As could be seen in Tables 7 to 15, the role of university and industry in the supervision of WIL training is vital. Some research has been conducted on this issue, including Gracia (2010), Richardson et al. (2009), and Smith (2012), who all emphasise the crucial role of supervisors during workplace training and the importance of supervisors’ feedback to students. For example, in courses such as medicine, law and mental health, workplace supervisors are involved in providing ongoing feedback, including assessments of students, and the learning process in those courses is facilitated by the provision of practical placements. Medical degree students have a compulsory internship in hospitals while law students attend compulsory practical training in judiciary (e.g. moot courts) before they are received at the bar. However, in business courses, particularly in accounting degrees, this appears not be the case, with activities and placements still yet to be formalised throughout the curriculum (Smith et al. 2010; Richardson et al. 2009). The research literature reveals that most of the WIL assessments are based on university criteria, which concentrate and reflect on academic learning results rather than on work- related knowledge and skills (Richardson et al. 2009). This is evident from Table 13. According to Jones and Abrahams (2007), workplace supervisors are not well prepared in carrying out supervision and assessment tasks (AT) since they lack the appropriate training. This often results in providing negative feedback that demotivates students and creates ‘barriers to learning’.
The different models of effective workplace supervision are discussed in the academic literature, including Mant’s (1997) plan-do-review model (shown in Figure 2 below). Mant’s model assumes effective industry supervisor feedback to students while they are
67
in workplace training, from the planning stage, throughout the commencement and until the completion of the work placement.
Figure 2: Plan-do-review model
Source: Adapted from Mant (1997) by Richardson et al. (2009)
Richardson et al. (2009) conducted qualitative research on industry feedback to students’ assessment. They found that industry and academic supervisors recognise the need for collaboration throughout all the three stages of WIL identified by Mant (1997). Furthermore, the ALTC’s WIL Report (Patrick et al. 2008) stressed the need for training of industry supervisors so that they are better equipped for WIL assessment and evaluation.
Choy and Delahaye (2011) argued that during work placement programs, the dominant role of universities as transmitters of knowledge shifts to workplace supervisors. To overcome WIL challenges, universities and industry need to develop partnerships, which would be effective only when they engage all participants, including the students, their supervisors, and the university (Choy & Delahaye 2011). Involvement of both industry and university in WIL training will contribute to improving the employment outcomes of students.
Employers feel that they are able to contribute their practical expertise, and want to help universities by being involved in WIL programs (Smith 2012).
This will be useful, since as Crebert et al. (2004a) found, employers share general assumptions about new graduate recruits, such as:
68
• graduates are immature, not appropriately informed and therefore are not capable of performing high responsibility work;
• a lengthy period of training and adaption is necessary before graduates can commence work; and
• most employers are risk averse ‘just in case’, and they do not delegate responsible work to graduates.
These assumptions are based on employers’ perceptions of the quality of graduates. Their opinions vary across different industries and are influenced by employers’ personal educational experiences and the culture of the organisation (Crebert et al. 2004a).
Extensive studies have confirmed that employers no longer seek graduates with hard technical or vocational skills; it is interpersonal skills that are expected from graduates. Whilst putting the blame on higher education for a lack of work-readiness, employers express their willingness to take part in preparing students for work (Crebert et al. 2004a; Harvey 1999).
Atkins (1999, p. 275) argued that “it is possible that employers’ criticism of the shortcomings of graduate recruits are not so much a result of failure in the university curriculum, as of failure in the transfer process”. WIL programs could be effective in integrating efforts of both industry and education to narrow the gap in the perception and reality of accounting graduates’ employment.
Partnering with university for WIL offers significant benefits to employers, including gaining cost-effective, temporary employees and the ability to preview potential job candidates.
2.5.4 WIL and employment
Researchers found that, for many graduates, expectations are not met when they commence initial employment in terms of job satisfaction, salary levels or professional development opportunities, and their knowledge base as valued by their employers (Harvey 1999). The transition from university to employment for graduates is a challenging and apprehensive step (Harvey 1999; Tomu 2013; Billett 2009; Cheng et al. 2009).
Candy and Crebert (1991, p. 572) referred to the problems as challenges for new graduates at the transition period, including:
69
• having heads full of theories, principles and information. This implies that intensive training is needed before they become ‘useful’ to organisations; • with lack of generic skills, therefore, universities should pay greater attention
on developing problem-solving, decision-making, team work and self-learning skills; and
• having wrong expectations that the workplace will provide supervision, order and control similar to the educational environment. Graduates are expected to be job-ready.
In order to be able to adjust and adapt to the workplace environment, graduates should move from structured learning approaches to self-reflective learning. This would be possible in an appropriate learning framework, which assumes the inclusion of WIL programs (Candy & Crebert 1991; Smith 2012).
WIL programs provide students with the opportunity to narrow the gap between learning at university and learning at work. Such programs inform students about the real world environment, make them aware of real expectations in the workplace, and encourage the development of relevant skills and appropriate learning. Students get a realistic idea of the workplace, improve their employment prospects by building up networks and their self-efficacy and confidence is enhanced as a result (Smith 2012; Richardson et al. 2009). WIL programs, with effective connections between industry and academic supervisors, and where students have a clear understating of desirable outcomes, provide greater benefits in preparing students for their future employment (Harvey et al. 1997; Crebert et al. 2004a; Smith 2012).
Although many studies have shown that WIL is effective in improving student employment, an important gap remains as to understanding how the program effectiveness is valued by different stakeholders (Smith 2012). The important question is also about whether the expectations of stakeholders are justified. This, however, is outside the scope of the present research, but could be addressed in future research.
WIL provides many benefits to students, as evident in the findings of a number of studies (Jackson 2013; Smith et al. 2010; Freudenberg et al. 2010a; Cheng et al. 2009). Table 16 below provides a brief summary of the literature that examined WIL and employment.
70
Table 16: Summary of prior research on WIL and employment
Study Conclusion
Freudenberg (2010a) Significant differences exist between WIL and non-WIL participants
Smith (2012) Significant differences exist between WIL and non-WIL participants
Jackson (2013) Significant differences exist between WIL and non-WIL participants
Crebert et al. (2004a) Significant differences exist between WIL and non-WIL participants
Smith et al. (2010) Significant differences exist between WIL and non-WIL participants
Harvey et al. (1997) Significant differences exist between WIL and non-WIL participants
Cheng et al. (2009) Significant differences exist between WIL and non-WIL participants