Abstract
Work-integrated learning (WIL) is a prominent pedagogical approach in higher education (HE) that is a focal point for many universities around the world. Given that WIL is a strategic priority for many institutions there is an increased need to evaluate program quality. Yet at the same time, a universally agreed upon standard for quality WIL programs eludes practitioners and researchers. Design/Approach/Methods: This systematic literature review applies a constructivist paradigm to provide an intertextual meta-analysis of 22 WIL quality frameworks published in the last 10 years. In so doing, nine common principles of quality WIL are identified to develop the Common Elements of Quality WIL (CEQWIL) framework. Findings: These common themes are context, leadership, skills development, learning outcomes, curriculum design, experience, inclusivity, equity and access, stakeholder relationship management, and evaluation and assessment. The elements are interpreted to be causal, having an impactful influence on one another, and being drivers of quality WIL. Originality/Value: The analysis provides an adaptation to quality frameworks, that is proposed to be paired with the definitions of the common principles of quality WIL as a basis for future research and program evaluation.
Plain Language Summary
Workplace-based learning provides experiences to students in university and college that has become quite popular in higher education. With its increase in practice across the sector, a gap exists in evaluating the quality of programming. Currently, there needs to be a common definition and standard for quality workplace-based learning. This paper review 23 studies on different aspects of quality to identify the common principles of quality workplace-based learning amongst them. It identifies nine common elements within the review of publications from the last 10 years. These are summarized in a theoretical model called the Common Elements for Quality Work-Integrated Learning (CEQWIL) framework for program evaluation.
The fourth industrial revolution is here, driven by globalization and the emergence of a digital economy, increasing the demand for work-ready graduates with modernized skills and the ability to work within in multi-disciplinary teams (Dean & Campbell, 2020; Sutherland & Symmons, 2013, p. 303; Twyford & Dean, 2021; Winterton & Turner, 2019). In response to this, higher education institutions (HEIs) are expanding the practice of work-integrated learning (WIL) due to pressure from various levels of government (Chiose, 2016; Kay et al., 2019; Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017). Millions of dollars have been committed by governments around the world to activate policies that incentivize WIL activity in higher education (HE) (Aničić & Divjak, 2022; CEWIL Canada 2022; Cukier et al., 2018; Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), 2017; Province of Ontario, 2016; Rowe & Zegwaard, 2017), with a goal of offering post-secondary graduates with WIL experiences across the HE curricula.
WIL is a pedagogical approach that is simply defined as a form of experiential learning that involves external partners in the co-design and evaluation of a for-credit project in a workplace or simulated workplace setting (Arsenault & Fenton, 2021; McRae & Johnston, 2016). Given that WIL is growing and becoming a strategic priority for many institutions (Kay et al., 2019), it is imperative that the focus of program developers and WIL practitioners shifts to program quality (Ferns & Arsenault, 2023). Defining quality WIL programs and developing a universally agreed upon frame of reference has proven challenging (Campbell & Pretti, 2023) signaling the need to analyze the existing quality frameworks. As such, this review aims to provide a detailed interpretation of quality WIL principles for programs through a meta-analysis of the contemporary WIL literature on quality WIL frameworks. Contemporary WIL literature, in the case of this article, is defined as publications from the last 10 years. The selection of publications for this review was limited to those from the past decade because the scholarship on quality programs was scarce prior to 2014, and an accepted definition of WIL (McRae & Johnston, 2016; McRae et al., 2018) had not yet been published. This systematic literature review identifies that the existing contributions that define quality WIL are disparate, often limited outside of teaching and learning, and are not relevant to practice (Campbell et al., 2021). While many publications acknowledge the value of benchmarking and continuous improvement, a definition of quality that covers all elements of a WIL program does not exist for evaluation purposes (Campbell et al., 2021; Ferns & Arsenault, 2023). As such, this review gathers and triangulates research-driven insights on quality WIL programs to inform the creation of a theoretical framework for WIL program evaluation.
This qualitative assessment will apply a constructivist paradigm (Collins & Stockton, 2018; Creswell, 2013), defining constructivism as the creation of new knowledge generated by an individual’s reflection on complex interactions from within their surroundings (Creswell, 2013). This paradigmatic underpinning captures how students involved in WIL construct new meaning from their participation work-based experiences (Bowen, 2020; Dewey, 1938), leveraging reflection to contextualize the relevant application of their academic learning into new settings (Dean et al., 2021). This particular construction of meaning results in an internalized and intra-personal sense of understanding from social interaction (Mayo, 2013; Vygotsky, 1986). The examination of publications from the last 10 years illuminates this concept and the common principles of quality WIL. This synthesis will answer the following research questions:
(1) What are the elements of quality for a WIL program found in extant research?
(2) What principles of quality are common among these diverse frameworks?
(3) How are these elements realized within a program context?
An exploration of the current canon of WIL literature from the global academic community serves as an informational input for this investigation. Closely reading and annotating the selected articles distills the determinations of quality, highlighting which attributes are the most common among them in the literature. This study offers new insight into how quality WIL is defined, and how key components of quality interact with one another in a program setting. The methodology that follows outlines the process for identifying sources and the techniques applied to this review. The subsequent “Attributes of Quality WIL” section defines key terms and provides an overview of published WIL quality frameworks. This analytical approach illuminates the common principles of quality WIL derived from the intertextual analysis of the existing frameworks under discussion. The ultimate goal of this interpretation is to inspire a new quality assurance tool based on these findings, promoting future research on WIL quality and program evaluation.
Methods
This analysis consists of a systematic literature review rather than an empirical study. This approach generates more qualitative and theoretical insights than one that gathers data and derives insights directly from people. The goal is to consolidate contributions to WIL research on program quality that have been published in the last 10 years from around the world. These texts were selected using specific a specific keyword search in reputable education journals as outlined below. The inclusion of the specific quality frameworks in this study is based on their prevalence and intertextual referral in “The Interconnected Elements of WIL” from Sachs et al. (2017) and other subsequent quality frameworks covering resourcing, scalability, design, learning outcomes, skills, experience, stakeholders, relationship, management, WIL, work, and employability.
Design
The onus for this analysis came from the development of a program evaluation model for a curricular WIL program. Through this process, it was identified that a quality standard for curricular WIL did not exist in the literature and that there were disparate frameworks that defined aspects of quality that comprise a program, but nothing that defined these elements as they converge within the delivery of a program. The conception and design of this analysis is rooted in the need for a systematic literature review to identify the commonalities between the existing, yet segmented, quality WIL frameworks and to bring them together to better define the theories that underpin a quality WIL program. The details of this paper’s design are expanded upon below through the definition of the materials used, the adopted procedures, and the analytic strategy leveraged to conduct this analysis.
Materials
In the last 10 years, 1,915 articles were published that included the keywords work-integrated learning (1,277 sources), WIL in Ontario (3 sources), WIL in Canada (71 sources), International WIL (330 sources), WIL and student employability (55 sources), WIL in curriculum design (16 sources), WIL and skills development (40 sources), WIL and entrepreneurship (11 sources), and quality WIL (112 sources). These sources were identified in a keyword and key phrase search of The International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL), Education Source, and The Education Resource Information Center (ERIC). The final reading list was comprised of 27 articles that were selected based on their prevalence on multiple search outcomes, their high number of citations, and their discussion of quality WIL frameworks or WIL program evaluation. Of these articles, 22 focused on quality WIL.
Procedures
Each article was closely read, annotated, and critically interpreted to categorize the quality frameworks and to identify dimensions of quality for WIL within a program context. From this point, a matrix was created in a spreadsheet listing themes and principles of quality taken from each source. In addition to the textual analysis, visual images of frameworks and models from 22 prominent and often cited sources were extracted, compared, and dissected for this review. These insights were similarly recorded in the informational database for further synthesis. Finally, these findings were analyzed alongside four chapters of the very recently released “The Routledge International Handbook of Work-Integrated Learning (3rd ed.)” (Zegwaard & Pretti, 2023). Once the final list was compiled, the articles were individually scanned using the keyword search function in a PDF reader to highlight numerous principles of quality to better define the themes. As previously stated, these keywords used were selected from “The Interconnected Elements of WIL” from Sachs et al. (2017) to include resources, scalability, design, learning outcomes, skills, experience, stakeholders, relationship, management, WIL, work, and employability. Aggregating the gathered definitions, identifying their common elements of quality, and discussing their causal influence on one another serves to answer the research questions.
Analytic Strategy
The intertextual analysis offered below provides a depth of clarity for the principles of quality WIL that are prevalent in the current literature. It also aligns the common principles among the current frameworks. The subsequent examination of these sources resulted in the identification of nine common themes of quality WIL. The implication for practice from this component of the study creates the possibility for a new research study involving an empirical approach for evaluating the quality of WIL programs, using these principles.
Theories and Concepts
The literature search on quality WIL frameworks yielded several definitions of the attributes of WIL that drive quality in several areas of practice. The interpretation provided by the intertextual analysis in this review identifies synergies between several frameworks serving to address their disparate nature and the narrowness of their respective scopes (Campbell et al., 2021; Ferns & Arsenault, 2023). Before this is examined further, a few key concepts from the literature need to be elaborated upon, beginning with a definition of WIL, then constructivism, and lastly quality WIL frameworks themselves.
Work-Integrated Learning
McRae and Johnston (2016) outline four common qualities of WIL: (1) meaningful and substantial experience in a workplace setting or simulation; (2) curricular integration; (3) student outcomes (skills and knowledge that lead to employability); and (4) reflection (p. 341). Building on this in Work-Integrated Learning Quality Framework, AAA, McRae et al. (2018, p. 4) define WIL using the Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL) nomenclature (CEWIL Canada, 2021):
Curricular experiential learning that formally and intentionally integrates a student’s academic studies within a workplace or practice setting. WIL experiences include an engaged partnership of at least: an academic institution, a host organization, and a student. WIL can occur at the course or program level and includes the development of learning outcomes related to employability, personal agency, and life-long learning (CEWIL Canada, 2021).
CEWIL Canada is the national accreditation body for co-operative education and WIL for higher education in Canada, recognizing nine forms of WIL: co-operative education (co-op); internship; entrepreneurship; service learning; applied research projects; professional practicum and clinical placements; apprenticeship; field placements; and work experience (McRae et al., 2018, pp. 5–6). While co-op is the most popular, and well-established form of WIL (Johnston, 2018, pp. 38–41), recent research from Dean et al. (2020) and Kay et al. (2019) explores future WIL models, highlighting five new, innovative models of WIL that have emerged in practice recently. These include micro-placements, online projects or placements, competitions such as hackathons, incubators or start-ups and consulting (Kay et al., 2019). The definition of WIL is now expanding to include both placement and non-placement WIL (NPWIL) types (Dean et al., 2020). The new WIL modalities are difficult to classify as they are embedded in courses rather than standalone programs (like co-op) and may be less obvious to students as more robust and resource intensive forms of WIL (p. 2). As such, it is imperative that dimensions of quality are defined for WIL programs holistically so that the efficacy of all modalities can be measured (Campbell et al., 2021, p. 514). With this in mind, the definition of WIL applied in this paper is all-encompassing and includes all the forms of WIL outlined above, thus facilitating a comprehensive exploration of its elements of quality at a programmatic level.
Constructivism
The constructivist philosophy of learning focuses on the learner and their continuous construction of understanding (McRae & Johnston, 2016, p. 339). Constructivism in WIL evolved from Dewey’s experiential learning theory (Dewey, 1938) with Kolb’s adaptation (Kolb,1984) with the introduction of reflective practice and knowledge mobilization as a means to develop human capital (McRae & Johnston, 2016). In other pedagogical literature, constructivism, very simply, is to learn in context (de Peuter et al., 2015). In Guba and Lincoln (2005), constructivism involves activities that promote the making of new meaning and sense, as well as the development of attributes that shape the future action of the individual. The constructivist perspective expects participants to play an active role in inquiry and design within their context (p. 202). As a paradigm, constructivism, particularly as it relates to evaluation, aims to create meaning from the experiences of the evaluand, and to generate understanding other stakeholders from this output (Stirling et al., 2016). The latter perspective reflects the exact goal of this systematic review such that it aims to create a better understanding of the principles of quality for WIL through the synthesis and interpretation of documented experiences from practitioners.
Work-Integrated Learning Quality Frameworks
For many years, call for an improved understanding for quality WIL have abounded in the literature (Campbell & Pretti, 2023). McRae et al. (2018) posits the need for a quality framework to benchmark program performance over time, while determining best practices that promote sustainability and quality of programs. That said, 22 frameworks were thoroughly analyzed for this literature review, each offering tremendous insight into how quality WIL is interpreted across higher education, and in practice. The dissemination of these specific examples indicates that there is no singular that independently defines quality WIL, especially to assess programs as many are limited in their scope outside of teaching and learning (Campbell et al., 2021). An all-encompassing, and universally accepted definition of a quality WIL program has proven elusive over the years (Campbell & Pretti, 2023). Despite this, common attributes of quality exist amongst these unique sources and aggregating them with a systematic review will serve to improve the understanding of quality WIL.
For example, “The Interconnected Elements of WIL” (Sachs et al., 2017, p. 27) is often cited in discussions of quality WIL and considered a well-principled approach to the categorization of WIL program quality. Sachs et al. (2017) presents a segmented pyramid outlining four aspects that are required for a successful WIL program (See Figure 1). At the foundation of the construct, are the principles of stakeholder management and relationships, as well as a separate grouping of resources, technology, scalability, and design (p. 27). For Sachs et al. (2017) work context and employability are at the core of this model, and learning outcomes, skills, and quality of experience at the peak (p. 27). This framework touches on many of the areas of quality that are defined by other contributions to the literature that emerged since 2016.
The interconnected elements of WIL from Sachs et al. (2017, p. 27).
While the individual aspects of the pyramid are superficially defined by the authors in Sachs et al. (2017), other published frameworks since have further qualified these principles. For example, Fleming et al. (2018) provides a “Sustainable Relationships Framework for Work-Integrated Learning” (p. 329). Presented in a similarly segmented pyramid, this model outlines several components of quality relationship building based on shared values and attributes which are rationalized and supported with action research (p. 323). While the “Sustainable Relationships Framework for Work-Integrated Learning” (Fleming et al., 2018) is not the only perspective on quality WIL and stakeholder relationship management, it offers a valuable contribution that alleviates the ambiguity of the stakeholder management quadrant of the model in Sachs et al. (2017). Other frameworks have emerged since 2017 that acknowledge the significance of Sachs’ model and further define principles of quality. One such example is Campbell et al. (2021) and the “Domains of Work-Integrated Learning Practice.” Elements of quality include the student experience, curriculum design, institutional policy, practice and support, and stakeholder engagement; however, Campbell et al. (2021) situates these components within an institutional context (pp. 512–513). This fosters a greater depth of understanding for dimensions of quality WIL and at the same time offers new contributions in stressing the importance of context which Ferns and Arsenault (2023) highlight recently in their discussion on accreditation. If the common concepts of quality can be distilled from disparate frameworks, then a conversation about how to assess quality in a program context can occur. To generate this meaning from the literature, a constructivist lens will be applied to the meta-analysis of quality in the literature.
Results
This following section summarizes the findings of the literature review, first by defining the elements of quality in WIL programs and then highlighting which of these appear to be common across the selection of publications. Identifying these qualitative themes across the literature under review, and their causal links to other principles of quality WIL indicates a causal interplay amongst the principles of quality. Deciphering these interactive elements and their connectivity produces a baseline understanding to assist in developing an assessment tool based on these common principles of quality.
An intertextual meta-analysis of the WIL literature was conducted to define common principles of quality in WIL. Of the 22 frameworks that were reviewed, nine prominent principles of quality were identified through this systematic review. The common principles of quality WIL include context; leadership; skills development; learning outcomes; curriculum design; experience; inclusivity, equity and access; stakeholder and relationship management; and evaluation and assessment. The findings of the analysis are summarized below in Table 1, and their categorization is based on the interpretation of their representation in the literature.
The Common Principles and Associated Elements of Quality WIL.
Note. Table 1 summarizes the results of a systematic literature review identifying common principles of quality in work-integrated learning programs, the attributes of quality that they directly influence, and the number of refereed citations defining that principle.
The first column in Table 1 outlines the nine common principles of quality WIL that were prevalent in the literature review across most frameworks. The second column indicates the attributes of quality that are driven by the common principle of quality through a causal interaction. The third column displays the number of referred citations for each principle of quality WIL that appeared in the literature scan. Aside from quantifying the recurrence of these themes in the WIL literature, Table 1 is a visual representation and categorization of the causal relationship between the principles of quality, meaning, leadership is driven by context, which influences the other elements of quality WIL to be activated to deliver an overall quality program (Campbell et al., 2021; Patrick et al., 2014). To expand on the findings reflected in Table 1, each of the principles of quality is summarized below, along with a brief explanation of their causal interaction with the other elements of quality.
Context
According to Dean and Campbell (2020), context determines both the definition and measurement of quality. The synthesis of the frameworks in this review depict context as a multi-faceted principle occurring on multiple levels of the HE system, imposing significant influence on other principles of quality. For example, country context (Winterton & Turner, 2019) impacts WIL program quality due to political and locational influences. There is also the institutional context that is affected by locational and relational influences (Campbell et al., 2021). Lastly, learning context is internal and external to the institution and is often linked to environmental and situational factors (Twyford & Dean, 2021). As such context as a principle of quality acts as a driver to other elements of WIL and can be considered as a catalyst in how it can impact quality at several levels, especially leadership.
Leadership
According to Ferns and Arsenault (2023) quality assurance in WIL is driven by leadership, and this is achieved through stakeholder engagement. The concept of shared and distributed leadership is one that was common amongst several sources (Ferns & Arsenault, 2023; Fleming et al., 2018; Green et al., 2023; Patrick et al., 2014; Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019). Campbell et al. (2021) infers that leadership and governance structures must be identifiable to drive the agenda, as previously observed in Dean et al. (2020). Despite the principle of leadership being cited only 15 times in our literature scan, the significance of its influence on other dimensions of quality is prevalent in the literature under review. Patrick et al. (2014) summarizes the “Areas of Responsibility for Leadership” (p. 12) that encapsulates the specific domains of focus for WIL leadership based on a study across five Australian universities (p. 3). These ten areas are: policy; resourcing; institutional culture; institutional structures and systems; external engagement; staff capabilities and development; pedagogy and curriculum; access and equity; research and scholarship; and partner organizational culture and systems.
Skill Development
External stakeholders often state that the role of universities is to prepare students by enhancing their employability, allowing students to positively contribute to the workforce (Twyford and Dean, 2021). As a result, workplace readiness training, industry partnership formation, and increased access to WIL are at the core of many institutions’ student employment strategies (Dean et al., 2020). In this context, the urgent need to define quality as it relates to skill development through WIL increases, given that employability is a measurement of the efficacy of higher education systems (Zegwaard & Rowe, 2019, p. 323). Smith et al. (2019) indicates that the quality of a WIL placement is strongly linked to the development of skill. Moreover, McRae and Johnston (2016) suggest that the goal of WIL is to develop skills that are relevant to increasing employability and applicable to a workplace context. This connects location (context) to the formation of skills, and as such provides a quality indicator of increased employability which could become a learning outcome.
Learning Outcomes
The identification of learning outcomes as an attribute of quality is an important principle for defining and measuring as the achievement of learning outcomes is rarely a quality indicator in other assessment rubrics (Winchester-Seeto, 2019, p. 6). McRae and Johnston (2016) posits that WIL provides outcomes to the individual (learner), program, institutional and system levels. Additionally, the authors offer four common quality outcomes: meaningful experience in a workplace setting; curricular integration of workplace and academic learning; outcomes that lead to employability; and reflection (p. 6). Based on the findings of this review, learning outcomes must assist in developing skills and attributes that allow students to adapt and contribute to a workplace setting (McRae et al., 2018, p. 6). Winchester-Seeto (2019) questions the appropriateness of outcomes in addressing the aim, and the significant role curriculum design plays in achieving outcomes. This is an area that requires deliberate attention, given its causal implications on other dimensions of quality.
Curriculum Design
Simply put, WIL is a pedagogical approach and needs to be embedded in a curriculum which while driven by research and scholarship, can be and should be aligned with considerations around employability (Campbell et al., 2021; McRae et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2019). The coordination of these elements is essential such that the curricular design and resulting pedagogical practices greatly influence the quality of outcomes in WIL (Winchester-Seeto, 2019; Smith et al., 2014). Dimensions of quality for a placement noted in the recent literature include the following concepts: authenticity; student preparation; reflection; supervision and support; and integration of theory into practice (Smith et al., 2019, p. 26). These elements are similar to the P.E.A.R. framework from McRae et al. (2018) where “Pedagogy, Experience, Authenticity, and Reflection” (p. 6) are design consideration that enhance quality.
Experience
According to McRae et al. (2018) instruction and critical reflection enrich WIL experiences, and the integration of the experience itself into the curriculum drives the qualitative outcomes of skills development. Campbell et al. (2021) qualifies a quality WIL experience as one that is a scaffolded, connected, and supported learning experience that is safe. These engagements occur in complex spaces and relationships with multiple entities (p. 508). While there are a variety of stakeholders involved in a quality experience, the learning itself must be hands-on, robust, and associated to a curriculum (McRae & Johnston, 2016; Smith et al., 2014). Therefore, curricular design and learning outcomes are drivers of quality for experience in WIL.
Equity, Diversity, Access and Inclusion
Equity, diversity, access, and inclusion (EDAI) is a relatively new term in higher education, but it is one that is of utmost importance (Ferns & Arsenault, 2023; Winchester-Seeto et al., 2015). Ferns and Arsenault (2023) advocates for research-driven practice to overcome bias, improve inclusion, and ensure the focus remains on pedagogical merits. Winchester-Seeto et al. (2015) outlines the following principles of inclusive WIL: activities that enable students to access quality WIL; promotes awareness, respect, and values diversity; practical, workable, and sustainable in multiple contexts; holistic consideration of students’ lives; proactive and collaborative. The significance of these attributes increases as changes occur in the definition of the workplace, and the culture and values must adapt to ensure students are accessing work opportunities equitably (Dean et al., 2020). Campbell et al. (2021) ascertains a need to develop a shared language for all stakeholders to enable access.
Stakeholder and Relationship Management
Stakeholder and relationship management is one of the most important drivers for the success of any WIL program (Fleming et al., 2018). Not only do WIL programs need to engage with a diverse group of industry and community-based stakeholders, but it must also be done sustainably, equitably, and relationally (p. 322). Defining quality WIL as it pertains to stakeholder and relationship management is complex as the assessment of quality is often fixed on teacher and student dynamics in the classroom, not what takes place outside the university (Campbell & Pretti, 2023). Fleming et al. (2018) identifies the following nine factors that define successful WIL relationships: learning; trust; recognition; coordination; flexibility; expectations; visions; reciprocity; and reputation (p. 328). Defining each of these concepts within one’s own context is an important consideration, such that they will be variable from program to program.
Evaluation and Assessment
This common attribute of quality WIL is causally linked to learning outcomes, and these need to align with programmatic and institutional goals (McRae et al., 2018). The process of defining success through assessment involves input from external partners (p. 10), stressing the reliance on the principles of relationship management from Fleming et al. (2018). Desirable metrics might include the measurement of employment and learning outcomes, social impact, and stakeholder engagement although these have been difficult to evaluate historically (Winchester-Seeto, 2019). The selection of which outcomes to assess is dictated by numerous contextual factors (p. 17), and the literature indicates that evaluation needs to account for the context in which WIL is occurring (Dean & Campbell, 2020; Rowe et al., 2018). That said, the design of quality frameworks should cover the full breadth of WIL modalities, and clearly defining what these are and what quality is assists with benchmarking and continuous improvement (Campbell et al., 2021; Ferns & Arsenault, 2023).
Discussion
To begin to define the common elements of quality WIL, this review theorizes nine common principles of quality WIL programs by cross-referencing their prevalence across the 22 frameworks under review. A challenge that remains is that certain frameworks vaguely define quality yet are among the most-cited guidelines, such as “The Interconnected Elements of WIL” (Sachs et al., 2017, p. 27). Despite this, a meta-analysis of the definitions of various drivers of quality from “Areas of Responsibility for Leadership” (Patrick et al., 2014, p. 12), “Sustainable Relationships Framework for Work-Integrated Learning” (Fleming et al., 2018, p. 329), the “Domains of Work-Integrated Learning Practice” (Campbell et al., 2021, pp. 512–513), and the Work-Integrated Learning Quality Framework, AAA (McRae et al., 2018) addresses the ambiguity of other frameworks, and define a new rubric for assessing quality WIL through a global perspective. This literature review has selected frameworks that were published in the last decade, each of which define essential, yet disparate, elements of quality for WIL programs. The qualitative meta-analysis of these models highlights the nine common traits of quality WIL common among these individual frameworks as discussed below. The connection of these concepts is an attempt to have guidelines for evaluating a WIL program based on these shared priniciples of quality. Figure 2 presents a new quality WIL framework based on this intertextual meta-analysis provided in this systematic literature review. It visually represents the interplay of the common principles of quality referred to as “The Common Elements of Quality Work-Integrated Learning Programs” (CEQWIL) framework. It is posited that this model offers an effective guideline for WIL practitioners to evaluate WIL programs in a variety of institutional settings, based on common principles of quality highlighted through this review of the existing literature on WIL and quality.
The modified elements of quality work-integrated learning programs.
As displayed in Figure 2, each principle of quality is situated within the outer circle of the context, which this review presents as being multi-faceted. It influences leadership which is a driver for all of the causally interacting elements of quality. In the center is the result of quality WIL derived from the coordination of each component of the WIL programming itself. As a next step in this dialogue, leveraging these insights to develop a research methodology for a quantitative program evaluation rubric would be a valuable next step and contribution to the WIL literature. The section below expands on these ideas through a brief discussion of this paper’s interpretation of how each element of quality in the CEQWIL framework influences program quality. This is followed by thoughts on how this model can be further applied for future WIL program evaluation.
Context
As suggested, context drives the other elements of WIL through activating leadership to influence and activate the dimensions of program quality. Context serves as a catalyst with significant impact on quality at numerous levels of the institution and program delivery. It has a direct link to determining the actions of leadership. It is interpreted through this review that context is fluid and dynamic as it is multi-faceted, and not just locational. Context can be broadly or narrowly defined to include dimensions that are situational, political, institutional, or individual. Any of these can influence how quality manifests itself in a WIL program. Therefore, it is important for context to be considered and clearly defined when evaluating a program such that the differences from program to program and location to location, or even person to person, can drastically affect the different drivers for quality. This includes, but is not limited to, the availability of resources, the actions of leadership, and the inherent knowledge of WIL within the community of practice, to name a few.
Leadership
Defining quality leadership for WIL is critical. Leadership is directly linked to context, and it manifests itself through the influence and deployment of the other elements of WIL in Table 1. As such, the impact of leadership on determining quality outcomes is clear (Dean et al., 2020), and within this framework the actions of leadership are shaped by forces related to context, which in turn dictates the actions of leaders to implement their strategy and make determinations on activating the various elements of quality at the core of a WIL program. In this sense, leaders can come in many forms, be it the institutional leadership like the professor delivering the course, or the workplace supervisor, or the academic support staff. It is the interpretation of this review how context is defined will determine which level of leadership is engaged. For example, high level policy that is prevalent in a political context will affect the leadership at the macro institutional level resulting in decisions that will trickle down to lower levels of leadership to activate; compared to decisions at the micro or faculty level will influence instructors to define elements of quality within their immediate control in course delivery, and so forth. As such, this review summarizes that context drives leadership, which in turn activates the other elements of quality in the CEQWIL framework.
Skills Development
The literature suggests that degree programs should look to modernize the application of knowledge and the development of skills (Twyford & Dean, 2021). As noted in this review, skills development in WIL should increase student employability, but the actual skills that are in-demand will evolve over time so programs and quality measures must remain adaptable (Ferns & Arsenault, 2023; Jackson & Meek, 2021; Kay et al., 2019). As employability is a measure of success for external stakeholders, there still needs to remain a focus on the actual quality of the education, given WIL is a pedagogical approach. This speaks to the need for reciprocity of relationships, and the identification of shared values in the WIL design process, as mentioned by Fleming et al. (2018). For WIL to maintain an academic standard of the pedagogy, while also developing skills that enhance employability, the learning outcomes should be designed to align the values of all stakeholders without compromising academic integrity. In this sense, the context of the labor market demands for the requisite formation of skills provides a quality indicator of increased employability as a measure. Given this environment, leadership should focus on developing WIL engagements with learning outcomes targeting an increase in graduate employability. This dimension of quality from the CEQWIL framework is a measurable quality indicator given this data exists at many institutions globally through either graduate surveys or other employment data.
Learning Outcomes
A recommended strategy to augment learning is to align reflection with the learning outcomes (p. 16). At the same time, it is imperative that the learning outcomes for WIL assist in student skills development in a manner that allows for adaptation to the workplace and contribution to meaningful work (McRae et al., 2018). Kay et al. (2019) deduces that learning outcomes can be both short and long-term and can transcend employment or employability to be centered on life-long learning and personal growth. Therefore, learning outcomes should be broad, considered holistically in the design phase, and in ways that empower students to enter, and be productive in the workplace while also maintaining academic integrity. The intentional design of learning outcomes is likely to be influenced by faculty leaders; however, program leadership and institutional leadership could identify broad strategic goals with a requirement that WIL experiences align with these values. As such, the causal relationship between leadership and learning outcomes is apparent, adding to the applicability of the CEQWIL framework in defining the quality of a WIL program.
Curriculum Design
Attention to quality curriculum design for WIL engagements ensures the pedagogy prepares students, that the theory integrates into practice, and that reflection is leveraged to enhance understanding while maximizing learning. This review suggests that all stakeholders should be consulted, where possible, on curriculum design, allowing leadership to ensure experiences are inclusive, accessible, and equitable for all (Campbell et al., 2021; Winchester-Seeto et al., 2015). Assuring the experiences are designed to be appropriately supervised and supported, in an authentic workplace environment, and adequately reflected upon ensures that the potential for learning is maximized (Campbell et al., 2021; McRae et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2014). Curriculum design, leadership, stakeholders, and skills development are all inter-twined in driving a quality WIL program, and they all combine to influence the actual experience itself, which is activated by leadership at multiple levels.
Experience
Just as curriculum design and learning outcomes influence the quality of a WIL experience, the construction of the experience itself must be given thoughtful consideration given the complexities of these activities (Campbell et al., 2021). It is imperative that the experience itself is intentionally aligned to curricular goals while also addressing the needs of all stakeholders equally (Fleming et al., 2018). The risk of not doing so is that WIL becomes an experience for experience’s sake, versus an intentional pedagogy that is embedded in a workplace setting with clear expectations of the learning outcomes and the activities in the work-based setting. Based on this article’s analysis, to design authentic WIL experiences, it would therefore be prudent to work backwards from the desired learning and curricular outcomes by pairing any identified opportunities with the program’s pipeline of partnerships and matching their requirements and goals (Campbell et al., 2021; Winchester-Seeto, 2019). Working thoughtfully in this way to align organizations with students through the intended knowledge creation and skills development ensures that the experiences are meaningful and resonant for all audiences involved.
Equity, Diversity, Access and Inclusion
Designing inclusive WIL requires intentional considerations from WIL leaders and practitioners to ensure the experiences are curated and delivered meaningfully (Cukier et al., 2018). The published research on equity, diversity, access and inclusion (EDIA) in WIL is limited and requires further exploration. While this area of research is nascent, there exists a canon on which this dimension of quality can be informed in the CEQWIL framework to assist with evaluating program quality based on these shared principles. The existing contributions from Campbell et al. (2021), Cukier (2018), Dean et al. (2020), Eady et al. (2022), Ferns & Arsenault (2023), Mallozzi & Drewery (2019), and Winchester-Seeto et al. (2015) offer insights through a global lens on how navigate the development and delivery of inclusive and accessible WIL that is equitable for diverse audiences. The quality of a program’s approach to EDIA requires a significant amount of coordination among stakeholder groups involving extensive relationship management in a variety of contexts. The strategic approach to how EDIA is imbedded within institutional practices and culture is defined by leadership and in an ideal sense it permeates to other areas of a program in a causal manner.
Stakeholder and Relationship Management
The research under review stresses the importance of a mutually agreed-upon definition of WIL that is understood by all stakeholders (Wood et al., 2020, p. 332). Ferns and Arsenault (2023) posits that organizations that work collaboratively, share resources and experiences will have the most to benefit from WIL. Value alignment and the notion of reciprocity are themes that prevail in the current global quality frameworks on stakeholder engagement for WIL (Dean et al., 2020; Fleming et al., 2018). In short, the management of high-quality relationships supporting WIL should adopt the principles outlined above as a beacon to inform program design and delivery. These notions should also be interpreted for individual settings allowing for reflection on the nuances of individual circumstances and settings to equip leaders with thoughtfulness that adds meaning to how program partnerships are established and maintained. The strategic planning for programmatic partnerships is important, such that leadership needs to guide this philosophy to ensure there is alignment with broader strategic values and a mutual exchange of benefit for all stakeholders (Arsenault & Fenton, 2021; Fleming et al., 2018). Assessing the quality of institutional partnerships, coupling it with their achievement of the other common elements of quality WIL, can be daunting and requires the creation of a rubric based on shared values. The utility in this effort, and the value of reflecting on its outcomes serves to inform cultures of continuous improvement in a program, which Ferns & Arsenault (2023) view as an essential practice for driving quality.
Evaluation and Assessment
Evaluation and assessment of quality in WIL must be linked to learning outcomes and stakeholder goals, and needs to be thoughtfully measured (Fleming et al., 2018). Intentional evaluation, and considering how WIL programs are assessed should be informed by context and driven by leadership (Dean & Campbell, 2020; Rowe et al., 2018). Given the diversity of contexts and numerous international settings in which WIL is currently practiced, there cannot be a single dominant definition of context, nor one approach to evaluating its influence on leadership in determining program quality. As such, the nuances of context must inform how programs and outcomes are assessed and evaluated as the situational, locational, individual, and financial surroundings can enhance or inhibit the learning through WIL, or the ability to deliver a functional program. This impacts perceptions of quality from all stakeholders either positively or negatively which could create a bias for the evaluation at hand. As represented in the CEQWIL framework, this phenomenon is influenced by the actions of leadership who deploy the other elements of quality. The dimension of quality WIL in the CEQWIL framework are interconnected principles of quality that should be measured within their settings to ensure a fulsome evaluation of the WIL program as it is situated. It is suggested by this review that an approach such as this would serve to provide a comprehensive evaluation of any WIL program based on globally shared principles of quality. A tangible next step would be to determine how to best quantify the theorization of quality in the CEQWIL framework to create a measurable, yet adaptable, rubric for WIL program evaluation.
Conclusion
This paper has synthesized most of the quality WIL frameworks from the last decade. These papers were selected based on their successful attempts to define and theorize principles of quality for different dimensions of WIL, and their resulting acceptance by the global WIL research community through the identified prevalence of their intertextual referrals and citations. The review was completed by closely reading 22 publications from the global WIL community to develop a universal understanding of quality in WIL. As outlined above, this process identified nine common principles of quality WIL that were distilled to define and provide clarity on an area of the WIL canon that was previously vague through the meta-analysis of these sources (Campbell & Pretti, 2023). Fortunately, this yielded a modernized framework with more detailed categorizations of individual elements of quality and their causal influence on one another. Going forward, it would be valuable to develop a refined methodology to assess program quality in WIL quantitatively. The addition of empirical data to support this analysis would benefit the WIL community of practice and the broader literature that informs practice. Furthermore, it would be equally useful to test this theoretical model in each modality of WIL to determine its validity and utility in assessing the quality of different WIL models in different contexts either individually or comparatively.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
