What do you mean by WIL?

Image by rawpixel on Unsplash

I wonder if you have ever been asked the question: What do you mean when you say WIL? 

For as long as I can remember while working in this field, my conversations with colleagues have quickly been stalled by this question. Perhaps we were discussing a new WIL program idea, or the success of a student who has gained employment, or an idea for a research project… nothing stops creative conversations flowing then debate over nomenclature. 

As the ACEN conference is now only one month away, I thought it might be timely to start our own conversation around the multiplicity of understandings in WIL. Seminal literature in Australia describes WIL as an umbrella concept for activities embedded in curriculum. The notion of an umbrella is generous in this space, however lately I have been wondering: is all WIL tied to a credit-bearing subject? Recently a Universities Australia WIL audit had us combing through our extra-curricular activities to capture WIL activity. So is WIL just within subjects, or both within and alongside subjects? Similar questions around delineation arise for smaller-level subject-based activities that attempt to integrate workplace activities with theory, but perhaps with low proximity to a workplace such as a simulation, a guest lecture or an industry project. These projects may not comprise the whole subject; in fact students may only participate in them for one or several weeks of the semester. Are we still calling this WIL?

Additionally, we may find that our institutions call for us to develop strategies for enhancing WIL that may position our practices in certain ways, implicating what we describe as WIL. They may insist we call it the same thing – to ensure alignment to general understandings of WIL – or they may ask that we create our own names to differentiate what we do as different to others. I have the general feeling that Australia among other nations over the years has concerned themselves with this later notion, espousing WIL – rather than ‘cooperative education’ – to describe the bundle of heterogeneous teaching and learning practices that provide students opportunity to connect discipline concepts to their professional context. 

In an Australia Government funded project, the 2016 Good Practice Report – Work Integrated Learning, a call was made for educators, researchers and professional staff to consider the nomenclature surrounding WIL. The first recommendation arising from this work states:  

Recommendation 1: As the term WIL continues to be misunderstood amongst various stakeholders there is a need to find a common language that industry, universities and students understand, which incorporates the complexity and diversity of programs that support and promote student employability. We recommend that work be undertaken to ‘road test’ some new forms of nomenclature.

I do believe it’s important that we keep revisiting own understandings of WIL. One impetus for this argument is to find ‘a common language’. Another driver is that in light of our changing 21^st Century teaching practices, we need to ensure that we continue to critique our understandings and push the boundaries to innovate and move the field forward. I’m not suggesting we have to find a new name, but I am suggesting that we may need to reframe what we consider is and is not WIL as our practices evolve. I think that there are benefits to having multiple understandings of the term WIL as long as they are contextually grounded and evidence-informed, and that care is taken to communicate our distinctions to the relevant stakeholders. 

With this in mind, let’s approach this ACEN conference with a willingness to accept multiple interpretations of WIL and to inspire a collegial environment that celebrates innovations and diversity. To avoid getting bogged down with nomenclature, for those who are presenting, for example, you may wish to contemplate the following elements at the beginning of your presentation or workshop:

1. Feel confident to explore your own understandings. Your programs and practices are highly situated and contextually embedded, and are informed by your knowledge-in-practice.
2. Use relevant WIL or teaching and learning theories to support your understandings. Highlight alignment of your understandings with key sources in the literature. This will help others position your understanding as well.
3. Know your parameters and criteria of WIL so that an audience can visualise a clear picture of how you are positioning your study, conceptualisations or practice.

My hope is that as an ACEN community we can continue the creative conversations and learn from one another to drive the field forward.

See you in October!

Bonnie

Dr Bonnie Amelia Dean
Learning, Teaching & Curriculum
University of Wollongong
@Bonniedealtc