Högskolan i Skövde

Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) in higher education is recognised for linking academic knowledge with professional practice, yet traditional long-term placements are resource-intensive and challenging to coordinate. This study explores the feasibility of a short-term, course-based WIL process within engineering education. A six-week WIL process was developed and integrated into a third-year course in a bachelor’s programme in manufacturing engineering. Five students were placed individually or in pairs at three manufacturing companies from different sectors and of different sizes, attending one to two days per week. A common assignment was provided for all students, with flexibility for company-specific adaptation. Semi-structured interviews with students and company supervisors constituted the evaluation. The data analysis identified consistent benefits; students reported enhanced ability to connect theory and practice and increased professional understanding, while supervisors noted organisational learning benefits through students’ fresh perspectives and critical reflection. However, challenges included limited preparation, communication gaps, and difficulties adapting a generic assignment to diverse industrial contexts. Suggested improvements included more structured preparation, clearer communication of expectations, customised assignments, and consideration of shorter, full-time placements. The findings demonstrate that short-term, course-based WIL can complement traditional placements by offering meaningful learning opportunities and strengthening university-industry collaboration. Although, the results also suggest that effective implementation requires structural adjustments to support preparation, communication, and contextual alignment. Future research should refine the process by testing scalability with larger student groups, additional companies, and international participants, as well as further investigating critical success factors for short-term WIL.

The integration of work-integrated learning (WIL) into engineering education offers unique opportunities to bridge theoretical knowledge with practical application, thereby enhancing student readiness for industry challenges. WIL fosters critical skills such as problem-solving, teamwork, and communication while providing direct exposure to industry standards and practices (Boud & Lee, 2005). However, it also presents significant challenges, particularly in the examination and assessment of student performance. This paper explores these challenges within the context of a redesigned Production System Design course conducted in collaboration with 11 partner companies as part of a broader initiative to strengthen industry-academia cooperation (Sengupta, 2020). 

The course involved real-world, company-specific projects addressing diverse industry needs, including logistics optimisation, total quality management (TQM), value stream mapping (VSM), product packaging redesign, and modifications to existing production lines. Students worked in small groups, spending a week on-site at the partner companies, applying theoretical concepts to propose solutions, with guidance from industrial supervisors who mentored without directly solving the problems. These projects enabled students to develop practical skills and gain valuable industry insights, aligning with the pedagogical goals of WIL and Work-Integrated Education (WIE) to create experiential learning opportunities (Cooper, Orrell, & Bowden, 2010). However, these benefits posed challenges in ensuring equitable and consistent project assessment. 

Key challenges included:

Diverse Project Scopes and Complexity: Each project varied in scope, complexity, and required competencies, making it difficult to establish uniform assessment criteria. This diversity raised concerns about the fairness of evaluations, as each group faced unique tasks, which complicated the establishment of standardised assessment frameworks (Jackson, 2015).

Balancing Academic and Industry Objectives: The dual accountability to academic grading standards and company expectations required a nuanced approach to assessment. Ensuring that student deliverables met industry needs and aligned with course learning outcomes required careful consideration to balance the academic and industry objectives (Bennet, 2018). 

Subjectivity in Evaluation: With input from both academic instructors and industrial supervisors, differences in evaluation perspectives often arose. These differences reflect varying expertise and priorities, complicated grading, and necessitating transparent mechanisms for reconciling these viewpoints (Boud & Molloy, 2013). 

Formative and Summative Feedback: Providing constructive feedback within the limited timeframe of the projects proved challenging, especially in balancing the academic and practical dimensions of the students’ work. The short duration often limited the opportunity for comprehensive formative feedback, an issue commonly noted in WIL programs (Grealish, 2013). Potential improvements may include extended feedback loops and digital tools for realtime input.

This paper explores these challenges and offers insights into developing more effective and equitable assessment strategies for WIL contexts. By addressing these issues, the findings contribute to advancing assessment practices in WIL initiatives, intending to strengthen industry-academia collaboration and improve engineering education outcomes.

References

Bennet, D. (2018). Graduate employability and higher education: Past, present and future. The Review of Higher Education, 5, 31-61.

Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). Promoting work-based learning through the development of a community of practice. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(3), 514–523.

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712.

Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work-integrated learning: A guide to effective practice. Routledge.

Grealish, L. e. (2013). Barriers to effective feedback in work-integrated learning environments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(1), 67-68.

Jackson, D. e. (2015). Industry engagement in work-integrated learning: Addressing the challenges of diverse projects and assessments. Journal of Education and Work, 28(4), 431–450.

Sengupta, S. e. (2020). Collaborative partnerships between industry and academia: A model for project-based learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(1), 32–44.

Work-based learning (WBL) in higher education presents both opportunities and challenges through a flexible curriculum provision (Costley, 2011). This paper explores didactic dilemmas encountered in the evaluation process in engineering education and how adjustments to the WBL model can improve both student learning outcomes and company engagement.

The study consisted of two implementation phases, each testing different approaches to WBL within an engineering programme. The first phase employed a trainee model where students participated in a six-week trainee period, spending one to two days per week at a manufacturing company. All students were assigned the same general task, despite being placed at different companies. To accommodate variation in company needs, the assignment included flexible options, allowing students to focus on what they deemed most relevant. However, this approach led to misalignment between company expectations and student work, which in turn led to difficult assessments of the students’ performance. Some companies believed students should have prioritised different tasks, and some of the students felt the need to undertake two separate projects – one fulfilling university learning objectives and another meeting company expectations.

Based on these findings, modifications were made in the second phase. The trainee period was shortened to one full-time week, and assignments were customised according to the specific needs of each participating company while still aligning with course learning objectives. The assignment design process involved extensive pre-implementation discussions with each company over several months. While this approach demanded greater university resources, it significantly improved both the assessment process as well as the experience for both students and companies; survey results highlighted the benefits of this tailored approach. In the second phase, 90 % of companies expressed willingness to participate in similar future projects (compared to 33 % in the first phase), and 100 % of the participating companies rated the students’ performance as “excellent” or “good”. The successful outcome of this approach was also shared by the students, as the survey results stated that 95.5 % of students would recommend this type of WBL experience to peers.

Conclusively, the results of the study underscore the importance of aligning assessment strategies with both academic learning objectives and industry expectations. While standardised assignments offer efficiency, they may not always meet the diverse needs of industry partners and students. Individualised assignments require greater preparation, but can enhance student learning and company satisfaction. This study provides valuable insights into the didactic dilemmas of assessing student work in WBL settings and offers a framework for refining assessment models to better serve all stakeholders involved.

References

Costley, C. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Workplace Learning. SAGE Publications Ltd, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200940