Assessment of Work Integrated Learning

Coll (2009), in one of the work integrated forums, mentions that assessment of WIL is highly problematic. He indicates that some academics think that their own assessment methods are rigorous so they frustrate any attempt to provide rigour in the assessment of workplace learning. According to him, the assessment of WIL has to be subjective because we are making a judgement about what people have done through their presentation or written reports. Therefore we have to come up with a method of assessment that is reliable and not administrative or bureaucratic in nature.

Industries are becoming more creative and innovative in their work approaches. They have become more flexible and are not following solely traditional methods (Dewey, 1916). The economic revolution has created knowledge-based economics and industries are turning to academics for solutions to their problems in industry. Work has offered greater intellectual content and demands that universities disseminate such information to students and provide industrial cultural possibilities for students through vocational programmes such as WIL (Dewey, 1916).

WIL should include assessed activities, which are available to all students in the programme. “These educational activities should provide a meaningful experience of the

workplace application that is intentional, organised and recognised by the institution”, in

order to secure transferable and applied learning outcomes for the student (Griffith University, 2006).

In work placements, learning therefore needs to become deliberate and intentional. This must be supported by the induction of students, supervisors and mentors and the development of appropriate assessment methods for these programmes. The quality of the learning outcomes has to be monitored in order to ensure the maintenance of high standards. This must be followed up by reflection and debriefing on the work by all parties (Washbourn, 1996).

46 | P a g e

In WIL programmes different types of assessment practices are used, and there is an awareness of the need for innovative assessment (Bryan & Clegg, 2006). However, we have to make sure that the assessment methods used in these programmes encourage reflection and the integration of theory and practice (Jorgensen, & Howard, 2005).The effective implementation of WIL requires appropriate assessment methods, which in turn requires resourcing and employer commitment and involvement. The choice of methods is greatly affected by the availability of the university staff and the engagement of the employer.

Despite the fact that assessing the WIL experience is a challenging issue, one way of assessing it is to consider it as a course unit with credit points based on certain criteria (Abeysekera, 2006). Assessment of these criteria might require the students to submit assignments about their learning, attend workshops, present a paper, maintain a portfolio or journal to support their reflections, and might also include student peer group reviews, and reports from workplace supervisors (Bates, 2003; Johnson, 2000). There has to be more than one assessment method in order to accommodate different learning (Billett, 2001).Another factor that affects the assessment of a WIL programme is the amount of time and effort that the workplace allocates to student employees during WIL (Abeysekera, 2006)

In order to assess the workplace learning, there must be a curriculum for it. Moore (2004) examines educators’ definition of curriculum, explores the features of curriculum as a naturally occurring workplace phenomenon, and identifies the factors that shape the curriculum of work experience and the extent to which participants are expected to use the various forms of knowledge. He discusses the dynamics that influence what kinds of learning people engage in during productive organised activities and base all these on some of the theories of cognition and learning. According to Edström, Törnevik, Engström, and Wiklund (2003), it is the assessment that shapes the curriculum and not curriculum that shapes assessment.

According to Moore (2004), a curriculum at work must be dynamic, emergent and experiential, but it is not haphazard or random. He refutes the idea that some experiential educators claim that anyone can learn anything anywhere. Vygotsky (1978) emphasises that

47 | P a g e

the curriculum of experience is “planful and systematic” and the use of knowledge in a particular setting is orderly and accountable. Better quality environments provide better and more structured opportunities.

Broadly speaking, industry representatives are satisfied with the technical or discipline- specific skills of graduates, but for some there is a perception that employability skills are underdeveloped. Some employers believe that universities are providing students with a strong knowledge base but without the ability to apply that knowledge intelligently in the work setting. This is backed up by international research (Cleary, Flynn, Thomasson, Alexnder, & McDonald, 2007).

In conclusion, it can be stated that a trained teaching force for WIL is required. Industrial supervisors should be given the opportunity to keep in touch with new developments and have the chance to improve their career paths via various remote learning systems. Many of the studies presented here make a strong case for drawing on multiple theoretical methods in integrating the individual, social and organisational dimensions of workplace learning. At the core of all these is learning from and through experience (Okamoto,Cristea, & Kayama, 2005).

Research has been conducted on various assessment areas for engineering. We will concentrate on a few of them here.

Outcome-based Criteria and their Assessment

In the past the engineering criteria in many countries were based on inputs such as number of credit hours and staff with PhDs, rather than ‘outcomes’ (what students know and are able to do). The new outcome-based engineering criteria check the achievement of the outcomes through the assessment and evaluation that are in place (Olds et al., 2005).Particularly challenging for engineering institutions seeking accreditation has been Criterion 3 of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET, 2001), which indicates “engineering programmes must demonstrate that their graduates have:

48 | P a g e

• an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering; • an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and

Interpret data;

• an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs; • an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams;

• an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems; • an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility; • an ability to communicate effectively;

• the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context;

• a recognition of the need for, and ability to engage in, lifelong learning; • a knowledge of contemporary issues;

• an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.”

Use of Technology as an Assessment Method

Some research studies on assessment methods in engineering education have shown the positive effects of technology use on student learning, including the greater knowledge gains that have resulted from the multimedia version of the tutorial (Ellis, 2004), the comparison of the effectiveness of using Web-based delivery in a unit on ultrasound imaging to that of a traditional lecture (Nguyen &Paschal, 2002) and the comparison of the impact of computer tutorials on student learning with that of lecture style instruction (Merino &Abel, 2003). Ellis (2004) compared the effectiveness of a text-based tutorial to an online multimedia tutorial.

Technology could be used as a method of learning in WIL as well as for its assessment. For example, simulations could easily be used for learning and experimentation. Recent progress in information technology and the internet has opened new ways of assessment for many fields including engineering. These developments have helped bring about an important shift from a teaching paradigm to a learning paradigm (Okamoto et al., 2001)

49 | P a g e

because of the movement of the educational field toward the World Wide Web, which provides free and accessible education at anyplace, anywhere, at any time. Synnes, Parnes, Widen, and Schefstroem (1999) indicate that “[i]f the Internet is the next industrial revolution, then net based learning may be the next educational revolution”. In the United States “Colleges and Universities have embraced distance learning, doubling the number of courses offered and enrolment in them” (Blair, 2000). Other countries are also following the distance education and wired teaching learning path (Meissner, 1999). In South Africa, the University of South Africa (UNISA), which is a distance education university, makes use of different kinds of technology in its teaching and learning methods and has initiated online teaching. Many other institutions are embracing online teaching and learning as well.

Effective Learning in WIL Programme

It is necessary to monitor the nature and relevance of work offered to students by workplaces participating in the WIL programme and in the research activities in this field. Therefore, we need to carry outresearch on our assessment methods and learn from it in order to improve our offerings. Jiusto and DiBasio (2007) state “[a]cademics teach their research but don’t research their teaching”. Informal learning, by its very nature, is highly contextual and must use other areas of practice and discipline (Marsick et al., 2008).

Attempts should be made to determine the actual effect of work-based learning and informal learning. We also need to evaluate their effect on the performance of employees and those in training (Clarke, 2004). In order to assess learning, qualitative approaches might be more appropriate than other methods. A great deal of research on training has already been carried out on the identification of individuals, jobs and organisational conditions that could maximise learning through training on the job (Baldwin &Ford, 1988; Noe, 1999). Putting the lessons learnt into practice comes with its own complexities, however. For example learning will lead to better performance only when the knowledge obtained is accurate (Tsang, 1997). All these arguments suggest that there should be attempts to reflect on the impact of WIL, whether from strictly a learning point of view or from a performance orientation side.

50 | P a g e

Feedback on learning is also important in curriculum development. Formal feedback could be included in stakeholder pre- and post-surveys, evaluation forms and interviews; informal feedback is gathered mostly from stakeholder feedback. Willis (2008) reported that, at the University of Surrey in the United Kingdom, a reflection questionnaire is used for obtaining feedback from students who are returning from a WIL placement. This questionnaire has shifted from a quantitative indicator of quality assurance to qualitative feedback for reflective learning. The questionnaire is used as an additional tool for critical reflection on the preparedness of students for the dynamic world of the 21st century. A more formal analysis of data is then carried out and the findings are circulated widely. Subsequently, faculties are requested to put in place actions in response to the findings.

Self-assessment is also recommended by Boud, Keogh and Walker (1985) as one of the instruments that could turn experience into learning. They believe that in this process students can judge their own learning rather than becoming dependent on their instructors. Bates (2003) mentions that “[a]ll learning is ultimately learning about the self” and “without the opportunity to continue building self-confidence and self-esteem there is little to no learning”.

Collaborative Assessment

Rainsbury and Hodges (1998) conducted research on a work-based cooperative education course forming part of a Bachelor of Business Studies (BBS) degree programme. An important aspect of this method was the joint process used for assessment, in terms of which the three collaborators, namely, the student, the employer and the employee collaborated to assess the projects done on site. The course consisted of a written report and the project and the project was subsequently assessed by all collaborators who met after the completion of the project to negotiate the final grade. The research involved, firstly, the assessment of the work-based project and, secondly, determining what should be assessed, how it should be assessed and who should carry out the assessment.

51 | P a g e

What to Assess

According to Rainsbury and Hodges (1998), the technical development of the candidates and their learning through workplace projects should be assessed. Moreover, the personal, interpersonal and intellectual competencies of the student should form part of the assessment.

Hodges, Barrow, Rainbury and Sutherland (1996) developed a model that included the three competencies mentioned. The application of knowledge to business situations and the integration of personal capabilities with professional practice is another aspect that was considered.

A media publication in Australia showed that “the employers seek eight key attributes in their student-employees in addition to the relevant technical knowledge that is required. These are communication, teamwork, problem-solving, self-management, planning and organizing, technology, learning, initiative, and enterprise” (Abeysekera, 2006).

How to Assess

According to Rainsbury and Hodges’s (1998) research, each of the four categories mentioned (technical, personal, interpersonal and intellectual) have a number of capabilities that students have to develop and that should be assessed during the WIL period. A weight is assigned to each category and, during the assessment, grades are awarded.

Who should Assess?

Rainsbury and Hodges (1998) recommend that there should be three assessors in the collaborative assessment process –the student, the employer and the academic supervisor. Each of these assessors determines his or her grade for the four categories, before a meeting is held at which the final grade for the student is negotiated. The inclusion of the student in this assessment process was based on Boud’s (1995), Brown and Knight’s (1994) and Heron’s (1989) support for student self-assessment. These researchers believed that critically reviewing one’s performance is a transferable skill for their future workplace performance and professional practices. The employer representative who is the mentor in this case, has been included in this model because they work closely with the student and is

52 | P a g e

in a better position to obtain evidence from various people in the organisation. Another reason for the involvement of employers is the variation in their expectations of students' performance. Accordingly, clear assessment criteria and grade descriptors are required to narrow the gap between assessments of the three collaborators.