1. The University of Sydney
Designing, practicing and
evidencing quality in WIL
An IRU 'Reimagining Work
Integrated Learning (WIL)' webinar
Dr Kate Thomson
28 November 2019
@DrKateThomson
kate.thomson@sydney.edu.au

2. The University of Sydney
1. Quality in WIL
2. 2018 ACEN grant: WIL quality framework domains
1. Student experience
2. Curriculum design
3. Institutional requirements
4. Stakeholder engagement
3. Examples of high quality WIL projects to illustrate standards
within each of the domains
Outline for today

3. The University of Sydney
• Quality model (Biggs,1993; Gibbs, 2010): the context before
students learn (presage), what goes on during their learning
(process) and the outcomes of that learning (product). (Billett, 2011)
• WIL is a complex interconnection across outcomes, relationships,
resources and context (Sachs, Rowe and Wilson, 2016).
• Dimensions of WIL quality: authenticity of experience, embedded in
curriculum, student preparation, supporting learning activities,
supervision and feedback, reflection, debriefing, assessment,
inclusive approach to WIL (see Winchester-Seeto’s, 2019 review)
WIL is understood as student experiences of work within curriculum,
undertaken in partnership, through engagement with authentic and
genuine activities with and for industry, business or community partners,
and which are assessed.
Quality in WIL – theoretical framing to inform our thinking
about WIL design, practice, and evidence

4. The University of Sydney
Project supported by a 2018 ACEN WIL research grant ($10,000)
Leads: Matthew Campbell, Prof Lindy McAllister, Leoni Russell,
Team: Dr Ricky Tunny, Prof Lorraine Smith, Dr Kate Thomson
Aims
1. Develop an institutional, cross disciplinary framework of quality in
WIL which can inform a national framework of practice and quality.
This framework will articulate attributes of quality, indicators of
evidence, and measures of success
2. Undertake benchmarking and testing of the utility and feasibility of
the framework and quality instruments for application across
faculties / disciplines and universities
Developing a framework to support assurance of
institution-wide quality in work integrated learning
This researchhasbeen supported by an ACENResearchGrant.

5. The University of Sydney
Three phases:
1. Review: Literature review and desktop analysis of existing practice;
Interviews with a range of academic and professional staff and
university leaders
2. Exploration: Validation workshops with expert panels and
practitioners; National survey validating quality indicators
3. Benchmarking: Institutional-level and faculty-level benchmarking
case studies
• The framework is built around four domains of practice
• Within each domain, based on the literature review, expert interviews
and stakeholder feedback, are a set of standards of practice.
• Each standard of practice is brought to life through inclusion of
examples of possible evidence and illustrations of practice.
Overview of WIL quality assurance framework
development and testing

6. The University of Sydney
1. Student experience: A quality WIL experience should provide
students with a scaffolded, connected and supported pedagogical
experience
2. Curriculum design: A quality WIL curriculum should contain
embedded, accessible and transformative learning and assessment
within an intended and enacted curriculum.
3. 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.
4. 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,
students).
CITE AS: 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.
Overview of a framework for quality assurance of WIL -
domains

7. The University of Sydney
1. Student experience: Assessing and enhancing student self-
regulated learning online: social networks, informal learning and
peer support (Kate Thomson)
2. Curriculum design: Assessment designed to support valid
judgments of Exercise Physiology (EP) student performance on
placement (Jacqueline Raymond)
3. Institutional requirements: Healthcare Professionalism:
Improving Practice through Reflections on Workplace Dilemmas
(Lynn Monrouxe)
4. Stakeholder engagement: The Evaluation of Foundational
Placement Competencies (EFPC): Assessing health professional
students’ ‘readiness for placements’ (Belinda Judd)
Using the framework to evidence WIL quality – projects

8. The University of Sydney
Domain 1 Student experience
• Standard 1.4 Student WIL experiences are safe and supportive
• Standard 1.6 Support and guidance is provided for students within
the WIL experience
Lead: Dr Kate Thomson
Email: kate.thomson@sydney.edu.au
1. Assessing and enhancing student self-regulated learning
online: social networks, informal learning and peer support

9. The University of Sydney
• Informed by self-regulated learning models (Zimmerman, 1990) and
response to review that asks for research in workplaces, during
crucial times, with students’ written reflections (Panadero, 2017)
• The nature of online discussion means that it relies on students’
capacity for self-regulated learning, and also, supports them to
practice and develop their self-regulated learning skills (Dettori &
Persico, 2008), skills we expect students to demonstrate during WIL.
• Ethics application to access data that is routinely collected as part of
assessment for the WIL unit of study. Waiver of requirements for
consent required a response to 9 criteria outlined in the National
Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2018 update).
• Focus on evidence of self-regulated learning in student posts to LMS
discussion board (~3 per week) during WIL placement and student
reflective statements (~1000-1500 words) after completing WIL
placement
1. Assessing and enhancing student self-regulated learning
online: social networks, informal learning and peer support

10. The University of Sydney
Domain 2: Curriculum Design
• Standard 2.3 WIL curriculum design reflects professional
accreditation requirements and ongoing career and employability
development
• Standard 2.6 Student learning gains are measurable against
intended outcomes
Lead: Dr Jacqueline Raymond
Email: jacqueline.raymond@sydney.edu.au
2. Assessment designed to support valid judgments of
Exercise Physiology (EP) student performance on placement

11. The University of Sydney
• Development of an assessment tool that has been co-designed with
placement educators to help support valid judgments of EP student
performance on placement.
• The assessment tool is used to make judgments of student
performance against a set of clinical learning competencies that
reflect an entry-level EP who can practice safely, effectively and in a
client-centred manner. As such, the competencies used in the
assessment tool reflect the professional standards. (Standard 2.3)
• The assessment tool uses a visual analogue scale along which both
students and placement educators can record a judgment of the
student’s performance on placement. By using the same assessment
tool across multiple placement, student learning can be tracked as
forward progression along the visual analogue scale both within a
placement and across several placements (Standard 2.6)
2. Assessment designed to support valid judgments of
Exercise Physiology (EP) student performance on placement

12. The University of Sydney
Domain 3: Institutional requirements
• Standard 3.1 Institutions have shared goals, policies, principles and
values about WIL
• Standard 3.4 Institutions provide targeted professional development
for academic and professional staff, and industry and community
partners
• Standard 3.5 Enacted legal and risk management frameworks,
compliance procedures and processes
• Standard 3.7 Evaluation and tracking of short to long term WIL
outcomes for continuous quality improvement
Lead: Prof Lynn Monrouxe
Email: lynn.monrouxe@sydney.edu.au
3. Healthcare Professionalism: Improving Practice through
Reflections on Workplace Dilemmas

13. The University of Sydney
• ‘Professionalism dilemmas’ are day‐to‐day experiences in which
individuals witness or participate in something that they believe to be
unprofessional, unethical or immoral, which causes them some angst
• Professionalism is frequently taught and assessed via powerful
others within an environment that reinforces traditional professional
and interprofessional hierarchies
• Students commonly reported being negatively affected by others’
professionalism
• They often narrate their emotional trauma due to the harsh treatment
patients received at the hands of uncaring healthcare students and
professionals, thereby revealing empathic connections with patients.
• Sometimes reasonably low levels of distress, for example
‘uncomfortable’ and ‘awkward’, at other times, feelings of ‘anger’,
‘fear’, ‘distress’, ‘shock’, ‘disgust’, ‘stress’, ‘irritation’, ‘sadness’ and
‘shame’.
3. Healthcare Professionalism: Improving Practice through
Reflections on Workplace Dilemmas

14. The University of Sydney
Domain 4: Stakeholder engagement
• Standard 4.1 Diverse stakeholders are active participants across WIL
activities
• 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
Lead: Dr Belinda Judd
Email: belinda.judd@sydney.edu.au
4. The Evaluation of Foundational Placement Competencies
(EFPC): Assessing health professional students’ ‘readiness for
placement’.

15. The University of Sydney
• Develop and test a tool to measure novice allied health professional
students’ readiness for placements.
• Educators currently lack standardised tools to evaluate early
learners’ skills and provide allied health students with explicit
feedback on their readiness to progress in their clinical placements.
• This assessment tool identifies students needing further
development, maximising clinical placement success and minimising
the detrimental effects of placement failure on students and
educators. The 20 items address four domains: Communication,
Professional Behaviour, Learner Behaviour and Information
Gathering. Trials, surveys, and national testing confirm the tool is
suitable and robust for interpreting the judgements around student
readiness for placement.
• Sought key stakeholder perspectives in each step of the process,
(students, clinical educators, university academics) through focus
groups, surveys and educator and student-scored assessments.
4. The Evaluation of Foundational Placement Competencies
(EFPC): Assessing health professional students’ ‘readiness for
placement’.

16. The University of Sydney
Thank you
Questions? Thoughts? Comments?
@DrKateThomson
kate.thomson@sydney.edu.au

17. The University of Sydney
Biggs, J. B. (1993). From Theory to Practice: A Cognitive Systems
Approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 12(1), 73-
85.
Billett, S. (2011). Curriculum and pedagogic bases for effectively
integrating practice-based experiences: Final Report. Strawberry
Hills, NSW: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning:
A guide to effective practice. London: Routledge.
Ferns, S., Campbell, M., & Zegwaard, K. (2014). Work integrated
learning in the curriculum. In S. Ferns (Ed.), HERDSA Guides
Series: Work Integrated Learning. Milperra, NSW: Higher Education
Research and Development Society of Australasia.
Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. Heslington, UK: The Higher
Education Academy.
Reference List 1/2

18. The University of Sydney
Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models
and Four Directions for Research. Front Psychol, 8, 422.
Sachs, J., Rowe, A., & Wilson, M. (2016). Good Practice Report:
Work Integrated Learning (WIL). Canberra: Department of
Education and Training, Australian Government.
Smith, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning
curricula: a comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research
& Development, 31(2), 247-262.
Winchester-Seeto, T. (2019). Quality and standards for work
integrated learning. Retrieved from http://www.acds-tlcc.edu.au/wp-
content/uploads/sites/14/2019/03/Winchester-Seeto-Literature-
Review-Quality-and-Standards.pdf
Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic
Achievement: An Overview, Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
Reference List 2/2