1. PROJECTTEAM
Matthew Campbell (QUT) Dr.Ricky Tunny (QUT)
Leoni Russell (RMIT) Prof.Lorraine Smith (USyd)
Em. Prof.Lindy McAllister (USyd) Dr.Kate Thomson (USyd)
MariaBarrett (QUT)
This researchhasbeen supported by an ACENResearchGrant.
A framework to support institution-wide
quality assurance of work integrated
learning

2. Overview
• Introductions
• Outline of project
• Mapping the current landscape of quality and WIL
• Exploring constructs of quality in WIL
• Unpacking the framework
• Benchmarking for quality using the framework

3. Project aim
Undertake a review of existinginstrumentsand approachesto quality
assuranceof WIL across Australianuniversities,to develop and
benchmark a sharedqualityassuranceframework to supportthe
institution-widequalityassuranceof WIL.

4. Project timeline
09.05.XX
PHASE ONE
REVIEW
PHASE TWO
EXPLORATION
PHASE THREE
BENCHMARKING
Development ofdraft framework
January2019
● Validation workshops with expert panels
andpractitioners
● Survey validating quality indicators
● Institutional-level andfaculty-
level benchmarking case study
● Literature review anddesktop
analysis ofexisting practice
● Interviews with a rangeof academic
andprofessional staff anduniversity
leaders
Publication of validatedframework
September 2019
Benchmarking and‘how to’ guidance
November 2019

5. The current landscape

6. Understanding quality in HE
• Whodefines what is ‘quality’?
• What practices does your institution currently use to assure
quality broadly?
• How are these practices used in respect of teaching and
learning?

7. Understanding WIL
“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.”
McRae andJohnston (2016, p. 338, emphasis added)

8. What ‘counts’ as WIL?
• How is WIL understood within your institution / context

9. Theoretical framing
• WILis acomplexinterconnection ofa variety of elements acrossfourspaces ofoutcomes,relationships,resources andcontext
(Sachs,RoweandWilson,2016).
• WILis understoodasstudentexperiences ofworkwithincurriculum, undertakenin partnership, throughengagementwith
authenticandgenuine activitieswithandforindustry,businessor communitypartners,andwhich are assessed.

10. Presage, product, process
• ‘3P model’ of quality (Biggs,1993; Gibbs, 2010): the context beforestudents learn (presage),
what goes on during their learning (process) and the outcomesof thatlearning (product).
(Billett, 2011)
PRESAGE
Before
PROCESS
During
PRODUCT
After

11. Exploring quality in WIL

12. Emerging dimensions
STUDENTEXPERIENCE
It’saboutconnection;theirtheoryandpracticeoflearning,wherereflectionisinthecentreofthat
practice.It’saboutlearningaboutandthroughthatauthenticexperienceaboutthemselvesandthen
buildingidentityofthemselves…
CURRICULUMDESIGN
Soit’saboutthejourneyofthestudentsthroughthatWILexperience,butnotjusttheWILexperience
buthowthatWILexperiencefitswithinthewhole-of-courseexperience.So,howpreparedtheyare
before,andhowwe’relinkingthatexperiencetotheirfutureexperiences.

13. Emerging dimensions
INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
…it[WILpractice]needstoconnectinwithabroader setofstrategyandpolicy.Strategy
aroundwhere wewanttogoasaninstitution.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
…ourpartnershipsandbuildingpartnershipsandqualitypartnershipswhichleadtoquality
learningoutcomes forourstudentsneedtobeincludedinthere …

14. Frameworkmodel
• Theframework is built around four domains ofpractice: (1) student experience,(2) curriculum design, (3)
institutional requirements, (4) stakeholder engagement
• Within each element, based on the literature review, expertinterviews and stakeholder feedback, area set of
standardsofpractice.
• Each standard of practice is brought to life through inclusion of examplesof possible evidence and
illustrations ofpractice.
• Themodel reflects that which has been used in othernational standards, for example the AITSL National
Teaching Standards

15. DOMAINS Student Experience Curriculum Design Institutional Requirements Stakeholder Engagement
Guiding
principle
A quality WIL experience should provide students with
a scaffolded, connected and supported pedagogical
experience.
A quality WIL curriculum should contain embedded,
accessible and transformative learning and assessment
within an intended and enacted curriculum.
Quality WIL activity across institutions should be
evidenced by the proper management of staff, risk
management and reporting around WIL experiences
supporting continual improvement.
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).
Before
Standard 1.1 Ensure student readiness and
preparation for learning in the workplace
context
Standard 1.2 Student WIL experiences are
connected to prior and future learning and
work
Standard 1.3 Student WIL experiences align
with their learning goals and capabilities
Standard 2.1 WIL experiences are embedded
through a whole-of-qualification curriculum
design underpinned by current research and
scholarship
Standard 2.2 Students and industry are partners
in the design of WIL curriculum
Standard 3.1 Institutions have shared goals,
policies, principles and values about WIL
Standard 3.2 Institutions have identifiable
leadership and governance structures for WIL
Standard 3.3 WIL is supported by adequate and
effective IT and administrative systems
Standard 4.1 Diverse stakeholders are active
participants across WIL activities
Standard 4.2 Partner sites are reviewed for
health and safety, and suitability for WIL activities
During
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
Standard 2.3 WIL curriculum design reflects
professional accreditation requirements and
ongoing career and employability development
Standard 2.4 WIL curriculum design provides
inclusive, equitable and accessible experiences
Standard 2.5 WIL assessment design is supported
by authentic tasks, aligned with learning goals
and graduate outcomes
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 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
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
Standard 3.6 Provision of funding, resourcing,
support, and recognition necessary to achieve
WIL strategic goals
Standard 3.7 Evaluation and tracking of short to
long term WIL outcomes for continuous quality
improvement
Standard 4.6 Partnership arrangements are
regularly reviewed

16. Example (Standard 2.2)
2. Curriculum Design
AqualityWILcurriculumshouldcontainembedded,accessibleandauthenticlearningandassessment
withinanintendedandenactedcurriculum.
Standard 2.2: Students and industryare partnersin the design of WILcurriculum
Achievement ofthis standardmaybeevidenced by:
• Engagement of keyindustryand communityleaders in curriculumdesign advisory panels
• Useof past and prospective students in supporting the curriculumdesign process
• Execution and use of student and industry feedback to inform curriculumdesign and ongoing improvement
• Positive perceptions by students and industry of the appropriateness and relevanceof the curriculum
design
Domain
Standard
Illustration

17. Considering the standards
Asa smallgroup:
• Focusononedimension oftheframework(e.g. curriculumdesign)
• Thinkaboutwhetherthe presentedstandardsreflect yourexperienceof WILin youruniversity.
• Do these standards thoroughly capture quality practice in this dimension?
• What would successfulpractice look like for these standards?
• How would you evidence successof these standards?

18. Benchmarking for quality

19. Employing the frameworkfor quality assurance
(Benchmarking)
• Benchmarkingwasundertakenatbothaninstitution-wideanddiscipline level utlising the framework.
• Disciplinelevel benchmarkingfocussedoncommon disciplinesbetween University ofSydneyandQUT.
• Reviewofdocumentedevidence andreportonthe “quality”ofthisevidence againstthe standardsofthe framework.
• Initial desktopauditof availableevidence.
• How accessible is theevidence? Accessible, Accessible withsomeeffort,Notaccessible.
• Review withrelevant stakeholderstofill in the “gaps”andensureaccuracy–Unit Coordinators,CourseCoordinators,Associate
Dean(L&T).
• Agree upontheopportunitiesforimprovement anddevelop implementationplanwithagreed timeframes.
• Implementationplanwill continuetobemonitoredandreviewed on aregularbasis.

20. Employing the frameworkfor quality assurance (Lessons
learnt)
• Types of evidence not limited to the examples cited in the framework.
• Commentaries included on significantmatters.
• Checklist is important to guide the benchmarking process and todocument evidence and
opportunities for improvement.
• Checklist is easy to tickoff but is the evidence effective?
• Important to look at the level of “quality” of the evidence (e.g. elementary, emerging,
exemplary).

21. Employing the framework forquality assurance (Challenges &
considerations)
• Intended for the useof WIL leaders and practitioners across tertiary institutions, especially when
implementing orreviewing WIL.
• Breadth ofthe framework goes acrossall facets of practice.
• An individual may focus on one or more domains toreviewtheir practice.
• But the intention is for a holistic approach to reviewing WIL.
• Provide guidance to reviewWIL practice across an institution.
• Promote institutional-wide reflective culture ofongoing quality assurance, quality improvement (and
compliance with quality assurance standards of WIL).
• Regularity of review: annually, aligned with internal and external accreditation processes, whenthere are
changes to the curriculum.

22. Consider your context
• Usingthetemplatebenchmarkingtool,consideryourcontextagainsta collectionofstandards.
• Chooseone domaininwhichtofocus
• Map outevidenceagainstthestandardsinthisdomain
• Considerthe‘levelofevidence.
• Whatmaybesomechallengesincollatingevidenceacross thestandards?
• Howmuchofthisworkcanbedonebytheindividual?
• Canstandardsbeconsideredinisolation?

23. Reviewingevidence within the framework
A draft copyof the complete frameworkis available at: http://bit.ly/WILQualityDraft
• Review the draft framework in light of what you thought would be appropriate evidence.
• Is the framework consistent with your thinking?
• Do you have examples of practice which you may be able to contribute to the final
framework?

24. Speed dating …

25. Mapping a quality process
Participationculture
• Whoare theactorsinvolvedinthelifecycleofWIL at youruniversity?
Communicationculture
• HowiscommunicationorganizedwithinyourWIL area (university,faculty,school,course)?
Qualitymanagementculture
• What kindofqualityproceduresalreadyexistaroundyourWIL area?

26. Developing an action plan
A good action plan should:
• Be specificto the issues identified
• Be written in consultation with key stakeholders
• Identify priorities, specific targets and outcomes
• Include indicators and criteria for recognizing improvements
• Be manageable and achievable

27. Developing an action plan
Standard Where are we now
Where do we want
to be
How will we get
there
How will we know
have succeeded
Standard 4.2
Partner sites are
reviewed for health and
safety, and suitability for
WIL activities
• Regular reports of
WHS incidents on
placement are
provided to the
university
• Incidents are
recorded in central
database system
• Annual report is
undertaken to
identify patterns and
trends
• Increase the number
of on site visits and
reviews
• Develop and
implement training
for partner sites
around new
harassment and
bullying policy and
procedures

28. Future considerations
• Finalframework should be published by mid-November, 2019
• Opportunities exist for further research to:
• Extend the framework to all post-secondary settings (e.g.vocational education)
• Support the benchmarking of WIL practice across Australian higher education
• Cross-mapping of framework with global experiences of WIL
• To keep up to date email: wilquality@qut.edu.au

29. References
Biggs,J.B.(1993). FromTheorytoPractice:ACognitiveSystemsApproach.HigherEducationResearch&Development,12(1), 73-85. doi:10.1080/0729436930120107
Billett,S.(2011). Curriculumandpedagogicbasesforeffectivelyintegratingpractice-basedexperiences:FinalReport.StrawberryHills,NSW:AustralianLearningandTeachingCouncil.
Cooper,L.,Orrell,J.,& Bowden,M. (2010). Workintegratedlearning:Aguidetoeffectivepractice.London:Routledge.
Ferns,S.,Campbell,M.,& Zegwaard,K.(2014). Workintegratedlearninginthecurriculum.InS. Ferns(Ed.), HERDSAGuidesSeries:WorkIntegratedLearning.Milperra,NSW:HigherEducationResearchandDevelopmentSocietyof
Australasia.
Gibbs,G.(2010). Dimensionsofquality.Heslington,UK:TheHigherEducationAcademy.
Kaider,F.,Hains-Wesson,R.,&Young,K.(2017). TypologyofauthenticWILactivitiesandassessment.Asia-PacificJournalofCooperativeEducation,18(2), 153-165.
McRae,N.,&Johnston,N.(2016). Thedevelopmentofa proposedglobalwork-integratedlearningframework.Asia-PacificJournalofCooperativeEducation,17(4), 337-348.
McRae,N.,Pretti,T.J.,&Church,D.(2018). Work-IntegratedLearningQualityFramework,AAA*.Retrievedfrom https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-advancement-co-operative-education/research-publications/wil-quality-framework
Pattison,P.(2017). StandardsandqualityinAustralianhighereducation.InR.James,S.French& P.Kelly(Eds.), VisionsforAustralianTertiaryEducation.Melbourne:MelbourneCentrefortheStudyofHigherEducation,TheUniversityof
Melbourne.
Rowe,A.,Nay,C.,Lloyd,K.,Myton,N.,&Kraushaar,N.(2018). Tellingyourstoryofwork-integratedlearning:Aholisticapproachtoprogramevaluation.TheInternationalJournalofHigherEducationResearch,19(3), 273-285.
Sachs, J.,Rowe,A.,&Wilson,M. (2016). GoodPracticeReport:WorkIntegratedLearning(WIL).Canberra:DepartmentofEducationandTraining,AustralianGovernment.
Smith,C.(2012). Evaluating thequalityofwork-integratedlearningcurricula:a comprehensiveframework.HigherEducationResearch&Development,31(2), 247-262. doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.558072
Winchestor-Seeto,T.(2019). Qualityandstandardsforworkintegratedlearning.Retrievedfrom http://www.acds-tlcc.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2019/03/Winchester-Seeto-Literature-Review-Quality-and-Standards.pdf