1 / 22

The WIL Report: A national scoping study

The WIL Report: A national scoping study. Catherine Pocknee: Swinburne University of Technology Dr Deborah Peach: Queensland University of Technology Carol-joy Patrick: Griffith University. Overview. Australian Context Drivers WIL in Australia The WIL Report (2007-2008) What we found

marcia-mcfarland
Télécharger la présentation

The WIL Report: A national scoping study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The WIL Report: A national scoping study Catherine Pocknee: Swinburne University of Technology Dr Deborah Peach: Queensland University of Technology Carol-joy Patrick: Griffith University

  2. Overview • Australian Context • Drivers • WIL in Australia • The WIL Report (2007-2008) • What we found • Stakeholder perspectives • Recommendations • Resources & ICT examples (panel)

  3. Context: Drivers Skill shortages: now and then? Government policy Work ready graduates Shift to vocational courses The ‘third stream’ Role of universities - morphing ALTC: Improved funding & profile of ‘L&T’

  4. Context: WIL in Australia Range of existing interest groups ACEN formed Sept; 2006 Rapid growth in state chapters ‘On’ the national policy agenda ALTC support Preliminary discussions around CoP Swinburne, QUT & Griffith Submission on behalf of ACEN

  5. The total experience counts It is students’ total experience of university – not just what happens in the traditional classroom – that shapes their judgements of quality, promotes retention and engages them in productive learning. (Scott, 2005, p. vii)

  6. Scale • $300,000 • Project Team • 17 partners • 18 months • 600 participants (approx) • 37 universities participated

  7. Key Objectives • Identify key stakeholders and provide mechanisms by which they can identify and prioritise key challenges… • Develop a national framework for future projects that will enable members of ACEN to work as a community of practice to develop resources and practices… • Develop an ACEN-based, sector-wide communications structure for collaborative knowledge building…

  8. Terminology Participants identified a range of terms used to describe WIL experiences and also identified models used across discipline areas. (The WIL Report, 2008 p.V)

  9. Definition The project did not attempt to offer a unitary definition of WIL beyond recognising ‘work integrated learning’ as an umbrella term used for a range of approaches and strategies that integrate theory with the practice of work within a purposefully designed curriculum. (The WIL Report, 2008 p.V)

  10. Examples: Check the Vignettes on the ACEN website under ALTC Projects!

  11. What we found... • passionate WIL staff • strong links with graduates skills demand and work readiness • stakeholders – strong motivation for involvement • stakeholders – all face challenges • range and diversity in WIL experiences and definitions • enormous range and diversity in the range of programs currently delivered across Australia • already firmly embedded in some universities and some disciplines; Medicine, Health, Engineering, Education • inconsistent nomenclature • strong linkages to community

  12. Key issues and challenges • Ensuring equity and access • Managing expectations and competing demands • Improving communication & coordination • Ensuring worthwhile WIL placement experiences • Adequately resourcing WIL

  13. Student view • WIL is worth the effort • economic and social costs involved in participation • demands in terms of time, part time jobs, lengthening of course • want something decent to ‘do’ • the more motivated the better the learning experience • a bad placement or WIL experience can teach you a lot...

  14. Students want... • credit • variety of WIL experiences • preparation and skills development before placement • improved & consistent supervision by university staff • external placements matched to career aspirations • financial support via payment or scholarship for lengthy (non paid) programs • more internal programs and opportunities • recognition of prior learning

  15. Employer view • time – needed to devote to student • ownership – universities must collaborate with employers but should manage WIL programs • relationships – looking for meaningful relationships with universities around WIL and other endeavours • expectations – unclear about what universities expect of employers in relation to WIL • flexibility – university timeframes don’t always fit well with employers needs • appropriate roles/tasks/work – What is appropriate work for a particular placement or WIL activity? • ease of access – problem finding out who to talk to

  16. University view • Saturated market • resourcing and support for programs • appropriate pedagogical strategies • appropriate assessment strategies • support for learners in new learning contexts • professional development for staff involved in designing, managing and supervising programs • sophisticated relationships between employers, students and universities in terms of learning, management responsibilities • Greater involvement of employers and students in curriculum design • Risk assessment (WH&S)

  17. Recommendations • University leaders, including WIL staff, consider implementing a systematic approach to resourcing the provision of a diverse WIL curriculum and in collaboration with employers and the professions identify and support successful strategies for future growth. • Stakeholders consider collaborative research into WIL curriculum and systems that enable sophisticated and sustainable partnerships. • Stakeholders consider ensuring equitable participation and access by all students by collaboratively developing WIL funding structures, policies and strategic approaches.

  18. WIL in ICT: Panel Associate Professor Sebastian Ng: Associate Dean (Professional Employment Program) Kon Mousakis: Director, Industry Liaison and Development (Bachelor of Information Technology - Scholarship Program) John McPhee: Manager, Cooperative Education (Industry-Based Learning)

  19. Panel discussion themes What are the issues and challenges with WIL for ICT? What curriculum changes would bring in and retain more students? What impediments are there to improving the curriculum?

  20. Useful references • ALTC Communiqué http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/webdav/site/carricksite/users/siteadmin/public/ALTC_Communique_Mar09.pdf • The WIL Report: http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/webdav/users/siteadmin/public/grants_project_wil_finalreport_jan09.pdf

More Related