EDUCATION FOR
PRACTICE TOPICS:
8
1
Aspects of Quality Programs
in Workplace Learning
By Wendy Hastings
Reference for this occasional paper:
Hastings, W. (2013). Aspects of quality programs in Workplace
Learning (Occasional Paper 8). Sydney: The Education For Practice
Institute, Charles Sturt University.
ISSN 2201-8395 (Online)
© EFPI
Contact details:
The Education For Practice Institute
Charles Sturt University – Sydney
Locked Bag 450
Silverwater NSW 2128, Australia
http://www.csu.edu.au/division/landt/efp/
[email protected]
This paper resulted from an EFPI Senior
Teaching Fellowship project conducted by
Dr Wendy Hastings.
Aspects of quality programs in workplace learning
The literature clearly supports the position that the nature of
students’ professional placement has a profound impact on their
subsequent career decision making (Reid & Hastings, 2011; Robinson,
Andrews-Hall & Fassett, 2007). This paper explores major themes in
the literature in relation to aspects of quality WPL (workplace
learning) programs across a range of disciplines, and also considers
quality in terms of outcomes for all participants.
Program design
Integration of knowledge, course content & expectations
While there are numerous exemplars of quality programs in clinical
education (Billett, 2001; Bishop, 2007; Driscoll & O’Sullivan, 2006;
Lake, 2004; Le Cornu & Ewing, 2008) it is evident in the literature that
all participants need to be able to identify how the WPL and campusbased components of a course are linked and how the WPL
component is framed by the curriculum and supported by
thoughtfully designed administrative and legal systems (Gronewald,
2004). Research such as that conducted by Andrews and Chilton
(2000) and Mulholland et al. (2005) has shown that role awareness
(i.e. the WPL educator knowing what is expected of them and how to
do their jobs) is an important component of, and contributor to
quality WPL programs.
Research consistently calls for university staff to work with WPL
educators to develop shared conceptions of teaching and learning
that inform the development of university-based programs, and
foster the modelling of good teaching practices by all staff (see inter
alia, Riccomini & Fish, 2005; Smedley, 2001). When designing
placement programs, it is appropriate to include the views of the
WPL educators (Happell, 2009; Jones, 2001; Sheehan et al. 2005) as
well as students and academics. Universities need to ensure offcampus WPL colleagues are included in program design as their
perspectives will ensure programs are grounded in the realities of
different work environments. In order to achieve conscious
collaboration, partners must engage in the establishment of
professionally supportive relationships in which WPL educators,
university staff and students can acknowledge their own values and
the differing perspectives they bring to the partnership (Stanulis &
Russell, 2000).
Criticism of professional education is often directed at an
apparent lack of connectivity between WPL and on-campus learning
component (Coll & Zegwaard, 2011). Rust (2009) argued that
academics develop expectations of WPL based on professional and
scientific literature often produced at a distance from the vagaries
and complexities of twenty-first century worksites. If practice is
professional then it must be theorised, as theorising is essential for
improving practice (Fish, 2005). Such theorising encompasses, among
other things, our assumptions, values, beliefs and the dilemmas and
problematic aspects of our practice. “Theory and practice thus
develop reflexively together and the so-called theory/practice gap is
a myth” (Fish, 2005, p. 332).
An important aspect of connectivity is the relationship between
assessment of WPL and the remainder of the course; this is a key
aspect of constructive alignment. Complex questions to be
considered include the following:
 How is on-campus learning connected to learning outcomes of
site-based components?
 How does assessment address the apparent variability between
contexts within which a particular cohort may be placed?
 How does assessment attend to differences between work-ready
competencies and more generic attributes such as ethical
behaviour, teamwork, communication, conflict resolution skills,
and critical reflective thinking?
Course designers and lecturers need support to align these often
disconnected aspects of assessment and place students at the heart
of the assessment and learning process (see inter alia Biggs, 2003;
Hodges, 2011).
Accrediting authorities frequently require students to undertake
some placements in non-traditional settings in recognition of the
changing complexity of professional settings (Overton et al., 2009).
Consequently, students need to be provided with a range of
experiences, working with different models of support and
supervision. Given the pressure on available placements, universities
must explore different models/structures such as group/team work
for placements. Academics will be required to develop innovative
models that provide sound learning opportunities while addressing
placement shortages. Students need opportunities to learn teamwork
capabilities, and so “team models” may prove fruitful (Gibbons &
Gray, 2002; Taylor, 2005).
Communication Networks
Research indicates that effective communication is fundamental to
quality site-based programs. Atputhasamy (2005) and Kahn (2001)
stressed that dialogue between universities and sites is essential for
coherent, meaningful WPL programs. Multi-directional communication networks within and between the two major sites must be
efficient and responsive to enable continued opportunities to finetune program design, role expectations, assessment practices and
support strategies for all participants.
Improved systemic and organisational learning can be facilitated by
exploring specific contextual histories, broadening goals and engaging
in open discussions about incompatible work/reward expectations.
Off-campus WPL educators employed by the university can be
conduits for effective communication between stakeholders, by
promoting student learning and shared expectations of assessment
(Loftus, 2010). On a basic level, support materials should be
“accessible/readable” and include a clear delineation of roles and
expectations of participants engaged in the program and how they
can work collaboratively to make connections.
Reflective Practice
Critical reflection assists students to integrate knowledge gained
between all components of their course but this is dependent on their
level of experience. Students need to be supported to undertake
effective critical reflection that leads to authentic learning and
growth, particularly in the early phases of their studies as they often
lack the skills necessary to undertake effective critical reflection. The
responsibility for this support resides primarily with university staff
(Coll & Zegwaard, 2011). Students need access to other “knowledges”
to deepen their thinking, hence the need for access to research
literature and the practice knowledge of experienced practitioners. As
well as developing their confidence and capacity to critique others
and/or information, students need to develop reflexive capacities to
optimise feedback received from professional partners. Quality WPL
programs must allow students time to practise and demonstrate their
learning as well as undertake structured critical reflection, such that
they develop skills in evaluating themselves. Developing these
competencies will assist students to become “socialized to the
demands of professional working life through valuing the processes of
learning and discovery” (Taylor, 2005, p. 371). See also Alexander et
al., 2002.
Evaluative mechanisms
In addition to the production and dissemination of knowledge higher
education institutions are increasingly having to come to terms with
external drivers for continuous improvement (Cedercreutz & Cates,
2011). Accordingly, programs need to have “embedded” evaluative
mechanisms and include the views of all participants. Including WPL
evaluation into course evaluations “adds both complexity and
opportunity to the process” (Cedercreutz & Cates, 2011, p. 67). While
research also indicates that stakeholders involved in WPL request
feedback, particularly on their own performances (Hastings, 2010)
there must also be opportunities for them to provide input into
2
systemic evaluation of WPL programs, which would indicate that
their opinions are valued by university personnel (Loftus, 2010).
University Support and Preparation of Participants
Preparation for WPL programs leads to enhanced outcomes for all
participants – increased motivation, awareness of learning needs of
educators as well as student; improved communication skills and
networks, and institutional involvement is essential (Kilminster &
Jolly, 2000).
Workplace educators
Research is unequivocal in noting the value of quality preparation of
WPL educators (Clark, 2007; Duffy, 2003; Marriott et al., 2005;
Rodger et al., 2011). Studies consistently note that the role of the
WPL educator is paramount in facilitating an effective relationship
between the university and undergraduate students; a relationship
that is essential for positive learning experiences for the latter.
Effective, well prepared mentors combine support and challenge in
ways which empower their students to engage in learning as a
critically reflective process. To ensure learning experiences of
students are maximised, WPL educators need access to educational
development and support. It is this relationship between learners and
professionals that has the strongest influence on the success of a
WPL placement (Kilminster & Jolly, 2000).
To undertake the role effectively, each WPL educator needs
support to become a mentor who “provides an enabling relationship
that facilitates another’s personal growth and development ... *and+
guides the mentee through the organisational, social and political
networks” (Morton-Cooper & Palmer 2000, p. 189).
The literature is replete with studies that have identified positive
outcomes for WPL educators who support university students in field
experience programs (see inter alia, Riccomini & Fish, 2005; Thomas
et al., 2007). This collaborative work gives WPL educators an
opportunity to access recent theoretical and evidenced-based
practice knowledge through special projects which potentially
enhances their work with students (Thomas et al., 2007). Teachers
and health care professionals, for example, see the opportunity to
contribute to their respective profession through mentoring as
recognition of their experience and it provides them with an active
role in the process (Courtney‐Pratt, FitzGerald, Ford, Marsden &
Marlow, 2011; Usher et al., 1999).
WPL is a time when students are immersed in the “complexities of
practice [and] are exposed to numerous competing understandings
about what it means to think and act as a professional”, it is often
characterised by conflict (Phelan et al., 2006, p. 163). However,
placements that fail to challenge a student will be less successful than
when the status quo is maintained and students are not stretched.
Challenge leads to transformation but often challenge is seen as
threatening to a relationship, particularly if the student is unable to
rise to that challenge. Support for student risk taking is needed.
Quality programs are ones where the discourse of failure is recast as
a positive, rather than a totally negative learning experience
(Hastings, 2010).
Student Preparation
A quality WPL program will have invested in the preparation of its
student. Studies indicate that it is important that students be
supported to develop fundamental skills such as ethical behaviour,
documentation, WPL requirements and expectations of
professionalism to enable them to develop work behaviours when
they are in their placements (Rodger et al., 2011). Preparation will
include support to “think” differently, that is, teaching students how
to think (Feiman-Nemser, 2001) and the opportunity to develop
confidence for practice through the integration of theory with
practice.
Preparation also needs to include an understanding of the
importance of workplace culture (Johns, 2001) and structural
imperatives (Rodger et al., 2008) in terms of “knowing” a placement.
Workloads for WPL educators, as well as increasing levels of parttime/job share staff, often mean that practitioners have less time for
university students, as many see their prime responsibility is the
needs of their client: patient, school student etc. (Hrobsky &
Kersbergen, 2002; Rodger et al., 2008). Consequently, students need
to be flexible as well as proactive in terms of gaining the most from
the learning opportunity provided by the staff and the setting.
Litchfield (2001) proposed that universities should produce specific
protocols relating to processes for student support during WPL,
addressing issues such as autonomy (Best et al., 2005) and orientation
to the workplace (HWA, 2010; Robinson et al., 2007; Rodger et al.,
2011). The degree of control or power for WPL educators in the
student support process is directly related to their awareness of the
whole process of the student’s program, and their place in the
process: from the personal to the professional.
Academics
Increasing casualisation in the tertiary sector is a worldwide
phenomenon (Halcomb et al., 2010; Smith & Coombe, 2006) and has a
particularly profound effect on professional preparatory courses,
especially if it goes unaddressed. For example, the movement of nurse
education from the hospitals to universities created a shortage of
nursing faculty across the sector and this exacerbated the need to
employ higher numbers of sessional staff in this, and other professions
(Clandinin et al., 2009). Further, when clinical educators move from
the field into universities, their clinical expertise does not necessarily
equate to teaching effectiveness, nor knowledge of adult learners’
needs. Once appointed, these new academics are required to engage
with new bodies of knowledge to enable them to be effective
academics in higher education (Halcomb et al., 2010). According to
Hand (2008), training in teaching strategies, mentoring skills and
effective faculty orientation and support programs are considered
essential to recruiting and retaining competent academics teaching in
WPL programs (Dempsey, 2007).
Sessional/casual staff are often not involved in the development of
the courses in which they are teaching and supervising preservice
teachers, so they may lack knowledge of the connectedness of their
subjects to others in their course. Access to quality staff development
would alleviate some of the staff turnover and feelings of being
undervalued that are described by sessional staff (Kimber, 2003; Percy
et al., 2008). It is essential that there is funding for the provision of
ongoing staff development, particularly in professions new to the
tertiary sector to support staff developing new curricula and building
relationships with their site-based partners.
Workplace learning potentially offers academics opportunities to
explore impact of their work in industry and vice versa. Further
interaction with the field may also expose them to “burning issues”
and as such, generate higher impact research projects through
reciprocally beneficial interactions, resulting in genuine knowledge
exchange (Crump & Johnsson, 2011).
Recognition of WPL educator/supervisor role
Some discipline areas have acknowledged that providing support
through a mentoring role for students is a significant contribution to
their profession, such that this work is recognised and “counts”
towards mandatory professional learning as part of the staff
members’ ongoing accreditation/registration requirements. There is
scope within the tertiary sector to work with regulatory authorities to
formally recognise the role of WPL educators as an important
component of continuous professional development programs.
Conclusion
Designing and implementing quality WPL programs are clearly long
term, resource intensive endeavours. This paper has identified vital
aspects that need to be present to create quality programs and has
reported research that supports the assertions made. All components
3
are essential and interdependent such that it is not productive to
focus on any single element. Attention to skills, needs and aspirations
of academics, students and professional partners is required.
References
Alexander, J. G., McDaniel, G. S., Baldwin, M., & Money, B. J. (2002). Promoting, applying
and evaluating problem-based learning in the undergraduate nursing curriculum.
Nursing Education Perspective, 23(5), 248-253.
Andrews, M., & Chilton, F. (2000). Student and mentor perceptions of mentoring
effectiveness. Nurse Education Today, 20(7), 555-562.
Atputhasamy, L. (2005). Co-operating teachers as school-based teacher educators:
Student teachers' expectations. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 30(2), 1-11.
Best, D., Rose, M., & Edwards, H. (2005). Learning about learning. In D. Best & M. Rose
(Eds.), Transforming practice through clinical education, professional supervision and
mentoring (pp. 121-142). Sydney: Elsevier.
Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessing to student learning. Paper presented at
the Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Innovations,
University of Aveiro, 13-17 April 2003
Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace: strategies for effective practice: St Leonards:
Allen & Unwin.
Bishop, V. (2007). Clinical Supervision: What Is It? Why Do We Need It? In V. Bishop (Ed.),
Clinical Supervision in Practice: Some Questions, Answers and Guidelines (pp. 1-27).
.
Basingstoke: Palgrave
Cedercreutz, K., & Cates, C. (2011). Program assessment in co-operative and workintegrated education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International handbook
for co-operative and work-integrated learning (2nd ed.). Waikato: WACE (pp. 63-72).
Lowell, MA: WACE.
Clandinin, D. J., Downey, C. A., & Huber, J. (2009). Attending to changing landscapes:
Shaping the interwoven identities of teachers and teacher educators. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 141-154.
Clark, A. (2007). Turning the professional development of cooperating teachers on its
head: Relocating that responsibility within the profession. Educational Insights11(3)
1-9.
Coll, R.K., & Zegwaard, K.E.(2011) (Eds.) International Handbook for Co-operative & Work
Integrated Learning (2nd ed.) Lowell, MA.: WACE Inc.
Courtney‐Pratt, H., FitzGerald, M., Ford, K., Marsden, K., & Marlow, A. (2011). Quality
clinical placements for undergraduate nursing students: a cross-sectional survey of
undergraduates and supervising nurses. Journal of Advanced nursing, 68(6), 13801390.
Crump, S. Johnsson, M.C. (2011). Benefits of work-integrated education for educational
institutions. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International Handbook for Cooperative and Work-Integrated Learning (2nd ed.). Waikato: WACE. Lowell, MA:
WACE.
Dempsey, L. M. (2007). The experiences of Irish nurse lecturers role transition from
clinician to educator. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 4(1), 112.
Driscoll, J., & O’Sullivan, J. (2006). The place of clinical supervision in modern healthcare.
In J. Driscoll (Ed.), Practising Clinical Supervision: A Reflective Approach (2nd ed.).
London: Bailliere Tindall.
Duffy, K. (2003). Failing students: A qualitative study of factors that influence the
decisions regarding assessment of students' competence in practice. Glasgow:
Caledonian Nursing and Midwifery Research Centre:.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum
strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Ferrier-Kerr, J. (2003). Working together: Collaborative strategies for developing effective
professional relationships in the practicum. Paper presented at the Australian
Association for Research in Education and New Zealand Association for Research in
Education Conference, Auckland, Dec.
Fish, D. (2005). The anatomy of educational evaluation in clinical education, mentoring
and professional supervision. In M. Rose & D. Best (Eds.), Transforming practice
through clinical education, professional supervision and mentoring. Sydney: Elsevier.
Gibbons, J., & Gray, M. (2002). An integrated and experience-based approach to social
work education: The Newcastle model. Social Work Education, 21(5), 529-549.
Gronewald, T. (2004). Towards a definition of cooperative education. In R. K. Coll & C.
Eames (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative education (pp. 17-26). Boston,
MA: WACE.
Halcomb, E. J., Andrew, S., Peters, K., Salamonson, Y., & Jackson, D. (2010). Casualisation
of the teaching workforce: Implications for nursing education. Nurse Education
Today, 30(6), 528-532.
Hand, M. W. (2008). Formalized new-faculty orientation programs: Necessity or luxury?
Nurse Educator, 33(2), 63.
Happell, B. (2009). A model of preceptorship in nursing: reflecting the complex functions
of the role. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(6), 372-376.
Hastings, W. J. (2010). A construction of site-based teacher educators’ subjectivities in
difficult practicum relationships: Conduct un-becoming. Bathurst: Charles Sturt
University.
HealthWorkforceAustralia. (2010). Clinical Supervisor Support Program: Discussion
paper.Retrieved from http://www.hwa.gov.au/index.php?q=node/136 1 March
2012
Hodges, D. (2011). The assessment of student learning in co-operative and workintegrated education. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegwaard (Eds.), International Handbook
for Co-operative and Work Integrated Education (2nd ed.). Lowell, MA: WACE.
Hrobsky, P. E., & Kersbergen, A. L. (2002). Preceptors' perceptions of clinical performance
failure. The Journal of Nursing Education, 41(12), 550-553.
Johns, C. (2001). Depending on the intent and emphasis of the supervisor, clinical
supervision can be a different experience. Journal of Nursing Management, 9(3), 139145.
Jones, M. (2001). Mentors' perceptions of their roles in school-based teacher training in
England and Germany. Journal of Education for Teaching, 27(1), 75-94.
Kahn, B. (2001). Portrait of success: Cooperating teachers and the student teaching
experience. Action in Teacher Education, 22(4), 48-58.
Katz, I., Alfi, O., & Assor, A. (2004). Learning to allow temporary failure: Potential benefits,
supportive practices and teacher concerns. Journal of Education for Teaching:
International Research and Pedagogy, 30(1), 27-41.
Kilminster, S.M. & Jolly, B.C. (2000). Effective supervision in clinical practice settings: A
literature review. Medical Education, 34(10), 827-840.
Kimber, M. (2003). The tenured 'core'and the tenuous 'periphery': The casualisation of
academic work in Australian universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 25(1), 41-50.
Lake, F. R. (2004). Teaching on the run tips: Doctors as teachers. Medical Journal of
Australia, 180(8), 415-418.
Le Cornu, R., & Ewing, R. (2008). Reconceptualising professional experiences in pre-service
teacher education…reconstructing the past to embrace the future. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 24(7), 1799-1812.
Litchfield, J. (2001). Supporting nursing students who fail: A review of lecturers' practice.
Nurse Education in Practice, 1, 142-148.
Loftus, S. (2010). Professional learning for university liaison officers in site-based teacher
education. Bathurst: Charles Sturt University.
Maidment, J. (2003). Problems experienced by students on field placement: Using
research findings to inform curriculum design and content. Australian Social Work,
56(1), 50-60.
Marriott, J., Taylor, S., Simpson, M., Bull, R., Galbraith, K., Howarth, H.,(2005). Australian
national strategy for pharmacy preceptor education and support. Australian Journal
of Rural Health, 13(2), 83-90.
Morton-Cooper, A., & Palmer, A. (2000). Mentoring, preceptorship and clinical supervision:
A guide to professional roles in clinical practice (2nd ed.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mulholland, J., Mallik, M., Moran, P., Scammell, J., & Turnock, C. (2005). An overview of
the nature of the preparation of practice educators in five health care disciplines.
London: Higher Education Academy, Health Science and Practice Network.
Overton, A., Clark, M., & Thomas, Y. (2009). A review of non-traditional occupational
therapy practice placement education: a focus on role-emerging and project
placements. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(7), 294-301.
Percy, A., Scoufis, M., Parry, S., Goody, A., Hicks, M., Macdonald, I. (2008). The RED
Resource, Recognition-Enhancement-Development: The contribution of sessional
teachers to higher education (Complete report). Wollongong: University of
Wollongong.
Phelan, A. M., Sawa, R., Barlow, C., Hurlock, D., Irvine, K., Rogers, G. (2006). Violence and
subjectivity in teacher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2),
161-179.
Riccomini, P. J., & Fish, R. E. (2005). Supervising a struggling student teacher: A mid-term
action plan. Available online at: www.usca.edu/essays/vol152005/RiccominiRevised.pdf.
Reid, J., & Hastings, W. (2011). Preparing to teach all our children: Teacher education for
rural and remote schools. Paper presented at the American Education Research
Association.
Robinson, A. L., Andrews-Hall, S., & Fassett, M. (2007). Living on the edge: Issues that
undermine the capacity of residential aged care providers to support student nurses
on clinical placement. Australian Health Review, 31(3), 368-378.
Rodger, S., Fitzgerald, C., Davila, W., Millar, F., & Allison, H. (2011). What makes a quality
occupational therapy practice placement? Students’ and practice educators’
perspectives. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 58(3), 195-202.
Rodger, S., Webb, G., Devitt, L., Gilbert, J., Wrightson, P., & McMeeken, J. (2008). Clinical
education and practice placements in the allied health professions: An international
perspective. Journal of Allied Health, 37(1), 53-62.
Rose, M., & Best, D. (2005). Transforming practice through clinical education, professional
supervision, and mentoring. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone.
Rust, F. (2009). Teacher research and the problem of practice. The Teachers College
Record, 111(8), 1882-1893.
Shapton, M. (2006). Failing to fail students: Is the assessment process failing the caring
profession? Journal of Practice Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 39-54.
Sheehan, D., Wilkinson, T. J., & Billett, S. (2005). Interns' participation and learning in
clinical environments in a New Zealand hospital. Academic Medicine, 80(3), 302.
Smedley, L. (2001). Impediments to partnership: A literature review of school-university
links. Teachers and Teaching, 7(2), 189-209.
Smith, E., & Coombe, K. (2006). Quality and qualms in the marking of university
assignments by sessional staff: An exploratory study. Higher Education, 51(1), 45-69.
Stanulis, R. N., & Russell, D. (2000). "Jumping in": Trust and communication in mentoring
student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 65-80.
Taylor, R. (2005). Creating a connection: tackling student attrition through curriculum
development. Journal of further and higher education, 29(4), 367-374.
Thomas, Y., Dickson, D., Broadbridge, J., Hopper, L., Hawkins, R., Edwards, A., et al. (2007).
Benefits and challenges of supervising occupational therapy fieldwork students:
Supervisors’ perspectives. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54, S2-S12.
4