EDUCATION FOR
PRACTICE TOPICS:
3
Workplace Learning in
Curricula: Assessment Design
By Edwina Adams
ISSN 2201-8387 (Print)
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]
Reference for this occasional paper:
Adams, E. (2012). Workplace learning in curricula: Assessment
design (Occasional Paper 3). Sydney: The Education For Practice
Institute, Charles Sturt University.
Acknowledgement
The contributions of staff from The Education
For Practice Institute (EFPI) and EFPI’s
Workplace Learning Consultative Committee
in providing feedback on this paper is
acknowledged.
Workplace Learning (WPL) in Curricula: Assessment Design
This occasional paper presents some contemporary factors influencing design of assessment in workplace learning (WPL) curricula and ways to
address these factors. Given the scope of WPL at CSU and the range of assessment tasks, the paper focuses on fundamental issues that are common
to all WPL at CSU. The paper does not address the typical issues of assessment such as reliability and validity nor does it attempt to cover all areas of
assessment. This paper builds on Adams, E., (2012) Workplace Learning (WPL) Placements in Curricula: Strengths and Challenges, Occasional
Paper 2, The Education For Practice Institute, Charles Sturt University, Sydney.
The term 'workplace learning' was accepted by CSU Academic Senate (AS 10/43, 2010) as the generic term for use at CSU and will be used in this
paper. Workplace learning ... allows students to learn through direct implementation of their professional roles in real workplace settings.
Introduction
Assessment is a primary driver of student learning and is therefore essential to the quality of curricula (Boud, 2010). In the case of WPL subjects,
assessment is often more challenging and complex than in conventional subjects (Cooper, Orrell, & Bowden 2010). Cooper et al. (2010) identify the
following key factors as ones that create the difference between conventional and WPL curricula and therefore influence assessment:

variability of learning experience depending upon the workplace

variability in induction in the industry/workplace

variability in learning experiences that requires guided reflection and debriefing on work experiences

assessment often conducted at a distance

training required for off campus assessors who may not be employed by the university

accreditation bodies that often dictate specific learning requirements and therefore must be incorporated into assessment.
This paper will not address all these key factors as they are well covered in Cooper, Orrell and Bowden's book. The purpose for including them is to set
the scene for curricula containing WPL.
Contemporary Issues Influencing Design of WPL assessment
A review of recent literature has identified some contemporary issues that should be taken into consideration when designing WPL assessment in
Australian universities. These considerations are applicable to all courses containing WPL.
1. Professional work-ready graduate
In recent years there has been a greater emphasis by government, professional bodies and industry on Australian universities graduating students who
are ‘work ready’. Being work ready in today's rapidly changing, complex, global workplace requires not only discipline skills and knowledge but a high
level of effective critical thinking, teamwork and communication. Harvey and Norman (2007) note that workplaces within the same sector (e.g.
engineering) appear similar but in fact differences in workplace culture and therefore learning can be substantial. The authors identify that an effective
worker is one with tacit knowledge which includes "social knowledge, emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills and behaviours, and cultural skills"
(p.335). The key to being an effective worker is one who can readily adapt to a range of workplaces and work effectively with others. Litchfield, Frawley
and Nettleton (2010) in their curriculum renewal project interviewed six professional societies to identify their perceptions of what they considered were
the attributes of a professional work-ready graduate. Interestingly, many of the professional representatives indentified that staff recruitment is based
more on perceptions of generic professional attributes rather than technical skills because it was 'too hard' to develop these abilities (e.g. effective
communication, teamwork, initiative, analytical skills) in new employees. The findings from the interviews identified the following key attributes desired
of graduates: ethics and professionalism, a global perspective, communication capacity, ability to work well in a team, ability to apply knowledge,
creative problem solving and critical thinking skills. Trede and Smith (2012) discuss the impact of assessment on professional identity.
2.
Discipline specific skills, knowledge, competencies versus graduate attributes
The current imperative for universities to educate students with generic capabilities for the workplace, raises the issue of graduate attributes. In
Australia, graduate attributes have been a requirement by government since 1998 (Willcoxson, Wynder & Laing 2010). As an educator, it is important to
differentiate between discipline-specific skills, knowledge and competencies, and generic skills (e.g. graduate attributes) so that no aspect of the
learners' development will be limited or missed. Willcoxson, Wynder and Laing (2010) identify 'competencies' as being requirements for vocational and
professional training whereas 'graduate attributes' are generic capabilities developed through a university education. WPL curricula should include both
elements and ensure assessments are designed appropriately to encompass both. For instance, assessment of communication could focus on the
generalised graduate attribute as well as more specific discipline skills. Hughes and Barrie (2010) note that accreditation bodies or professional
stakeholders often influence the assessment practices of courses and it is important to ensure that the pursuit of generic attributes is not limited by the
requirement for workplace competencies. The following definitions of the term graduate attributes are provided.
Barrie (2004, pp.262-263) describes generic graduate attributes in Australia as being:
the skills, knowledge and abilities of university graduates, beyond disciplinary content knowledge, which are applicable to a range of contexts. It is
intended that university students acquire these qualities as one of the outcomes of successfully completing any undergraduate degree at
university.
There are several key features to such a definition of generic graduate attributes:
 These outcomes are referred to as generic in that it is claimed they are developed regardless of the field of study or domain of knowledge. That is
not to say that they are necessarily independent of disciplinary knowledge rather, that these qualities may be developed in various disciplinary
contexts and are outcomes that in some way transcend disciplinary outcomes.
 They are abilities to be looked for in a graduate of any undergraduate degree. They are not entry-level skills rather, they are considered to be an
important outcome of university-level learning experiences.
 They are often referred to as generic attributes rather than generic skills in recognition that as outcomes they encompass more than skills and
attitudes. As well as being a more global term for such outcomes it is one that can encompass new or alternative conceptions of wisdom and
knowledge.
 These outcomes result from the usual process of higher education. That is, they are not a set of additional outcomes requiring an additional
curriculum rather, they are outcomes that can be reasonably expected from the usual higher education experience.
Bowden et al. (2000, http://www.clt.uts.edu.au/TheProject.htm) describes graduate attributes as:
The qualities, skills and understanding a university community agrees its students should develop during their time with the institution. These
attributes include but go beyond the disciplinary expertise or technical knowledge that has traditionally formed the core of most university courses.
They are qualities that also prepare graduates as agents of social good in an unknown future.
Barrie (2004) notes that although graduate attributes have been required in Australia for quite some time, the literature would indicate there has been
limited achievement in the teaching and learning of these capabilities. The author considers a lack of "common understanding" of the ways to teach and
evaluate these learning outcomes as a primary factor in the failure to achieve the intent of these statements. Barrie (2006) contests the actual
achievement of the graduate attributes by Australian universities and highlights the move to greater scrutiny by government of the achievement of
these. Willcoxson, Wynder and Laing (2010) concur, and in their research they explore the task of developing graduate attributes in curricula by taking a
whole of course approach. The authors identified there were inconsistencies in the development of the graduate attributes throughout their university's
accounting courses because they were often left up to individual subjects rather than a whole of course approach. Hughes and Barrie (2010) note, with
the trend for greater scrutiny on universities worldwide (e.g. via Bologna, Tuning Project and in Australia, Australian Universities Quality Agency) that
assessment of graduate attributes is needed if universities are to demonstrate attainment by their graduates. The authors identify the complexity and
challenge that comes with assessing graduate attributes but note that assessment is one of the key determinants to effective implementation.
1
The value to WPL is that graduate attributes are not in competition with discipline capabilities. If graduate attributes are embedded and integrated at a
course level they will support the learning of discipline specific capabilities. Cooper, Orrell, & Bowden (2010) identify that one of the principles behind
good WPL assessment is that explicit learning outcomes should be aligned to the core curriculum. Assessment of generic and discipline capabilities will
provide evidence that students have attained these capabilities and that university courses have educated well rounded professional graduates.
3. Quality assurance - standards and learning outcomes
Assessment, as evidence of the quality of education, is a component of quality assurance. Quality assurance and standards have been a feature of
higher education worldwide for many years, and with the changing nature of universities (e.g. the move to mass higher education) the focus and level of
accountability of the quality assurance has changed. Quality assurance in universities today aims to enhance learning often by setting standards and
benchmarks for each qualification level (Westerheijden, Hulpiau, & Waeytens, 2007; Ewell, 2010). In Australia, a move to increased external quality
assurance was particularly evident after the Government commissioned the Higher Education Review (2008). This Review recommended the
introduction of stronger accreditation and quality assurance processes to ensure Australian higher education teaching and learning quality remained at
a competitive level internationally. Since this review, a number of key changes have occurred, with the following having an impact on WPL assessment.

The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) Council undertook a review to strengthen qualification outcomes with the national AQF being
adopted in 2011. The framework uses learning outcomes as the end point measure of the qualification. The qualification levels include a number of
factors, but three learning outcome dimensions are most relevant for the purposes of this paper. These dimensions are: knowledge (what the
graduate knows and understands); skills (what the graduate can do); and, application of knowledge and skills (the expected range of autonomy
and complexity of what the graduate can apply). See Australian Qualification Framework (http://www.aqf.edu.au/) for information on the Bachelor
Degree Qualification and other qualifications.

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) was introduced in 2011 and replaced the Australian Universities Quality Agency
(AUQA) and the Commonwealth, State, and Territory authorities for accrediting universities and higher education courses. In January 2012,
TEQSA took on its regulatory role under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2001 (www.teqsa.gov.au/). This regulatory role
registers and evaluates higher education performance against the Higher Education Standards Framework (www.teqsa.gov.au/higher-educationstandards-framework). The Framework is multi-dimensional but of particular interest for assessment are the Qualification Standards (AQF) and the
Teaching and Learning Standards, which to date are not finalised. The important issue, to which universities will have to attend, is the intention to
require evidence of learning outcomes attained by students graduating from a course of study in Australian universities.

Coates (2010, p. 6), from his extensive review of quality assurance in Australian universities, defines academic standards as the "agreed levels of
performance on indicators of academic quality". The author explains that many variables influence student performance and therefore teaching
quality and learning outcomes. He asserts that student background, initial knowledge and skill, teaching resources and teaching quality, all make it
difficult to find a measure of quality, particularly when the variables interact in complex ways. Further, he argues that the most important indicator
of teaching and learning quality is learner outcomes. Learner outcomes are essentially the "net effect" of all the variables working together. They
provide a measure of the level of achievement attained by the student and "how well the teaching and learning system is working" (p. 8).
CSU Professional and Practice-Based Education Standards
The Education For Practice Institute led the development of the Professional and Practice-Based Education (P&PBE) Standards for CSU undergraduate
and graduate entry courses in 2010. The P&PBE Standards were accepted by CSU Academic Senate (AS10/125 September 2010) as "descriptors of
excellence". The P&PBE Standards (http://csusap.csu.edu.au/~jhiggs/pedagogy.htm) cover four aspects of learning and teaching at the course level.
These are: learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, course infrastructure at a local level and infrastructure at the university level. In total, 70
standards are articulated. Extensive consultation with the CSU community was undertaken to ensure the course learning outcomes defined in Table 1
were applicable to the wide range of undergraduate and graduate entry courses offered at CSU, and that the curriculum renewal degree initiatives were
included. Two principles underpinned the design of the course learning outcomes standards (Table 1):

Learning activities, including assessment, must be designed to direct learning and evaluate the attainment of professional values such as respect,
integrity, accountability, effective communication, teamwork, leadership and service (Lazarus et al. 2000).

The focus of a practice-based education curriculum is to create a learning environment that well equips graduates for entry into the contemporary
world of work and develops their capacity for future practice.
Ways Forward for Assessment in WPL
Finding reliable, sustainable, authentic assessment tasks to evaluate the work-readiness of students is difficult. For instance, Harvey and Norman
(2007) argue that WPL written assessment tasks can evaluate the ability of the student to reflect, analyse and synthesise knowledge acquired, but are
unable to assess social, interpersonal and cultural skills. Cooper, Orrell, & Bowden (2010) identify three challenges to designing WPL assessment:
a) assessing higher-order thinking ensuring deep learning rather than superficial; b) using pass/fail grades (where it is only necessary to attend) instead
of actually grading performance; and, c) recognition in institutional policies. Boud's (2010) work in devising seven propositions for assessment states in
proposition 5 ii. that assessment for learning should be central to the curriculum design and "organized holistically across subjects" and courses.
An integrated whole of course approach to assessment
In order for WPL assessment to fully and effectively evaluate professional work-ready graduates, it must integrate assessment of knowledge, skills and
dispositions. To do this, specific learning outcomes are required in a WPL curriculum to address elements of knowledge, a range of generic capabilities
and workplace skills (graduate attributes), generic social and ethical dispositions (graduate attributes) and discipline-specific skills (Cooper, Orrell, &
Bowden 2010). In order to effectively assess this multi-dimensional requirement, the assessment process cannot be isolated and fragmentary. Smith
(2012) states the two key characteristics of WPL curricula should be that they provide authentic learning and that the learning is integrative. Berdrow
and Evers (2010) concur with their 'bases of competence' framework that incorporates a learner-centred skill development and course approach to
outcomes assessment to achieve discipline and generic skill development. Cooper, Orrell, & Bowden (2010) note it is difficult to "capture" learning and
therefore assess in the workplace at a specific point in time due the "unpredictable, variable" environment.
A whole of course approach is required if learning is to be integrated. Hughes and Barrie (2010) promote the importance of an integrated whole of
course approach, rather than a modular subject level approach, because the development of higher order attributes do not easily fit into rigid subject
time frames. The authors suggest capstone tasks that cross subject boundaries as a way to approach assessment. Cooper, Orrell, & Bowden (2010)
note that learning outcomes, and their related assessment tasks, need to be captured in different forms. The authors describe these different forms as:
"declarative knowledge (what a student knows); procedural knowledge (an explanation as to how to proceed); conditional knowledge in a simulated
environment (shows how to perform); and, contextual knowledge (the student does)". In order for these different forms to be effective, the assessment
approach should be: aligned, linking theory with practice, authentically connected to the real world of practice, iterative to allow development and
provide feedback, and designed to promote learning that enables a transfer between contexts (Cooper, Orrell, & Bowden 2010). An ALTC project led by
Billett (2011) aimed to produce a curriculum suitable for work-integrated learning and a "pedagogy of practice". The author notes that an essential
feature for an effective curriculum is one that has understood the goals of the course learning experiences, how these experiences are implemented
and how the students interact with these experiences. These dimensions are described as the "intended curriculum", "educational purposes", "enacted
curriculum" and "curriculum as experienced by students". A systematic integrative approach will enable a holistic evaluation of a students' performance
across a number of dimensions. This approach ensures assessment procedures effectively judge whether the performance is of an acceptable standard
and one that meets the range of requirements for a work-ready professional graduate.
2
Constructive alignment and curriculum mapping
Constructive alignment and curriculum mapping provide a systematically integrated approach to assessment in curriculum. Biggs & Tang (2011)
describe constructive alignment as a focus on what a student learns by "specifying what is to be learned, how it will be learned and to what standard".
Essentially, learning experiences should be constructed to support the learning outcome and assessment designed specifically to test the attainment of
outcomes. Learning outcomes need to be "achievable, demonstrable and measurable" (Oliver et al. 2007). The assessment provides evidence of the
level of achievement. Curriculum mapping is a process by which constructive alignment of a course can be reviewed; it will identify gaps or overlap in
achievement of learning outcomes. Oliver et al. (2007) describe the curriculum mapping process by which Curtin University of Technology ensured their
nine graduate attributes were a direct part of the course learning outcomes with the aim to produce work-ready graduates. The aim of curriculum
mapping is to ensure that by the completion of the "collective experience" of a course, students are work-ready. The authors contended that
employability skills are often an underlying part of graduate attributes, but without a systematic framework to embed these in courses with the graduate
attributes being translated into learning outcomes, they often fail to achieve their intent. The authors note that graduate attributes are often positioned as
desired objectives rather than attained learning outcomes. The mapping process employed by Oliver et al. (2007) was based on the concept of the
aligned curriculum. Five phases of mapping were:
Phase 1 Initial request and needs analysis
Phase 2 Map the existing course with the graduate attributes, including accreditation requirements, identifying the level of thinking for
each learning outcome based on Bloom's taxonomy, and aligning subject level learning and course level learning outcomes
Phase 3 Course team considers map of existing course and renews unit information
Phase 4 Consensus on renewed course
Phase 5 Course changes approved.
There are many models for curriculum mapping and the following matrix proposed by Willcoxson, Wynder and Laing (2010) could also provide a useful
framework to map the attainment (assessment) of discipline capabilities and generic attributes as learning outcomes throughout a course. The matrix
comprised the following teaching and learning components:

assumed (students are assumed to have acquired this skill prior to the unit)

encouraged (students are encouraged to gain/practice/refine this skill in this unit)

modelled (for students in this unit)

explicitly taught (to students in this unit)

required (students are required to demonstrate this skill in this unit) and

evaluated (students are evaluated on this skill in this unit).
Although Oliver et al. (2007) acknowledge curriculum mapping is a complex and time consuming process, the benefits outweigh the costs. Curriculum
mapping brings a whole-of-course approach to learning thereby strengthening the actual learning that is achieved and having evidence that it is
embedded in the course. In addition, a whole-of-course approach brings attention to the need for a holistic or "collective experience" approach by
individual teachers of subjects within a course. Teachers should not consider they teach an isolated subject; they should be working towards the course
goals and be part of the collective experience.
The overarching aim of a curriculum containing WPL is to graduate those who have achieved the generic professional attributes and are work-ready
with the required skills and knowledge for the specific discipline they will enter. The course learning outcomes presented in Table 1 of P&PBE standards
and the AQF descriptors could form the framework for constructive alignment and curriculum mapping of CSU WPL courses.
Conclusion
The design of WPL assessment in today's university setting requires a rigorous and systematic approach that provides evidence of the attainment of
generic and discipline-specific capabilities. It is essential therefore, to take a whole-of-course approach using the principles of constructive alignment i.e.
aligning what is declared (stated learning outcomes), taught and learned (assessed) to bring a cohesive approach to curriculum design. Curriculum
mapping provides a means to evaluate whether these factors, particularly assessment, are aligned. This integrative approach has the potential to
ensure learning outcomes and assessment in the course and those teaching the subjects, are working towards the goal of educating graduates who
demonstrate generic attributes and are work-ready.
Reference List
Barrie, S.C. (2004). A research-based approach to generic attributes policy. Higher Education Research & Development 23(3), 261-275.
Barrie. S.C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education 51, 215–241.
Berdrow, I. & Evers, F.T. (2010). Bases of competence: an instrument for self and institutional assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(4), 419-434.
Billett, S. (2011). Curriculum and pedagogic bases for effectively integrating practice-based experiences. Australian Learning and Teaching Council National Teaching
Fellow. Retrieved from Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching website
http://www.olt.gov.au/resources?text=Curriculum+and+pedagogic+bases+for+effectively
Biggs, J.B. & Tang, C. (2011). Constructively aligned teaching and assessment In. Teaching For Quality Learning At University (4th ed., pp. 95-104). Buckingham, Open
University Press/McGraw Hill.
Bowden, J., Hart, G., King, B., Trigwell, K. & Watts, O. (2000). Generic Capabilities of ATN University Graduates. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs. Accessed online [http://www.gradskills.anu.edu.au/references]. August 2012
Boud, D. (2010). Assessment 2020 Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Australian Learning and Teaching Council National Teaching Fellow.
Retrieved from Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching website
http://www.olt.gov.au/resources?text=Assessment+2020+Seven+propositions+for+assessment+reform+in+higher+education
Coates, H, (2010). Defining and monitoring academic standards in Australian higher education. Higher Education Management and Policy 22(1),1-17.
Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work Integrated Learning: A guide to effective practice, London: Routledge. (pp.43–54).
Department of Education and Employment Workplace Relations. (2008). Review of Australian Higher Education [Online]. Retrieved from
www.deewr.gov.au/highereducation/review/pages/reviewofaustralianhighereducationreport.aspx
Ewell, P. (2010). Twenty years of quality assurance in higher education: What’s happened and what’s different? Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 173-175.
Harvey, M. & Norman, N. (2007). Beyond competencies: what higher education assessment could offer the workplace and the practitioner-researcher. Research in PostCompulsory Education 12(3), 331-342.
Hughes, C. & Simon Barrie, B. (2010). Influences on the assessment of graduate attributes in higher education Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(3), 325–
334.
Lazarus, C.J., Chauvin, S.W., Rodenhauser, P., & Whitlock, R. (2000). The Program for Professional Values & Ethics in Medical Education. Teaching and Learning in
Medicine 12(4), 208-211.
Litchfield, A., Frawley, J. & Nettleton, S. (2010). Contextualising and integrating into the curriculum the learning and teaching of work-ready professional graduate attributes.
Higher Education Research & Development, 29(5), 519–534.
Oliver, B., Jones, S., Tucker, B., & Ferns, S. (2007). Mapping curricula: ensuring work-ready graduates by mapping course learning outcomes and higher order thinking skills.
Peer-reviewed paper presented at the Evaluations and Assessment Conference, Brisbane. Available at
http://www.eac2007.qut.edu.au/proceedings/proceedings_ebook.pdf
Westerheijden, D.F., Hulpiau, V., & Waeytens, K. (2007). From design and implementation to impact of quality assurance: An overview of some studies into what impacts
improvements. Tertiary Education and Management, 13, 295-312.
Willcoxson, L., Wynder, M., & Laing, G.K. (2010). A Whole-of-program Approach to the Development of Generic and Professional Skills in a University Accounting Program.
Accounting Education: an international journal, 19(1-2), 65–91.
Smith, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: a comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 247-262.
Trede, F., & Smith, M. (2012). Challenges of assessment in practice-based education. In J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billett, M. Hutchings & F. Trede (Eds.), Practice-based
education: Perspectives and strategies (pp. 185-196). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
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/
3