan, A. (1995). The struggle over teacher training. Agenda, 2(1), 49–64. Billett, S. (2009). Realizing the educational worth of integrating work experiences in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 827–843. Bowal, P., Czaikowski, C., & Zablocki, J. (2020). The law of unpaid internships in Canada. LawNow, 44(5), 13–16.

560

Paid and unpaid work-integrated learning Burke, D., & Carton, R. (2013). The pedagogical, legal and ethical implications of unpaid internships. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 30, 99–130. Buzdugan, H. (2020). ‘He who is silent is taken to agree’: University career services and the problem of unpaid graduate internships. Journal of the National Institute of Career Education and Counselling, 44, 21–28. Cameron, C. (2018). The student as inadvertent employee in work-integrated learning: A risk assessment by university lawyers. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 337–348. Cameron, C., & Hewitt, A. (2022). Facilitating Student Engagement with WIL: A Risk Management Framework for Studentships. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1suBuuFSDVAgJU-14H4JBWJmvNnMM1xHa/ view Canadian Intern Association. (2016). The Canadian intern rights guide. http://internassociation.ca/tempcia/ wp-content/uploads/2016/03/CanadianInternRightsGuide.pdf Choy, S., & Delahaye, B. (2011). Partnerships between universities and workplaces: Some challenges for work-integrated learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(2), 157–172. Cohen, N. S., & de Peuter, G. (2019). Interns talk back: Disrupting media narratives about unpaid work. The Political Economy of Communication, 6(2), 3–24. Coll, R. K., & Zegwaard, K. Z. (2011). International handbook for cooperative and work integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice. World Association for Cooperative Education. Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL). (2018). Co-operative Education Accreditation Standards and Rationale. https://www.cewilcanada.ca/common/Uploaded%20files/ Public%20Resources/CEWIL_Accreditation_Standards_and_Rationale_July_2018.pdf Dekker, P., & Halman, L. (2003). The values of volunteering. Springer. Employment New Zealand. (2020). The legality of no-pay or low-pay internship. https://www.employment. govt.nz/about/news-and-updates/legality-of-no-pay-or-low-pay-internship/ Gerken, M., Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., & Könings, K. D. (2012). Enhancing the academic internship learning experience for business education - A critical review and future directions. In P. Van den Bossche, W. Gijselaers & R. Milter (Eds.), Learning at the crossroads of theory and practice, (pp. 7–22). Springer. Goldsmith, R., & Trede, F. (2019). Mentoring students or supervising workers? Engineering supervisors’ perceptions of student interns’ learning and work. Concise paper presented at the Professional Practice, Learning and Education Conference, University of Technology Sydney, 8–10 December. Grant-Smith, D., Gillett-Swan, J., & Chapman, R. (2017). WIL wellbeing: Exploring the impacts of unpaid practicum on student wellbeing. Report submitted to the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, Curtin University: Perth. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/GrantSmith_WIL.pdf Grant-Smith, D., & McDonald, P. (2018). Ubiquitous yet ambiguous: An integrative review of unpaid work. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 559–578. Hewitt, A., Owens, R., & Stewart, A. (2018). Mind the gap: Is the regulation of work-integrated learning in higher education working? Monash University Law Review, 44(1), 234–266. Hodge, L., Oke, N., McIntyre, H., & Turner, S. (2020). Lengthy unpaid placements in social work: Exploring the impacts on student wellbeing. Social Work Education, 40(6), 787–802. Hoskyn, K., & Martin, A. (2011). Cooperative and work-integrated education in Business. In R. Coll & K. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (pp. 173–178). World Association for Cooperative Education. Hoskyn, K., Eady, M. J., Capocchiano, H., Lucas, P., Rae, S., Trede, F., & Yuen, L. (2020). GoodWIL placements: How COVID-19 shifts the conversation about unpaid placements. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 439–450. Hunt, W., & Scott, P. (2020). Paid and unpaid graduate internships: Prevalence, quality and motivations at six months after graduation. Studies in Higher Education, 45(2), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 3075079.2018.1541451 Jackson, D. (2017). Developing pre-professional identity in undergraduates through work-integrated learning. Higher Education, 74(5), 833–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0080-2 Jeannet-Milanovic, A., O’Higgins, N., & Rosin, A. (2017). Contractual arrangements for young workers. In N. O’Higgins, Rising to the youth employment challenge: New evidence on key policy issues. International Labour Office. Johnstone, E., Brough, M., Crane, P., Marston, G., & Correa-Velez, I. (2016). Field placement and the impact of financial stress on social work and human service students. Australian Social Work, 69(4), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2016.1181769

561

Katharine Hoskyn et al. Lloyd, N. A., Paull, M., Clerke, T., & Male, S. A. (2019). Access, quality and wellbeing in engineering work integrated learning placements: Implications for equity and diversity. Report submitted to the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE), Curtin University, Perth. Manathunga, C. (2007). Supervision as mentoring: The role of power and boundary crossing. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(2), 207–221. Martin, A. J., Rees, M., Fleming, J., Zegwaard, K. E., & Vaughan, K. (2019). Work-integrated learning gone full circle: How prior placement experiences influenced workplace supervisors. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(3), 229–242. McDonald, P., & Grant-Smith, D. (2020). Unpaid work experience and internships: A growing and contested feature of the future of work. In A. Wilkinson & M. Barry (Eds.), The future of work and employment (pp. 33–48). Edward Elgar Publishing. McHugh, P. P. (2017). The impact of compensation, supervision and work design on internship efficacy: implications for educators, employers and prospective interns. Journal of Education and Work, 30(4), 367–382. Milne, L., & Caldicott, J. (2016). Exploring differences in industry supervisors’ ratings of student performance on WIL placements and the relative importance of skills: Does remuneration matter? Asia-Pacific Journal of Co-operative Education, 17(2), 175–187. Ministry of Education. (2021). Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Learners) Code of Practice 2021. https://www.education.govt.nz/further-education/information-for-tertiary-students/ code-of-practice-pastoral-care-domestic-tertiary/ Ministry of Labor and Social Policies. (2021). Internship. http://www.lavoro.gov.it/temi-e-priorita/ orientamento-e-formazione/focus-on/Tirocinio/Pagine/default.aspx Ministry of Social Development. (n.d.). Student allowances. https://www.studylink.govt.nz/products/a-zproducts/student-allowance/index.html Rae, S. (2020). Match-fixing: Women’s experiences studying and working in sport management in Aotearoa New Zealand (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Rogers, S. E., Miller, C. D., Flinchbaugh, C., Giddarie, M., & Barker, B. (2021). All internships are not created equal: Job design, satisfaction, and vocational development in paid and unpaid internships. Human Resource Management Review, 31(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100723 Smith, S., Smith, C., & Caddell, M. (2015). Can pay, should pay? Exploring employer and student perceptions of paid and unpaid placements. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16, 149–164. Stewart, A., Owens, R., Hewitt, A., & Nikoloudakis, I. (2018). The regulation of internships: A comparative study. International Labour Organisation Employment Working Paper No. 240. https://www.ilo.org/employment/ Whatwedo/Publications/working-papers/WCMS_629777/lang--en/index.htm Taylor, T., & Geldenhuys, S. (2016). Tourism students’ evaluation of work-integrated learning: A post-placement analysis. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 5(3), 1–13. Taylor, T., & Geldenhuys, S. (2018). A baseline study of the gaps in work-integrated tourism learning: Student expectations and perceptions. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 7(1), 1–12. Thompson, D., Poulston, J., & Neill, L. (2017). How satisfying is real work? An analysis of student feedback on applied learning in a hospitality degree. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 20, 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2017.04.006 Trede, F. (2012). The role of work-integrated learning to develop professionalism and professional identity. Asia Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(3), 159–167. Trede, F., Macklin, R., & Bridges, D. (2012). Professional identity development: A review of the higher education literature. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079. 2010.521237 US Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (DOL). (2018). Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/71-flsa-internships Watts, A. G. (1996). Socio-political ideologies in guidance. In R. Hawthorn, J. M. Kidd, J. Killeen, B. Law & A. G. Watts (Eds.), Rethinking careers education and guidance: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 225–233). Routledge.

562

35 ADDRESSING COMPLEX GLOBAL CHALLENGES Developing cultural intelligence in workintegrated learning Norah McRae, Karima Ramji, and Shabnam Surjitsingh Ivković Introduction Students and graduates are working and establishing careers in a world that is highly interconnected. Global collaborations are becoming the norm, including working remotely. This interconnectedness will require students to be highly capable of navigating complex and nuanced intercultural encounters. Additionally, students and graduates will be continuing their journey into a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014; World Economic Forum, 2016) where new, rapidly arising global challenges need appropriate solutions. This creates a nexus of local problems that may need international experts, cross-­ cultural teams, an intercultural workforce, and effective international diplomacy in an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape. The challenges students and graduates will be facing, and the complex problems they will be tackling, will require diverse perspectives, knowledge, talents, and strategies, including a deep awareness of the big challenges facing the planet, as articulated by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals’ (UN SDGs) universal call to action (United Nations, 2015). The Worldwide Educating for the Future Index suggests that in this age of unpredictability in social and geopolitical ideologies, future-oriented skills such as intercultural competencies, systems thinking, and problem solving are vital to advancing the capabilities required to enable respectful interactions, infrastructure development, and to empower the local demographic to own their solution space towards the UN SDG calls to action (WEFI, 2019). This chapter presents an approach where WIL programs can be more effective and impactful in preparing students for a VUCA future by embedding cultural intelligence theory (Earley & Ang, 2003) for intercultural effectiveness skills and knowledge of the UN SDGs in the design of these programs. Figure 35.1 illustrates this approach that situates this work within the WIL Quality Framework (McRae et al., 2018).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-40

563

Norah McRae et al. Cultural Intelligence (CQ) Theory

Intercultural effectiveness

Effective & impactful WIL program design

AAA Quality WIL Framework

Addressing complex global challenges UN SDG Universal Call to Action

Figure 35.1  E  mbedding intercultural effectiveness and UN SDGs within a work-integrated learning quality framework.

Cultural intelligence as a vehicle for intercultural effectiveness Intercultural effectiveness is extensively discussed in the literature. McRae and Ramji (2011) summarize work done in this area by leaders in this field, namely Bennet (1986), Deardorff (2006), Javidan et al. (2007), and Earley and Ang (2003), among many others. Matsumoto and Hwang (2013) provide an analysis of many assessment tools, including the cultural intelligence (CQ) scale and Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) (Hammer et al., 2003). While the discussion is relevant to all intercultural competence models, this chapter focuses on cultural intelligence, defined as one’s ability to relate and work effectively in diverse cultural contexts, including national, ethnic, organizational, generational, and many other cultures (Earley & Ang, 2003). CQ is a valid and reliable construct (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Van Dyne et al., 2008) based on the premise of multiple intelligences (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986), namely that intelligence is based on motivation, cognition, metacognition, and behavior. Individuals who can navigate effectively through diverse cultural contexts are highly motivated (CQ Drive), understand similarities and differences between cultures (CQ Knowledge), plan for intercultural interactions with a sense of self-awareness, checking their assumptions and biases (CQ Strategy), and adapt appropriately in the cultural context they are engaged in (CQ Action), while at the same time honoring their own cultural values (Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015). As a developmental model that is applicable to a broad range of cultural contexts beyond national and ethnic cultures, we believe that CQ is well suited for WIL contexts given the focus on student development and the variety of environments students engage with. McRae and Ramji (2017) explain how this has been adapted for one Canadian WIL program. As depicted in Figure 35.1, the CQ model for intercultural effectiveness can serve as a valuable strategy to enable students to address complex global issues when it is embedded effectively in a well-designed WIL program.

564

Addressing complex global challenges

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals The UN SDGs seek to tackle the key environmental, social, and economic challenges facing the planet and aim to do so by 2030. The 17 SDGs are an urgent call for action by all countries to partner towards “ending poverty and other deprivations hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth – all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests” by 2030 (United Nations, n.d.-a, p. 1). Higher education institutions are exploring how their contributions to the 17 goals can enhance their impact on their local community and society more globally. In fact, reputed ranking organizations have now included university success in delivering the SDGs as part of their ranking methodology (Times Higher Education, 2019). The 17 goals of the SDGs have 169 targets covering a spectrum of sustainable development challenges, which are to be measured via 232 indicators. Specifically of interest is indicator 4.7 in Goal 4: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development. (United Nations, 2018, p. 5) The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has stated that the extent to which the UN’s 2030 vision for the SDGs will become a reality is dependent on today’s educators and classrooms. This is the inspiration behind the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), “the global yardstick for educational success, [which] includes global competence in its metrics for quality, equity, and effectiveness in education” (OECD PISA, 2018, p. 1). The United Nations Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth claims that global competence amongst youth is critical to achieve the SDGs, where global competence is defined as “having an open mind while actively seeking to understand cultural norms and expectations of others, and leveraging this gained knowledge to interact, communicate and work effectively in diverse environments” (Hunter, n.d., p. 1). Key components of effective UN SDG education include awareness, engagement, and impact assessment.

Integrating intercultural effectiveness and WIL quality framework The WIL Quality Framework (McRae et al., 2018) establishes a guide for the development of WIL quality programming. This framework identifies five stakeholders involved in WIL programs, the set goals for each stakeholder group (aims), the enablement of success for each of these groups (actions), and the resulting outcomes and impacts (achievements). Using several examples from the Universities of Victoria and Waterloo, in Canada (Figure 35.2), we will discuss how WIL programming, which incorporates the development of effective intercultural skills based on CQ theory and builds awareness and engagement of the challenges being addressed by the UN SDGs, meets the stakeholders’ aims of designing effective and impactful WIL. Quality actions toward this end, as guided by pedagogy, experience, assessment, and reflection (PEAR), will be described, as will achievements that measure the impact of those actions and inform continuous improvement practices.

565

Norah McRae et al.

CQ Theory

> Knowledge > Drive > Strategy > Action

AAA Quality WIL Framework UN SDG Call to Action

> Aims – of five stakeholders > Actions – as guided by PEAR > Achievements – with aention to continuous improvement

> Awareness > Engagement > Impact assessment

Figure 35.2  C  omponents of embedding intercultural effectiveness and UN SDGs within a work-integrated learning quality framework.

Aims The AAA WIL Quality Framework identifies five stakeholders for WIL programming. The aims of each of these stakeholders will be discussed as they relate to the importance of developing intercultural effectiveness and awareness of the UN SDGs of students.

Governments Governments are interested in graduates who can contribute to the economic prosperity of their regions. Given an increasingly diverse and multicultural society, and the level of cross-border trade that countries engage in, governments and economies benefit from employees who have strong intercultural skills who can help navigate the cultural differences encountered in work (McRae et al., 2017). The OECD highlights diverse and compartmentalized societies and new forms of interdependence due to globalization as key challenges that individuals and societies will face; it has also identified intercultural competencies as an important attribute for graduates (OECD, 2015; McRae et al., 2017). Furthermore, the OECD Innovation Strategy 2015 outlines urgent global challenges that need to be addressed and speaks to the need for innovation to develop new ideas, strategies, and solutions, and ways to apply them to global problems.

Institutions Higher education institutions have a keen interest in internationalization. These efforts include research collaboration, recruiting international students, and the mobility of students, faculty, and staff. When considering WIL, internationalization typically involves students having international WIL experiences and supporting international students to have WIL experiences in the region of the institution. WIL experiences for both degree-seeking and outbound students can enhance a student’s career prospects by providing an international dimension to their résumé (Pinto & Pereira, 2019; Van Mol, 2017). Relevant career-enhancing international experiences are attractive for international students (CBIE, 2016) and strengthens retention. Institutions can also leverage international WIL to enhance research endeavors and collaboration with global industry partners and networks. Having interculturally capable and aware 566

Addressing complex global challenges

students to work on these research projects provides an added value to institutions seeking to establish themselves internationally. Institutions in almost every part of the world have internationalization aspirations that have led to national-level programs such as Europe’s Erasmus+ (n.d.), Australia’s New Colombo Plan (DFAT, n.d.), and International Experience Canada (n.d.). The World Association for Co-operative Education (WACE) lists one of the key challenges for cooperative and work-integrated education (CWIE) as preparing students for international mobility and intercultural fluency required by workplaces (WACE Charter, 2019, p. 4).

Students Students engage in post-secondary education and WIL as a strategy to launch their careers. During their studies, they develop core competencies and leadership skills that enhance their career readiness. As students see diversity in classrooms, on campuses, and in WIL workplaces, there is a need to learn how to engage effectively. This is a key employability skill as students graduate into the world of work that is more diverse than it has ever been (British Council, 2013). Social responsibility is another core competency that students strive to develop during their academic programs. Students today want to engage in careers with a sense of purpose, where they can have a meaningful role in responding to questions such as “what does the world need?” (Andrews & Ramji, 2020). Pedagogy inclusive of SDGs can help students meaningfully engage in these global issues that the world needs youth to address.

Employers Diversity, equity, and inclusion have become a key focus for organizations. Bringing diverse voices to the table is a good first step; however, with the presence of diversity comes the need for the capability to engage effectively with difference, because diversity alone does not ensure organizational success (Livermore, 2016). Intercultural competence, including cultural intelligence, is necessary to leverage the power of diverse perspectives and ideas that can lead to inclusion, effective collaboration, and ultimately organizational success. Many countries welcome international students who engage in WIL. This offers an opportunity for employers to diversify their workforce and meet labor market needs. Hiring individuals with intercultural skills brings many benefits to employers – it helps expand an employer’s client base and enhances the organization’s competitiveness (British Council, 2013). A study on employer perspectives of hiring students from international pathways (SFIPs) revealed multiple worldviews relating to this topic. These included a reluctance to hire SFIPs due to their lower English language ability or the inability of organizations to see hiring SFIPs as an effective way forward (Johnston et al., 2021). Employers have also been reported to have an inability, often due to a lack of intercultural experience, to leverage the benefits that students from diverse backgrounds can bring to their workplaces (McRae, 2013). A toolkit titled ‘Six Tools for Diversity’ was developed to support employers in this endeavor (Shah & Alphonso, 2021). From the employer’s perspective, cultural effectiveness is key to solving problems in developing communities. Avani Bio Energy in Uttarakhand, India, and a co-op employer at the University of Waterloo, has found a way to convert destructive tinder into a renewable energy source. Co-founder Rajnish Jain says: “The students that have been here have performed wonderfully. They had very good community interaction despite the language barrier.” Jain believes that the entire ecosystem is based on students involving themselves with the community, which 567

Norah McRae et al.

needs a high cultural intelligence quotient (Avani Bio Energy, 2020, p. 1). Funded by the Queen Elizabeth Scholars Program, several University of Victoria (UVic) students engaged in WIL terms with the SAM (Sustainability through Agriculture and Microenterprises, n.d.) Project in Zambia, where they installed lighting systems at a village health and maternity clinic and developed a clean water program that revitalized and expanded a dilapidated network of village-level water-well maintenance and repair. They also established five community-driven food security projects to reduce the reliance on rain-fed maize production. These projects encouraged participation by local mothers, who gained a level of financial empowerment and enhanced means to improve the nutrition of their children. Intercultural competencies were critical in enabling these students to engage with the local communities to better understand their needs, and to work with them as they designed solutions to address the challenges that they faced. In describing the impact these students have had on the organization, the co-founder of the SAM Project, Colin Eaves, stated: As a result of the interns’ willingness to live in harsh conditions amongst the people we are trying to help, our initiatives are now truly collaborative; the projects and programs are designed, owned, and operated by the community members themselves, not by some well-meaning but sometimes misguided foreign agents. The chances of meaningful, long-term sustainability of our work are increased dramatically. (Colin Eaves, Personal communication, 20 March 2021)

Educators Educators are intrinsically motivated to have their students succeed in the classroom and in their careers. A classroom where students come from a variety of backgrounds and exhibit differing cultural values and behaviors can sometimes present challenges to educators. It is, therefore, necessary for faculty and staff to be interculturally competent, so that they can create inclusive, welcoming classrooms and help students achieve their respective learning outcomes and academic goals. WIL educators also have the added responsibility to prepare students for diverse workplaces so that they can navigate the cultural differences and make meaningful contributions to their WIL employers. These contributions may involve helping organizations achieve their UN SDG goals. SDGs relate to every discipline. As a result, educators can connect their subject matter to global challenges, such as climate change, education, health, sustainability, and social justice as a way to highlight relevance for students. Given that this generation of students are particularly interested in finding meaningful work, being able to see how their education will prepare them to engage with some of the world’s big issues strengthens their motivation to study and engage in the material (Ivković et al., 2020). It also enables educators to contribute to SDGs and to institutional SDG priorities, which may in turn influence institutional UN rankings.

Actions Pedagogy Students from diverse backgrounds may exhibit behaviors that may or may not be familiar to their peers, faculty members, or employers. These behaviors are informed by students’ underlying cultural values. While it is possible to cope when confronted with cultural differences, intercultural effectiveness can be developed through CQ training. CQ applies to diverse cultural contexts, including ethnic, national, organizational, and sexual orientation, and so on 568

Addressing complex global challenges

(Livermore, 2011). This inclusive definition of culture allows for the CQ framework to be used in multiple environments, helping prepare students for success in these contexts. The CQ model lends itself well to developing pedagogy for international students, students going abroad for WIL opportunities, and the diverse student body on post-secondary campuses (McRae & Ramji, 2017). When traveling abroad for an international WIL experience, students need to learn about their host country and plan for the cultural differences they will encounter (in addition to the logistical requirements for foreign travel; see Chapter 19 in this Handbook). When students transition from an academic setting to a WIL setting, be it domestically or abroad, that cultural change from an academic context to a workplace context provides an opportunity for students to develop their CQ. Pedagogical interventions can help students build their motivation to succeed (CQ Drive), learn about their workplace culture and expectations as they prepare for their WIL experience (CQ Knowledge), and plan how they will navigate the differences when in the workplace (CQ Strategy). Such interventions also guide students in the development of their CQ during their WIL experience. UVic’s curriculum based on the cultural intelligence model includes a module, for all students embarking on WIL terms, that introduces students to culture and cultural values, cultural intelligence, and intercultural competency development. Another module for students traveling abroad for WIL terms challenges them to research the country they are going to, anticipate cultural challenges they may encounter, and plan for success in that cultural context. A third module is designed for international students seeking success in their Canadian job search. Here, students learn about job-search strategies that may be different from those they are familiar with; once again, the CQ developmental model is used to enable students to adapt to the Canadian job search and workplace context. Finally, students returning from international experiences are encouraged to debrief about cultural challenges they encountered while abroad, the cultural values inherent in these challenges, how they used their intercultural competencies to navigate these challenges, and how they can articulate the intercultural competencies they gained when searching for jobs in the future. Details of this curriculum are described in the book WorkIntegrated Learning in the 21st Century: Global Perspectives on the Future (McRae & Ramji, 2017). Barnett (2012) states that learning needs to go beyond skills and knowledge and focus on the development of human qualities and dispositions so that they can engage with the world with purpose, in essence “a higher order learning” (p. 76). Pedagogical interventions, therefore, are also key to the success of building student awareness of the UN SDGs. As research done by Ivković et al., (2020) indicates, there is generally a low level of awareness of the SDGs in the student population. Without pedagogy to introduce the SDGs and connect the importance of these goals to academic disciplines, any efforts to have students meaningfully engage will be hindered. Pedagogy relating to CQ and the SDGs should be introduced early in the WIL program and ideally reinforced throughout the student’s academic program.

Experience WIL experiences provide students with opportunities to put their CQ into action as they adapt to the workplace culture (CQ Action), and if traveling abroad to their host country. All the preparation for their experience bears fruit as they action the strategies developed. Once in the workplace, students may work within diverse teams with differing value preferences. Here, it becomes important for students to have a good understanding of their own value preferences, and those of their teams, so that they can strategize how to navigate these cultural differences while staying true to their own values. A simple example involves communication styles. An indirect or high-context communication style, where what is not communicated is 569

Norah McRae et al.

as significant as what is communicated, can be puzzling for a direct communicator, and may create discord among the team. Understanding that a particular team member has the opposite communication style than their own (CQ Knowledge), a low context direct communicator who is motivated to succeed (CQ Drive) can use their metacognitive abilities (CQ Strategy) to ensure that they check their assumptions and plan for their interactions with their team member. This may mean softening their own communication style to be slightly indirect. Conversely, a high-context communicator may need to use their CQ to be more explicit if needed, when working in a diverse team (Livermore, 2015). McRae and Ramji (2017) describe the experiences of an international student from China who studied at a Canadian university campus. The student embarked on a CQ development journey from the time they arrived on campus where they learned to navigate the Canadian academic and workplace culture. Subsequently, they traveled to Germany for a WIL experience where they successfully engaged in yet another culture. Experiences where students can connect their work to the challenges identified in the 17 SDGs are equally important and are a powerful way to reinforce the importance of these goals. Job postings can highlight the SDG work that the student might be exposed to, or that the possible host organization is engaged in. In applying their academic studies to the work experience, students can call upon academic theory that addresses the SDG challenge being faced. Through connecting the student’s work term with SDG challenges, they can develop their intercultural effectiveness through CQ. This begins the process of developing students as culturally intelligent agents of change (McRae, 2013). At the University of Waterloo, a Biomedical Engineering student on a co-op internship at Maisha Meds in Kenya was interested in the effects of how the sub-Saharan African climate influences the effectiveness and quality of pharmaceutical drugs in East Africa. For a student from Canada to identify a people-centric challenge and address it effectively requires cultural intelligence to understand people, their needs, and respond to solutions (University of Waterloo, 2019a). Similarly, a student from the Architecture program at the University worked for a company in Jakarta, Indonesia that won the United Nations Public Service Award. In the student’s own reflection about cultural effectiveness: It’s impossible to develop new frameworks for thinking if you don’t challenge familiar notions you’ve held your entire life by leaving the safety of your typical environment. As an undergraduate student from the other side of the world, I don’t necessarily have the best expertise to offer. But by working alongside people who do, I’d like to develop the necessary skills for solutions of this scale in the future. (University of Waterloo, 2019b, p. 1) A UVic student demonstrated her intercultural competency development and engagement in SDGs when she worked as a sports coach at a school in a small rural community in Canada. Approximately 75% of the student body at this school were Indigenous and living almost an hour away from school. In creating greater access to opportunity, she created equal access to sports for the students and a more inclusive culture at her school, thereby contributing to SDG Goal 3: Health and Wellbeing and SDG Goal 10 – reducing inequalities. The student explains the impact of her efforts as: The focus on intercultural motivation and knowledge has allowed our school to build new relationships with our families. Families and community members are now attending more home games and athletic events at our school, which was very rare 570

Addressing complex global challenges

in the past. By learning more about our students’ different cultures (Cree, Dene, and Metis) we now have a better understanding of their parents’/guardians’ hesitations with their children participating in our school athletics. The families now feel comfortable with their children staying after school for practices and games now that they have become more connected with the school. Our students are now more engaged than ever in our athletics, and they feel more connected to our school. The attendance of our students has increased, as they don’t want to miss a practice or game. (University of Victoria, 2020, p. 1)

Assessment Ajjawi et al. (2020) highlight the need for alignment between assessments that institutions create and the preferred assessment content by the students, which is also a topic of discussion arising in practitioner settings (GWIL, 2020). Competency assessment frameworks that allow students to choose the competencies that they wish to develop as their learning objectives for their WIL terms puts the learning in their own hands. An example of a competency framework that includes intercultural effectiveness is the University of Waterloo’s Future Ready Talent Framework (University of Waterloo, 2020a). Where students choose CQ development as a learning objective, they seek out opportunities for CQ or intercultural competency development during their WIL experience (McRae & Ramji, 2017). This may come in the form of teamwork, as mentioned earlier, or when interacting with their supervisors, for example. Students can self-assess their competencies at the start of their WIL experience. As they encounter experiences for CQ development, they can put their CQ into action as they develop the motivation to succeed, gain an understanding of what cultural differences are relevant, and develop strategies for successful adaptation. Students self-assess at midterm and at the end of the WIL experience, at which points they can also demonstrate how they developed their CQ as part of their assessment by providing examples. Through mindful and iterative engagement, a transformational learning experience results in students owning their learning. Students’ awareness of the SDGs can also form part of the assessment of their learning. Again, they need to have a solid foundation in understanding the SDGs. Their work could be assessed using some of the metrics associated with the SDGs. While it is not expected that a student engaged on a WIL term would likely solve the SDG challenge, being aware of how progress towards tackling these challenges is measured would heighten awareness and develop a stronger appreciation of the work required to make progress on these complex global issues.

Reflection Reflection is key to learning, as much learning takes place not just by engaging in experiential learning, but by reflecting on that learning (Dewey, 1933). CQ is a developmental tool that allows for reflection in action (Schön, 1983) as students activate their metacognitive skills during the CQ Strategy stage of CQ development. This is where they make sense of their intercultural experiences and check their assumptions and biases as they develop the skills to adapt appropriately to the cultural challenges they encounter during their WIL experiences. Students also reflect on their learnings during their midterm assessments, when they engage in discussions with their WIL practitioners and employers on challenging situations, and how these were navigated using intercultural competencies. At the end of the WIL term, students 571

Norah McRae et al.

self-assess again, and their supervisors also provide an assessment, providing students with opportunities to reflect on these assessments. Students also reflect on experiences and competency development upon return to campus. At this stage, reflection involves the competencies gained, how these competencies can be articulated in terms of employability skills on résumés, job applications, interviews for future WIL opportunities, and for online professional profiles. In the context of virtual WIL, these reflections can include how CQ was developed within a virtual context and co-curricular activities such as those outlined by Andrews and Ramji (2020) which can be explored to deepen reflection. Building reflective exercises about the SDGs is another way to strengthen programming that seeks to develop this awareness in WIL students. Reflective questions on how the students’ work or host organization related (or could relate) to the SDGs is a powerful way to strengthen understanding and connect the SDG ambitions with work that any student might engage with during their WIL experience.

Achievements and continuous improvement Achievements and continuous improvement in cultural intelligence Through focusing on intercultural competency development during their WIL placements, students can achieve their personal goals by enhancing their capability to relate to students and colleagues from diverse backgrounds. This also contributes to their professional goals in that they have built their capacity to be effective in diverse workplaces, locally, nationally, and internationally. For several years, UVic has collected data on intercultural competency development in terms of the number of students choosing to develop these competencies annually, student self-assessment methods, and the assessment methods of supervisors. This information provides insight into the effectiveness of student engagement in diverse workplaces and developing the skills to do so. Students also provide examples of how they develop CQ in their final reflection requirements such as end of term reports. Institutions can, therefore, demonstrate the impact of their intercultural programming on student learning and employability outcomes. At the faculty level, the intercultural competency development data collected at UVic have been used for accreditation reporting and may, at the institutional level, play a role in international institutional rankings. Finally, ensuring that WIL practitioners are well versed in the curriculum, and development of a community of practice that champions a culturally intelligent mindset within the program, and ultimately the organization, are some ways to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Achievements and continuous improvement in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals Ivković et al. (2020) studied how international internships might be contributing to the SDGs in deeper, more significant ways. In collaboration with community and institutional experts whose mandate is to advance the SDGs through policy work, scholarship, and research, they looked at a curated sample of 78 internships from the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo held in over 12 countries across the development spectrum. Of the 78 internships, close to 13% were assessed as having made a definite impact on the SDGs. The outcomes from this research were that (1) there is critical need to amplify awareness of the SDGs in some sort of guided manner, and (2) that there is urgent need to coach interns and employers to be 572

Addressing complex global challenges

more effective agents of change (Tremblay et al., 2020). The outcomes are in alignment with the Global University Network for Innovation’s (GUNi, 2019) claim that raising awareness is key towards implementing the SDGs for 2030. The above pilot study resulted in the design and development of a low-resource activity based on a guided-conversation exploration instrument for interns and organizations to recognize the contribution of their respective roles to advancing the SDGs. A parallel outcome is for the Institution to also gain a deeper understanding of intern and employer perceptions of their engagement with the SDGs. This instrument is built on four axes: • • • •

The basic business model; The sustainability culture and governance; Value-chain influence; Internship experience (job/project) and intern agency (role).

The instrument is introduced early in the internship. Towards the end, interns and their supervisors are invited to fill in a self-reflection survey, which is a brief questionnaire to gather their perceptions of their awareness of the SDGs, self-reported impact on the SDGs, and how this awareness and engagement might influence their future direction. The Sustainable Development Solutions Network Canada (SDSN), hosted by the University of Waterloo, has a mission to mobilize Canadian scientific and technological expertise to facilitate learning and accelerate problem solving for the UN’s Agenda 2030 and the SDGs (SDSN, 2020). Also, as the University pursues the internationalization aspirations in its strategic plan (University of Waterloo, 2020b), there is growing focus on graduating global citizens who can advocate for and operationalize sustainable futures in their professions. There is concerted effort being directed towards educating students to be effective influencers for global change within their industries through their curricula and internships. One of the 12 indicators in the institution’s Future-Ready Talent Framework is ‘intercultural effectiveness’ (McRae et al., 2019; University of Waterloo, 2020a). Cohesive, integrated ecosystems like these are necessary for building robust platforms that create and operationalize compelling connections between intercultural skills and advancing the UN SDGs. The United Nations Institute of Training and Research (UNITAR) and the University of Victoria have established the first accredited International Training Centre for Authorities and Leaders (Centre international de formation des autorités et leaders – CIFAL) on North America’s west coast. UNITAR provides innovative learning solutions to individuals, organizations, and institutions to enhance global decision-making and support country-level action for shaping a better future. With a strategy fully focused on achieving the SDGs, UNITAR supports governments to implement the 2030 Agenda (unitar.org). CIFAL Victoria delivers training activities and research that build on UVic’s commitments to the UN SDGs and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which “establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world” (United Nations, n.d.-b, p. 1). All these initiatives align well with UVic’s work on intercultural competency development for students in WIL. UVic has also been collecting SDG data on whether the WIL employers’ organizational mission or work contributes to any of the UN SDGs, and if the students’ work during the WIL term contributes to the goal(s) (University of Victoria, 2021). Data gathered to date are encouraging, and work on SDG curriculum development is ongoing. This chapter has provided an overview of how developing intercultural effectiveness and SDG awareness can enhance quality WIL experiences. Several examples have been presented 573

Norah McRae et al.

CQ Theory

> Beer understanding of values, beliefs, motivations > Improved team collaboration

AAA Quality WIL Framework UN SDG Call to Action

> Enriched quality of experience for all stakeholders due to beer intercultural effectiveness > Improved impact of experience on beer understanding global problems and one’s role in alleviating them

> Deeper motivation to know the urgency of global challenges > Greater desire to purposefully engage with SDGs

Figure 35.3  Impact of embedding intercultural effectiveness and UN SDGs within a work-integrated learning quality framework.

to demonstrate how the WIL Quality Framework is being used by two Canadian institutions, as a guide for educators wanting to include intercultural development using CQ and awareness of the global challenges identified by the SDGs. Figure 35.3 shows how the impact of incorporating elements of intercultural effectiveness and systematic engagement with the SDGs can lead to an enhanced WIL experience.

Conclusion By bringing together intercultural effectiveness and a deeper understanding of, and engagement with, the UN SDGs, the aims of the five key stakeholders in WIL – governments, institutions, educators, students, and employers – can be met more effectively. Referencing the PEAR actions of pedagogy, experience, assessment, and reflection, the chapter has identified key considerations in creating and implementing pedagogy for intercultural effectiveness training using CQ, and for richer engagement with the SDGs. Meaningful and substantial experiences where students develop their CQ and their SDG awareness have been described. Examples of how learning of intercultural effectiveness and SDGs could be assessed and reflected upon have been provided. Although this chapter has focused on CQ as a theory for intercultural effectiveness development, we recognize that other theories, such as the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), exist and could be similarly employed by using the WIL Quality Framework as a guide. As well, while the University of Waterloo and UVic have worked diligently over the years to develop intercultural effectiveness and SDG awareness in their WIL students, there is still more work to be done, specifically in the realm of measuring the impact of students’ work on the attainment of the SDGs (Ivković & McRae, 2021). This impact can only be determined with intentional quality programming, collaboration with employer and host organization partners, and a concerted effort to not look away from the challenges faced by society. As diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) become more and more important, and climate change continues to loom on the horizon as another existential threat, educational institutions must equip students to be able to work with diverse perspectives and expertise to tackle the 574

Addressing complex global challenges

complex issues that underlie climate change. A combination of intentional intercultural effectiveness and SDG awareness training, coupled with quality WIL experiences, is a powerful mechanism to prepare students to be the much-needed change agents.

Acknowledgments We thank Bettina Wahl, University of Waterloo, Canada, for her contributions towards the formatting of this chapter.

References Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Tran Le Huu, N., Boud, D., Johnson, L., & Patrick, C. (2020). Aligning assessment with the needs of work-integrated learning: The challenges of authentic assessment in a complex context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 304–316. Andrews, J., & Ramji, K. (2020). Connecting work-integrated learning and career development in virtual environments: An analysis of the UVic Leading Edge. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 643–656. Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological Network. In S. Ang & L. V. Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3–15). M.E. Sharpe. Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). (n.d.). New Colombo Plan. Retrieved March 23, 2021 from https://www.dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/new-colombo-plan/ about/Pages/about Avani Bio Energy. (2020). Creating sustainable energy from the forest floor. https://uwaterloo.ca/hire/ news/creating-sustainable-energy-forest-floor Barnett, R. (2012). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education, Research & Development, 31(1), 65–77. Bennet, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179–196. Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. (2014). What VUCA really means for You. Harvard Business Review. 92(1), 1–2. British Council. (2013). Culture at work: The value of intercultural skills in the workplace. https://www. britishcouncil.org/research-policy-insight/policy-reports/culture-work-intercultural-skills-workplace CBIE. (2016). A world of learning: Canada’s performance and potential in international education. Canadian Bureau of International Education. https://cbie.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/A-World-ofLearning-HI-RES-2016.pdf Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Henry Regnery. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press. Erasmus+. (n.d.). Erasmus+. EU Programme for education, training, youth, and sport. https://ec.europa.eu/ programmes/erasmus-plus/node_en Global WIL Modules. (2020). https://globalwil.org/ GUNi. (2019). Implementing the 2030 agenda at higher education institutions: Challenges and responses.GUNi Network. http://www.guninetwork.org/files/guni_publication_-_implementing_the_2030_agenda_ at_higher_education_institutions_challenges_and_responses.pdf Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443. Hunter, B. (n.d.). Global Competence Amongst Youth is Critical to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/2015/07/global-competence-amongst-youth-critical-achievesustainable-development-goals/ International Experience Canada. (n.d.). https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/ services/canadians/international-experience-canada.html

575

Norah McRae et al. Ivković, S., McRae, N., & Church, D. (2020). Towards an assessment model of the impact of international internships on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). CEWIL Canada Research Series. https://cewilcanada.ca/common/Uploaded%20files/Public%20Resources/Research%20Papers/5%20 Ivkovic_McRae_Church_SDGs.pdf Ivković, S., & McRae, N. (2021). Improving engagement of interns and employers with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(3), 345–356. Javidan, M., Steers, R., & Hitt, M. (Eds.). (2007). The global mindset (Vol. 19). Elsevier. Johnston, N., Sator, A., Gajdamaschko, N., McRae, N., Ramji, K., Anderson, E., Eftenaru, C., Iles, L., & Shah, S. (2021). Employers’ perspectives about hiring students from international pathways. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, [Special Issue 2021], 22(3), 323–344. Livermore, D. (2011). The cultural intelligence difference: Master the one skill you can't do without in today’s global economy. American Management Association. Livermore, D. (2015). Leading with cultural intelligence: The real secret to success. American Management Association. Livermore, D. (2016). Driven by difference: How great companies fuel innovation through diversity. American Management Association. Livermore, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2015). Cultural intelligence, the essential intelligence for the 21st century. SHRM Foundation. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expertviews/Documents/Cultural-Intelligence.pdf Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence: A review of available tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492891 McRae, N. (2013). Students as culturally intelligent change agents: global citizenship and the workplace. In J. Rennick & M. Desjardins (Eds.), The world is my classroom: International learning and B.C. higher education. University of Toronto Press. McRae, N., & Ramji, K. (2011). Enhancing cultural intelligence through cooperative and workintegrated education. In R. Coll & K. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and workintegrated education (2nd ed., pp.347–353). World Association for Cooperative Education. McRae, N., & Ramji, K. (2017). Intercultural competency development curriculum: A strategy for internationalizing work integrated learning for the 21st century global village. In M. Drysdale & T. Bowen (Eds.), Work-integrated learning in the 21st Century: Global perspectives on the future (pp. 129–143). Emerald. McRae, N., Church, D., Woodside, J., & Drewery, D. (2019). Toward a future-ready talent framework for cooperative and work-integrated learning. Fifth International Conference on Higher Education Advances. Valencia, Spain. https://doi.org/10.4995/HEAD19.2019.9319 McRae, N., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2018). Work-integrated learning quality framework. WATCACE. https://uwaterloo.ca/work-learn-institute/sites/default/files/uploads/files/wil_quality_framework_-_ aaa_-_for_posting.pdf McRae, N., Ramji, K., & Raber, V. (2017). Outbound mobility of young Canadians: Benefits, challenges and recommendations. Prepared for Global Affairs Canada. March 23, 2021 www.uvic.ca/coopandcareer/ assets/docs/publications/Outbound-Mobility-Report-Global%20Affairs-Canada-March-2017.pdf McRae, N., Ramji, K., Lu, L., & Lesperance, M. (2016). Developing global ready graduates: The CANEUCOOP experience. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education [Special issue], 17(4), 377–386. OECD PISA. (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf OECD. (2015). OECD Innovation Strategy 2015: An Agenda for Policy Action. https://www.oecd.org/sti/ OECD-Innovation-Strategy-2015-CMIN2015-7.pdf Pinto, L., & Pereira, P. (2019). ‘I wish to do an internship (abroad)’: Investigating the perceived employability of domestic and international business internships. Higher Education, 78. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-018-0351-1 SAM Project. (n.d.). Sustainability through agriculture and microenterprises. https://www.thesamproject.ca/ Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Shah, S., & Alphonso, M., (2021). Supporting work integrated learning: Employment outcomes for students from international pathways. https://acewilbc.ca/wp-content/uploads/formidable/3/SFIP-ReportMarch-5-2021.pdf Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (1986). What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition. Ablex. Sustainable Development Solutions Network Canada (SDSN). (2020). Advancing the SDGs in Canada. https://uwaterloo.ca/sustainable-development-solutions-network-canada/

576

Addressing complex global challenges Times Higher Education. (2019). THE university impact rankings 2019: Methodology. March 23, 2021 https:// www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/methodology-impact-rankings-2019 Tremblay, N., Haupt, G., & McRae, N. (2020). Knowledge, democracy and a sustainable future: An institutional impact assessment of community-engaged research and learning. Autonomie locali e servizi sociali, 1(2020), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1447/97470 UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning objectives. March 23, 2021 https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444 United Nations. (n.d.-a). Sustainable development goals. March 23, 2021 https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/?menu=1300 United Nations. (n.d.-b). United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Retrieved March 2022 from https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-ofindigenous-peoples.html United Nations. (2000). United Nations millennium development goals. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ United Nations. (2015). Sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/ United Nations. (2018). Global indicator framework for the sustainable development goals and target of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Global%20Indicator%20 Framework%20after%202019%20refinement_Eng.pdf University of Victoria. (2021). Sustainable development goals put in action by UVic Co-op and Career. https:// www.uvic.ca/coopandcareer/news/sustainable-development-goals-sdgs/index.php University of Victoria. (2020). University of Victoria’s co-op student of the year awards. https://www.uvic.ca/ coopandcareer/news/soty/index.php University of Waterloo. (2019a). University of Waterloo’s co-op student of the year awards. https://uwaterloo.ca/ co-operative-education/co-op-student-awards/co-op-student-year-award-recipients University of Waterloo. (2019b). Co-op student works to support sustainable development goals in Indonesia. https:// uwaterloo.ca/co-operative-education/news/co-op-student-works-support-sustainable-developmentgoals University of Waterloo. (2020a). University of Waterloo's Future Ready Talent Framework: Developing talent for a complex future. https://uwaterloo.ca/future-ready-talent-framework/ University of Waterloo. (2020b). Connecting imagination with impact: 2020-2025 strategic plan. https:// uwaterloo.ca/strategic-plan/ Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS. In S. Ang & L. V. Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 16–38). M. E. Sharpe. Van Mol, C. (2017). Do employers value international study and internships? A comparative analysis of 31 countries, Geoforum, 78, 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.11.014 WACE Charter (2019). The global cooperative & work-integrated education charter: An international charter for cooperative and work-integrated education (CWIE). https://waceinc.org/Global-WIL-Charter WEFI. (2019). Worldwide educating for the future index 2019: From policy to practice. https://educatingforthefuture. economist.com/the-worldwide-educating-for-the-future-index-2019/ World Economic Forum. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution: What it means, how to respond. https://www. weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-torespond/

577

36 ESTABLISHING SUSTAINABLE NATIONAL AND GLOBAL NETWORKS FOR PROMOTING WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING Judie Kay, Norah McRae, Nancy Johnston, and James Stellar Introduction While the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on the working world, the need for connections and communications with others did not diminish. The desire to share experiences, strategies, and perspectives heightened during COVID-19 and solidified the need for associations that create and support communities of practice, both for their own members and across jurisdictions. These needs were particularly true for the work-integrated learning (WIL) communities and through the cooperative and work-integrated education (CWIE) focus of the World Association for Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education (WACE). Learning about the challenges being faced globally because of COVID-19 resulted in enhanced programming, advocacy, and strategic planning depending on the strength of each association. In this chapter, the following attributes are identified as significantly contributing to an association’s strength and effectiveness: vision, leadership, networks, advocacy, quality, professional development, research, and financial stability. In addition to illustrating these important characteristics of associations, this chapter also describes some benefits, successes, challenges, and threats related to global and national WIL associations. Finally, the chapter will conclude with summarizing comments regarding an overarching framework for establishing a successful association. For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘work-integrated learning’ (WIL) will be used to include all forms of it including CWIE. Associations that have a clear and accepted vision with good governance are typically able to retain their strategic direction despite significant disruptions such as those experienced by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. A clear organizational vision becomes the keel for these ‘ships sailing in turbulent waters’ and ensures that an association stays true to its priorities while allowing for adaptation as needed. Good governance, whilst modeled differently in the various associations, ensures accountability and transparency. Strong proactive leadership within these associations results in proactive communications to members and to other stakeholders, such as governments, who are also interested in the implications of disruptions such as COVID-19 on WIL programs. Good leadership also creates 578

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-41

Establishing sustainable national networks

strong bonds within and between associations that should continue to provide benefits post-disruption. Networks within and amongst associations is another critical factor for success. This includes networks of WIL associations at the regional, national, and global levels as well as networks with other key stakeholder groups, such as higher education and industry associations as well as global bodies that support the outcomes of WIL. The resulting “network of networks” (Hansford & Stonely, 2011, p. 384) strategy led by WACE has enabled partnerships and collaboration at the global level, beyond those afforded within a more defined membership base. National associations and the global association are positioned to advocate for the needs of WIL programs to institutions, business and industry, and governments. As more governments express interest in WIL programs, the associations provide access to the expertise that resides within their membership and the support and advice generated through research and good practice development. A collective voice is much more compelling than a singular position; therefore, the advocacy role of national associations is of crucial benefit to association members. Data, including research data and practice information across an association, can tell a powerful story, and one that policy makers appreciate to evidence their decisions. Expertise within associations also includes the development of quality standards. Associations that have established quality measures and assurance are well positioned and authoritative when speaking to excellence in WIL program delivery and what is required to maintain that excellence. These associations can also provide leadership and share resources with other practitioners and those intending to develop or enhance their programs. Across the globe, consistent professional development opportunities for WIL professionals have been lacking (Zegwaard et al., 2019). Many associations that have established professional development for their members, and that contribute to it globally, are doing their members a much-needed service, creating the conditions for sustaining quality in WIL program delivery. Research in WIL continues to be a growing area of interest and need. While research efforts have expanded and are fostered within certain associations (Zegwaard, 2015), the requirement for ongoing studies on the nature of quality WIL and the impact of outcomes is crucial for substantiating requests for funding and support. The various associations’ research grants and seminars, the International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL) including special issues, the International Handbook for Work-Integrated Learning, and the WACE International Research Symposia all contribute to supporting, promoting, and advancing the WIL research agenda. Finally, for an association to be successful, it must be able to maintain financial sustainability. Various administrative models have been attempted within national associations, ranging from full-time executive level staffing, the use of management services and volunteers, to institutional sponsorship. Typical sources of revenue for WIL associations fall into four main categories: membership fees, events, partnerships, and sponsorships.

Governance and growth associations and their impacts The first national associations for cooperative education were established in the USA and Canada, with the Cooperative Education Association (CEA, now CEIA1) being founded in the 1960s and the Canadian Association for Co-operative Education (CAFCE, now CEWIL2) in the 1970s (Crichton, 2009; Patrick & Kay, 2011). The development of these national associations was driven by the need for professionals working in cooperative education to network, gain professional support, and enhance their professional practice. National Associations in other countries emerged later, with the United Kingdom in 1982 (ASET3), New Zealand (NZACE, now WILNZ4) in 1991, Sweden in 1996 (VILAR5), Thailand (TACE6) in 2001, the southern region of Africa (SASCE7) in 2003, and Australia (ACEN8) in 2006, with ACEN 579

Judie Kay et al.

succeeding a previous Australian association (ACES) that was launched in 1990. The vital role that associations play in the support, growth, and expansion of WIL has been recently highlighted. In Asia, where Thailand is the only country in the region with a national association, there are calls to establish more national and regional associations to support expansion and improve best practice in CWIE (Zegwaard, 2019). All WIL associations were founded and managed largely through the voluntary efforts of practitioners who were passionate about the impact of WIL on student learning and society. In some cases, the association was hosted by an education institution (e.g., TACE hosted by Suranaree University of Technology – SUT), with proactive institutional leadership support and advocacy enabling strong growth. However, not all associations were initially successful, with some current ones having previous iterations (Patrick & Kay, 2011). In addition, for strategic reasons, several associations have recently changed their names, for example, CAFCE to CEWIL in 2019 and NZACE to WILNZ in 2020 to better reflect the current national contexts and to broaden the mandate from cooperative education to accommodate all models of WIL. As national WIL associations have grown from their small formative beginnings, they have adopted differing forms of legal identity or incorporation. Many have transitioned from informal and loose networks to adopt governance models and management structures that suit the various national contexts, membership bases, resources, and local legislative requirements. Some associations have designed governance structures to ensure national reach and representation (Patrick & Kay, 2011) and to better connect with governments and professional bodies. Despite differences in governance structures, critical to any association’s success is effective strategic leadership and a strong governance framework for the association to be accountable, to survive, and to flourish. Leadership and good governance mechanisms identified, which associations continue to utilize to achieve successful governance, include: • • • • • • • • •

Periodic review of governance arrangements; Ensuring renewal and succession planning through mentoring emerging leaders; Ensuring accountability to the membership base; Maintaining inclusive and collaborative decision making; Effective induction of board members; Ensuring broad skill sets and backgrounds are represented on the board; Ensuring balanced representation from across the nation and stakeholder groups; Effective management, committee processes, and structures; Risk management strategies and fiscal responsibility. (Patrick & Kay, 2011, p. 375)

Ensuring that good governance mechanisms are implemented can be challenging for WIL associations and can add to the workload of typically already overworked association leaders. However, to continue to be effective and accountable to association members, a strong and continuing focus on governance is required, including governance training and mentoring of emerging association leaders. WACE’s origins, like many WIL associations, stemmed from the desire for like-minded people to share ideas amongst each other. After two successful international conferences in London in 1979 and Boston in 1981 (WACE, 1979, 1981), professionals from seven countries formed a network that, in 1983, in Melbourne, Australia, was officially launched as WACE (Hansford & Stonely, 2011). In 1995, WACE became a not-for-profit professional organization, establishing a Secretariat in the USA, and during 2010–2011 WACE merged with the National 580

Establishing sustainable national networks

Commission for Cooperative Education (NCCE) (Hansford & Stonely, 2011). Over the decades, WACE has expanded beyond cooperative education to include: many forms of WIL; increased membership with a broader geographical reach; hosting a wide range of events and professional development opportunities; and establishing WACE regional offices in Thailand, Japan, Sweden, and Africa. Overseeing this growth were professional staff based in Boston, USA, reporting to an Executive Committee advised by a WACE Board. As more national associations were established, the opportunity to proactively network with other associations was realized with the first informal WACE National Associations meeting held in 2008, during the WACE Asia-Pacific Conference in Manly, Australia. Representatives from a range of associations met with members from the newly formed ACEN to provide advice during their early establishment phase. Due to the success of this initial meeting, in subsequent years, a National Association network meeting was organized at every WACE Conference to exchange ideas, support each association’s growth, and collaborate on key activities such as professional development. The concept of WACE being a network of networks emerged and gained strength (Hansford & Stonely, 2011) with national associations being recognized as a distinct category of WACE membership in 2012. National associations became WACE partners with their members receiving benefits such as reduced WACE conference and symposium fees. A representative of each of the national associations was invited onto the WACE Board of Directors and, in 2017, the National Associations group was recognized as a subcommittee of the WACE Executive Committee (WACE, 2017), with a representative of this committee nominated to represent that group. The concept of WACE being a network of networks was then further formalized within the WACE governance structure. This new governance structure enabled WACE to broaden its reach, gain a broader global perspective, and gain up-to-date understanding of WIL across the world. The WACE National Associations Committee’s role is to support emerging associations, encourage global collaboration, and provide advice on emerging global WIL trends. From this time, enhanced communication and collaboration between national associations grew through regular contact and meetings beyond the face-to-face meetings at WACE events. In 2020, the then WACE President proposed to the WACE Executive Committee that the organization be moved to Canada and hosted at the University of Waterloo (WACE, 2021). The opportunity for WACE to move to a new host country and streamline its organizational and governance structure was both timely and necessary with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. A subgroup of the Executive Committee called the Transition Team was charged to undertake this process and WACE was registered as a not-for-profit organization in Ontario, Canada, under the name of the Global Association for Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education (GACWIE), though operating under the name of WACE. In 2021, new bylaws were established, and the WACE Global Strategy Council was established to provide advice to the Executive Council on managing the organization. These changes reflected the evolution of the association and enhanced the focus on achieving greater global reach and financial stability. A revised membership framework with graduated fees to accommodate diverse national economic contexts, a focus on virtual participation, and additional member programs were implemented to enable broader international engagement. A scaled back, largely volunteer, administrative structure and streamlined processes were also implemented to further ensure financial sustainability and increased impact and member engagement. This has proved successful with an increased geographic spread of WACE members, a resurgence of engagement from WIL practitioners in regions such as Africa through webinar participation, and broad institutional take-up for the Global Challenge – a virtual student–industry program implemented by WACE in 2020 (WACE, 2021). 581

Judie Kay et al.

Vision and leadership Integral to the success of any organization is vision and leadership (Ferns & Kay, 2021). As identified in Patrick et al. (2014), five leadership domains exhibited by WIL leaders are: 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5.

Shaping the WIL vision; Creating relationships; Fostering engagement; Communicating and influencing; Driving outcomes.

Focusing on these capabilities enables WIL leaders to better plan, articulate, influence, and advocate strategy, foster a WIL culture, and enable change and innovation (Patrick et al., 2014). These same capabilities required of WIL leaders within educational institutions and host organizations are needed for those leading successful national and global associations. Furthermore, regional, national, and global WIL organizations play an important leadership role in connecting WIL leaders and organizations worldwide. This sharing of local and regional knowledge and advances in the field with the broader global WIL community encourages a rich exchange of ideas that mutually benefits all participants. The networks developed through these collaborations serve to bring together diverse perspectives and practices that enrich WIL curricular design and delivery and enhance communications with key stakeholders such as governments, business, and industry. WACE’s role in networking these associations underscores this idea, taking on the leadership challenge of connecting WIL stakeholders around the world to share and leverage regional and national advances in ways that inform WIL globally. The vision, mission, and values statements of WACE (Box 36.1) provide an example of how these serve as a focus for WACE’s growth and development.

Box 36.1:  WACE’s vision statement, mission statement, and value statement (WACE, 2019) Vision statement To be the premier international organization linking the world’s leading higher education institutions, employers, and public authorities, all of whom share a profound commitment to preparing new generations for a lifetime of professional success in today’s global and diverse workforce. Our vision will be achieved through our support and delivery of quality WIL research, programs, and services designed to advance all forms of learning that integrate formal education and work experience in all regions of the world.

Mission statement To advance high quality cooperative and all other forms of work-integrated education globally by: 1 . 2. 3.

facilitating global debate, showcasing best practices, fostering international networks and exchanges, and

582

Establishing sustainable national networks

4 .



offering research, programs and services with the aim to a. advance professionalization through supporting innovation in experiential learning, academic quality enhancement, and demonstrating results through relevant and focused research, and b. advance and promote the importance of high-quality cooperative and work-integrated – education as the premier talent identification and development strategy for the new global workforce.

Value statement WACE is committed to achieving its strategic goals without ideological, political, religious, or other bias. Ensuring equity, diversity, and inclusion in WACE’s membership and services is core to WACE’s approach.

In 2019, WACE developed and launched the WACE Global CWIE Charter (WACE, 2019), which formalized a commitment by world WIL leaders to unite globally to provide access for all post-secondary students to workplace experiences that will effectively prepare them for productive and rewarding employment locally, nationally, and internationally. The Charter situates this commitment as a key strategy for developing the future of a borderless global workforce by leveraging WACE’s significant global networks and expertise in this area. This formal document continues to serve as a roadmap for WACE’s future intentions and direction, and as a tool to reach out to new individuals and organizations with whom a partnership or alliance could be mutually beneficial in helping to realize shared goals. Specifically, the Charter aimed to advance several of WACE’s key strategic goals including taking a global leadership role in WIL, developing new initiatives to address global WIL stakeholder needs, broadening the WACE community, expanding international experiences, and enhancing WACE’s value proposition for members and potential members. The Charter Calls to Action connect these CWIE goals to other shared agendas of global interest, notably the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and UNESCO education initiatives. The Charter supports initiatives which seek to improve access to productive education, commitments to equity and diversity, and the development of intercultural competence and resilience in higher education graduates. Through these broader connections, the Charter extends the WIL conversation beyond national conversations around work preparation for students, and links to other shared agendas of global interest. This is in addition to the core outcome of developing the next generation of internationally work-ready, global citizens who are prepared and excited to contribute to a productive and fulfilling work environment, anywhere in the world (Johnston, 2021). Since its launch, several national associations have indicated interest in developing national-­ level charters that complement the Global Charter as a mechanism for advancing local agendas while connecting to more global issues.

Networks and advocacy A key element of WIL leadership is developing and articulating a vision and advocating for a shared strategy with agreed outcomes within tertiary institutions (Patrick et al., 2014). This WIL leadership is also required in national and global contexts. Effective advocacy is a key focus for leadership of both national and global WIL associations. National associations identify 583

Judie Kay et al.

this as one of their top priorities. Providing leadership in their respective countries through the development of a strong vision and then sustained proactive advocacy with key stakeholder groups is, therefore, an important function of national associations. One of the significant benefits of WACE’s network of networks approach is the ability for associations to leverage developments in other countries to progress their own national agenda. Over the years, this has been an effective tool utilized to progress WIL and influence governments to embrace it. Citing examples from other countries or adopting and adapting similar strategies has also proven to be highly successful. Initiating and developing partnerships with aligned organizations and lobbying governments by providing WIL expertise to impact government policy and strategies has also been a key mechanism for advancing WIL development across the globe. As a result, in recent years, national WIL approaches and strategies have been successfully developed in an increasing number of countries through proactive advocacy by national associations. In Thailand in 2002, the Office of Higher Education Commission within the Ministry of Education encouraged cooperative education to all universities (Srisa-an & Pramoolsook, 2018) with cooperative and work-integrated education being explicitly referenced in the Thai Higher Education Act of 2019. In 2015, the National WIL strategy (ACEN, 2015) was developed in Australia largely through ACEN’s strong vision and drive and in collaboration with peak industry groups and Universities Australia (the peak body for Australian universities). This strategy included eight approaches to overcoming challenges and expanding WIL in Australia and setting the foundation for many future national collaborations around WIL. In Canada, while a national strategy was never formally adopted, the advocacy efforts of their national association, CEWIL Canada, resulted in over Can$800 million in funding from the federal government to incentivize employers to hire co-op and WIL students. In addition, funds were created to stimulate innovations in WIL and expand its programming to under-represented students. Advocacy efforts resulted in consultations with business and industry, student groups, and government agencies across the country to better understand the needs of stakeholders. During 2019–2021, in various provinces across Canada, regional associations such as ACE-WIL BC/Yukon9 have successfully advocated for over Can$9 million to support WIL activities in the region. Similar efforts have reaped benefits to program development in other provinces as governments gained interest in supporting WIL and stakeholders to develop a stronger awareness and appreciation for the benefits of co-op and WIL. National associations in South Africa, New Zealand, and Thailand have enjoyed similar policy and support successes through advocacy efforts with their governments. These efforts have raised awareness about the benefits of WIL across the sector, provided opportunities for stakeholder engagement, and resulted in some instances in funding to support a variety of initiatives. Strong strategic partnerships have been developed by national associations with a wide range of other aligned associations including national career associations, peak industry bodies, international education associations, chambers of commerce, and human resource associations, all aligned with the benefits arising from WIL models of education. In developing national WIL strategies, these partnerships have resulted in several spin-off initiatives including involvement in national WIL projects, development of specific resources for industry, and avenues for promotion of WIL to broader audiences. In Thailand and Canada, National WIL days or months have been established and celebrated. Thailand implemented its first National CWIE Day in 2010. These activities heighten awareness amongst all stakeholders of the benefits of WIL to the nation. At a global level, WACE’s focus is to advocate and progress WIL globally. This is outlined in the WACE Strategic Plan 2021 with goals that further develop WACE as a global knowledge 584

Establishing sustainable national networks

hub, to develop new services and programs for the WIL community, develop quality assurance standards, certification of professional development for practitioners, and expand the scope and size of the WACE global community. To progress these goals, in addition to the partnerships through the WACE Charter, WACE has formed a strategic partnership with the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank organization, to increase employability capacity in institutions in South America, Africa, and the Middle East.

Quality assurance and professional development Many professional associations provide a quality assurance function and offer professional development opportunities to members. The provision of professional development is a critical function of WIL associations globally with these offerings providing added value to members. It ensures that members’ practices stay relevant, are informed by the latest research and evidence (Ferns et al., 2022), and ensures that the field and the profession continue to evolve, advance, and remain responsive to changing times. In the case of quality assurance, CEWIL has provided accreditation for cooperative education programs across Canada since 1979 (CEWIL, 2021), with the goal of establishing quality co-op programs that are consistent and effective (CEWIL, 2021). An Accreditation Council was developed within CEWIL, which reviews and accredits co-op programs for six years. The accreditation process has been used as a means of establishing quality standards for the model of co-op and has been used by funding agencies and governments alike as evidence of quality programming. In 2019, CEWIL established a Quality Council whose mandate is to bring quality standards to all models of WIL practiced across Canada, in addition to the accreditation of co-op programs (CEWIL, 2021). The quality standards are grounded in current research including the AAA WIL Quality Framework developed by the University of Waterloo (McRae et al., 2018). This theoretically informed framework for all types of WIL identifies five key stakeholders: government, institution, educator, student, and employer/host organization. Each stakeholder has their own aims/goals, and to achieve these aims requires undertaking quality actions. These quality actions are based on the PEAR acronym that represents Pedagogy, Experience, Assessment, and Reflection. Consideration for each action occurs before, during, and after each WIL experience. The final component of the Quality Framework refers to achievements, which are accomplished through those quality actions and which can be measured with the outcomes identified (McRae et al., 2018; Pretti & McRae, 2021). ACEN has also developed a framework for guiding the institutional quality of WIL. Similarly, this quality framework provides the theoretical context for quality in WIL and establishes resources and guidelines for practitioners and professionals (Smith et al., 2022). According to Ferns et al. (2022) the accreditation of WIL professionals could be an important mechanism for quality improvements. A focus on quality practice is critical for associations, as this provides a resource to members, assurance for funders, and accountability to stakeholders. Quality standards ensure the integrity of programs, as well as establish a foundation to innovate and build upon to ensure viability and adaptability for WIL into the future (Kay et al., 2022). As the provision of WIL has expanded globally over the last decade, the need for skilled WIL staff has increased and professional development has become a major focus and a successful activity for many national associations (Zegwaard et al., 2019). Access to the professional development opportunities required to be an effective WIL practitioner is limited or nonexistent in many universities. National associations have filled this void in part, through professional development provided to its members through workshops, events, and webinars, as well as resources provided through websites. Enhanced 585

Judie Kay et al.

technology has enabled greater provision and access that has been critical where face-to-face has never been an option previously due to the challenges of distance (Zegwaard et al., 2019). Within the Canadian context, CEWIL has commissioned three basic WIL professional development courses designed for Canadian professional WIL staff. These will cover topics such as: quality WIL, student engagement, and employer/community engagement. Completion of these three modules will lead to a CEWIL recognized practitioner certificate. Another national approach to professional development in Thailand in 2021 was the implementation of a suite of national hybrid training programs, building on a tradition of professional development, for a range of WIL stakeholders in a collaboration between TACE and the Ministry for Higher Education, and Science Research and Innovation (MNESI). Globally, four National associations (ACEN, CEWIL, WILNZ, and VILAR) combined support for the Global WIL program of modules designed to provide interactive learning for practitioners that would enable global perspectives in WIL (Hoskyn et al., 2016; Zegwaard et al., 2016). These modules commenced in 2015 and have been developed to cover topics such as theories of experiential learning, assessing learning, quality in WIL, industry/community engagement, and student engagement. The modules have been delivered 14 times to more than 200 WIL practitioners using a combination of asynchronous and synchronous teaching methods. A capstone module is currently being developed to be undertaken upon completion of all modules. After completion of the modules and the capstone, the participants will be eligible for a certificate of completion endorsed by WACE.

Global research into WIL outcomes Most regional, national, and global associations in the WIL community are also strong advocates and supporters of quality research. Many have affiliated research committees or communities that actively contribute to the development of quality WIL by informing its design, implementation, assessment, and impacts. Many associations (e.g., WACE, CEWIL, ASET, and ACEN) also provide grants in support of relevant research activity and support research events as part of their programming. This helps ensure that WIL models remain connected to advances in other relevant educational fields as well as serving to inform the models themselves in ways that assure quality design and delivery. Some national associations have focused research grant rounds on priority areas linked to national strategies, and commissioned projects to enable strategic advocacy on areas of need in WIL (ACEN). In addition, some national associations (e.g., ACEN) have supported the growth of research of WIL by targeting funds to early career researchers and have enabled global collaboration through researchers from other countries collaborating on their association research projects. WIL research also provides a unique opportunity to engage multiple sectors (academia, business and industry, community organizations, governments) in various conversations regarding education and employability, and to proactively address their respective needs through a better understanding of quality work-integrated practices and outcomes. Many research projects have involved the three major WIL stakeholders (employers, students, educational institutions) and can lead to follow-up joint initiatives in the areas of program development and advocacy that may otherwise never have occurred. WACE has been a proponent of building a strong research base to inform the global development of WIL and provide datasets and information to guide the future development of this growing international educational approach. WACE supports an International Research Community with representation from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. WACE’s International Research Committee cites the following goals on a global scale: 586

Establishing sustainable national networks

• • • • • • • • •

Establish a strong think tank of WIL researchers; Promote research on cooperative education and WIL; Collaborate with the Program Committees to ensure that WACE events (e.g., research symposiums and world conferences) have a strong research stream; Identify key research themes that will advance the understanding of cooperative education and WIL; Facilitate research workshops at WACE research symposia and world conferences; Collaborate on research projects; Establish criteria for future WACE research grants and awards; Seek research funding from foundations and funding agencies; Be open to knowledge sharing and mentoring new researchers.

WACE also hosts a biannual International Research Symposium (IRS) that focuses entirely on current and future research endeavors and brings together researchers and research-informed practitioners to share their current work and engage in lively discussions and planning. These symposia provide a unique opportunity to share regional work on a world stage, to inform researchers’ own work with global perspectives, and to collaborate with research activities, including developing partnerships. Additionally, WACE provides grants and awards that support WIL research. Finally, most of the regional and national associations also provide ongoing research workshops and activities that are actively shared globally through the WACE network, conferences and symposia, and the WACE Newsletter. WACE promotes the International Journal for Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL) as the world’s only peer reviewed journal solely devoted to research in WIL (www.ijwil.org). IJWIL was formerly called the Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education (APJCE) and renamed in response to its broader reach and to encompass all models of WIL. In addition to regular editions, special issues are also produced with some financial support from national associations and WACE. WACE was the publisher and distributor of the first two editions of the International Handbook for WIL and currently supports the development of the third edition. This Handbook serves as a major resource for WIL professionals worldwide. As a comprehensive resource it appeals to placement coordinators, faculty, researchers, students, and employers, providing a broad coverage of cooperative education and WIL issues with an emphasis on practice, informed by research.

Financial sustainability WACE and all higher education associations, whether national or global, need to maintain viable financial practices to be sustainable. This involves a balance between charging membership fees that reflect the value for its members and the costs of delivering that value. Some associations have varying levels of paid administrative staff or services to manage their functions, whilst some rely more on volunteers from the membership base. Historically, WACE employed paid staff. As of 2020, the organization has focused on reducing salary expenses to basic administrative functions in the areas of communications, membership growth and support, event support, and accounting support (WACE, 2021). The remaining leadership functions are currently carried out by volunteers from the Executive Council. This structure is more financially sustainable but limits the extent of services and programs available to be delivered for members that a higher level of paid staff would be able to provide. The advantage of the volunteer management is that it has allowed WACE to adjust the cost of becoming a member. This has enabled access to a broader membership base with fees more sensitive to regional 587

Judie Kay et al.

economic disparities. That outcome has greatly assisted the association in meeting its goal of growth through greater diversity and inclusion. Typically, the sources of revenue for an association include membership fees, event registrations, donations, fee-for-service activities, and obtaining grants to support administrative costs. For example, CEWIL has recently obtained a federal grant of Can$16 million to administer awards for innovative WIL programs in Canada. The grant includes paid administrative support. CEWIL relies on an administrative services company rather than directly employing staff. This approach has allowed for flexibility and sustainability in that costs can be controlled and managed flexibly and in response to requirements. As WACE is a global organization, it does not derive such support from any federal government, and instead relies on membership fees and other programs. Federal government funding support has not been available to WACE, highlighting why the volunteer leadership structure was important in enabling it to lower membership fees while still supporting core functions. Future additional sources of revenue are likely to come from the activities generated from the expanded membership base, high-quality conferences, and symposia, which in turn will provide sufficient revenue to ensure sustainability in the longer term. The COVID-19 pandemic prevented face-to-face conferences and events that have typically contributed meaningful revenue for WACE. Most associations pivoted to online events that resulted in substantial registrations, but as these attracted much lower event fees, most associations experienced reduced revenue. In the case of WACE, the 2020 World Conference was canceled, and the subsequent 2021 Conference was an online event at reduced event fees for attendees (WACE, 2021). It is likely that future conference and symposium events will be hybrid events, with some face-to-face components (where feasible) and other components offered online (synchronously or asynchronously) to ensure broad access for members while still contributing to the organization’s financial sustainability.

National associations: successes, challenges, and opportunities The disruption that the COVID-19 pandemic caused to the WIL community presented many challenges for WACE and national WIL associations. Associations were quick to share resources and disseminate information to assist practitioners in this challenging context where little other assistance or information was available. For many associations this involved frequent, initially weekly, large national COVID-19 webinars to update members, with national surveys used to gauge what support members required. In addition, national associations were proactive in advocating to governments and industry bodies on behalf of their members around issues such as supporting the expansion of virtual placements, strategies for online WIL, and enabling flexibility around placements linked to professional accreditation. The IJWIL published a 2020 double special issue on managing the impact of COVID-19 on the practice of WIL (Kay et al., 2020; Zegwaard et al., 2020) in response to this crisis. Engagement with national associations expanded greatly during the pandemic as members relied on the associations for support and reassurance through the initial significant disruption. Associations also actively collaborated through their networks, shared resources, updates, and strategies. WILNZ and ACEN collaborated on webinars and networking conversations, and CEWIL and ACEN provided updates to each other’s association members and shared resources. WACE partnered with all networked WIL national associations to set up a series of Global Conversations on key topics of interest with large global attendances, including WIL staff from many countries with no national association to support them. Additionally, professional

588

Establishing sustainable national networks

development opportunities offered nationally and through the Global WIL Modules continued to be offered online with good participation. Many of the challenges and concerns that associations are managing today are longstanding. These include expanding membership bases, being responsive to member needs, remaining relevant and accountable to members, ensuring sustainability through building a strong resource base, managing the heavy workloads on volunteer staff, and governance issues such as planning for renewal through succession planning (Patrick & Kay, 2011.) Associations must adapt to manage these challenges and the emerging ones within the current context. The changing face of higher education and the flow of the impacts of the pandemic to educational institutional revenue has resulted in changed staffing profiles for many universities and may negatively impact associations’ future membership bases. The need to cancel face-to-face conferences due to the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant negative financial impact for associations, reducing major resource streams such as registration fees and associated sponsorship. Although many associations quickly replaced face-to-face events with online events, the financial impact has been acutely felt. This resulted in some associations needing to adjust and adapt services to reflect the reduced financial resources while maintaining sustainable operations. In addition, many associations reported that the face-to-face opportunities cannot be fully replaced in the virtual environment, leading to difficulties determining when to revert to face-to-face events whilst balancing associated risks. Demands on workload and reduced availability of staff volunteering time to associations resulted in them struggling to respond and support members within a rapidly changing and challenging environment. Work overload was the major challenge within associations as the activity level increased, and association leaders faced challenges in managing the competing demands of their own educational institutional work as well as the association workload. This context, however, has also offered new opportunities for associations to leverage their strengths. Most have increased their advocacy and gained broader national recognition as a body of WIL experts. In some cases, through this strong advocacy and alignment with government policy, associations have secured additional government funds to support services, delivery of professional development, and initiatives to encourage innovative WIL practices. Support from members has increased due to the unprecedented reliance on associations for information and support. This is evidenced by significantly increased attendance numbers at virtual association and WACE events. Maintaining and building on this membership engagement for the longer term will present both an opportunity and a challenge. Associations may need to review their membership structure and bases and adapt and evolve services to be responsive to members’ needs in evolving national contexts. It is hoped that the positive collaboration between WIL associations, enhanced during the pandemic, will persist after it subsides. Geography no longer presents the barriers it once did for engagement and collaboration. By not duplicating effort, pooling limited resources, and leveraging global expertise, key strategic WIL areas of practice and research could be rapidly progressed. Joining forces for a collective voice also enhances advocacy for the benefit of all. Current collaborations previously outlined, including the Global WIL Modules, joint events, and resource sharing, could be expanded further. Other potential areas of development include The WACE Global CWIE Charter Calls to Action, including a focus on quality WIL. With several countries having already developed quality WIL frameworks, the possibilities for mutually beneficial powerful global partnership in this area is evident. WIL research could also be another key focus for global collaboration, building on existing links between associations around their research symposia. The outcomes would present additional opportunities

589

Judie Kay et al.

for advocacy and leveraging these global developments within their own national context to advance national developments for each association’s benefit. As the WIL community emerges from the current disruption with greater proficiency in utilizing technology, more opportunities will occur for increased collaboration in global events, exchanges, and capacity-building to expand the current joint professional development activities. With the advancement of technology, these global opportunities will continue to be enhanced and become more accessible. Opportunities to collaborate in order to develop innovative online WIL approaches for students also becomes more appealing and viable. Of significant concern, however, continues to be efforts to bridge the digital divide. Enabling access to suitable technology in countries where this technology is not readily available, or where data bandwidths are inadequate or unreliable, will be an ongoing challenge.

Conclusion This chapter has identified that indicators for successful associations of WIL include consideration of the following components: vision, leadership, networks, advocacy, quality, professional development, research, and financial stability. While these components will vary according to context (i.e., the aims of the association’s stakeholders), attention needs to be paid to each to ensure a sustainable and successful association. Achievement measures can include financial viability, membership numbers, research output, professional development engagement, and outcomes from advocacy such as reputation and policy influence. Regions that are contemplating establishing a WIL association could employ the Quality WIL Framework (McRae et al., 2018) to guide the development of an association’s purpose. Key stakeholders for the association, their aims, and the implications of these aims for an association should be identified. Quality actions that need to be undertaken to enable the association to meet those aims should be prioritized and success measures established and monitored. The wisdom and expertise that exists in the current national and global associations provide a solid foundation for the global WIL community to seize the opportunities for greater collaboration post-pandemic. Leadership in these bodies has demonstrated commitment to the success of WIL across boundaries, and members of these associations are typically willing to mentor and engage with others. One of the many benefits of joining the WACE community is the opportunity to engage with leaders from other educational institutions, learn from each other, and continue to develop the field of WIL.

Notes 1 CEIA: Cooperative Education and Internship Association. 2 CEWIL: Co-operative and Work-Integrated Learning Canada. 3 ASET: The Work Based Placement and Learning Association. 4 NZACE: New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education, WILNZ: Work-Integrated Learning New Zealand. 5 VILAR: Verksamhetsintegrerat lärande (Swedish WIL Association). 6 TACE: Thai Association for Cooperative Education. 7 SASCE: Southern African Society for Co-operative Education. 8 ACEN: Australian Collaborative Education Network, ACES Australian Cooperative Education Society. 9 ACE–WIL BC/Yukon Association for Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning British Columbia/Yukon.

590

Establishing sustainable national networks

References Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN) Universities Australia, ACCI, AiGroup, Business Council of Australia. (2015, March). National WIL strategy on work integrated learning in higher education. http://acen.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/National-WIL-Strategy-in-university-education032015.pdf?x99824 Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL). (2021). https://cewilcanada. ca/CEWIL/Councils%20and%20Committees/Accreditation.aspx?WebsiteKey=70188082-f13b461c-8c8d-74e0e6c01c18 Crichton, A. (2009). From impossibility to reality: Documenting the history of CAFCE in Canada. Canadian Association for Cooperative Education (CAFCE). http://www.cewilcanada.ca/_Library/_documents/ 2009-CAFCEHistory-AC.pdf Ferns, S., & Kay, J. (2021, August 8). Needed now: Exceptional leaders for work integrated learning. Campus Morning Mail. https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/needed-now-exceptionalleaders-for-work-integrated-learning/ Ferns, S. J., Dawson, V., & Howitt, C. (2022). Professional accreditation. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe and K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp.60–72). Routledge. Hansford, M., & Stonely, P. (2011). WACE, the global network of networks: Advancing cooperative and work-integrated education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice, (2nd ed., pp. 381–386). World Association of Cooperative Education. Hoskyn, K., Zegwaard, K. E., Kay, J., Johansson, K., Ferns, S., & McRae, N. (2016). Participants’ experience and impact on their practice from engaging in an online professional development WIL module. In K. E. Zegwaard & K. Hoskyn (Eds.), New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education 2016 Conference Proceedings (pp. 23–27). New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education Johnston, N. (2021). Global calls to action for work-integrated education. The WACE charter and applications for GenX and Y. In T. Gerhardt & P. Annon (Eds.), Applications of work-integrated learning among gen z and y students (pp 257–274), (IGI global book series Advances in educational technologies and instructional design). IGI Global. Kay, J., Ferns, S. J., Russell, L., Smith, J., & Younger, A. (2022). Innovation in work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-­integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 133–144). Routledge. Kay, J., McRae, N., & Russell, L. (2020). Two institutional responses to work integrated learning in the time of COVID-19: Canada and Australia. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, [Special issue], 21(5), 491–503. Kay, J., Ferns, S. J., Russell, L., Smith, J., & Younger, A. (2022). Innovation in work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-­integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 133–144). Routledge. McRae, N., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2018). WIL Quality Framework. White Paper published by the Work-Learn Institute, University of Waterloo; Canada. https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-advancementco-operatore-education/research-publications/wil-quality-framework Patrick, C.-J., Fallon, W., Campbell, M., Devenish, I., Kay, J., Lawson, J., & Cretchley, P. (2014). Leading WIL: A distributed leadership approach to enhance work integrated learning: Final report 2014. Office for Learning and Teaching https://ltr.edu.au/resources/LE11_2084_Patrick_Report_2014.pdf Patrick, C.-J., & Kay, J. (2011). Establishing a new national network for cooperative education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 371–380). World Association for Cooperative Education. Pretti, T. J., & McRae, N. (2021). Preparing Gen Y and Z for the future of work through co-operative education: A case study on the University of Waterloo. In T. Gerhardt & P. Annon (Eds.), Applications of work-integrated learning among gen z and y students (pp. 94–118). IGI Global. Smith, C., Ferns, S. J., & Russell, L. (2022). A quality framework for developing and assuring high-­quality work-integrated learning curricula. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp.107–120). Routledge.

591

Judie Kay et al. Srisa-an, W., & Pramoolsook, I. (2018). Development of cooperative and work-integrated education in Thailand In Y. Tanaka, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Cooperative and work-integrated education in Asia history, present, and future issues. Routledge. WACE. (2021). Annual Report June 30, 2020–July 1, 2021. https://drive.google.com/file/d/ 1eGG4dk1umZddJo27bgdrEXqym0TpBYk4/view WACE. (2019). CWIE Global Charter. https://waceinc.org/global-wil-charter/) WACE. (2017). Terms of reference. WACE National Associations Committee (2017). https://waceinc.org/ national-associations-committee/ WACE. (1979, 1981). History https://waceinc.org/History Zegwaard, K. E., Johansson, K., Kay, J., McRae, N., Ferns, S., & Hoskyn, K. (2019). Professional development needs of the international work-integrated learning community. International Journal of WorkIntegrated Learning, 20(2), 201–217. Zegwaard, K. E., Johansson, K., Ferns, S., Hoskyn, K., McRae, N., & Kay, J. (2016). Online professional development module for WIL practitioners: Participants’ experience and impact on their practice. In K. E. Zegwaard, M. Ford, & N. McRae (Eds.), Refereed Proceedings of the 2nd International Research Symposium on Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 213–218). University of Waikato. Zegwaard, K. E. (2015). Building an excellent foundation for research: Challenges and current research needs [special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(2), 89–99. Zegwaard, K. E. (2019). Cooperative education in the Asian region: Future development and direction. In Y. Tanaka & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Cooperative and work-integrated education in Asia: History, present and future issues (pp. 176–184). Routledge. Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2020). Responding to an international crisis: The adaptability of the practice of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 317–330

592

37 FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR ADVANCING WORKINTEGRATED LEARNING PEDAGOGY Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti Introduction With the continued focus on higher education employability outcomes, it is likely the practice of work-integrated learning (WIL) will continue to expand across the higher education curriculum. As is evident in this Handbook, there are increasing examples of practice with a high degree of integration within the curriculum, supported by authentic assessment practices, informed by theory and research, with a focus on enabling students’ self-awareness as an emerging professional. Historically, the focus of the WIL literature has been on work placement models (Jackson & Greenwood, 2015; Kay et al., 2018; Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019); however, encouragingly, researchers and curricular developers are increasingly focused on non-placement models which, with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, expanded significantly (Dean & Campbell, 2020; Kay et al., 2022; Zegwaard et al., 2020). The diverse, and at times inconsistent, use of terms to describe the models of WIL has been challenging within the literature; however, the frameworks by Groenewald (2004) and McRae and Johnston (2016), and the typologies by Kaider et al. (2017) and Rowe et al. (2012), have been helpful in providing clarity. Chapter 3 in this Handbook has further explored the range of definitions of WIL and provided further clarity in defining it along with details on each of the defining elements. The diversity of WIL models presented in this Handbook broadly represents the diversity of models discussed in the wider literature, and includes work placements, cooperative education, sandwich degrees, university apprenticeships, and short-term work placements (Chapters 9–13). It has also explored models that deviate from work placements, such as non-placement WIL, entrepreneurships, and simulations (Chapters 14–17), and models that blend placements and non-placement models, such as service learning, international WIL, and remote WIL (Chapters 17–19). Such diversity of practice reported in the Handbook presents a good range of WIL models for educational institutions to form as their own and offer as part of their curriculum. The WIL literature, and chapters within this Handbook, highlight the need for appropriate resourcing and management of WIL programs. The management approaches of programs vary greatly based on institutional history and preferences (Nulton et al., 2022), with some managing WIL programs fully centralized through to partially and wholly decentralized models of DOI: 10.4324/9781003156420-42

593

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti

managing WIL. Fully centralized WIL structures have the benefit of efficiencies by managing all aspects of it within the one university structure; however, they have a tendency to move the operations of, and interactions within, WIL away from teaching staff and academic department activities. Wholly decentralized structures manage WIL within the academic department, involving staff knowledgeable in the discipline, and may more easily allow for additional benefits of working with external partners (e.g., industry-funded research, industry informing curricula); however, they may result in duplication of activities, inconsistent practices and messaging across the institution, internal competition, and may not easily obtain access to institution-wide support structures. Whilst partially centralized models for managing WIL attempt to achieve the benefits of both centralized and decentralized systems, achieving the optimal balance is difficult. Partially centralized systems often develop within institutions where WIL has grown ‘organically’ within the academic departments to the extent where risk management and transparency require some centralization. There is no single answer as to what extent WIL should be managed centrally, as each institution has its own prior established practices, needs, support structures, and resource capabilities. However, priority areas to consider for centralization include consistency of messaging and approaches with external stakeholders and students, minimizing duplication of activities and systems (e.g., CRM, WIL platforms), improving transparency of information, policy design and agreement templates, processes for international placements, facilitating interdisciplinary WIL, serious complaints procedures, and program review.

Future directions of work-integrated learning Research-informed practice of work-integrated learning As WIL continues to expand across the higher education curriculum, curricular designers must remain mindful that research-informed education is a fundamental principle of university education; WIL is no exception to that fundamental principle (Zegwaard, 2015). Research to support WIL practice continues to advance and explore challenging aspects and opportunities as WIL adapts to a rapidly changing world. Historically, the WIL literature focused on refining the practicalities of delivering work placement programs (Wilson, 1988) with little empirical research occurring. During the 1990s, WIL research began to expand; however, it was still described as “sparse, limited, … and uncertain” (Bartkus & Stull, 1997, p. 7). Since the 1990s, the field of WIL research has strengthened considerably (Bartkus & Higgs, 2011), with more theory-informed published research (Zegwaard, 2012; Zegwaard & Coll, 2011) supported by an increasing number of mixed research methods (Zegwaard & Hoskyn, 2015). The establishment of the biannual WACE International Research Symposium in 2014 provided an international research-focused gathering for WIL researchers, and the growth of the International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL) demonstrates the expanding WIL literature. As reported throughout the Handbook, WIL programs extensively use and reference the literature to evidence the practice of research-informed WIL. Ongoing research on the practice of all models of WIL needs to continue, so as to further improve the quality of delivery, student-learning experience, reciprocal benefits for the stakeholders, and to remain adaptive and responsive during changing times. Researching one’s own WIL practice is an effective way of achieving research-informed practice; however, it is not necessary to be research active in WIL to develop research-informed practice. Such practice can be achieved through careful consideration of the WIL literature and applying this knowledge to one’s own practice. Much of the WIL literature is readily available 594

Future directions

through free open access journals (e.g., IJWIL) and through institutional libraries that typically have licensed access to non-open access literature (e.g., books).

Resourcing of work-integrated learning Resourcing of WIL, particularly recognition of the unique resource requirements, is fundamentally important for effective and successful delivery of it and is a reoccurring theme through this Handbook. The appropriate resourcing of WIL has been identified in the literature, for example, Clark (2017), Dean et al. (2022), and Muller et al. (2021) emphasized that appropriate resourcing is crucial for institutional-wide WIL. However, workload associated with WIL has not been well explored in the literature (Bilgin et al., 2017; Clark et al., 2014), and it is common for WIL workload to not be explicitly identified in workload models for academic staff (Emslie, 2011), despite the extra workload commitments WIL requires compared to traditional teaching. However, some unique elements of the workload associated with WIL have been identified in the literature. These unique elements include workload related to assessment due to the highly variable contexts of student learning (Brodie & Irving, 2007; WinchesterSeeto & Rowe, 2017), the type of student feedback required (Ferns & Moore, 2012), duty of care ( Jovanovic et al., 2018), relationship building with external stakeholders (Bates, 2011), restrictive institutional requirements (Ferns & Zegwaard, 2014), and the highly variable learning contexts of students often requiring a high level of one-to-one interaction by staff with students. Increasingly, software platforms are used to manage workflow related to WIL, including the posting and preferencing of WIL opportunities and arranging interviews (Asher, 2015; Bayerlein et al., 2022; Muller et al., 2021); however, there is a need to further explore technological solutions to manage workload and to improve educational experience (Rowe et al., 2022; Zegwaard, 2015).

Quality practice of work-integrated learning With increasing attention on WIL, it is important to develop quality practices that can withstand thorough scrutiny, evaluation, measurement, and critical comparison to quality benchmarks and standards. These quality dimensions include the student WIL experience as well as how the students’ learning is supported prior to and after the experience. Quality dimensions include appropriate and relevant preparation of the student prior to WIL, level of authenticity of the experience, embedded into the curriculum, support, and assessment and reflection of the learning experience (Winchester-Seeto, 2019). Sovilla and Varty (2011; Chapter 2) reflected on the withdrawal of US federal funding for cooperative education in 1996, finding that one of the reasons for the withdrawal was due to concerns of proliferation of poor-quality programs – highlighting the importance of developing quality practice. Increasingly, institutions are, at least partially, shifting management of WIL programs to more systematic, institution-wide structures (Rowe et al., 2022). This shift is largely driven by increasing attention and understanding of the quality dimensions of WIL, institutional responsibility of students whilst in the workplace, risk management, and achieving efficiencies. The WIL literature has developed considerably over the years to explore many aspects of the quality dimensions of WIL to inform current practice. Recently, several quality frameworks and evaluation tools (e.g., Campbell et al., 2019; Cedercreutz & Cates, 2011; Marlow et al., 2022; McRae et al., 2018; Orrell, 2004; Smith, 2012; Smith et al., 2022; WinchesterSeeto, 2019) have been developed, which are further expanded upon by Campbell and Pretti (Chapter 22). 595

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti

Ensuring quality delivery includes an argument for accreditation structures for WIL programs (Ferns, Dawson, et al., 2022). Ferns and Arsenault (Chapter 23) have expanded this argument by exploring accreditation structures in Australia and Canada, and they have provided a series of internationally informed guiding principles for developing accreditation frameworks. Accreditation of WIL programs is a developing space within the WIL literature and WIL practice, and will likely have an important function in the future.

Work-integrated learning beyond employability The current expansion of WIL is largely driven by the focus on improving student employability outcomes (Jackson, 2015; Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017) and, therefore, it is not surprising that the WIL literature (and this Handbook) regularly refers to employability outcomes as a benefit. As the main financial investor in higher education, governments see employability outcomes, or perhaps more particularly employment outcomes, as an important performance indicator of higher education (Cheng et al., 2021; Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2015). Research found that students who had completed WIL had a competitive edge in securing graduate employment compared to those who had not (ACEN, 2020; Brooks & Youngson, 2016; Smith et al., 2014). However, as educational institutions increasingly shift towards most (perhaps eventually all) students completing WIL in order to lift employability outcomes, this competitive edge increasingly becomes the norm rather than the advantage. It is, therefore, important to consider the benefits of WIL beyond employment outcomes, such as citizenship (Cooper et al., 2010; Oliver, 2015), continuous learning skills (Billett & Choy, 2011; Rowe & Winchester-Seeto, 2022), improved conceptualization (Anderson et al., 2012; Freudenberg et al., 2011), enhanced academic performance (Drysdale & McBeath, 2018; Jones et al., 2017; Tanaka & Carlson, 2012), improved clarity on pursuing graduate qualification (Zegwaard & McCurdy, 2014), enhanced feelings of hope and motivation (Drysdale et al., 2022; Purdie et al., 2013), a desire to invest in future students (Martin et al., 2019), and a sense of belonging (Clark et al., 2015; McBeath et al., 2018; Rowe et al., 2021).

Student access and equity Equitable access and outcomes have been a growing concern across all levels of education and are increasingly important considerations for WIL practitioners (Mackaway & Chalkley, 2022; Orrell, 2011; Patrick et al., 2008). A number of barriers may cause exclusion of equity-deserving students from WIL, such as university structure (Hicks & Swain, 2007), workplace preferencing and conditions (Mackaway, 2019), and self-exclusion (Jackson & Greenwood, 2015). An often-cited benefit of participating in WIL is the opportunity to create networks (Bridgstock et al., 2019) to generate future employment opportunities and career success; however, reduced access to choices of WIL opportunities is a form of exclusion (Mackaway & Chalkley, 2022). By way of social capital (e.g., family background, prior contacts, and location), some students have relevant established networks prior to attending university through which they can generate their own WIL opportunities – networks that these students should be encouraged and supported to use to generate opportunities. However, some students may not have relevant social capital (Harrison & Ip, 2013) and networks to generate good WIL opportunities, for example, students who are first-in-family to university, international students, students from outer regions, and students pursuing careers outside the scope of their family members’ careers. Therefore, to achieve equitable access for all students, institutions should 596

Future directions

actively generate WIL opportunities through their own networks. These opportunities will need to be broad and diverse in nature to suit what will be a diverse group of students. Although the literature presents equitable access and inclusion as a common challenge, equity within WIL needs to be a holistic discussion that includes the successful participation in WIL in addition to access and inclusion (Mackaway & Chalkley, 2022). Students can self-exclude due to financial reasons where, for example, work placements are unpaid or significant travel is required (Grant-Smith et al., 2017; Chapters 32 & 34), or they may have family responsibilities, disabilities (Hora & Chen, 2020), cultural differences (Jackson, 2017), or a fear of not being successful (Stirling et al., 2021). Consideration also needs to be given around specific learning needs, support structures, and access to resources and family/community. Equity will likely remain a challenging focal area for higher education institutions. Institutions will need to actively monitor and evaluate access, participation, and outcomes for students (Mackaway & Chalkley, 2022), thereby reducing barriers and providing resources and structures where required. Institutions also need to further implement frameworks, principles, and guidelines around inclusive language and approaches to prevent the exclusion of students and to recognize that they may have greater, different, or additional support requirements, and then integrate these insights into WIL curriculum design.

Wellbeing of students Student wellbeing has long been recognized as a growing challenge for higher education institutions (Hattie et al., 1996; Hicks & Swain, 2007; Seaton et al., 2014; Waxman et al., 2003). Student transition into higher education represents two major life changes – a move from ‘school learning’ to more self-directed learning and a move from ‘home living’ to more independent living (Hewitt, 2019). Therefore, perhaps not surprisingly, students report mental health issues at a higher rate than the general population (Neves & Hillman, 2019). The context of WIL may create additional stresses and challenges for students, such as the interview and selection process, relocation, new environments, employer/client expectations, and the reality of the project outcomes, workplace environments and power differentials, workload, and assessment expectations. The COVID-19 pandemic brought further challenges to student wellbeing, with reports of around half of students indicating their mental health was worse than before the pandemic, with a further 70% indicating they were concerned about their wellbeing (Norton, 2021). Considerable knowledge gaps around wellbeing and resilience exist in the WIL literature (Zegwaard, 2015), and wellbeing research within the context of WIL has to date been limited (Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019). Research has shown that stress during WIL can have an impact on student wellbeing (Cormier & Drewery, 2017; Drewery et al., 2019; Drewery et al., 2016; Gillett-Swan & Grant-Smith, 2018), that students experience multiple and interrelated stresses during WIL (Grant-Smith et al., 2017), and that WIL program design may impact positively and negatively on student motivation (Drysdale & McBeath, 2014; Edgar & Connaughton, 2014; Reddan, 2013). The growing concern around student wellbeing is increasingly gaining attention by governments, with some introducing legislation related to wellbeing in higher education (e.g., the Pastoral Care Code introduced by the New Zealand Government, 2021). The complex space of supporting student wellbeing includes, for example, university structures that enhance student agency, self-direction, and self-determination (Antonucci, 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2000), self-confidence and self-efficacy (Bates et al., 2018; Martin & Rees, 2019), support onboarding of students, support reflective learning skills (Van Winkle 597

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti

et al., 2018), and foster a sense of belonging (Rowe et al., 2021). Self-determination theory suggests that challenges and stress may not always be detrimental to wellbeing and can foster personal growth and a sense of achievement (Deci & Ryan, 2012); however, students need to be supported to successfully overcome these challenges and stresses in order to realize these personal gains. Higher education institutions already have many student support structures in place; however, the required consideration is around the level, appropriateness, accessibility, and student awareness of these resources. Supporting student wellbeing, much like the equity challenge within higher education, will likely remain a challenging focal area for higher education institutions. The WIL literature and this Handbook provide considerations on designing support structures for student wellbeing; however, the need for further research remains.

Wellbeing of staff There is encouraging and much needed discussion around the wellbeing of WIL students; however, to date, this discussion has not included the wellbeing of WIL staff. If to support the wellbeing of students engaged in WIL, then the wellbeing of staff involved with it must also be supported. Of concern is the reporting of higher workload associated with WIL than ‘traditional’ education workload (Bates, 2011; Jovanovic et al., 2018), the lack of recognition of such workload (Emslie, 2011), and the lack of research in this area (Clark et al., 2014). Bilgin et al. (2017) investigated workload related to WIL by category of work, and found that workload associated with WIL assessment was greater than that of traditional assessment due to the variable context and inclusion of an external partner. Additionally, WIL workload for teaching staff tends to require greater one-to-one interaction, relationship building, and risk management, in addition to also holding teaching commitments outside WIL. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid shifting to WIL online and remote WIL, restrictive access to workplaces, diminished WIL opportunities, and the need to develop alternative WIL models to work placements (Dean & Campbell, 2020; Wood et al., 2020; Zegwaard et al., 2020), additional workloads and stresses were (and to date still are) placed on WIL staff that often have fewer resources than prior to the pandemic. It is, therefore, timely to investigate the workload scope and volume, responsibilities and stressors encountered by WIL staff, and to explore structures to support the wellbeing of staff so they are better placed to support the wellbeing of students.

Guidance for good practice What constitutes good practice of WIL depends significantly on the local and national context, institutional priorities, disciplinary context, and level of resourcing. Therefore, there is no such thing as a single ‘best practice.’ Local and national cultural contexts include aspects such as cultural context, Indigenous perspectives, institutional culture, and workplace cultures. Good practice also needs to consider the aspects of staff resourcing and capabilities, program design, and continued program improvements.

Professional development for practitioners With the rapid expansion of WIL, the staff positions are often filled by people moving across from other fields. The average age of the international WIL community was 47 years; however,

598

Future directions

the average years of experience in WIL was 9.4 years, with 21% of the WIL community having less than three years of experience (Zegwaard et al., 2019). This strongly suggests that many WIL staff have transitioned from another field of practice into WIL and will have professional development needs due to this transition. Professional development opportunities are often provided by national associations, WACE (Ferns, Kay, et al., 2022; Patrick & Kay, 2011), and within the educational institution; however, professional development can also occur through informal peer learning. To develop relevant knowledge of good practice, it is recommended for staff new to WIL to: • •

•

• •

Seek out mentorship from an established WIL practitioner, educator, and/or researcher. Build up a network of WIL professionals to enable access to shared knowledge through: • joining (or establishing) an institutional community of WIL practitioners, • attending national and international WIL conferences, webinars, and seminars to access new and established knowledge of good practice, • joining and being active in a national WIL association. Read and reflect on the WIL literature, for example, conference proceedings (short articles often containing the latest research activities and good practice examples), reports, journal articles, and books. Many institutional libraries have extensive online access to the WIL literature. Undertake a small investigation of one’s own WIL practice, ideally through partnering with an established researcher. Consider undertaking a qualification focused on WIL.

Designing good practice Designing quality WIL programs can be complex and resource demanding. WIL programs have many facets to consider as part of their program delivery and curriculum design. With the expansion of WIL practice, new programs are being introduced with many institutions levering existing good practice. However, it is important to explicitly consider the following core elements of WIL program design: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Awareness and compliance with national legal requirements; Alignment with institutional policy, strategic directions, and values; Appropriate systems for tracking, sharing, and transparency of information; Appropriate level and type of resourcing; Clear understanding on how to manage risk, with a practice of ‘safe risk-taking’; Safe physical, mental, and cultural practice structured within the program design; Beneficial reciprocity and clear understanding of expectations for all stakeholders involved; Clear communication pathways between the stakeholders; Authentic assessment design to match the authenticity of the student experience; Quality, meaningful, and purposeful WIL experiences for students; Student learning focused on employability outcomes and expanding to include professional identity development, student agency, and citizenship development; Resourcing with staff passionate about WIL (it is not necessary to be an expert on the disciplinary context to facilitate successful WIL); Inclusion of student and external stakeholder voice during the program design stages.

599

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti

Sustaining and enhancing good practice To sustain and enhance good practice requires constant monitoring, critiquing, and challenging current practice using knowledge gained from outcomes generated by the practice and new knowledge acquired elsewhere. With the increasing attention on quality delivery of WIL, continuous development and enhancing WIL practice is particularly important. Scholars have provided insights to future directions of WIL practice (Orrell, 2011; Patrick et al., 2008; Rowe et al., 2022; Sachs et al., 2017) that share similarities with those presented here, indicating that sustaining good practice is an ongoing process. Sustaining good practice should include consideration of: •

Active monitoring and regular reviewing and evaluating of the WIL program’s intended outcomes and actual outcomes, considering aspects of student preparation and learning experience, quality of the WIL opportunity, the beneficial outcomes for the external stakeholder and the institution, level of resourcing, risk management, and the sustainability of the program activities: • include student and external stakeholder voice within the program review; • consider using external reviewers to provide new perspectives. • Continuous seeking of student and external stakeholder views during the WIL program delivery to inform day-to-day activities of the program. • Use of new technology solutions to manage workflow, tracking, transparency, and reporting. • Small research projects around key themes or issues within the WIL program through ‘researching your own practice’. • Engagement with the wider WIL community around key topics/challenges, such as through national and international associations’ networks, webinars, workshops, conferences, and research symposia. • Engagement with a broad range of literature exploring student learning, quality practice, assessment design, and recent trends to inform practice. • Offering diverse models of WIL to avoid overreliance on one model. • Continued engagement with professional development opportunities. • Celebrating successes to build community around the practice. Sustaining good practice is an ongoing process of review and refinement of current practice in addition to incorporating new understanding from the WIL literature. Sustaining good practice should also include shifting practice to reflect changing workplaces, student cohorts, and economic conditions.

Conclusion WIL provides students with a range of transformative, authentic, and meaningful experiences that enhance their employability skills. The benefits of WIL, however, extend beyond employability outcomes and include citizenship development, awareness of agency, clarity, and comprehension of academic content, in addition to benefits to the external stakeholder and the educational institution. With WIL increasingly becoming core across the higher education curriculum, greater attention needs to be given to the quality of the WIL experience and program delivery, equitable access and outcomes, and student wellbeing (physical, mental, and cultural). This attention should include appropriate support structures and WIL opportunities, staff resourcing and capability development, risk 600

Future directions

management, and continued enhancement of practice through review, evaluation, and research-informed design or enhancement of practice. Within the current context of a very rapidly changing world, the importance of students experiencing quality authentic work experience before entering the workplace as a graduate is now more important than ever. Higher education institutions are well placed to enhance practice by leveraging established good practice and the extensive research literature exploring WIL pedagogy. It is hoped that the synthesis of the WIL literature and the good practice examples reported in this Handbook will provide a valuable resource and generate important discussions for WIL practitioners, researchers, and curricular developers.

References ACEN. (2020). Australian collaborative education network - Summary report for graduate outcomes survey items 2020. Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN). Anderson, E., Johnston, N., Iles, L., McRae, N., Reed, N., & Walchli, J. (2012). Co-operative education and student recruitment, engagement and success: Early findings from a multi-institutional study in British Columbia. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 46(1), 58–76. Antonucci, L. (2016). Student lives in crisis: Deepening inequality in times of austerity. Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t89h62 Asher, E. (2015). Support effective stakeholder collaboration to deliver successful placement experiences using a single placement management software solution – is it worth it?/the highs and lows??? In D. Siva-Jothy (Ed.), ASET annual conference proceedings 2015 (pp. 84–86). ASET UK. Bartkus, K. R., & Higgs, J. (2011). Research in cooperative and work-integrated education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 73–84). World Association for Cooperative Education. Bartkus, K. R., & Stull, W. A. (1997). Some thoughts about research in cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 32, 7–16. Bates, L., Hayes, H., Walker, S., & Marchesi, K. (2018). From employability to employment: Professional skill development course in a bachelor program. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(4), 413–423. Bates, M. (2011). Work-integrated learning workloads: The realities and responsibilities Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 12(2), 111–124. Bayerlein, L., Dean, B. A., Perkiss, S., & Jeske, D. (2022). Using technology platforms for work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 239–248). Routledge. Bilgin, A. A., Rowe, A. D., & Clark, L. (2017). Academic workload implications of assessing student learning in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education (Special Issue), 18(2), 165–181. Billett, S., & Choy, S. (2011). Cooperative and work-integrated education as a pedagogy for lifelong learning. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 25–30). WACE. Bridgstock, R., Jackson, D., Lloyd, K., & Tofa, M. (2019). Social connectedness and graduate employability: Exploring the professional networks of graduates from business and creative industries. In R. Bridgstock & N. Tippett (Eds.), Higher education and the future of graduate employability: A Connectedness learning approach (pp. 70–89). Edward Elgar Publishing. Brodie, P., & Irving, K. (2007). Assessment in work-based learning: Investigating a pedagogical approach to enhance student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(1), 11–19. https://doi. org/10.1080/02602930600848218 Brooks, R., & Youngson, P. L. (2016). Undergraduate work placements: An analysis of the effects on career progression. Studies in Higher Education, 41(9), 1563–1578. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507 9.2014.988702 Campbell, M., Russell, L., McAllister, L., Smith, L., Tunny, R., Thomson, K., & Barrett, M. (2019). A framework to support assurance of institution-wide quality in work-integrated learning. Queensland University of Technology. https://research.qut.edu.au/wilquality/wp-content/uploads/sites/261/2019/12/FINALFRAMEWORK-DEC-2019.pdf

601

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti Cedercreutz, K., & Cates, C. (2011). Program assessment in cooperative and work-integrated education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (pp. 63–72). WACE. Cheng, M., Adekola, O., Albia, J., & Cai, S. (2021). Employability in higher education: A review of key stakeholders’ perspectives. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 16(1), 16–31. https://doi. org/10.1108/HEED-03-2021-0025 Clark, L. (2017). Implementing an institution-wide community-engaged learning program: The leadership and management challenge. In J. Sachs & L. Clark (Eds.), Learning through Community Engagement (pp. 133–152). Springer. Clark, L., Rowe, A., Cantori, A., Bilgin, A., & Mukuria, V. (2014). The power dynamics and politics of survey design: Measuring workload associated with teaching, administering and supporting work-­ integrated learning courses. Studies in Higher Education, 41(6), 1055–1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 3075079.2014.966071 Clark, M., McKague, M., McKay, S., & Ramsden, V. R. (2015). Deeper learning through service: Evaluation of an interprofessional community service-learning program for pharmacy and medicine students. Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice & Education, 5(1), 1–25. Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning: A guide to effective practice. Routledge. Cormier, L. A., & Drewery, D. W. (2017). Examining the effect of co-op non-employment and rejection sensitivity on subjective well-being. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 187(3), 213–224. Dean, B. A., & Campbell, M. (2020). Reshaping work-integrated learning in a post-COVID-19 world of work. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 355–364. Dean, B. A., Eady, M. J., Yanamandram, V., O'Donnell, N., Moroney, T., & Glover-Chambers, T. (2022). Leadership that supports an institutional approach to work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 203–214). Routledge. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 416–436). Sage. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21 Department for Business Innovation and Skills. (2015). Fulfilling our potential: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice. UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills. https://www. timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/breaking_news_files/green_paper.pdf Drewery, D. W., Cormier, L. A., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2019). Improving unmatched co-op students’ emotional wellbeing: Test of two brief interventions. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 43–53. Drewery, D. W., Pretti, T. J., & Barclay, S. (2016). Examining the effects of perceived relevance and work-related subjective wellbeing on individual performance for co-op students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(2), 119–134. Drysdale, M. T. B., & McBeath, M. (2014). Exploring hope, self-efficacy, procrastination, and study skills between cooperative and non-cooperative education students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 69–79. Drysdale, M. T. B., & McBeath, M. (2018). Motivation, self-efficacy and learning strategies of university students participating in work-integrated learning. Journal of Education and Work, 31(5), 478–488. Drysdale, M. T. B., Twyford, K., Glenn, B., & Callaghan, S. A. (2022). Work, resilience and wellbeing: The long game of work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 75–84). Routledge. Edgar, S., & Connaughton, J. (2014). Exploring the role and skill set of physiotherapy clinical educators in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 29–36. Emslie, M. (2011). Where’s WIL? Including work-integrated learning in descriptions of what it is that academics do. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 45(1), 34–44. Ferns, S. J., Dawson, V., & Howitt, C. (2022). Professional accreditation: A partnership proposition. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future. Routledge. Ferns, S. J., Kay, J., Hoskyn, K., Zegwaard, K. E., Johansson, K., & McRae, N. (2022). Introducing the global WIL Modules: Global connectivity for WIL practitioners. In T. J. Pretti, J. Fleming, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Refereed Proceedings of the 4th WACE International Research Symposium on Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education, 2022, Kanazawa Institute of Technology, Japan (pp. 47–53). WACE.

602

Future directions Ferns, S. J., & Moore, K. (2012). Assessing student outcomes in fieldwork placements: An overview of current practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(4), 207–224. Ferns, S. J., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2014). Critical assessment issues in work-integrated learning [special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(3), 179–188. Freudenberg, B., Brimble, M., & Cameron, C. (2011). WIL and generic skill development: The development of business students' generic skills through work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 12(2), 79–93. Gillett-Swan, J. K., & Grant-Smith, D. (2018). A framework for managing the impacts of work-integrated learning on student quality of life. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(2), 129–140. Grant-Smith, D., Gillett-Swan, J., & Chapman, R. (2017). WIL wellbeing: Exploring the impacts of unpaid practicum on student wellbeing. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. https://www. ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/GrantSmith_WIL.pdf Groenewald, T. (2004). Towards a definition for cooperative education. In R. K. Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative education: An international perspective of the theory, research and practice of work-integrated learning (pp. 17–25). World Association for Cooperative Education. Harrison, G., & Ip, R. (2013). Extending the terrain of inclusive education in the classroom to the field: International students on placement. Social Work Education, 32(2), 230–243. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Prudie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99–136. Hewitt, R. (2019). HEPI Policy Note 13. Measuring well-being in higher education. UK Higher Education Policy Institute. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Policy-Note-13-Paper-May2019-Measuring-well-being-in-higher-education-8-Pages-5.pdf Hicks, H., & Swain, P. (2007). Direct, facilitate, enable - Juxtaposition of the duty of care and duty of disclosure in social work field education. Social Work Education, 26(1), 235–252. Hora, M., & Chen, Z. (2020). Problematizing college internships: Exploring issues with access, program design and developmental outcomes. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(3), 235–252. Jackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842221 Jackson, D. (2017). Exploring the challenges experienced by international students during work-­integrated learning in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(3), 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188 791.2017.1298515 Jackson, D., & Greenwood, K. (2015). Enhancing work integrated learning outcomes for international students in Australia. Edith Cowan University. http://acen.edu.au/docs/enhancing-wil-international-studentsacen-research.pdf Jones, C. M., Green, J. P., & Higson, H. E. (2017). Do work placements improve final year academic performance or do high-calibre students choose to do work placements? Studies in Higher Education, 42, 976–992. Jovanovic, J., Fane, J., & Andrew, Y. (2018). Giving institutional voice to work-integrated learning in academic workloads. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(2), 93–109. Kaider, F., Hains-Wesson, R., & Young, K. (2017). Practical typology of authentic work-integrated learning activities and assessments [Special Issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 152–164. Kay, J., Ferns, S. J., Russell, L., & Smith, J. (2018). Expanding work-integrated learning (WIL) possibilities: Enhancing student employability through innovative WIL models. https://acen.edu.au/innovative-models/ wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ATN-Final-Report-Expanding-Work-Integrated-Learning-WILPossibilities-October-2018.pdf Kay, J., Ferns, S. J., Russo, A. M., Smith, J., & Younger, A. (2022). Innovation in work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in workintegrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 133–144). Routledge. Mackaway, J. (2019). Access and equity in work-integrated learning placements: A host organisation perspective [PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Australia]. Mackaway, J., & Chalkley, T. (2022). Student access and equity in work-integrated learning: A work in progress. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advanced in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 227–238). Routledge. Marlow, A., Saunders, C., & Mather, C. (2022). Evaluating work-integrated learning. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 121–130). Routledge.

603

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti Martin, A., & Rees, M. (2019). Student insights: The added value of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(2), 189–199. Martin, A. J., Rees, M., Fleming, J., Zegwaard, K. E., & Vaughan, K. (2019). Work-integrated learning gone full circle: How prior work placement experiences influenced workplace supervisors. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(3), 229–242. McBeath, M., Drysdale, M. T., & Bohn, N. (2018). Work-integrated learning and the importance of peer support and sense of belonging. Education + Training, 60(1), 39–53. McRae, N., & Johnston, N. (2016). The development of a proposed global work-integrated learning framework [special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 337–348. McRae, N., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2018). Work-integrated learning quality framework. University of Waterloo Canada. https://uwaterloo.ca/work-learn-institute/sites/ca.work-learn-institute/files/ uploads/files/wil_quality_framework_-_aaa_-_for_posting.pdf Muller, S., Zegwaard, K. E., & Ferrier-Kerr, H. (2021). Developing institutional-wide practice of work-­ integrated learning. In K. E. Zegwaard & K. Hoskyn (Eds.), Work-integrated learning New Zealand 2021 refereed conference proceedings (pp. 39–44). Work-Integrated Learning New Zealand. Neves, J., & Hillman, N. (2019). Student Academic Experience Survey. Higher Education Policy Institute and Higher Education Academy United Kingdom. New Zealand Government. (2021). Pastoral care of tertiary and international learners code of practice. Ministry of Education. https://enz.govt.nz/assets/Education-Pastoral-Care-of-Tertiary-andInternational-Learners-Code-of-Practice-2021.pdf Norton, A. (2021). Making student mental health a priority. UK Office for Students. https://www. officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/blog/making-student-mental-health-a-priority/ Nulton, K., Inman, J., & Pretti, T. J. (2022). Have we met? Assessing links between academic and work learning. In T. J. Pretti, J. Fleming, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Refereed proceedings of the 4th WACE international research symposium on cooperative and work-integrated education, 2022, Kanazawa Institute of Technology, Japan (pp. 85–89). WACE Inc. Oliver, B. (2015). Redefining graduate employability and work-integrated learning: Proposals for effective higher education in disrupted economies. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 6(1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2015vol6no1art573 Orrell, J. (2004). Work-integrated learning programmes: Management and educational quality. In R.  Carmichael (Ed.), Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2004 (pp. 1–4). AUQA Occasional Publication. Orrell, J. (2011). Good practice report: Work-integrated learning. Australian Leaning and Teaching Council. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/GPR_Work_Integrated_Learning_Orrell_2011.pdf Patrick, C.-J., & Kay, J. (2011). Establishing a new national network for cooperative education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 371–380). WACE. Patrick, C.-J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). The WIL [Work Integrated Learning] report: A national scoping study. The final report to the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279477734_The_WIL_Work_Integrated_Learning_ report_a_national_scoping_study_Final_Report Purdie, F., Ward, L., McAdie, T., Kind, N., & Drysdale, M. (2013). Are work-integrated learning (WIL) students better equipped psychologically for work post-graduation than their non-work-integrated learning peers? Some initial findings from a UK university. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14, 117–125. Reddan, G. (2013). To grade or not to grade: Student perceptions of the effects of grading a course in work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(4), 223–232. Rowe, A. D., Ferns, S. J., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2022). The future of work-integrated learning: Vision and insights. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Theories, practices and research in work-integrated learning in Australia: Enhancing employability capabilities for a sustainable future (pp. 251–268). Routledge. Rowe, A. D., Jackson, D., & Fleming, J. (2021). Exploring university student engagement and sense of belonging during work-integrated learning. Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice & Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2021.1914134 Rowe, A. D., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2022). Support for student learning in work-integrated learning: A holistic framework. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 96–106). Routledge.

604

Future directions Rowe, A. D., Winchester-Seeto, T., & Mackaway, J. (2012). That's not really WIL! Building a typology of WIL and related activities. In M. Campbell (Ed.), Collaborative education: Investing in the future Proceedings of the 2012 Australian collaborative education network (ACEN) national conference (pp. 246–252). Australian Collaborative Education Network. Rowe, A. D., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2017). Developing graduate employability skills and attributes: Curriculum enhancement through work-integrated learning [Special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 87–99. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. https://doi. org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 Sachs, J., Rowe, A. D., & Wilson, M. (2017). Good practice report – WIL. Report undertaken for the Office of Learning and Teaching. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/WIL_Report.pdf Seaton, M., Parker, P., Marsh, H., Craven, R. G., & Yeung, A. S. (2014). The reciprocal relations between self-concept, motivation and achievement: Juxtaposing academic self-concept and achievement goal orientations for mathematics success. Educational Psychology, 34(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 1443410.2013.825232 Smith, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: A comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360. 2011.558072 Smith, C., Ferns, S. J., & Russell, L. (2022). A quality framework for developing and assuring high-quality work-integrated learning curricula. In S. J. Ferns, A. D. Rowe, & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), Advances in  research, theory and practice in work-integrated learning: Enhancing employability for a sustainable future (pp. 107–120). Routledge. Smith, C., Ferns, S. J., Russell, L., & Cretchley, P. (2014). The impact of work integrated learning on student work-readiness. Office for Learning and Teaching Australia. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/337518 Sovilla, E. S., & Varty, J. W. (2011). Cooperative and work-integrated education in the US, past and present: Some lessons learned. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative and work-integrated education: International perspectives of theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–15). WACE. Stirling, A., Milne, A., Taylor, A., & Goldman, A. (2021). Understanding barriers to engagement in an unpaid field placement: Applying the transtheoretical stages of behavior change model. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(3), 271–286. Tanaka, Y., & Carlson, K. (2012). An international comparison of the effect of work-integrated learning on academic performance: A statistical evaluation of WIL in Japan and Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(2), 77–88. Van Winkle, L. J., Schwartz, B. D., Horst, A., & Michels, N. (2018). An evidence-based model program to foster empathy, mitigate bias, and promote wellbeing through critical reflection on service-learning by public health/health administration and practitioner student teams. The Journal of Health Administration Education, 35(4), 475–490. Waxman, H. C., Gray, J. P., & Padron, Y. N. (2003). Review of research on educational resilience. Research report. Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. Wilson, R. L. (1988). Research in cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 24(2-3), 77–89. Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). Quality and standards for work integrated learning. Australian Government Department of Education and Training. https://www.acds.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/WinchesterSeeto-Literature-Review-Quality-and-Standards.pdf Winchester-Seeto, T., & Rowe, A. D. (2017). Assessment strategies for new learning. In J. Sachs & L. Clark (Eds.), Learning through community engagement: Vision and practice in higher education (pp. 185–197). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0999-0_12 Wood, Y. I., Zegwaard, K. E., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2020). Conventional, remote, virtual and simulated work-integrated learning: A meta-analysis of existing practice. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 331–354. Zegwaard, K. E. (2012). Publishing cooperative and work-integrated education literature: The AsiaPacific Journal of Cooperative Education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(4), 181–193. Zegwaard, K. E. (2015). Building an excellent foundation for research: Challenges and current research needs [special issue]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(2), 89–99. Zegwaard, K. E., & Coll, R. K. (2011). Exploring some current issues for cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 45(2), 8–15.

605

Karsten E. Zegwaard and T. Judene Pretti Zegwaard, K. E., & Hoskyn, K. (2015). A review of trends in research methods in cooperative education. In K. E. Zegwaard (Ed.), New Zealand association for cooperative education 2015 conference proceedings (pp. 59–62). New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education. Zegwaard, K. E., Johansson, K., Kay, J., McRae, N., Ferns, S. J., & Hoskyn, K. (2019). Professional development needs in the international work-integrated learning community [Special issue]. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(2), 201–217. Zegwaard, K. E., & McCurdy, S. (2014). The influence of work-integrated learning on motivation to undertake graduate studies Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 13–28. Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2020). Responding to an international crisis: The adaptability of the practice of work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(4), 317–330. Zegwaard, K. E., & Rowe, A. D. (2019). Research-informed curriculum and advancing innovative practices in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(4), 323–334.

606

INDEX

Pages in italics refer figures, pages in bold refer tables, and pages followed by n refer notes. 2SLGBTQIA+ see LGBTQ2SIA+ 3P model 343 AAA* Quality WIL framework see WorkIntegrated Learning Quality Framework AAA* academic credit 18, 20, 25, 156, 177, 190, 275, 556 academic institution see institution academic performance 97, 537, 596 access 8, 95, 120, 123, 195, 234, 289, 328, 347, 376–377, 510–530, 557, 596–597; see also diversity; equity; inclusion accessibility 120, 123, 277, 517–522, 529 accommodation 200, 293, 301, 419, 522–524, 548 accreditation 7, 18, 37, 313, 344, 349–350, 358, 361–377, 585, 596; see also CEWIL, accreditation by Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology 18 Accreditation Council 18, 150, 367–368, 371, 374–375, 585 active learners 101 Activity Theory 382 administrative support 25 Aga Khan University 303 agency 248, 382–384, 535–537; government 39, 213; student 83, 102–103, 193, 194, 198, 391, 449, 462, 465, 542 agent 76, 568 agentic 3, 83, 104, 345 agreements 197, 209, 292, 298, 358, 397, 414–415, 420–422, 554–556

altruistic 114–115, 116, 119 American Society for Engineering Education 14 AmeriCorps 24 Antioch College 16, 148 applied research (as a model of WIL) 14, 140–141, 330, 382 apprentice 534, 539–540 apprenticeship 13, 16, 148, 207–215, 498; graduate 212–213; levy 213 Ara Institute of Canterbury 169 artificial intelligence (AI) 368, 493 ASET 131, 579, 586 Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education (APJCE) 587 assessing readiness 474, 476–477 assessment 35, 154, 165, 168–170, 194–195, 198, 199–200, 318, 329, 357–358, 386, 473–497, 525–527, 571–572; authentic 168, 194, 473–478, 483, 593, 599; co- 300; formative 78, 478; by industry 122; preparing for 8–9; program 474, 481, 527; risk 414, 446; safety 298; self- 104, 265, 541; summative 78, 157, 168–170, 481; supporting wellbeing 541–543; sustainable 478 asset-based approach 513 Association for Experiential Education 22 Association of Cooperative Colleges 14 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) 313, 344 Auckland University of Technology (AUT) 196, 200 augmented reality 257, 258, 260, 264, 266; see also online WIL; virtual reality

607

Index Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN) 31, 93, 191, 200, 273, 291, 309–310, 366, 579–590 Australian Qualifications Framework 365 Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank 197 Australian Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) 352 Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) 352 Ausubel, David 54 authentic assessment see assessment authentic tasks 32, 41, 51, 170, 358, 462, 467 authenticity 6, 33, 35–37, 135–136, 348, 363–364, 483, 595; simulation 257, 264, 278 authority 82; see also social hierarchy autonomy 61, 66, 104, 194, 282–283, 535–537 Avani Bio Energy 567 Bachelor of Advanced Science 197 Bachelor of Arts 199, 443 Bachelor of Business 313–314 Bachelor of Business Administration 330 Bachelor of Commerce 275, 313–314 Bachelor of Early Childhood Education 330 Bachelor of Engineering 35 Bachelor of International Hospitality Management 200 Bachelor of Science 199, 315, 443 Bachelor of Sport and Recreation 196 Bachelor of Tourism 330 Bachelor of Visual Communication and Design 330 Baden-Wuerttemberg Co-operative State University 131 Bandura 4, 464 barriers 100, 122, 236, 328, 377, 416, 447, 465, 475, 511–513, 596; financial 515–516; geographic 275; language 293, 452; legislative 153; social capital 271; supporting to overcome 519, 523–526; systematic 8, 510, 515; workrelated 389 behaviorism 53–54, 69 benefits 5; of accreditation 369, 372; of being paid 152; beyond employability 596; for host organization 113–126, 179, 326–327, 399, 567; for institution 131–142; of national associations 581, 584; of non-placement WIL 246–249; multiple experiences 151–152; of online WIL 278–282; for student 29, 93–107, 178–179, 192, 453 Berufsakademien 214 bias 94, 124, 373, 476, 513–514, 523, 571 BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of color) 510–512, 523 bisexual 510, 512

Blackboard 318 block work placements 163–171; see also work placement Boundary crossing 494 boundary-spanning 8, 494–495, 498 Campus Compact 24 Canadian Association for Co-operative Education (CAFCE) 349–350, 367–368, 579–580 Canadian Human Rights Act 1985 (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6) 553 Canada Labour Code (R.S.C, 1985, c. L-2) 553 Canterbury Dedicated Education Unit 169 capabilities 50, 63, 95–96, 138, 194–195, 273; cultural 402; digital 171, 184; ethical 361; graduate 35, 96–104; personal 201; professional 66, 196, 201; research 140; see also competencies; skills Capilano College 330 Capilano University (CapU) 329–338 capital 95–104; cultural 95, 100–101, 523; graduate 96–104, 106; human 94–96, 97–100; identity 96; intellectual 123; psychological 96, 100; social 38, 95–96, 100, 315, 503, 596 career education 382–392 Career fair 140, 520 career: development 32, 94, 100, 114, 157, 266, 388, 447–451, 454; direction 37; selfmanagement 94, 100 CareerHub 314 careers day/event 183 caregiving responsibilities 502, 511 carer responsibilities 192, 502, 511; see also family responsibilities centralization 326, 337, 594 centralized 125, 155–156, 325–338, 385, 391, 423, 593–594 challenges 314–315, 318–320; of accreditation 376–377; for apprenticeships 215; for assessment 475, 487; for block placements 167–168; for cooperative education 152–154; global 563–574; for host organizations 119–124; managing WIL 327–329; for national associations 588–590; for nonplacement WIL 249; for online WIL 282–283; for preparation 182; for quality 345–346; for sandwich placements 180; with stakeholders 399 Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology 169 Cincinnati Plan, The 16 citizenship: as a member of a community 24, 37, 101, 116, 231, 596; global 3, 233, 289; national 300, 521 clinic 191, 246, 247

608

Index clinical placement 14, 33, 101, 103, 169–170, 259, 265, 420, 486–487 co-design 38, 238, 249, 264, 373, 402, 486; see also assessment, co-design cognition 52, 54, 66, 564; see also metacognition; situated cognition cognitive development theory 4 Cognitive Load Theory 256 cognitive: alignment 486; load 237, 261, 264; strategies 58–59, 62, 66; engagement 263 collaboration 134, 139, 141, 185, 213, 316, 336, 371, 373, 495, 574, 582, 589; digital 284; external 423–424; global 563, 579, 581; internal 420; research 566, 586, 590; stakeholder 38 collectivism 432 Colleges of Advanced Technology (CATs) 177 commissioned work (as a model of WIL) 246 communication 120, 122, 334, 358, 400, 407 community 5, 37, 98–103, 223, 225, 230–238, 249, 363, 383, 396–397, 401–405, 512; academic 139, 343, 382; based projects 29, 37, 330; education 23; engagement 139–141, 191; of entrepreneurs 221; Indigenous 336; learning 465, 514; partners 333–334, 353, 358, 383, 516; of practice 4, 37, 249, 266, 319, 375, 572; professional 31; research 467, 586; university 338, 389–390; WIL 4, 377, 585–586, 588, 598–599 community college 18, 22, 24 Community College National Center for Community Engagement 24 community of practice see community community project 37, 246, 249 community service 230 competencies 157, 249, 272, 294–295, 493–495, 571–572; see also capabilities; skills concluding a partnership 408–409; see also customer relationship management confidence 80, 102–103, 104, 106, 122, 136–137, 195–198, 258, 262–263, 495, 497; lack of 106, 121, 166, 282, 467, 536; self- 231, 295, 448, 467–468, 535, 541, 597; across stakeholders 425; see also self-efficacy Confucianism 432 Co-NNECTIONS Placement Program (CONX) 195–196 constructive alignment 261, 363, 473, 474, 482–483, 485 constructivism 54–55, 58–59, 60–62, 65, 255 consultation 24, 196, 246–247, 257, 275, 316, 332–333, 338, 401–402, 405 consulting 140, 405; as a model of WIL 95–96, 98, 246, 247, 317 contextualization 224, 436, 449–450

Co-operative and Experiential Education (CEE) unit 386, 387 cooperative and work-integrated education (CWIE) 149, 353, 567, 578, 584 cooperative education 13–22, 30, 97–103, 147–158, 349, 388, 579–580, 585 Cooperative Education and Internship Association (CEIA) 15, 18, 131, 579 Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL) 4,14, 31, 131, 199, 245, 349–351, 579–580, 586–588; accreditation by 149, 291, 367–368, 369, 370–372, 383, 585 Cooperative Education Association (CEA) 15, 579 Cooperative Education Division 14 corporate engagement 140 corporate social responsibilities 119 Corporation for National and Community Service Trust 24 COVID-19 31, 134–135, 181, 237, 272, 277, 336–337, 505–506, 578, 588–589; post 135, 171, 299 creative studio 246, 247 cross-cultural 285, 315, 549, 563; see also intercultural cultural 166, 171, 563–574, 598; acceptance 215; adjustment 297; awareness 178, 235, 289, 399, 452; barriers 447; capital 95, 100–101, 104, 314, 402, 523; change 317–318, 321; climate 78; competence 229, 284, 294–295, 315, 523–524, 564; context 7, 431–433, 564; differences 290, 293–295; diversity 124, 249; effectiveness 564; events 519; groups 124; identity 103, 235, 518; inter 140, 231–232, 295, 376; knowledge 95; norms 14, 294, 435; relevance 514–515; safety 376, 404; sensitive 301 cultural intelligence (CQ) 294, 564, 566, 568–572, 574 curricular integration 460 curriculum 132–133, 194–195, 213; co-designing 38; content 24; criteria 478; delivery 166; design 30, 57, 353, 355, 357–358, 363; development 168; discipline centered 31, 131, 352; embedded 348; improvement 26; inclusive 514; indigenous perspectives 234–235; integrating with 153–154, 346; intentionally within 35; outside the 466–467; parallel with 464–465; service learning in 231–232; WIL 31–33, 272, 311, 342, 599 Curtin University 197, 480 customer relationship management 125, 407–408, 594 Deakin University 273 debriefing 40, 66, 139, 194, 201, 262, 348, 448

609

Index decentralized 312, 326–327, 394 decolonization 514, 529 decolonizing 234; see also indigenizing dedicated education unit (DEU) 166, 169–170 deep disciplinary knowledge 494–495 deep systems knowledge 494–495 deep versus surface processing 65–66 defining elements 31–32, 33–38, 39, 245, 593 definition: of accreditation 362; of agency 535; of context 429; of cooperative education 15–16, 149–151; of culture 568–569; of employability 463; of entrepreneurship WIL (EWIL) 222–223; of non-placement WIL 245; of organizational socialization 75; of risk 405; of a sandwich degree 177; of service learning 230; of short-term and part-time placements 191–192; of a stakeholder 396–398; of T-shaped professional 494–496; of wellbeing 534; of WIL 29–42, 191, 352; of workintegrated learning (WIL) 29–48 degree attainment 98 Dewey, John 14, 23, 30, 34, 136, 538 digital technology 165, 504 disabilities 123, 236–237, 347, 511–512, 522–523, 525 disability 124, 236–237, 417, 422, 520, 522 discipline-related skills and knowledge 98, 106 discrimination 120, 124, 236, 414–415, 417, 419, 512, 524–525, 552 disruption 80, 272, 493, 504, 578–579, 588 disruptive future 492–506 distributed leadership 363 diverse students 124, 192, 202, 245, 315, 447–448, 469 diversity 123–124, 195, 238, 278, 376, 399, 510–530, 567–568; see also access; equity; inclusion domains of practice 346, 349, 354–356 Drexel University 133, 138, 140–141 Dreyfus’s five stage model of skill acquisition 255 dual degree (German) 213–215 Dual Hochschule Baden-Wuerttemberg 151 due diligence 291–292, 421 duration (of placement) 29, 37, 105, 123, 133, 151, 165, 177–179, 190–192, 293, 554 East-West 290, 293–294 economic: benefit 135; climate 125; conditions 14, 25; context 214, 429–434; differences 7; disruption 493; downturns 15; efficacy 73; impact 115, 116; pressure 344; productivity 114, 156, 565; recession 148, 500; systems 429 ecosystem (as a managed WIL environment) 5, 381–392, 567, 573 Edge Project, The 222

EDIA (equity, diversity, inclusion and access) see access, equity, diversity, inclusion Edinburgh Napier University 210 Education Code, France (Code de l’education) 555–556 educational approach 4, 29–30, 34–39, 550; see also pedagogy educational institution see institution educational theory 50–51, 54, 56–65, 255 educational thinking 49–70 embedded: with codes of conduct 166; with cultural perspectives 239; in the curriculum 79, 94–95, 98–100, 194–195, 196–197, 335, 348, 464; in the degree 105, 357; in the experience 32; in national context 428, 435; in the organization/workplace 75, 481; see also immersive emotional aspects 445, 447–448 employability 38, 93–96, 97–103, 105, 132–135, 183, 194, 463–464, 569 employer perspectives 567 employers 37–38, 79, 113–126, 138–139, 154–155, 212–214, 518–519, 567–568; see also external stakeholder; host organization Employment Relations Act 2000 (New Zealand) 554 enactivism 387 enculturation 4, 37, 194 Engeström 4, 382 enterprise 182, 185, 202, 222, 246, 317, 430; see also incubator; start-up Enterprise Capability Framework 222 enterprise risk management (ERM) 414 entrepreneurial: experiences 21; background 23; skills 138, 243, 316, 494; as a model of WIL 218–225, 246; see also innovation entrepreneurship 14, 185, 218–225, 367, 382, 434 e-portfolio see portfolio equity 120, 123–124, 202, 277, 328, 376, 447, 510–530, 596–597; see also access; diversity; inclusion equity-deserving 389, 510–521, 525–528, 596 ethical: aware 37; behaviors 534; consideration 300–303; dilemmas 166, 451, 556–557; issues 446, 453; knowledge 171; literacy 423, 445; outcomes 232; partnership 292; protocols 462, 466; risk 298, 414, 416, 417, 424 ethics 300, 303, 557; code of 63, 166 ethnicity 179, 435; see also race evaluation 298, 329; program 105, 156–157, 265, 317, 321, 335–336, 358, 513, 526–528; standards 293–294; by the student 423; work performance 35, 152, 155, 199, 223, 477; see also assessment evaluative judgement 454

610

Index evidencing capabilities 194, 198 Expansive Restrictive Framework 210 experiential learning 14, 34, 67, 95, 183, 219, 255 experiential learning theory 95, 98, 255 exploitation 120, 167, 329, 418, 420, 435, 554, 557 exploitative 417, 549, 553–557 external stakeholders 5, 36–37, 132, 254, 256–257, 397, 402, 475; influence 482; see also employer; host organization extracurricular 32, 35, 39, 41–42, 182, 295 EY Global Limited 276–277 Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. (1938) 553 Fair Trade Learning Framework 232 Fair Work Act (2009) 311, 446, 554 family responsibilities 179, 289, 597; see also caregiving responsibilities; carer responsibilities federal funding 7, 17–20, 25–26, 148, 595 feedback 105, 120, 168, 198, 246, 262, 265, 524; as part of assessment 473–488; literacy 479–481, 487; seeking 76, 83; workplace to institution 336, 353; workplace to student 38, 121, 166, 194, 450 field education 163–164 field placement 14, 29, 199 field trips 32, 40 fieldwork 6, 311–312 financial barriers 515–516; see also unpaid financial risk see risk first generation 511–512, 515, 521, 523–524 First Peoples 233–236; see also Indigenous People framework: cultural intelligence 294; for applying EDIA 512–528; ethical 298; external stakeholder relationship management 409–410; First Peoples’ theoretical 234; graduate capital 93; human rights 233; quality 7, 105, 193, 194–195, 342–358, 363–364, 369–377; risk management 295, 414, 420; socialization 81; theoretical 50, 95–96, 464; wellbeing 533–544 Future of Jobs Report 237, 272 Future-Ready Talent Framework (FRTF) 157, 158, 310, 386, 387, 571, 573 gay see LGBTQ2SIA+ Global Affairs Canada 291 Global Association for Cooperative and WorkIntegrated Education (GACWIE) 581 Global Human Capital Index 376 Global North 303 Global South 303 Global WIL 354, 383, 586, 589 global: convergence 429, 436; divergence 429 goal setting 14, 26, 265, 384, 483, 542

good practice 7, 34, 38, 125, 303, 326, 347, 598–600; see also program design governance 208, 357, 401, 433, 579–581, 589 government 5, 14, 17–18, 25–26, 37–38, 247, 297, 299–300, 349, 351, 355, 566, 584; funded 116, 123, 171, 244, 291, 419, 588; policies 133, 148–149, 180, 344, 356; support 153, 208, 214, 215, 310, 371–372 grade point average (GPA) 97, 313, 417, 512, 515 graduate capitals model 93–94, 95, 106 Griffith University 200, 232, 239 hack-a-thon 246 harassment 388, 414–415, 417, 422, 446, 512, 524–525, 552 hazard 413–414, 417, 424; see also risk Health and Morals of Apprentice Act 1802 208 health and safety 40, 329, 357, 413–418, 422–423, 443, 446, 524–525, 552–553; see also risk Higher Education Act 17–18, 584 Higher Education Standards Framework 365 history: of apprenticeships 207–209; of cooperative education 15–19, 147–148; of internships 21–23; lessons learnt from 25–27; of sandwich degrees 4, 30, 177; of service learning 23–25; of WIL 4, 13–27, 30–31, 147, 163; see also work-integrated learning origins holistic: framework 8, 370, 444; learning 157, 255, 465, 485, 487 host organizations 167–168, 171, 351; benefits for 113–126; challenges for 119–124; concluding a relationship 408–409; input 168; international 291–293; online 273; recruiting of 313, 328–329; risk to 414–425; see also employer; external stakeholder human resource management (HRM) 284, 434–435 human rights 233, 288, 552–553 Human Rights Act (1993) 552 identity 95–96, 98, 100–103, 231, 465, 501–502, 511, 514, 523; cultural 235, 518; development 599; graduate 137; individual 76; preprofessional 94, 249; professional 37, 94–95, 101, 103, 231, 265, 535, 551–552; suppression of 124 ikigai 384 immersive 78, 80, 95, 163–165, 167, 169, 184, 191, 257, 261, 264; see also embedded immigration 290, 299–300; see also visa inclusion 79, 120, 123, 234, 510–530, 567; see also access; equity; diversity inclusivity 195, 202, 294, 376, 518 incubator 30, 98, 220, 224, 246, 388, 434; see also enterprise; start-ups

611

Index indigenizing 234; see also decolonizing Indigenous People 124, 529, 573; see also First Peoples Indigenous: approaches 163; communities 521; community partners 336; knowledge 134–136, 514; mentorship 520; organizations 166; perspectives 598; students 195–196, 303, 347, 416, 455, 512, 525; values 167 individualism 432 induction 80, 169–170, 281, 355, 419–422, 446, 538, 539–541 Industry 4.0 272, 285 industry engagement 139, 198, 320 industry projects 243 innovation: as in development and entrepreneurship 36, 132, 138–139, 142, 221, 333, 391, 566; educational 23, 25; of educational practice 277, 327, 363, 369, 370, 374–377, 584; see also entrepreneurial Institut de Préparation à l’Administration et à la Gestion (IPAG) 150 institution 7, 39, 125, 131–142, 292, 325–339, 351, 358, 359; benefit for 5, 119, 131–142; as an ecosystem 391; management of WIL 19–20, 25–26, 122, 194–195, 208, 301; risk 295–296, 297, 298, 414–425 institutional requirements 105, 311, 353, 354, 357–358, 364, 595 instrumental mentoring 460–470 insurance 120, 123, 290, 296, 297–298, 299, 301, 420, 421–424, 446 integrating: into curriculum 388; with learning 23, 30, 210, 212, 498–500; practical with studies 15, 147, 184; with practice 33; with theory 34–35, 166; with work 207, 498–500 intellectual property (IP) 123, 415, 420–422, 445, 446 intercultural 284, 301, 563–574; communication 140; competency 294–295, 524; effectiveness 230–231; understanding 232, 376; see also cross-cultural; culture interdisciplinary: awareness 494; placements 171, 195–196, 197–198; practice 6–7; project 200; research 140–141; teams 222, 225, 317; understanding 495; see also multidisciplinary international 180–181, 232, 582–583; association 31, 131; placements 150–151, 284, 313; regulations 420; research 586–587; students 97–103, 106, 115, 124, 133, 155, 181–183, 314–315, 320, 416, 512; WIL 37, 289–304, 310–311, 451–452, 566–567; see also overseas International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL) 19, 23, 579, 594 International Research Symposium 578, 579, 594

International Training Centre for Authorities and Leaders (CIFAL) 573 internship 13–16, 21–23, 81–82, 97–103, 105, 171, 177, 200, 219–222, 231–238, 430, 549; international 572; online/virtual 271–285, 303; pre- 461–462, 463–470; see also block work placements; cooperative education; practicum; sandwich degrees; work placement inter-organizational relationship theory 114 interprofessional skills 463–467 intersectionality 511 Iowa State University 247 isolation 133, 284; feeling 124, 447; caused by online placement 282–283, 296 job crafting 493–494 job satisfaction see satisfaction Journal of Cooperative Education 19 Kolb 5, 30, 34, 67, 95, 98, 136, 209, 255, 387 KOREATEACH 151 labor rights 552, 553–555 learner engagement 263–264, 448, 479 learning ecosystems see ecosystem learning theories 34, 49–70, 151 legal 120, 123, 292, 298, 311, 329, 413–425, 549, 552–556; see also health and safety; risk Lehigh University 147 lesbian see LGBTQ2SIA+ letter of collaboration 292 LGBTQ see LGBTQ2SIA+ LGBTQ2SIA+ 510–512, 517, 525, 529, 530n2 life preparation 446 lifelong learning 152, 382, 390–391, 484, 537 lived experience 212, 238, 264, 511, 517 longitudinal educational outcomes (LEO) 179 Lyons, Edward H. 17 Macquarie University 150 Mahara 197 Massey University 247 Masters of Business Administration 181–182 mātauranga Māori 166 maturity: student 132, 135–137; third-party provider 293; of WIL 293–294 meaning making 194, 387, 475 meaningful 7, 32, 33–34, 36–37, 39–41, 194, 245, 293, 483–487, 550 memorandum of understanding (MoU) 294 mental health 106, 120, 124, 238, 296, 297, 446, 447–448, 453, 533–544, 597–598; see also wellbeing Mental Health Charter 533

612

Index mentoring 121, 423, 460–470, 484, 551; see also supervision Mesa Community College 24 metacognition 55–56, 59–62, 66–67, 69, 450, 483, 537–538, 564 Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 25 Michigan State University 499 microaggressions 512, 519 models of work-integrated learning 5–6 Mohawk College 199 Moodle 334 motivation (as a feeling) 8, 74, 98, 103, 114, 518, 521–522, 536–537, 574, 596, 597 multidisciplinary 200, 232, 246, 265; see also interdisciplinary multiple experiences 151–152, 475, 481

444, 451; placement 124–125; profiles 572; projects 98; remotely 39; seminars 444; service learning 237–239; WIL 106, 271–285, 588, 598; see also augmented reality; remote; virtual reality on-the-job training 207, 209, 431 ORBIS 334, 335, 336 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 215, 310, 434, 535, 565–566 organizational context 74, 78, 165, 433 organizational socialization 75–77, 79, 81, 83–84; dimensions 81 organizational theory 73–85 outreach 232, 332, 334–335, 336, 511, 513, 520–522, 529 overseas 181, 275; see also international

National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) 83, 139, 271 national associations 4, 31, 131, 150, 310, 377, 424, 578–590; see also professional bodies National Commission for Co-operative Education (NCCE) 15, 17, 30 National Council for Industry and Commerce 177 National CWIE Day 584 National Graduates Survey 244 National Minimum Wage Regulations (2015) UK 554 National Skills Recognition system 431 National Society for Experiential Education 22 natural science practicum 232 neophyte 75, 77, 78 network of networks 579, 581, 584 New Colombo Plan 299, 567 New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education (NZACE) 15, 579–580 newcomer 4, 74–80, 83 news media 292, 549, 560 non-placement WIL 30–31, 113, 243–251, 548, 593 non-remuneration see remuneration Northeastern University 16, 17, 141, 148–149 North-South 290, 303 not-for-profits (NGOs) 232, 233 noticing 58–64, 68, 450–451, 454 Nursing Council of New Zealand 170

paid 15, 22, 113, 115, 150, 152–153, 156, 311, 328, 415, 515–516, 548–560; see also payment; remuneration; salary partners see external stakeholders, host organizations partnerships see external stakeholders, host organizations part-time placements 18, 113, 136, 152, 163, 179, 190–203, 207, 271, 558 payment 115, 152, 237, 311, 548–560; see also paid; remuneration; salary Peace Corps 24 PEAR (pedagogy, experience, assessment and reflection) 294, 382–383, 385–387, 565, 567, 585 Pearson Business School 347, 538 Pearson College 544 pedagogy 95–96, 191, 218–219, 221–222, 362, 383, 385–386, 568–569, 593; see also educational approach performances (as a model of WIL) 246, 247, 479 peripheral participation 4 permits 291, 299–300, 372, 376, 416, 452 perseverance 497, 535 personality 168, 179, 399, 453 personalized learning 194, 198, 201, 265 Piaget 30 placement see work placement police check 446 policy 153, 343–344, 352, 418, 422, 431, 510, 584, 599; government 180–181; requirements 6, 446; WIL 133, 309–310, 318, 327 political systems 429 portfolio 35, 167, 255, 443, 474, 475, 484; e171, 197, 247, 275; see also assessment positionality 468, 511, 514, 516, 528

OCAD University 199 off-the-job training 209, 213 Okanagan College 368, 511 online 200, 243–244; activities 41; courses 155, 318, 443; delivery 132, 157, 318, 515; events 588–589; internship 132, 271–285; modules

613

Index positive uncertainty 384 postgraduate placement 181–184 power distance 83, 432 practice clinics 246 practicum 6, 51, 259, 335, 443 pre-internship see internship prejudice 511 preparation 8–9, 40, 348, 357, 441–455, 460–470, 476–477, 522–525 presentation 461–462; as assessment 220, 470, 475; poster 200; self- 94, 197; see also assessment problem-based learning (PBL) 60–61, 64, 65, 257, 311, 317, 363 Productivity Standards Board 431 professional accreditation see accreditation professional association roles 272–273; see also national associations professional behaviors 100, 445–446, 475 professional bodies 37, 164–165, 357, 364, 367, 370, 416; see also accreditation; national associations; regulatory body professional capabilities see capabilities, skills professional development: for external partners 140–141, 519; module 182, 387–388; for staff 310, 329, 332, 358, 374, 383, 424, 579, 581, 585–586, 598–599; for student 39, 280, 290, 295, 353 professional identity see identity professional network 100, 104, 117, 133, 195, 295, 503–504; see also social network professional requirement 164, 312 program design 302, 384, 513–519, 597, 598–599; see also good practice program evaluation 156–157, 513, 526–528; see also assessment; programmatic assessment program location 20 programmatic assessment 481–482; see also assessment; program evaluation Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 565 promotion: within employment 119, 434, 506, 512; within media 404; of WIL 125, 405, 511, 513, 520–525, 584 pronouns 514, 519, 521, 529; see also inclusion purpose clarification 382, 384, 390 purposeful 31, 33–34, 36, 39, 41, 220, 245, 382, 390, 478, 599 Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) 177, 280 Quality Assurance Framework 366 Quality Code for Higher Education 416 quality council 351, 585 quality dimensions 370, 441, 595; see also quality WIL

quality domains 353, 357–358, 363–364; see also quality WIL Quality Improvement Council 349–350, 351 quality standards 350, 356, 365, 371, 585 quality WIL 7, 105, 192–193, 194–195, 317–318, 342–358, 363–364, 565, 585–586, 595–596; see also accreditation; framework; good practice; Work-Integrated Learning Quality Framework AAA* quality: indication of learning 58–61; online internships 272–275 Queen Elizabeth Scholars Program 568 race 510–512, 514, 522; see also ethnicity recession see economic reciprocity 113, 126, 132–133, 230, 353, 368, 373, 402, 556; non- 303 recontextualization 449–450 recruitment 116, 117–118, 121, 140, 155, 461 reflection 40, 58–64, 136, 194–195, 248, 311, 346, 348, 448–449, 451, 453–454, 571–572; in action 68; on action 67–68; as assessment 199–200, 201, 247; four domains of 390; linked to metacognition 537–533; self105, 134, 302, 387, 467; skill development 541–542; tool 479–481 reflective tasks 474, 475 reflexivity 301, 464 regulatory body 163–164, 171–172, 415, 420, 558; see also professional bodies remediation 256, 260 remote learning 284, 413 remote WIL 133–134, 139, 246, 598; see also augmented reality; online; virtual reality remuneration 123, 136, 150, 167, 214, 293, 298, 345, 369, 419, 516, 548–560; alternative 555–556; see also paid; payment; salary report (as assessment) 35, 40, 67, 157, 197, 200, 220, 238, 291, 444, 475, 540 reputation: company 292; host organization 114; institution 5, 132–133, 135, 302, 559; risk 115, 123, 413–414, 417–418, 424 resilience 8, 96, 182, 184, 203, 237, 248, 295, 384, 536, 583 resourcing 105, 121, 171, 243, 319–321, 358, 371, 418, 595, 598–600 responsibilities 195, 447; defining 123, 167, 421, 446, 461; of external/host stakeholder 38, 125, 422; of institution 125, 299; social 101, 114, 116, 119, 140, 186; see also risk restricted budgets 244, 248 retention 25, 77, 81, 83–84, 97–98, 116, 186 rich descriptions 484, 486 risk 413–425; assessment 446; part of authenticity and learning 36, 495, 497; legal 123; managing

614

Index 120, 125, 293, 295–296, 297–298, 311, 329, 357–358, 599–600; reputational 115, 123, 413–414, 417–418, 424; as part of stakeholder relationships 396, 405–407, 406; see also hazard; health and safety; responsibility RMIT University 200, 273 Rochester Institute of Technology 17 role play 41, 257, 261–262, 448, 452 Rolfe’s reflective model 278 safe container for learning 484, 487 salary 123, 135, 151, 154, 178–179, 391, 548, 555; see also paid; payment; remuneration sandwich degrees 4, 30, 176–186 Sandwich Education Plan 14, 30 Saskatchewan Polytechnic 199 satisfaction: career 103, 266, 501; job 77–78, 83, 154, 178, 282, 502; student 84, 137–138, 224, 314, 317; with supervision 166 scaffolding 66, 70, 105, 194–195, 201, 255, 442, 462, 487 Schneider, Herman 4, 14–16, 30, 147–148, 176 Schon 5, 34, 51, 67–69, 538 SDG see United Nations Sustainable Development Goals self-assessment see assessment self-awareness 29, 94, 99–100, 537, 541, 564 self-confidence see confidence Self-Determination Theory 263, 464, 536, 598 self-direction 132, 382, 384, 597 self-efficacy 77, 83–84, 99, 102–103, 237, 258–259, 448, 535, 536–537; see also confidence self-esteem 121, 536; see also confidence self-judgement 535 self-regulated learning 58–62, 67, 464–465 sense of belonging 84, 103, 124, 194, 461–462, 465, 539, 543, 596 service learning 13, 23–27, 37, 97–103, 186, 229–239, 553 sexual orientation 511, 522, 568; see also LGBTQ2SIA+ shadowing 32, 40–41, 62, 67, 203, 352, 503 Shanghai University of Engineering Science 150 short-term work placements see work placements simulated patients 258–260, 264, 265, 480 simulation 41, 95, 171, 181, 248, 254–266, 311, 452–454, 477–478 situated cognition 51, 55, 62–63 situated learning 4, 483 skills 98–102, 137, 185, 316–317, 445, 449–450, 463, 468, 475, 541–542; shortage 180–181; see also capabilities; competencies Skinner, B.F. 53 small and medium enterprises (SME) 430–431

SmartTraveller 291 social bonds 283 social capital see capital social cognitive career theory (SCCT) 464, 468 social connectedness 94, 100, 103 social hierarchy 432; see also authority social justice 123, 230, 238, 568 social learning 4, 83, 443, 464 social media 123, 212, 283, 333, 334, 418, 525, 540 social network 82, 273, 399, 433; see also professional network social responsibility 101, 114, 140, 141, 186, 292, 567 social responsibility see responsibility social-cultural context 431–432 socialization see organizational socialization Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education 14, 16 sociocultural 56, 118, 120 socioculturalism 5 socioeconomic 8, 106, 123, 179, 512 Southern African Society for Co-operative Education (SASCE) 131, 291, 579 stakeholder analysis 396, 398, 409 stakeholder consideration 290–291 stakeholder engagement 257, 290, 298, 311, 353, 357–358, 371, 395, 404; theory of 398–399 stakeholder relationships 347, 403, 425 stakeholder responsibilities 123, 421 stakeholder see external stakeholders, host organizations, institution, student Standards for Work-Integrated Learning Activities Regulations (SOR/2020–145) (Canada) 555 standards see evaluation, quality standards start-up 141, 218–225, 246, 247, 257, 281; see also enterprise; incubator strategic risk see risk student attitudes 119, 120, 121–122 student benefits see benefits student employability see employability student experience 353, 354, 357–358, 370; enhancing 135–138; international 300 student preparation 348, 441–455, 460–470, 513, 522–525 student recruitment 120, 121, 433 student satisfaction 137–138, 314, 317 Sunderland Technical College 14 supervision: academic 177, 348; remote 284; risk 417, 423; in the workplace 121, 164, 166, 194, 348, 551; see also mentoring supervisory relationship 165, 166, 551 Suranaree University of Technology 580 Sustainability through Agriculture and Microenterprises (SAM) 568

615

Index sustainability: environmental 238, 317; financial 344, 362, 587–588; of higher education 132, 133; of partnership 125, 395–410; of WIL 167, 247, 321, 332–333 sustainable assessment see assessment Sustainable Development Goals see United Nations Sustainable Development Goals sustaining good practice 600 Swinburne University of Technology 247, 283 systems thinking 494–497, 563 talent: acquisition 140; elasticity 493; pipeline 84, 116, 118, 140, 186, 277; recruitment 184 Taylor’s University 247 Teaching Excellence Framework 179 Toronto Metropolitan University 520 T-professional 492–506 T-shape see T-professional transdisciplinary 317 transferability 352, 372, 373, 433; of knowledge 121; across programs 469; of skills 37, 151 transgender see LGBTQ2SIA+ tripartite 33, 132, 209, 210, 245, 420, 554; see also employer; external stakeholder; host organization; institution; student Tyler, Ralph W. 17 UN SDGs see United Nations Sustainable Development Goals uncertainty avoidance 432 under-representation 283, 512; see also inclusion unethical 417, 466, 549, 556, 560 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) 529, 573 United Nations Institute of Training and Research (UNITAR) 573 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) 7, 233–235, 295, 303, 387, 390, 563–574, 583 universal design for learning (UDL) 514 University Mental Health Charter 533 University of Aberdeen 274, 280 University of Adelaide 275, 277 University of British Columbia 511, 516 University of Central Lancashire 181 University of Chicago 17 University of Cincinnati 4, 14, 16, 19, 30, 131, 147–148, 152, 176 University of Detroit 17 University of Melbourne 285 University of Michigan 24–25 University of New South Wales 195, 248, 423 University of Newcastle 311–312 University of Queensland 247 University of Sydney 247, 265, 480

University of Tasmania 273 University of Toronto 511, 520, 529, 530n3 University of Victoria (Canada) 292, 294, 295, 303, 568, 573 University of Waikato 423 University of Waterloo 17, 131, 148, 154–157, 284–285, 310, 349, 384–391, 423, 570–573, 581 University of Wollongong 247 unpaid 21, 115, 230, 311, 328, 355–356, 415, 419; see also financial barriers; paid; payment; remuneration vaccination 299, 301, 446, 452 values 77, 294, 574; awareness of 29; community/ civic 221, 229, 231; cultural 435, 568–569; EDIA 518; institutional 433–434; personal 230; WACE 582–583 vetting 291, 383 VILAR 131, 579, 586 virtual: connecting 525; learning 21, 23, 453; projects 311; WIL 124–125, 139, 200, 289, 292, 296, 303; work 181, 185, 238, 275, 493, 505; see also augmented reality; online; remote; simulations virtual reality 41, 257, 258–261; see also augmented reality; online; simulations visa 180, 182, 291, 292, 299, 301, 303, 320, 446, 452, 512; see also immigration vocational education 29, 163, 208, 506 vocational education and training (VET) 214 vocational placement 554; see also work placement Vocational Training Act (1969) 213 volunteers in service to America (VISTA) 24 VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) 381–382, 391, 392, 563 Vygotsky 4, 55 WACE 4, 15, 30, 131, 291, 310, 353, 376, 578–590 WACE CWIE Charter 353, 376, 424, 567, 583, 585, 589 Waterloo College 17, 148, 154 Waterloo Professional Development Program (WatPD) 157 wellbeing: example of practice 347, 542; four principles of 538; risk 297, 419; staff 419, 598; strategies 448; student 8, 103, 120, 123–124, 533–544, 557, 597–598; see also mental health Wenger 4 Wertsch 4 Western Sydney University 247 whole-of-program 465, 481 Wilson, James W. 17 work capacity 114–116

616

Index work placement 5, 97–103, 115, 163–172, 176–179, 181–184; paid and unpaid 548–560; part-time 190–203; short-term 121, 190–203, 442, 557; see also block work placements; cooperative education; internship; practicum; sandwich degrees work-based learning 29, 33, 186, 208, 214, 352, 416 work-focused tasks 33–34, 36–37, 40, 41 Working Time Regulations (1998) UK 554 Work-Integrated Learning Hub 332–334 Work-Integrated Learning New Zealand (WILNZ) 4, 15, 31, 131, 291, 579–580, 586, 588 work-integrated learning origins 147, 163, 176–177; see also history Work-Integrated Learning Quality Framework AAA* 350–351, 383, 391, 565–566

Work-Learn Institute (WxL) 155–156, 349, 387–388 workload: employer/host 82, 115, 121, 167, 169, 195; staff 6, 248, 319, 327–328, 332, 337, 419, 595, 598; student 597; volunteers 580, 589 workplace rights 415, 446, 524, 552–553 work-readiness 99, 132, 168, 179, 276, 314, 319, 362, 363, 482 World Association for Cooperative Education see WACE world conference 587, 588 World Economic Forum 185, 381 Yerkes-Dodson Law 264 Yonjul 433 York University 199, 529 Zone of Proximal Development 55, 62–63

617