‘This is a timely addition to the discourse on employability, written in an

engaging and accessible way. The book provides an important resource to

practitioners, academics, and pracademics alike to enhance the success of
their WBL offer. It offers a clear link between theory and practice, culmi-
nating in a workbook that provides a thoughtful and considered level of
practical support, submersing the reader into genuine action to develop
online WBL placements.’
Stuart Norton, Senior Adviser in Learning and
Teaching for Advance HE, UK

‘Work Based Learning (WBL) and the development of employability

skills have been growing, sometimes quietly, as an academic topic for dec-
ades. This book shines a spotlight on WBL as a key part of the curric-
ulum, highlighting the body of knowledge that underpins and endorses
what is often an undervalued subject area and focusing on an outstanding
example of (to paraphrase Plato) “need being the creator”. COVID-19
was the experiment that no one wanted. The higher education sector and,
in particular, WBL were hit significantly, with the cancellation of work
placements across all disciplines. This was a major blow to the students
who relied on these experiences to embed their theoretical knowledge
in practice and to gain the essential employability skills that employ-
ers want. In such a challenging time, creative approaches were needed
to ensure that the students gained essential skills, and PEEP was born.
If you want to gain a deeper understanding of WBL and its evolution
and importance in higher education; to reinforce or endorse an argument
for the development of WBL; or to develop online learning placements
using a toolkit, then look no further. This book has it all.’
Francesca Walker-Martin, Reader in Work Based Learning
at the University of Central Lancashire, UK,
and Chair of ASET, the Work Based Learning
and Placement Learning Association

‘If you want to know about approaches to design pedagogies, assess-

ment, and implementation to support online work-based learning place-
ments, this book is for you. I recommend this book because it is timely
and significant in the post-COVID context. Professor Lisa Taylor has
c­ omprehensively discussed models, strategies, and pedagogical and assess-
ment activities to support relevant stakeholders to better engage with online
work-based learning placements and enhance students’ employability.’
Thanh Pham, Senior Lecturer in Graduate Employability, Globalisation,
and Intercultural Education in the School of Education, Culture, and
Society at Monash University, Australia

‘High quality work-based learning placements are essential to ensure

optimal preparation of students for their “life-wide and life-long employ-
ability journeys”. This robustly evidenced resource offers the pedagogical
and organisational principles to be considered in the design and delivery
of work-based learning placement opportunities. It offers a vital under-
pinning to the transformation of learning and online learning oppor-
tunities seen in recent years and is transferable across all sectors. This
resource has broad value to work-based educators and academics inno-
vating and pushing the boundaries of work-based learning opportuni-
ties across the globe, and its sound pedagogical underpinning to virtual
learning opportunities will ensure sustained efficacy, value, and uptake. I
congratulate and thank the authors for their invaluable and courageous
leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic, driving online work-based
learning opportunities with sound pedagogical foundations, academic
support, and evaluation to sustain the transformation to modern work-
based learning.’
Beverley Harden, National AHP Lead, Deputy Chief AHP (England),
and Multi-Professional Advanced & Consultant Practice Lead
at Health Education England, and Visiting Professor
at the University of Winchester, UK

‘The global higher education sector has had to find innovative and, in
most cases, technology-enabled ways of teaching and ensuring that stu-
dents continue to gain real-world work experiences during the COVID-
19 pandemic. Higher education institutes are increasingly under pressure
to provide high-quality work-based learning opportunities for students
through innovative means to support development of their GPS (global
professional skills) and improve their long-term employment outcomes
through assessment by employers regardless of their location. This book is
a potential game-changer for institutions looking to develop high-­quality
online work placements for students, providing a practical and rigorous
end-to-end framework covering access, quality, scale, technology, curric-
ulum, paedology, and assessment. It will support faculty, students, and
employers in delivering a sustainable, innovative, and high-quality online
learning experience that is outcomes-focused and enhances student
employability – an increasingly critical aspect of higher education.’
Cameron Mirza, Chief of Party for USAID Pre-Service
Teacher Education in Jordan and Board Member
for the Global Impact Initiative
Constructing Online Work-Based
Learning Placements

Constructing Online Work-Based Learning Placements offers a step-by-

step approach to understanding and applying the principles of design
and delivery in online work-based learning (WBL) placements for stu-
dents. A crucial component of employability strategies for higher edu-
cation students, WBL placements are increasingly in need of adaptation
to respond to today’s rapidly expanding online work environments. This
evidence-based book explores the emergent properties and additional
value that online WBL placements provide to student learning and
employability prospects, focusing on effective pedagogy, design, plan-
ning and implementation. The book also presents the Peer Enhanced
e-Placement (PEEP), a pioneering, positively evaluated and award-
winning online WBL placement model that is underpinned by peda-
gogical research and theory. The PEEP has been adapted and adopted by
numerous higher education teams organising online WBL placements,
and the case example included in these pages will guide readers through
their own implementation and collaborations.

Lisa Taylor is Professor of Employability and Learning Innovation and

Associate Dean for Employability in the Faculty of Medicine and Health
Sciences at the University of East Anglia, UK, and a National Teaching
Fellow. Professor Taylor has a decade of experience of employability lead-
ership within higher education, and is passionate about employability,
publishing and presenting widely.
Constructing Online
Work-Based Learning
Placements
Approaches to Pedagogy, Design,
Planning and Implementation

Lisa Taylor
Designed cover image: © Getty Images
First published 2023
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 Lisa Taylor
The right of Lisa Taylor to be identified as author of this work has
been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or repro-
duced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other
means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and
recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or reg-
istered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
ISBN: 9781032325057 (hbk)
ISBN: 9781032326207 (pbk)
ISBN: 9781003315872 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003315872
Typeset in Adobe Caslon Pro
by codeMantra
This book is dedicated to my husband Ed, and our children Barnaby
and Isabella, for their incredible endless love and support for me,
and my work.
 Contents

Foreword by Sophie Millikenxiii

Prefacexvi
About the Author xviii

1 Work-based learning placements within higher

education1

2 Online learning in a world

of ‘place’ 14

3 Employability and the online work-based learning

placement environment 28

4 Peer group learning 43

5 Reflection to support learning 54

6 Learning outcomes and assessment 66

7 Feedback and supervision 79

8 Theory into practice – A case example: The Peer

Enhanced e-Placement (PEEP) 93

XI
XII  CONTENTS

9 Workbook – Reflection, consolidation, design

and delivery of an online work-based learning
placement108

Index117
 Foreword

Like so many new connections these days, I met Lisa online, on twitter
to be specific. I was running my first business, a graduate recruitment and
employability consultancy and connected with Lisa as she often posted
about employability which linked closely with her university role. Later,
I enjoyed engaging with Lisa at a virtual conference during the pandemic
and was impressed by her knowledge and enthusiasm for employability
which backed up all the online activity I had observed on twitter.
I have a long history of supporting employability having first fallen
into the world of student recruitment in 2007 when I became responsi-
ble for graduate, placement and apprenticeship recruitment at the John
Lewis Partnership. Early in this role, I noticed that students with work
experience were significantly stronger throughout the selection process.
They provided unique examples during the interview stage and interacted
with maturity, confidence and self-awareness in group tasks.
In my graduate recruitment and employability business, a large part of
our work was with universities to prepare their students for the selection
process by putting them through a mock assessment centre. Initially, we
mainly worked with final-year students but over the years, universities
started to move our activity to first or second year to encourage students
to take up an internship and/or placement. This was a move I welcomed
as I could see that those students going on to complete placements had

XIII
XIV foreword

a much better chance of securing a graduate job after leaving univer-

sity. They were able to gain valuable experience, build relationships with
employers and be clearer about their career plans.
It is unusual that students without any work experience reach the
final stages of assessment, but when they do, in my experience, you can
see the difference between those who have it and those who do not.
Confidence and self-awareness are especially lacking, and I would often
see candidates that literally said nothing throughout the whole assess-
ment centre but were then surprised not to be successful. They were like
rabbits caught in the headlights; this observation and the work I later did
preparing students for assessment centres led me to believe strongly that
employability needs to be embedded within the curriculum. Work-based
learning (WBL) does that in a powerful way.
With over ten years of employability leadership experience, a National
Teaching Fellow and Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Acad-
emy, Professor Lisa Taylor is a solid employability expert. The work Lisa
has done on developing and sharing learning on the Peer Enhanced
e-Placement (PEEP) has been tremendous. If ever there was a time for
an online WBL placement model, it is now. While all work experience is
valuable and provides transferable skills, WBL goes further in that it is
relevant to the subject being studied and usually linked to the student’s
chosen career path. Students completing WBL should therefore be at an
advantage when applying for graduate jobs.
The PEEP offers a valid alternative to “face to face” placements, to
develop key employability attributes that employers require from grad-
uates. The pandemic has taught us that not all work-related placement
learning has to be “face to face” and should be considered as a valuable
adjunct to “face to face” placements in all disciplines. The peer element
adds an extra layer of value that is often not seen in placements and
develops other relevant skills. Quality online learning and reflection cre-
ates opportunities for social mobility, which is a huge priority for univer-
sities and society generally. Considerations need to be made to ensure the
student has adequate equipment and surroundings but other than that, a
PEEP should create a more level playing field as location, travel costs, etc.
become less of a barrier.
 foreword XV

As well as providing great opportunities to the students, WBL allows

universities to build, maintain and strengthen their relationships with
employers. With my employer hat back on, I know student recruitment
teams are small, and it is impossible to be present on every campus, so
online interactions allow relationships to develop that might not have
been possible in person, another positive side effect of online WBL.
I know most universities understand the value of WBL placements, so
“Constructing Online Work-Based Learning Placements” will be a super
useful resource. The value of the PEEP is clear with strong evidence to
illustrate each point from relevant and credible sources. The final chapter
acts as a superb tool for those responsible for designing employability
modules and provides hugely practical guidance to help bring the con-
cept of online work-based placements to life in a relevant way to individ-
ual institutions. This book will be a well-thumbed handbook for many of
my university contacts.
Sophie Milliken,
CEO of Moja and author of From Learner to Earner,
A recruitment insider’s guide for students wanting
to achieve graduate job success.
 Preface

Little did I know at the beginning of the Covid pandemic how offer-
ing to help a colleague with a placement challenge for our second-year
Occupational Therapy students would result in the creation of the Peer
Enhanced e-Placement (PEEP), and everything else associated with it!
This book has been written to share what I have learned from creating,
implementing, evaluating and further developing an online work-based
learning (WBL) placement model – the PEEP. Along the way, I have
developed a valued network of colleagues – most of whom I have only
ever met online but want to thank publicly here – as they have helped
to champion the PEEP model and its potential for the future of WBL.
Professor Gilly Salmon has been a particularly respected colleague and
now a valued friend – having worked in partnership with Gilly to develop
the PEEP model to where it is today. I am thrilled that Gilly is a guest
author for Chapter 2 of this book.
Evidence-based practice is paramount for justification and robust
underpinning to any work – and this book has been written with
this principle in mind. Each chapter provides the reader with a sum-
mary of the key evidence underpinning the key components of online
WBL placements. This is not an in-depth critical and discursive book –
but more so a handbook of evidence-based pedagogical and organisa-
tional principles to be considered in the design and delivery of WBL

XVI
 preface XVII

placement opportunities – with a raft of references provided in each

chapter, for those readers wanting to explore any of the points presented
in more detail. WBL is a challenge worldwide within higher education,
but this book provides the nuts and bolts of how to provide robust and
focussed WBL for all students to support their life-long and life-wide
employability journeys. The key themes of designing and delivering an
online WBL placement are presented. The theory is applied within the
online placement context – but the pedagogical principles are also ­relevant
to apply to traditional face to face in situ WBL placement provision –
to better support the link between the academic and WBL higher educa-
tion contexts, with a pedagogically robust design and delivery.
The theoretical principles from the chapters are then applied within the
case exemplar chapter, where the Peer Enhanced e-Placement (PEEP)
model and an example of its growing research evidence base is presented.
The final chapter of the book offers the reader the opportunity to reflect
on their learning from the previous chapters and begin to consolidate and
apply this learning within their own context. This is achieved through
reflective questions and activities, taking readers through the design and
delivery principles for online WBL placements presented throughout the
book.
Through my employability leadership roles over the last ten years,
I have experienced a shift in the recognition of the value of employability
for, and by students within higher education. Employability is now rec-
ognised as one of the important considerations within higher education
provision, to prepare students for their life-wide and life-long employa-
bility journeys. I hope that you find this book a useful resource to build
the link between the pedagogical theory and practice of WBL, support-
ing robust WBL opportunities for students, as a valuable part of their
higher education experience.
 About the Author

Lisa Taylor is Professor of Employability and Learning Innovation and

Associate Dean for Employability in the Faculty of Medicine and Health
Sciences at the University of East Anglia, UK.

Professor Lisa Taylor has held employability leadership roles for the last
decade and is passionate about employability, publishing and presenting
widely. Lisa was made a National Teaching Fellow based on her sus-
tained leadership, learning innovations and impact within employability.
Lisa created the award winning Peer Enhanced e-Placement (PEEP)
and has led the implementation, evaluation, research and development of
the PEEP model since its inception, in partnership with Professor Gilly
Salmon.

XVIII
 1
Work-based learning placements
within higher education

Work-based learning in higher education

Work-based learning (WBL) has been defined as the learning that arises
from the workplace context, such as placements (Lester and Costley,
2010). WBL is increasingly going beyond disciplinary into interdiscipli-
nary experiences (Dadze-Arthur et al., 2020; Syamhanim et al., 2015),
with employers looking for graduates with transferable skills and attrib-
utes beyond disciplinary knowledge and understanding (Karzunina
et al., 2018). The most common activity within higher education (HE)
employability strategies, to facilitate development these transferable skills
and attributes, is WBL (The Association of Graduate Careers Advisory
­Services, Shortlist Me, 2022), with three important pillars of — people,
the organisations and the curriculum (Ferrández-Berrueco and Sánchez-
Tarazaga, 2020). Context matters for learning, and the WBL context
provides the opportunity for real life and applied learning, linking theory
and practice and highlighting life and learning beyond the classroom to
students (Carter, 2021). The definition of WBL used in this book is the
learning by working and through working, within the work-based con-
text through placements, where the learning extends beyond experien-
tial learning (Burton and Jackson, 2003; Lidster and Wakefield, 2022).
Helyer (2015) suggests that WBL should be bespoke, relevant, student

DOI: 10.4324/9781003315872-11
2 WORK-BASED LEARNING PLACEMENTS

focussed, have worth attached to it, added value, realistic, supported, help
with ongoing development and progression, enjoyable and innovative.
Ratten (2017) argues that there needs to be more WBL to better prepare
students for the workplace but recognises challenges in the design and
delivery of WBL that need to be appreciated. For example, terminology
can cause confusion, experiences need to be able to be scaled up for stu-
dents, a good pedagogy is vital to support the student learning, employer
engagement is important, quality needs to be assured and delivery effi-
ciencies need to be maximised (Nixon et al., 2006). Laur (2013) and Ross
et al. (2020) discuss the principles of authentic learning experiences to
include challenging enquiry (to encourage engagement), community or
career connection (theory practice/individual link), justification (critical
thinking) and outside audience (to present beyond the classroom con-
text), supporting cognitive development, social/emotional development,
positive relationships and networks/social capital and the employability
and career development of students.
Legislation and initiatives have supported the development of WBL
within the HE sector across the world, with some countries more devel-
oped than others (Duckenfield and Stirner, 1992; Ferrández-Berrueco
et al., 2016; Lynne, 2003; Raelin, 2010; Sheridan et al., 2019; Ugochukwu,
2013). WBL is increasingly important within the HE environment, both
from a strategic and learning point of view (Cameron et al., 2018; Nixon
et al., 2006), based on its impact on aligning student knowledge and skills
to the market needs, harnessing HE institution and employer partner-
ships, and ultimately impacting on the economy (Dadze-Arthur et al.,
2020). WBL is becoming more theorised and emerging as a distinct field
to support student learning, when well-designed and underpinned with
evidence-based pedagogies (Lester and Costley, 2010). This pedagogical
underpinning is crucial to build into WBL design and delivery to formal-
ise the link between WBL and the curriculum from an academic point
of view to facilitate equivalence of learning between the academic and
WBL contexts. WBL experiences should not be just a tick box exercise.
Different models of WBL have been implemented in the past to offer
students the opportunity to consolidate learning from the academic
environment within the WBL context (Wilson et al., 2013). However,
traditional lengthy placements can be burdensome for students (Hayes
 WORK-BASED LEARNING PLACEMENTS 3

and Cejnar, 2020), and can limit accessibility for all students. Innovative
and sustainable alternative WBL opportunities need to be considered to
provide authentic, meaningful, transferable and accessible employability
development opportunities and could be argued that it is not the length
of the WBL that is key – but the design and the delivery of the WBL
that facilitates targeted quality learning to support a student’s employa-
bility journey that is key. The online peer group WBL placement model
discussed in Chapter 8 offers a robustly and authentically designed and
delivered WBL placement of shorter duration, underpinned by evi-
dence-based pedagogical principles, offering a wider range of students
the opportunity to access a quality and focussed WBL placement expe-
rience. Supervised WBL placements are becoming increasingly popular
in HE as a central transition experience for students in their identity and
employability (Hayes and Cejnar, 2020; Inceoglu et al., 2019). A recom-
mendation from a recent literature review is that at least one high impact
learning experience such as WBL should be incorporated into each stu-
dent’s HE experience (Cox, 2006; Pitt and Quinlan, 2022).
WBL can sometimes be seen as inferior to the academic curricu-
lum due to the lack of pedagogy and structure that is usually associated
with academic HE learning experiences. However, WBL offers a bridge
between academic learning and work (Nixon et al., 2006). But a change
in mindset and role is required for academics to recognise and accredit
the learning that can be achieved within WBL contexts (Boud and
Solomon, 2001; Lester and Costley, 2010; Ratten, 2017) with all stake-
holders needing to buy into the WBL design and delivery, with clear roles
and responsibilities and expectations for the WBL experience. The wider
development within HE of individuals becoming more self-managing
and self-directed learners needs to be appreciated and supported through
WBL, underpinned by a student-centric process of learning rather than
being purely content drive (Nixon et al., 2006; Walsh, 2007). WBL
opportunities are crucial for student experience and learning, to offer stu-
dents a trial run in the transition into employment, and a safe space to
explore their learning (Inceoglu et al., 2019).
Walsh (2007) presents Biggs’ model which focusses on how students
construct their learning – with three aspects to the learning – presage
(prior knowledge of the student and programme design), process (the
4 WORK-BASED LEARNING PLACEMENTS

activities undertaken) and product (the learning outcomes from the

activities). When WBL is designed breaking the process into these three
component parts, transformative learning rather than superficial tick box
learning can be supported. For those staff who are less confident in WBL
opportunities for students – using constructive alignment can help with
identifying where there are similarities to the usual HE learning experi-
ence (Walsh, 2007). The link of the learning outcome and design of the
learning experience also impacts on the design and authenticity of the
assessments chosen to assess the learning gains, all of which is explored
in later chapters in this book.

Relationships
Universities have been repeatedly reported to need to strengthen relations
with employers (Etzkowitz, 2014), with WBL offering an opportunity to
for HE to work in collaboration with employers to create new learning
opportunities for students. In Arizona, a WBL resource guide has been
developed to support a two-way relationship between the employer and
university (Lynne, 2003, page 284) and social boards have been developed
in Spain (Ferrández-Berrueco and Sánchez-Tarazaga, 2020). Students,
employers and HE institutes should all have active participation in the
learning process, with clear roles and responsibilities, to make learning
more student-centric and individualised, integrating theory, experiential
and peer learning (Dadze-Arthur et al., 2020; Edmunds, 2007; Ferrández-
Berrueco et al., 2016; Wilson et al., 2013).

Employability
Employability metrics have a financial impact on the universities as well
as reputationally, as evidenced within HE worldwide (Dollinger and
Brown, 2019), with employability and graduate outcomes playing a more
significant role with HE than ever before. However, there are repeated
reports that graduates lack work readiness (Gallagher et al., 2019; Singh
and Singh, 2021), highlighting the importance of WBL to bring aca-
demia and the work context together, to support the work readiness of
students (Fowlie and Forder, 2020). WBL opportunities provides stu-
dents an authentic bridge to link the academic curriculum learning, help-
ing to facilitate their transition from academia into the world of work
 WORK-BASED LEARNING PLACEMENTS 5

(Kaider et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2013). Fleming et al. (2021) found
that a WBL supervisor’s role was to facilitate students to develop trans-
ferable work readiness attributes and skills. The interdisciplinary work
that online WBL enables, is supported by the notion that the future of
discipline specific jobs is unpredictable, and students need to be prepared
to adapt their skills and attributes to different workplace contexts, regard-
less of discipline. Students also need to consider how their individual
employability can impact on wider society (Cook, 2022; Lacković, 2019).
A literature review by Inceoglu et al. (2019) found that placements
supported students in finding work more quickly but also impacted at
an individual level in student’s perceptions of their skills, knowledge,
attitudes and their self-efficacy. Previous work experience is key in the
recruitment of graduates, giving individuals an opportunity to develop
evidence and confidence in employability attributes and skills that can be
drawn upon during the application process (Milliken, 2019). Applicants
to universities are increasingly aware of employability and the importance
of the development of attributes and skills such as teamwork, reflection
and communication are a key development within the WBL context
(Konstantinou and Miller, 2021; Thompson and Brewster, 2022). A focus
on employability attributes and skills were found to prepare students for
the workplace and subsequent success in job applications (Singh and
Singh, 2021), with reflection playing a critical role to capitalise student’s
understanding of their own learning and development (Helyer, 2015;
Smith and Curtis, 2020). The impact on WBL has extended positively
to subsequent academic achievement (Inceoglu et al., 2019). Graduate
employability is supported by WBL learning opportunities during HE
studies (Artess et al., 2017), but the experience needs to be designed and
delivered to support a quality learning experience for students (Smith
et al., 2019).

Quality
Work experience is valued by employers and reported in the literature,
but limited evidence exists around the placement design delivery and
evaluation to identify and maximise the process of learning (Smith,
2018; Smith and Curtis, 2020). A comprehensive guide developed by
ASET (Wilson et al., 2013) -– a valuable United Kingdom (UK)-based
6 WORK-BASED LEARNING PLACEMENTS

work based and placement learning association -– developed to support

advancement, effectiveness and quality of WBL -– provides underpin-
ning principles for WBL in HE (Wilson et al., 2013), and a clear under-
standing of the pedagogical underpinning to support quality learning
(Brodie and Irving, 2007; Ross et al., 2020). Quality assurance agencies
outline key quality codes and principles to facilitate a quality learning
experience for students (Wilson et al., 2013), and partnership, formal
learning agreements, clear roles and responsibilities, structured learning,
support and assessment, with the theory practice links through authentic
learning experiences, all help to support quality of the learning experience
(Lester and Costley, 2010; Ross et al., 2020). Scaffolding of the learning
is important to provide a supportive learning framework for students to
focus on their learning on (Smith and Curtis, 2020; Tezcan et al., 2020).
Online WBL opportunities need to be intentionally designed to support
quality learning ( Jaggars and Xu, 2016), which will be explored in more
detail in subsequent chapters in this book.

Equality diversity and accessibility

Equity of access needs to be considered for all students, particularly when
the WBL will be delivered online. There are not currently sufficient oppor-
tunities, particularly from non-traditional or disadvantaged contexts in
areas such as WBL (Baughan, 2021). Equality diversity and inclusion is
a prominent strategic priority within HE, however, the availability and
accessibility of more traditional in person in situ WBL opportunities can
often provide a challenge for some student populations. The cost of travel
and accommodation can be a potential barrier or the logistics of accessing
WBL for those with a disability or caring responsibilities (Thompson
and Brewster, 2022). Online provision of placements removes some of
the barriers, with a more flexible and accessible approach of delivery in
many cases (Gamage, 2021; Nixon et al., 2006; Sophonhiranrak, 2021)
but finance challenges, geographical location or limited digital literacy,
need to be considered with careful planning and preparation, utilising
existing learning management systems (LMS)/virtual learning envi-
ronments (VLE), so that student access is maximised (Crompton and
Traxler, 2018; Sophonhiranrak, 2021). Previous concerns about the abil-
ities of students to be able to use digital tools for learning (Schrum and
 WORK-BASED LEARNING PLACEMENTS 7

Hong, 2002) have been negated to a certain extent by the essential online
curriculum delivery during the pandemic. Inclusive practice is essential
for every step of the design and delivery of the WBL, from support-
ive resources being presented in an accessible format, to timetabling and
scheduling, to associated assessment and feedback mechanisms. Baughan
(2021) presents a volume of literature around assessment and feedback –
with a focus on learning and inclusion, offering some helpful ideas of
how to maximise the inclusion of learning experiences.
The principles of universal design, offers HE a framework to aid the
design of an online learning environment, including diversity of learning
opportunities, choice of assessment and feedback modes, clarity within
the learning process, reducing workload, scaffolding learning, self-
reflection and regulation (Havens, 2020). Orndorf et al. (2022) high-
lights the importance of universal design, to provide a flexible and
comprehensive approach to inclusivity for student learning. The core
components of universal design are presented below – but much more
detailed information and application can be found at CAST (2018) -– a
comprehensive website with multiple resources to support the design
and implementation of accessible and meaningful learning for all. In
summary, the core components of inclusive design include Engagement –
the why of learning (recruiting interest, sustaining effort and persistence,
self-regulation), Representation – the what of learning (perception, lan-
guage and symbols, comprehension) and Action and expression -– the
how of learning (physical action, expression and communication, execu-
tive functions). Each component should be considered at each stage of
the learning and applied within the context of the remaining chapters of
this book, to facilitate a learning experience that is comprehensive, but
as accessible and inclusive as is possible.

WBL post-Covid and IR 4.0

New labour markets are now dominated by digital workplaces and prac-
tices (Thite, 2019) with the world economic forum stating that students
need to be active in their learning and use technology to broaden their
horizons (Whiting, 2020), recognising the Fourth Industrial Revolution
(IR4.0) and its impact on the emergence of online platforms and the
process of learning (Mulyadi et al., 2022). The IR4.0 has been promoted
8 WORK-BASED LEARNING PLACEMENTS

across the world (Wessels and van Wyke, 2022), rapidly changing the
workplace landscape and working cultures, fast forwarded by the pan-
demic. HE needs to be responsive and prepare students for this increas-
ingly digital workplace (Dalrymple et al., 2021; Ngai et al., 2019; Schwab,
2016). Adaption of roles and responsibilities is crucial in the online
delivery of WBL opportunities, to encourage collaboration through indi-
vidual and collective learning, rather than a didactic teaching approach
(Herrera-Pavo, 2021). Learners are often very responsive to online aca-
demic discourse (Young and Stephenson, 2007), but pedagogy needs to
lead the technology, rather than the other way round (Gamage, 2021).
WBL learning should offer multiple opportunities and modes of learning
and be flexible to accommodate diversity of learners (Fergusson, 2022),
including online delivery.
HE trends within Brazil include online methods of teaching along-
side hybrid and face to face, implemented with relevant pedagogies and
technological support (Riccomini et al., 2021). HE can respond to the
demands of graduates by the provision of authentic and relevant online
WBL opportunities. In response to the IR4.0 era -– an educational model
is presented by Miranda et al. (2021) made up of four components –
competencies, learning methods, information and communication tech-
nologies and infrastructure – all relevant considerations for the online
WBL context. The ability of technology to connect individuals means
the possibilities for online learning principles to be applied within the
WBL context become very real (Salmon, 2019). The worldwide pan-
demic has fast forwarded the digital revolution, with many student
WBL opportunities either being cancelled or translated into online
delivery. The insights from the emergency pandemic response need to be
consolidated – to determine the future landscape of HE WBL opportu-
nities, to support quality learning (Norton and Penaluna, 2022). Online
platforms have been developed to support student learning, reflect-
ing the technological advancements pertaining to IR4.0, enabling the
student-centric approach suggested in the literature, whilst supporting
the equivalence in cognitive outputs, knowledge transfer and learning,
through appropriate scheduling (Lacka et al., 2021) and support. The
technological opportunities to support learning have been recommended,
designed and implemented with academic integrity, as there are many
 WORK-BASED LEARNING PLACEMENTS 9

benefits online mode of learning (Pitt and Quinlan, 2022), having been
reported to provide universally accessible support for students (Baughan,
2021). Online WBL delivery, offers the opportunity to apply theory
to practice in complex and high-pressure situations, with the ability to
design a range of tailored learning opportunities (Savin-Baden et al.,
2010).

Conclusions
WBL is increasingly important within the HE sector to provide oppor-
tunities for learning within the work context, and increasingly the online
work context. The link between the academic curriculum and the work-
place and individual’s employability development is crucial as part of the
HE experience. WBL also provides an opportunity for development of
HE and employer relations. The design and delivery of the WBL oppor-
tunity needs to be carefully considered to offer robust and quality learn-
ing opportunities for all. There are challenges in the provision of WBL
within HE which need to be considered and mitigated in the design and
delivery of online WBL placements.

References
Artess, J, Hooley, T, and Mellors-Bourne, R. (2017) Employability: A review of the litera-
ture 2012–2016. York: Higher Education Academy.
Baughan, P. (2021) Assessment and feedback in a post-pandemic era: A time for learning and
inclusion. York: Advance HE.
Boud, D, and Solomon, N. (2001) Work based learning – A new higher education? Buck-
ingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Brodie, P, and Irving, K. (2007) Assessment in work‐based learning: investigating a ped-
agogical approach to enhance student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 32(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600848218
Burton, J, and Jackson, N. (2003) Work based learning in primary care. Abingdon: Radcliffe
Publishing.
Cameron, R, Dhakal, S, and Burgess, J. (2018) Transitions from education to work –
workforce ready challenges in the Asia Pacific. London: Routledge.
Carter, J. (2021) Work placements, internships and applied social research. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications Ltd.
CAST. (2018) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Available at http://
udlguidelines.cast.org
Cook, E. (2022) A narrative review of graduate employability models: their paradigms,
and relationships to teaching and curricula. The Journal of Teaching and Learning for
Graduate Employability, 13(1), 37–64.
Cox, E. (2006) Adult learners learning from experience: Using a reflective practice model
to support work‐based learning. Reflective Practice, 6(4), 459–472. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14623940500300517
10 WORK-BASED LEARNING PLACEMENTS

Crompton, H, and Traxler, J. (2018) Mobile learning and higher education: Challenges in
context.London: Routledge.
Dadze-Arthur, A, Morth, A, and Cendon, E. (2020) International trailblazers. Work-
based higher education in selected higher education institutions in the US, England and
Denmark. Results of an international case study research project. The joint Fed-
eral Government-Länder Competition “Advancement through Education: Open
Universities”. Available at http://unilab.eucen.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/
Dadze-Arthur_Moerth_Cendon_2020_International_Trailblazers.pdf (Accessed
February 2020)
Dalrymple, R, Macrae, A, Pal, M, and Shipman, S. (2021) Employability: A review of the
literature 2016–2021. Advance HE September 2021.
Dollinger, M, and Brown, J. (2019) An institutional framework to guide the compari-
son of work integrated learning types. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate
Employability, 10(1), 88–100.
Duckenfield, M, and Stirner, P. (1992) Learning through work: the integration of work-
based learning within academic programmes in higher education. Sheffield: Employ-
ment Department.
Edmunds, J. (2007) ‘A personal view of Work Based Learning: policy and practice from
both ends of the telescope’. in Young, D, and Garnett, J. (eds.) Work-Based learning
futures. Bolton: University Vocational Awards Council.
Etzkowitz, H. (2014) The entrepreneurial university wave: From ivory tower to global
economic engine. Industry and Higher Education, 28(4), 223–232.
Fergusson, L. (2022) Learning by… Knowledge and skills acquisition through work-
based learning and research. Journal of Work-Applied Management. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JWAM-12-2021-0065
Ferrández-Berrueco, R, Kekale, T, and Devins, D. (2016) A framework for workbased
learning: basic pillars and the interactions between them. Higher Education, Skills
and Work-Based Learning, 6(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-
06-2014-0026
Ferrández-Berrueco, R, and Sánchez-Tarazaga, L. (2020) Student work-place-
ments from the company perspective: a case study. Higher Education, Skills
and Work-Based Learning, 11(4), 888–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/HES-
WBL-02-2020-0023
Fleming, J, Rowe, A, and Jackson, D. (2021) Employers as educators: the role of work
placement supervisors in facilitating the transfer of skills and knowledge. Journal
of Education & Work, 34(5/6), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2021.
1969343
Fowlie, J, and Forder, C. (2020) Can students be “nudged” to develop their employability?
Using behavioural change methods to encourage uptake of industrial placements.
Journal of Education & Work, 33(2), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.
2020.1749247
Gallagher, S, Jona, K, Waggoner, K, Knepler, E, Zapata-Gietl, C, Blochinger, S, Carde-
nas-Navia, I, Chen, J, and Fitzgerald, B. (2019) Designing and implementing work-
based learning: A call to action for CHROs. Boston, MA: Northeastern University.
Available at https://cps.northeastern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Designing-
Implementing-Work-Based-Learning-1.pdf
Gamage, A. (2021) An inclusive multifaceted approach for the development of electronic
work-integrated learning (eWIL) curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 47(7),
1357–1371. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1894116
Havens, G. (2020) Universal design in the age of COVID-19. Planning for Higher Edu-
cation, 48(4), 14–24.
 WORK-BASED LEARNING PLACEMENTS 11

Hayes, M, and Cejnar, L. (2020) Evaluating alternative work-integrated learning oppor-

tunities: Student perceptions of interdisciplinary industry-based projects. Interna-
tional Journal of Economic & Administrative Studies, 17(4), 1–12.
Helyer, R. (2015) The work-based learning student handbook. 2nd Edition. London: Mac-
millan International Higher Education Red Globe Press.
Herrera-Pavo, M. (2021) Collaborative learning for virtual higher education. Learn-
ing, Culture and Social Interaction, 28(2021), 100437. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lcsi.2020.100437
Inceoglu, I, Selenko, E, McDowall, A, and Schlachter, S. (2019) (How) Do work place-
ments work? Scrutinizing the quantitative evidence for a theory-driven future
research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110(Part B), 317–337. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.09.002
Jaggars, S, and Xu, D. (2016) How do online course design features influence student
performance? Computers & Education, 95, 270–284.
Kaider, F, Hains-Wesson, R, and Young, K. (2017) Practical typology of authentic
work-integrated learning activities and assessments. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooper-
ative Education, 18(2), 153–165.
Karzunina, D, West, J, Maschião da Costa, G, Philippou, G, and Gordon, S. (2018) The
global skills gap in the 21st century. London: QS Intelligence Unit. Available at: info.
qs.com/rs/335-VIN-535/images/The%20Global%20Skills%20Gap%2021st%20
Century.pdf
Konstantinou, I, and Miller, E. (2021) Self-managed and work-based learning: Prob-
lematising the workplace–classroom skills gap. Journal of Work-Applied Management,
13(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-11–2020–0048
Lacka, E, Wong, T, and Haddoud, M. (2021) Can digital technologies improve students’
efficiency? Exploring the role of virtual learning environment and social media use
in higher education. Computers & Education, 163(April 2021), 104099. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104099
Lacković, N. (2019) ‘Graduate employability (GE) paradigm shift: Towards greater soci-
oemotional and ecotechnological relationalities of graduates’ futures’, in Peters, M,
Jandrić, P, and Means, A. (eds.) Education and technological unemployment. Singapore:
Springer, pp. 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6225-5_13
Laur, D. (2013) Authentic learning experiences – A real-world approach to project-based
learning. An eye on education book. London: Routledge.
Lester, S, and Costley, C. (2010) Work-based learning at higher education level: Value,
practice and critique. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 561–575. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03075070903216635
Lidster, J, and Wakefield, S. (2022) Student practice supervision & assessment. Learning
Matters 2nd Edition. A SAGE Publishing Company, London.
Lynne, B. (2003) Arizona work-based learning resource guide. A guide for connecting
career and technical education to the workplace. Arizona Department of Education,
St ­Phoenix, Arizona.
Milliken, S. (2019) From learner to earner – A Recruitment insider’s guide for students want-
ing to achieve graduate job success. Great Britain: Rethink Press.
Miranda, J, Navarrete, C, Noguez, C, Molina-Espinosa, J, Ramírez-Montoya, M, Navarro-
Tuch, S, Bustamante-Bello, M, Rosas-Fernández, J, and Molina, A. (2021) The core
components of education 4.0 in higher education: Three case studies in engineering
education. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 93(2021), 107278, ISSN 0045-7906,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107278
Mulyadi, D, Huda, M, and Gusmian, I. (2022) Smart Learning Environment (SLE) in
the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR 4.0): Practical insights into online learning
12 WORK-BASED LEARNING PLACEMENTS

resources. International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management (IJA-

BIM), 13(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJABIM.287589
Ngai, C, Lee, W, Ng, P, and Wu, D. (2019) Innovating an integrated approach to col-
laborative eLearning practices in higher education: The case study of a corporate
communication e-platform. Studies in Higher Education 44(11), 1990–2010.
Nixon, I, Smith, K, Stafford, R, and Camms, S. (2006) Work-based learning: Illuminating
the higher education landscape. York: Higher Education Academy.
Norton, S, and Penaluna, A. (2022) 3 Es for wicked problems: Employability, enterprise, and
entrepreneurship: Solving wicked problems. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-
hub/3-es-wicked-problems-employability-enterprise-and-entrepreneurship-
solving-wicked
Orndorf, H, Waterman, M, Lange, D, Kavin, D, Johnston, S, and Jenkins, K. (2022) Open-
ing the pathway: An example of universal design for learning as a guide to inclusive
teaching practices. CBE—Life Sciences Education 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/
cbe.21-09-0239
Pitt, E, and Quinlan, K. (2022) Impacts of higher education assessment and feedback policy
and practice on students: A review of the literature 2016–2021. York: Advance HE.
Raelin, J. (2010) Work-based learning in U.S. higher educational policy. Higher Edu-
cation, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 1, 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/
20423891111085357
Ratten, V. (2017) Entrepreneurial universities: The role of communities, people and
places. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy,
11(3), 310–315.
Riccomini, F, Cirani, C, Carvalho, C, and Storopoli, E. (2021) Educational innovation:
trends for higher education in Brazil. International Journal of Educational Manage-
ment, 35(3), 564–578. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2019-0245
Ross, M, Kazis, R, Bateman, N, and Stateler, L. (2020) Work-based learning can advance equity
and opportunity for America’s young people. Brookings: Metropolitan Policy Program.
Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20201120_
BrookingsMetro_Work-based-learning_Final_Report.pdf (Accessed November
2020).
Salmon, G. (2019) May the fourth be with you: Creating Education 4.0. Journal of Learn-
ing and Development, 6(2), 95–115, ISSN: EISSN-2311-1550.
Savin-Baden, M, Gourlay, L, Tombs, C, Steils, N, Tombs, G, and Mawer, M. (2010)
Situating pedagogies, positions and practices in immersive virtual worlds. Journal of
Educational Research. 52(2), 123–133.
Schrum, L, and Hong, S. (2002) From the field: Characteristics of successful tertiary
online students and strategies of experienced online educators. Education and Infor-
mation Technologies, 7(1), 5–16.
Schwab, K. (2016) The fourth Industrial Revolution: What it means, how to respond. Geneva:
World Economic Forum. Available at: www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-
fourth-industrialrevolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/
Sheridan, L, Gibbons, B, and Price, O. (2019) Achieving WIL placement and theoretical
learning concurrently: An online strategy for higher education institutions. Journal
of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 16(3), 1–19.
Singh, A, and Singh, S. (2021) Do employability skills matter in placement: An explor-
atory study of private engineering institutions and IT firms in Delhi NCR. Indian
Journal of Labour Economics, 64(40), 1093–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-
021-00341-x.pdf
Smith, S. (2018) Integrated work-based placements – Shifting the paradigm. Higher
Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 8(2), 134–150. https://doi.org/10.1108/
HESWBL-09-2017-0059
 WORK-BASED LEARNING PLACEMENTS 13

Smith, C, and Curtis, L (2020) Scaffolding learners’ self-regulation in workplace learning:

Design of a pedagogical pattern for placements. Journal of Vocational Education &
Training, 72(3), 396–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2019.1612936
Smith, C, Ferns, S, and Russell, L. (2019) Placement quality has a greater impact on
employability than placement structure or duration. International Journal of Work-
Integrated Learning, 20(1), 15–29.
Sophonhiranrak, S. (2021) Features, barriers, and influencing factors of mobile learning
in higher education: A systematic review. Heliyon, 7(4), e06696, ISSN 2405–8440,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06696
Syamhanim, I, Mimi Mohaffyza, M, Norasyikin, O, Yee Mei, H, and Tee Tze, K. (2015)
A comparison of the work-based learning models and implementation in training
institutions. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204(2015), 282–289, ISSN
1877-0428, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.153.
Tezcan, N, Durakovic, I, Smith, C, D’Arcy, S, and Lloyd, E. (2020) Scaffolded, simulated
work-integrated learning in design education: Beyond the live project. International
Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 521–529.
The Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services, Shortlist Me. (2022) The Evolu-
tion and Integration of careers and employability education in universities. The Associa-
tion of Graduate Careers Advisory Services, Sheffield, UK.
Thite, M. (2019) e-HRM: Digital approaches, directions and applications. Milton Park, OX:
Routledge, pp. 1–21.
Thompson, D, and Brewster, S. (2022) Inclusive placement learning for diverse higher
education students: Anxiety, uncertainty and opportunity. Educational Review.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.2023470
Ugochukwu, P. (2013) Appraising work-based learning experiences of technical and
vocational (teacher) education and training (TVETET) programmes in Nigeria.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), 138–146.
Walsh, A. (2007) An exploration of Biggs’ constructive alignment in the context of work-
based learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(1), 79–87. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02602930600848309
Wessels, L, and van Wyk, J. (2022) ‘University 4.0: A Conceptual Model for South Afri-
can Universities and the Fourth Industrial Revolution’, in Benyera E. (eds.) Africa
and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Advances in African economic, social and political
development. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87524-4_3
Whiting, K. (2020) These are the top 10 job skills of tomorrow – And how long it takes to learn
them. The Jobs Reset Summit, World Economic Forum. Available at: www.weforum.
org/agenda/2020/10/top-10-work-skills-of-tomorrow-how-long-it-takesto-learn-
them/ (Accessed 21 October)
Wilson, J, Flynn, S, Loescher, A, Ward, Tm Siva-Jothy, D. (2013) ASET good practice guide
for work based and placement learning in higher education. ASET Integrating work and
learning. Available at: http://www.asetonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/
ASET-Good-Practice-Guide-eWBPL.pdf
Young, D, and Stephenson, J. (2007) ‘The use of an interactive learning environment to
support learning through work’, in Garnett, J, and Young, D. (eds.) Work-based learn-
ing futures. Bolton: University Vocational Awards Council.
 2
Online learning in a world
of ‘place’

My assignment is to introduce you to key concepts that are influential

in enabling and sustaining success for online learning. I take a deeper
dive into aspects of relevance to work-based learning (WBL) placements,
deploying my long-term research and practice. I hope I might encourage
you, as you surface, to explore further.

The pivot
First, let’s acknowledge that there are a wide variety of ongoing challenges
and solutions around digitalisation, not only for education, disciplines,
and professions but all aspects of society (Brooks and Selander, 2022).
Second, we massively care about our students and their achievements.
Education is part of our cultural and professional heritage and it’s hard to
think of it as steeped in ritual, tradition, and expectations. But in thought
and in practice, it’s a very human construct at the beginning of a big shift.
Here is my attempt to point to a tried and tested route to support viable,
credible shifts to effective, purposeful high-quality online learning.
For decades, digital technology has been researched and debated for
its educational potential and impact. It’s “young” in knowledge terms but
there is evidence dating back to seminal educational research together with
the potential of large-scale online networking from the 1990s onwards.
But few educators, working hard in their own disciplines and professions,

14 DOI: 10.4324/9781003315872-2

 online learning in a world of ‘place’ 15

have had long apprenticeships in the online domain; most were rapidly
thrown in at the deep end at the beginning of the pandemic!
Well-researched and widely applied online learning models can create
alternative, innovative options to in situ WBL. Here’s my proposal: the
places and spaces of learning, traditionally on location, and complexly
influenced by custom and architecture, can be created online with qual-
ity and effectiveness, and offer amazing benefits. So, here I underline
empowering concepts that enable educators to maintain their essential
professional and subject level values and standards, whilst promoting
active, engaged, collaborative learning, through technology opportunities.
See what you think!

The seminal 5-stage model

I briefly explain the origins of the 5-stage pedagogical model. And then how
it has since developed within various bodies of research and practice. For this
book, I mention the relevance for efficient, engaged online WBL placements.
How we learn and the tools and techniques that we deploy (‘modes
of learning’) are increasingly challenged to incorporate digital oppor-
tunities for the future (Dau, 2022). Over 30 years, the 5-stage model
has proved itself adaptable for different contexts, dependable, sustain-
able, and impactful. The model is extensively used across disciplines to
structure technology-mediated, peer-enhanced modules, courses, and
placements.
I illuminate the importance of designing for learning when contem-
plating changing well-established methods and deploying evidence for
successful alternatives. I touch on the skills needed for delivery of teach-
ing and supervision in less familiar environments. I also quickly explore
“storyboarding” and the framework of “e-tivities” as key practical ele-
ments for active blend, hybrid, fully digital and remote teaching.

The provenance of the 5-stage model

The United Kingdom-based huge distance learning only Open Uni-
versity (OU) introduced online networking very early, providing initial
versions of networking platforms and a home computing policy from
the late 1980s (Mason, 1993; Open University, 2022; Waggoner and
Waggoner, 1992). The OU continued to develop technology-mediated
16 online learning in a world of ‘place’

networking and communication opportunities for its large numbers of

remote students.
In 1991, the Open University Business School first offered online net-
working for its Masters in Business Administration (MBA) students, to
supplement its wide-ranging supported self-study processes and place-
based residential schools and tutorials. At that time around 30% of the
management students had access to technology platforms. Thousands
took part online.
I was employed as a lecturer and researcher at the OU at that time.
I developed a framework for grounded action research, for exploring new
avenues and pathways, ideas and feedback. I deployed these early online
conferences in the Business School to build working models of how the
students chose to deploy the online networking opportunities. I inter-
preted and evaluated the data through the lenses of social constructivism
(Tobias and Duffy, 2009), learner engagement (Stan et al., 2022) and
scaffolding (Pea, 2004). These bodies of work acknowledge that learning
and knowledge construction is a highly communicative diverse human
process (Stevens, 2022).
At that time, in the wider Higher Education (HE) sector, place-based
teaching was dominant, and where technology was tentatively introduced,
“content was king”. Over several years my work resulted in the formu-
lation of the 5-stage model for online learning, created from the initial
grounded action research. Originally, my purposes were problem-solving,
increasing learning flexibility, engagement of students and cultivating
learning opportunities. However, the 5-stage model also proved helpful
to academic teaching staff. I offered professional development opportu-
nities for tutors seeking to move online.

Extensive development and application

I began publishing about the 5-stage model, with the first full book in
the year 2000. The model proved exceedingly popular and was widely
considered beyond professional development, and outside business and
management. It was adopted to inform the design of student courses and
online community events across eclectic fields of study. It also offered
a high capacity for flexibility, adaption, and contextualisation, without
 online learning in a world of ‘place’ 17

losing its original rigour (Salmon, 2011). The term “e-moderating”, indi-
cating new roles for teaching online was adopted. The model readily
adapted from the original primitive software to Learning Management
Systems and Virtual Learning Environments (LMSs/VLEs), and more
recently to virtual worlds and mobile learning (Salmon, 2009).
With the model, we designed new pathways for our learners to fol-
low, enjoy and benefit (Laurillard, 2012). This approach offers flexibil-
ity, sustainability and scalability (Cassidy and Lynn, 1991). We now talk
about “design once, deploy many times”. Teachers, tutors and supervi-
sors, needed training and development to be able to feel comfortable and
effective in technology-enhanced environments (Salmon, 2011). I ran
many development workshops, and still do! During the 2020 pandemic,
many colleagues around the world revisited the model with others dis-
covering it for the first time.

Deploying the 5-stage model

My aim through the deployment of the 5-stage model was to meet the
mantra that almost everyone asks me about in workshops and keynotes:
“But how do I get them (usually meaning students, but sometimes staff !)
to engage?” There are no silver bullets, but the 5-stage model will take
you further and faster for your online WBL placements. I promise. And
critically, use your time productively.
Extensive research and practice have demonstrated that more success-
ful and scaled networked learning courses use scaffolding approaches, with
online activity for participants. Scaffolding is also a way of gradually moving
from what directed instruction to a constructivist approach, from short-term
needs to the longer term, and from immediate to more holistic learning
(Pea, 2004; Salmon, 2011, 2013). The metaphor of scaffolding continues to
be developed through serious game-based learning (Tay et al., 2022).
So, the 5-stage model offers ways of designing and delivering learn-
ing experience. It scaffolds individual and group development, clar-
ifies the human supporters’ roles and enables successful peer groups.
Because of its roots in grounded research, it continues to offer insights
and transformation of established teaching and can also be used as an
evaluative tool.
18 online learning in a world of ‘place’

Stage 5
Looking back & forward

Stage 4
Collaboration

Stage 3
Co-operation

Stage 2
Peer Groups

Stage 1
Access & Motivation

Figure 2.1  5-stage model

5-Stage model summary

At stage one, Easy, regular individual access, and the ability of participants
to use online for learning are essential prerequisites for group and peer
learning to develop later.
Stage 2 involves individual participants establishing their online iden-
tities and then finding others with whom to happily interact.
At Stage 3, participants give information to each other relevant to the
course. Up to and including Stage 3, co-operation occurs in the form of
support for each person’s goals. Here, contributions from individuals to
the group should occur regularly and be expected.
At Stage 4, course-related group discussions occur, and the interaction
becomes deeper and more collaborative.
At Stage 5, participants look for more benefits from the system to help
them achieve personal goals including understanding the practical and
applied benefits, integrating online into other forms of learning, and
reflecting.
At first, at Stage 1 learners network for learning only with one or two
others. After Stage 2, up to stage 4, the numbers and frequency of interac-
tions increase. Stage 5 often results in a return to more individual pursuits.
Given appropriate technical access, good activities, and a purpose for tak-
ing part online, nearly all participants will progress through these stages.
 online learning in a world of ‘place’ 19

The benefit of using the model to design an online WBL placement or

a course with digital networking and group work, is that you know how
participants are likely to exploit the system at each stage, and you can
avoid common pitfalls. The results should be higher participation rates
and increased student satisfaction and outcomes. Tutors and supervisors
who understand the model and apply it should enjoy working online and
find that their work runs more smoothly and efficiently. Participants, in
turn, are more likely to be in control of their own learning, focused both
on tasks and processes, and able to pursue more in-depth, well-reasoned
solutions to the challenges presented.

Designing with the 5-stage model

By using the model, you can structure tasks and processes for students to
shape and support their learning and you can e-moderate to help them
succeed. The task is complex enough in traditional modes. Essentially,
seek synergy in multiple forms: between design and delivery of learning,
the software platform, teaching interventions and peer learning.

Stage one
From their first logins, enable participants to see the technology eco-
system as a valid, active, social, interactive and supportive learning envi-
ronment, to achieve their WBL placement goals. Design for promoting
motivation through meaningful activities and to take part, not just once,
but repeatedly. The e-moderating staff function as “host.” Then…

Stage two
The physical built environment such as education or health places are
not made for just one person. Everything is there to promote engage-
ment, conversation, co-operation and collaboration. Aim to create just
such a “place” online – (called “placemaking” in the digital environment)
(Hinton, 2015, see especially Chapter 7; Kwon, 2019). At stage 2, start
to establish and promote personal online engagement and identities
through relevant, interesting but fairly “easy” activities.
Enable all participants to create common understandings and
expectations from their digital learning experience. Value fairness and
diversity – not only because we should – but also because of the immense
value of learning from others’ contributions and experiences. Learners will
20 online learning in a world of ‘place’

then find peers with whom they can interact. This is an important stage
and not to be glossed over. To seek agility and flexibility for learners, activ-
ities need to work within psychological safety. Then maintain momentum.
I know you’ll want to jump in with what they need to learn but spend a
little time on stage two and there will be huge benefits later. Next…

Stage three
Build in information exchange opportunities of all kinds. If Stages 1 and
2 have gone well, then you can expect co-operation at this stage between
peers. They still are likely to pursue their individual goals but start to get
the idea of a supportive, sharing “learning community”. They will develop
some responsibility for others, and tolerance of “not knowing”. Then…

Stage four
Here, you can expect collaboration – commitment to others and to group
achievements. You can design to enable learners to manage their time
together better and make good contributions to shared WBL learning
outcomes. Truly encourage and demonstrate the value of diverse mul-
tiple perspectives and working together. Therefore, you are encouraging
diversity of thought – and tolerance of others – these are essential to
enable innovation and personal growth. Staff roles shift from facilitation
to feedback, dependent on the type of work presented. And assessment is
a crucial part of this learning process too. Then don’t forget…

Stage five
This is where you can encourage and enable metacognition in other
words, encourage learners to look back and understand not only what
they’ve learned but how: an important marker of a more mature learner!
This can easily get lost in the rush to the end of the WBL experience but
build this into the design of your WBL – it makes a significant difference.

Extra practical tips

Start with the end in mind: create super good achievable relevant learn-
ing outcomes. These are your design brief and your teaching focus.
Design and deliver for viability for participants, academic, tutoring
and supervisory staff. Be clear about what time you need from them
 online learning in a world of ‘place’ 21

and when. Build-in clear roles and activities. Undertake some personal
development for staff to save time and increase the effectiveness of their
presence.
Include tutor and peer feedback to small groups every week from
the start. Watch learners flock in for these! Make it easy on yourself –
synchronous, video and audio feedback may be quicker for staff and most
liked by students.
Evaluate and research: explore and understand what happens when
you move online, what works well, what emerges that you might not have
expected and how to make it better.
You can read later (Chapter 8) on how the 5-stage model provided a
framework for the Peer Enhanced e-Placement’s (PEEP) structure, and
paced online learning, including essential pedagogical design and the
support of educators and supervisors at each stage.

Place and online space

Most of us grew up expecting our education to happen in a location –
a place, school, college, university, a workplace. If our chosen discipline,
profession and career were a practice and people-facing based role,
much time was spent in WBL placements, learning from others and our
patients and clients. We acquired knowledge and skills through building
and “mapping” the place in our mind, the objects, the subjects, the more
knowledgeable and experienced people, the procedures and much more.
It stays with us forever. We made notes and articulated and reviewed
insights to help us learn to navigate. The role of educational processes
always been to provide structure, support and pathways, as a guide as part
of this process.
Virtual spaces and online places are no different to location-based
education (Hinton, 2015). Our aim can be to remake our educational
experiences, but not replace, through technology – and give them better
structures and architectures. To build a successful learning community –
whether it’s for a short WBL placement or a longer course, we need cog-
nitive, social and teaching presences combined for optimum outcomes
(Dempsey, 2021). The 5-stage model will help you to understand how
to build and deliver such beneficial pathways, and to demonstrate more
flexibility and diversity in the WBL delivery.
22 online learning in a world of ‘place’

The benefits of modelling for context

Designing involves a partnership between interested parties and stake-
holders (Hinton, 2015) – ideally with educational and technological
designers, educators and employers. Achieving collaboration and dealing
with multiple perspectives is challenging. Using the 5-stage model and
the e-tivities framework through a structured visioning and design pro-
cess such as “Carpe Diem” (Salmon, 2013), will help. For wider contex-
tual and critical views see, for example, Woodley and Rice (2022).
The 5-stage model acts both as a design tool and a scaffold during deliv-
ery (Dempsey, 2021 – see particularly Chapter 3 – Community of Inquiry).
The 5-stage model is not a prescription. Instead, it encourages you to make
sure there is clear direction towards goals and learning outcomes, whilst
enabling engagement from your learners to choose to address the curricu-
lum from different angles, from theory, through activities and crafting, and
with each other – through questions, discussion and arguments. Engage-
ment happens through activity (Bond and Bedenlier, 2019) and through
the essential metacognition: reflection and application (Kuhn, 2022).

Creating equivalence and authenticity

Before embarking on any form of change to the highly traditional and
embedded ways education, be 100% sure about being familiar with the
standards required. Common purposefulness is a fundamental compo-
nent of motivation for everyone (Cassidy and Lynn, 1991; Pfund et al.,
2020). Examining outcomes afresh before you start gives you the essen-
tial “design brief ”. Every learning transformation is best driven this way.
If you do not have clear learning outcomes, write your own for the WBL
placement that you wish to deliver online.
This is how we can achieve quality, equivalence and the essential
authenticity of applied learning, as we change design and delivery meth-
ods to accommodate new digital opportunities.

Addressing engagement
Often, there is a big worry that students will not engage with the new
online mode of learning. Or maybe staff won’t either. My answer is
this – the more you can undertake advance planning deploying the
5-stage model, driven by your learning outcomes, the more likely you
will get recognisable engagement with the opportunities. The more joint
 online learning in a world of ‘place’ 23

activity you can build into your designs, the more productive commu-
nication and information sharing, the more successful your placement
delivery will be. So, there’s a challenge for you!
So, here’s a method that you could adopt:

Study hours as “currency”

To design for great engagement:
Work out your students’ total hours of work and study for the placement
you are creating. These are likely to be determined by your curriculum
planning, education standards or professional body requirements. Then
work out whether you are going to emulate regular working hours, for
example, Monday to Friday 9 am to 5 pm, with regular breaks, or two
days a week, or every morning – or whatever suits your aims and oppor-
tunities. For example, say you decide to go for four weeks full time, that’s
175 “coins” (hours). Everything the students do will need to fit in: prepa-
ration, reading, working together, 1:1 and group work with supervisors,
watching videos and independent thinking time. Do not short-change
them!
Your staff time. Take account of all the team and the distinct roles.
Maybe they will have a clear allocation? What about the clients and ser-
vice users if you’re using live case studies or scenarios? And consider the
roles of your supervisors. Develop staff in working effectively online to
increase efficiency, effectiveness and encourage their engagement. Their
understanding of the 5-stage model will help. Let them know, for their
diaries, exactly when you will be needing them and for how long, for a
seamless planning process (Figure 2.2).

Stage of Model Study hours Activities

Stage 1 20 Induction, technology, motivation, accessibility

Stage 2 26 Online socialisation and team building

Stage 3 45 Information gathering and exchange

Stage 4 60 Collaboration, peer support and challenge

Stage 5 24 Reflection, link to practice, meta-cognition

TOTAL 175

Figure 2.2  Study hours as currency

24 online learning in a world of ‘place’

Now go back to the 5-stage model to ensure that you embed real
engagement and peer enhancement. Allocate at least 10% of the “cur-
rency” to stage 1, 15% to stage 2, 20% to stage 3, 40% to stage 4 and 15%
to stage 5.
So, in our example of 175 hours, it might look something like this:

Designing participation through online activity

First deconstruct your essential elements (Figure 2.3).
You can mirror in situ experiences but also add further value. Where
there is rapid decision-making, you might prefer to construct relevant
scenarios, deploying videos for skills and procedures. Decide how many
tasks, topics, case studies or scenarios you will need and how these will be
delivered (Fors, 2022). Focus on what stage of the model you are at. Plan
your route through both your essential and desirable elements for achiev-
ing the learning outcomes based on the 5-stages. You can see much more
about cognitive and technology aspects of designing successful online
activities in Salmon (2013).

PACING & 2 KNOWLEDGE &

1
TIMETABLING SKILLS

FEEDBACK & 4 ACTIVITY :

3
ASSESSMENT SYNCHRONOUS

ACTIVITY INDEPENDENT
5 6
ASYNCHRONOUS STUDY

Figure 2.3  Key elements for storyboarding

 online learning in a world of ‘place’ 25

You can combine synchronous and asynchronous learning through

e-tivities design and delivery. Good combinations work well and help to
create e-moderator and supervisor “presence” (Lemke, 2022; Raes, 2022).

Putting it all together: practical storyboarding

Storyboarding is a way laying out your plans so that they will create a
captivating story for your learners. Just as our built environments are not
made by one person, but instead constructed through complex collabo-
rations, so we create online educational experiences. The storyboard will
also turn into a timetable for you, and everyone involved and an action
plan and list of what you need to acquire or develop before you begin.
First, lay out your component elements and decisions for the WBL. Once
you have a draft of the storyboard design, make an action plan list of what
you need to do to build the course in your LMS/VLE (Salmon, 2021).

Delivering with the 5-stage model

Undertaking the planning and delivery of learning differently, often
has some surprising results. These “emergent” properties of innovation
are usually additional, good and positive ones. I hope this chapter has
been clear: successful digital transformation is a process which must be
supported by an unclouded vision of purpose, and a good understand-
ing of methods, processes and tools. Hence the 5-stage model and its
methodological friends offer you a route into the online space, from the
place-based world. I hope you will go with the flow and let the learners
continue to surprise you.
I am optimistic that you’ll see this journey into the research and prac-
tice of online learning delivery, not as a polemic on traditional learning
in the world of place, but as an informative and usable deeper dive into
alternative modes. The transformation of WBL delivery sets you up for
creating worthwhile experiences for your students and their futures in
complex multi-mode worlds of work.
26 online learning in a world of ‘place’

References
Bond, M, and Bedenlier, S. (2019) Facilitating student engagement through educational
technology: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Educa-
tion, 2019(11), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.528
Brooks, E, and Selander, S. (2022) ‘Designing for collaboration: Frameworks of learning’,
in Brooks, E, Dau, S, and Selander, S. (eds.) Digital learning and collaborative prac-
tices. New York, NY and Abingdon: Routledge.
Cassidy, T, and Lynn, R. (1991) Achievement motivation, educational attainment, cycles
of disadvantage and social competence: some longitudinal data. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 61, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1991.
tb00956.x
Dau, S. (2022) ‘A learning ecology design’, in Brooks, E, Dau, S, and Selander, S. (eds.)
Digital learning and collaborative practices. New York, NY and Abingdon: Routledge.
Dempsey, P. (2021) Creating transformative online communities in higher education. New
York, NY and Abingdon: Routledge.
Fors, U. (2022) ‘Designing virtual cases for learning and assessment’, in Brooks, E, Dau, S,
and Selander, S. (eds) Digital learning and collaborative practices. New York, NY and
Abingdon: Routledge.
Hinton, A. (2015) Understanding context. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.
Kuhn, D. (2022) Metacognition matters in many ways. Educational Psychologist, 57(2),
73–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1988603
Kwon, J. (2019) Third culture kids: Growing up with mobility and cross-cultural transi-
tions. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 13(2), 113–122. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15595692.2018.1490718
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science. London and New York: Routledge.
Lemke, T. (2022). ‘How much zoom is too much? making asynchronous learning work’,
in Szarejko, A. A. (ed.), Pandemic Pedagogy. Political Pedagogies. Cham: Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83557-6_5
Mason, R. (1993) ‘Written interactions’, in Mason, R. (ed.) Computer conferencing: The last
word. Victoria, BC: Beach Holme, pp. 3–19.
Open University (2022) Open University Technology timeline. Available at: www.schome.
ac.uk/wiki/An_history_of_new_technology_at_the_Open_University (Accessed
5 July 2022).
Pea, R. (2004) The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theo-
retical concepts for learning, education and human activity. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 13(1), 423–451.
Pfund, G, Bono, G, Hill, T, and Patrick, L. (2020) A higher goal during higher education:
The power of purpose in life during university. Translational Issues in Psychological
Science, 6(2), 97–106.
Raes, A. (2022) Exploring student and teacher experiences in hybrid learning environ-
ments: Does presence matter?. Postdigital Science and Education 4, 138–159. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00274-0
Salmon, G. (2009) The future for (second) life and learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 40(3), 526–538.
Salmon, G. (2011) E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. 3rd Edition. New
York, NY and London: Routledge.
Salmon, G. (2013) E-tivities: The key to active online learning. 2nd Edition. New York, NY
and London: Routledge.
Salmon, G. (2021) https://oeb.global/oeb-insights/captivating-learning-storyboarding/
(Accessed 19 June 2022).
 online learning in a world of ‘place’ 27

Stan, M, Topală, I, Necşoi, D, and Cazan, A. (2022) Predictors of learning engagement

in the context of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psy-
chology, 13, 867122.
Stevens, M. (2022) ‘An autoethnographic rhapsody of learning to teach diverse students
online’, in Woodley, Z, and Rice, M. (eds.) Designing intersectional online education.
New York, NY and Abingdon: Routledge.
Tay, J, Yong, MG, Safiena, S, and Bound, H (2022) Designing digital game-based learn-
ing for professional upskilling: A systematic literature review. Computers & Educa-
tion, 184( July), 104518.
Tobias, S, and Duffy, T. (eds.) (2009) Constructivist instruction, success or failure? New York,
NY and Abingdon: Routledge.
Waggoner, M, and Waggoner, M. (1992). Empowering networks: Computer conferencing in
education.Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.
Woodley, X, and Rice, M. (2022) Designing intersectional online education: Critical teaching
and learning practices. New York, NY and Abingdon: Routledge.
 3
Employability and the online
work-based learning placement
environment

Employability in HE
Employability has become one of the most critical considerations as
part of the higher education (HE) context (Abelha et al., 2020) with
employers beginning to move from purely academic importance to more
employability related graduate attributes (Pham and Soltani, 2021),
focussing on work readiness of graduates (Cameron et al., 2018). The
concept of employability has developed more recently from an initial
focus on skill development as early as a century ago, to more of a holis-
tic approach to the concept, including individual, personal and exter-
nal factors (McQuaid and Lindsay, 2005), which can be enhanced by
work-based learning (WBL) placements ( Jackson, 2013; Singh and
Singh, 2021). The evaluation of employability still focusses on outcomes,
rather than how the learning is achieved ( Jackson, 2015). There has been
heavy investment in WBL, based on its positive impact on employability
( Jackson and Bridgstock, 2021). Quality WBL and the use of technol-
ogy are suggested, to support connectedness and interdisciplinary work
(Tibby and Norton, 2020). The transition into a more holistic approach
to employability within HE is further reflected in competency definitions
of employability covering wide-ranging skills and attributes (Romgens
et al., 2019). Employability is complex and multifaceted – engagement

28 DOI: 10.4324/9781003315872-3

 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT 29

between students, education and employers is essential to determine

the employability priorities from all perspectives. Any design and the
delivery of employability initiatives such as WBL need to be as inclu-
sive and accessible as possible (Dalrymple et al., 2021). Bridgstock and
Jackson (2019, p.468) identify three mains aims for employability within
HE – graduate outcomes, professional readiness and living and working
productively and meaningfully across the lifespan, with varying empha-
sis on the different elements depending on HE policy and individual
HE institute’s priorities. Employability doesn’t start and stop at
graduation – it needs to be a life-long and life-wide journey from day one
of studies, into and throughout an individual’s career (Bridgstock and
Jackson, 2019; Super, 1980; Taylor, 2016, 2020a). Employability has pre-
viously been firmly rooted within the human capital theory but now also
includes social constructivist theoretical underpinning – acknowledging
the holistic and social process of employability, and the value and impor-
tance of individual student engagement and ownership of the employa-
bility process (Bonnard, 2020; Dalrymple et al., 2021), with frameworks
such as the learning evaluation and reflection narrative (LEARN) facili-
tating individualised student learning within the WBL context (Simper
et al., 2018).

Models
Due to the complex and multidimensional nature of employability –
within the employability space, there has been a significant amount of
time devoted to debate about terminology – about the word employabil-
ity itself, and other associated contextual words such as skills, attributes,
soft skills, hard skills etc. The term employability resources will be used in
this book as an umbrella term to encompass any skills, attributes, personal
and professional development linked to employability learning opportu-
nities that influence life-wide or life-long employability. Many models
have been developed to provide frameworks within which to contextu-
alise the complex area of employability, and the more widely accepted
models are summarised below.
Bennett (2017, 2018) highlights the importance of individuals
taking an active role and agency in their employability through the
30 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT

Literacies for Life Model. It is a metacognitive model of employabil-

ity which includes six literacies for life that facilitate employability:
basic literacy (skills and knowledge), rhetorical literacy (problem solv-
ing, goal achievement), personal and critical literacy (theory into prac-
tice, self-awareness and efficacy), emotional literacy (feelings of self and
others), occupational literacy (career awareness and paths) and ethical,
cultural and social literacy (individual responsibility, behaviours, beliefs
and values, global citizenship). Reflective practice and portfolio build-
ing within WBL facilitates this crucial metacognition process within
employability which is discussed in Chapter 5 of this book.
Bridgstock (2020) has presented Graduate Employability 2.0 – focussed
on a connectedness learning model with three core sections: capabilities,
pedagogies and enabling strategies all focussing on facilitating a connect-
edness approach to employability. This model supports the peer learning
and networking aspect of the online WBL placement environment.
Five areas of capital are identified in Tomlinson’s Graduate Capital
Model (2017) that impact on employability – human, social, cultural,
identity and psychological. Pham and Soltani (2021) have explored
employability transitions for students and build on the five areas of cap-
ital presented by Tomlinson to include agentic capital – where students
are able to access and use different capital in ways that are best for them at
different stages of their employability journeys. Pham and Soltani (2021)
also highlight the importance of the wider principles of student agency
to navigate themselves through the different forms of capital, which are
all interlinked.
The CareerEDGE model (Dacre-Pool and Sewell, 2007 later revised
Dacre-Pool, 2020) supports the holistic approach to employability –
recognising that employability is more than the subject knowledge and
understanding, with experience (including WBL) being an important
part of career development learning. The importance of generic skills and
emotional intelligence is also highlighted. An associated CareerEDGE
employability development profile maps onto the CareerEDGE model
(Dacre Pool et al., 2014).
Hillage and Pollard (1998) present the 4 Components of Employability –
which recognises the external influences on employability along-
side the knowledge, skill attitudes of individuals and process of career
 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT 31

management and job seeking. This model is particularly pertinent in

relation to the IR4.0 technological advances already discussed in the
Chapter 1 of this book, with WBL being used to prepare students for the
changing workplace and job market.
The USEM Model of Employability (Knight and Yorke, 2002; Yorke and
Knight, 2006) includes efficacy and metacognition within their model –
in addition to the understanding and skills development – reinforcing
the importance of student agency in their employability, that needs to be
supported within WBL.
A model by Holmes (2013) presents possessive, processual and positional
aspects of employability – addressing not only the individual goals of
employability but also recognises the emotional and social aspects and
responsibilities of employability.
Lacković (2019) provides a Relational Graduate Employability Para-
digm which combines three layers of employability which focus not only
on employability for the individual self but also considers employability
and its relationship to others in society and technological and ecological
aspects of employability. The peer group learning within WBL would
support some of the key relational principles of this paradigm.
The models presented above show the complexity of employability –
but also offer direction as to the important elements and considerations
when designing WBL opportunities. The literature suggests that the
dominant focus with employability models are on skills and individ-
ual success, but increasingly graduate employability needs to focus on
how individuals will develop their employability with consideration of
the impact on wider society (Cook, 2022). Trying to apply as many of
the dimensions of employability represented across the available models
and paradigms within the WBL design and delivery, will maximise the
employability potential and impact of graduates individually, and more
widely within society.

Stakeholders
Employability is influenced by many factors, with WBL opportunities
specifically involving key stakeholders of students, employers, HE careers
advisors and academics, all with potentially competing priorities. A key
framework in student learning theory is the 3 Ps presented by Biggs
32 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT

(1993). The 3 Ps relate to presage (the learning environment/curriculum,

student knowledge, understanding and personality, HE and employer
ethos of learning), process (process of learning – surface or deep, learning
activities) and product (the learning outcomes – including employability
learning) with a constructive alignment between the three being crucial
to support in-depth learning. The key stakeholders all need to each play
a role to design and deliver WBL activities and learning opportunities
that are aligned with the learning outcomes, to maximise the learning
and development opportunities within the WBL context. However, lack
of clarity has existed over the roles and responsibilities, and the expecta-
tions between the stakeholders, with different perceptions of the relative
importance of some skills and attributes (Succi and Canovi, 2019; Yong
and Ling, 2022). This discrepancy in perceptions highlights the impor-
tance of co- design and collaboration (Abelha et al., 2020; Crisp et al.,
2019; Dalrymple et al., 2021), to mitigate the reported disparity (Cheng
et al., 2021). Reported gaps between employer expectations and grad-
uate preparation have centred on transferable and broad employability
skills and attributes, with soft skills and critical thinking emerging as key
areas of development in recent literature (Arsenis et al., 2022; Dalrymple
et al., 2021). Employers are demanding more evidence and articulation of
employability resources over and above the qualification achieved (Succi
and Canovi, 2019), highlighting the value of WBL, to reinforce the trans-
ferable learning and the interpersonal potential of the WBL context, and
the related learning opportunities (Dalrymple et al., 2021).

WBL
The principles presented within the employability framework (Cole and
Tibby, 2013) are very useful to inform WBL design, maximising the
facilitation of employability development within the HE context. Three
priority themes of employability have been identified – communication,
teamwork and digital competencies (Abelha et al., 2020), with WBL
being an ideal context for the development of these competencies. Trish
and Fouries (2016) found that many of the identified areas of employa-
bility are included within HE curriculum, but theory practice link to the
WB context is not made. Therefore, authentic learning contexts using
employability experiences, such as WBL, are needed, to support this
 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT 33

process alongside the academic knowledge and skills (Crisp et al., 2019;
Heymann et al., 2022; Simper et al., 2018). Within any literature dis-
cussing employability, there is invariably reference to the Hinchliffe and
Jolly (2011) study which explored graduate identity and employability.
The study findings highlight the importance of well-designed and deliv-
ered quality WBL experiences with the translation of learning through
reflection, avoiding a skill tick box experience for students. WBL has
been found to be the most beneficial pedagogical method for supporting
student employability and their preparation for digital IR4.0 world of
work (Aliu and Aigbavboa, 2022), with a shift towards subjective assess-
ments of employability, impacting on curriculum and pedagogical devel-
opment (Dalrymple et al., 2021). Students need to be prepared to be able
to navigate themselves through the complex workplace environment with
quality WBL experiences being a key opportunity to support this process
of learning (Bennett, 2019). Individual autonomy and reflective behav-
iour are key processes within learning to apply within the WBL context
(Bennett and Ferns, 2017).

Online learning
The literature suggests that online delivery of WBL opportunities can
support employability, with technology providing a link between academic
and WBL relevant learning, however, little research exists to explore how
this can be maximised for student employability (Heymann et al., 2022).
Chernikova et al. (2021) found that scaffolding of learning and the use
of technology helped to maximise the potential of real-world learning
such as simulation. This scaffolding of learning and use of technology has
already been evidenced and discussed within Chapter 2. Group work and
technology offer a robust method of assessment that engages students
in employability learning, despite it being challenging for the students
(Arsenis et al., 2022). Heymann et al. (2022) developed an online learning
platform to support the reflection process for students enhancing employ-
ability and supporting an individualised approach to employability.

Employability resources
Guilbert et al. (2015) present an equation of employability = hard skills
(external portfolio) + soft skills (internal portfolio), in recognition of the
34 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT

importance of the range of skills and attributes contributing to employa-

bility. However, an overlap exists between this terminology, for example,
critical thinking needs the theoretical hard knowledge the soft skills of
how to articulate the critical analysis (Carter, 2021). Soft skills have now
been referred to as twenty-first century skills, as their importance for
individuals to be able to reflect and development of the metacognition of
learning and adaptation within the workplace is critical as part of life-long
learning (McGunagle and Zizka, 2020; Mitchell et al., 2010) and have
been reported as more important than hard skills (Truong and Laura,
2015). Succi and Canovi (2019) divided soft skills further into three cat-
egories of personal, social and methodological, and found that employers
prioritised graduates being able to communicate across different modes
and contexts, including building relationships, being self-driven, effective
and committed to achieving results and adaptability.
Le Huu Nghia (2020) has written extensively on the building of soft
employability skills in Vietnam, but draws some interesting conclusions
that have relevance across the HE sector worldwide – focussing on four
main themes

1. Influence of contextual factors (what is meant by soft skills, insti-

tution strategy and pedagogical value assigned to soft skills)
2. Influences on HE leadership to encourage academic engagement
(encouraging and incentivising teaching practices, developing
pedagogical expertise, develop shared understanding and practice)
3. Extracurricular activities to support soft skills (addressing the
diverse needs of the student population, organised for students
as well as them organising themselves)
4. Partnerships between HE and employers (establish soft skills
priorities, how to develop them, organise learning opportunities
within the workplace and build in assessment to the learning
process)

Carter (2021) lists the top employability resources found from recent
evidence – communication, collaboration and teamwork, time manage-
ment, creativity, persuasion, adaptability and networking. Professional
aspects of learning such as critical thinking and problem solving, were
 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT 35

developed by Chernikova (2021) through authentic simulation, improv-

ing the overall learning experience. Human resources are the most impor-
tant asset for employing organisations, and employability is a key part
of the competitive edge for job applicants (Sisodia and Agarwal, 2017).
Employers are looking for graduates who best evidence these employa-
bility resources, so experiences within HE need to facilitate opportunities
for students to experience and evidence this learning. Below is an expan-
sion of the main priority employability resources as reported within the
literature, the list is not exhaustive, but gives you a flavour of the main
employability resources reported in the literature that can be facilitated
and scaffolded within the design and delivery of a WBL opportunity.
Reflection and Self Improvement – Students need to be able to articu-
late and reflect on their employability as part of their life-long learning
(Dacre-Pool, 2020; Dalrymple et al., 2021; Parker and Badger, 2018),
with active learning and reflection being key to maximise the potential
of their learning experiences. Reflection supports linking learning from
the academic curriculum to the WBL context, and for consolidation and
making sense of learning (Heymann et al., 2022). WBL experiences pro-
vide situations where individuals become more aware of themselves in
ways that they would not within the academic learning environment, as
part of the reflective cycle ( Jackson and Bridgstock, 2021). Meaning-
ful learning can be created and sustained through metacognition as part
of reflection (Alt, 2015; Bennett, 2018), so students don’t just establish
what they have learned – but how they have learned it and how that
will impact on future learning opportunities. The Transferable Learning
Orientations tool developed by Simper et al. (2016) includes elements of
outcome motivation, learning belief, self-efficacy, transfer and organisa-
tion, providing a framework of assessment and feedback of metacogni-
tion. Reflection is further explored in Chapter 5.
Self-efficacy – is an important part of learning, for individuals to be able
to judge their abilities and the route to achieve their aspirations and goals,
helping with student agency. Authentic WBL contexts facilitate students
to engage more autonomously with their learning, with higher level of
self-efficacy. Sharing ideas and interaction, collaboration and observa-
tion of peers during WBL experiences, supports the social constructivist
context for WBL (Alt, 2015). Employability assessments focussing on
36 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT

student self-efficacy and aspirations within their careers are recom-

mended for learning and developing pre-professional identity (Dalrymple
et al., 2021) and WBL can be used as a vehicle for this learning. The
transferable learning orientations tool focusses on self-efficacy as one of
its dimensions (Simper et al., 2016).
Communication – a wide range of communication skills are becoming
more and more important within the contemporary workplace, and is
reported in literature globally, as crucial for graduates entering into the
workplace but repeatedly reported as lacking (Trish and Fouries, 2016).
Communication skills now extend to online communication – with the
online WBL context being an ideal opportunity to build confidence and
competence.
Team working/roles – teamwork is essential within any work ­context
with team roles being linked to job satisfaction (Ruch et al., 2018).
Surveyed students valued group work for helping them learn time
­
­management and skills in working with others, contributing to their
employability (Hill et al., 2016). The peer group based WBL offers an
opportunity to scaffold the team working learning opportunities for indi-
viduals. The peer group pedagogy is presented in detail in Chapter 4.
Leadership – leadership qualities can include motivating, supportive,
coping with change, flexibility, integrity, directing and helping (Stanley,
2006) and can be developed through WBL in a structured and supported
way at any level of development.
Professionalism, values and ethics – demonstrating professionalism and
a professional approach is important – despite the rise of use of technol-
ogy (Carter, 2021). Students need to be taught about professionalism
(Mason, 2016) and need to take ownership of their own values and eth-
ics, which relate very closely to employability qualities. These qualities
are essential components of professionalism and overlap with personal
characteristics (Robinson, 2005) and can be shaped by WBL experiences
(Wareing et al., 2017).
Initiative – has been shown to result in higher employability and job
satisfaction, so opportunities for students to develop this attribute should
be built into the WBL design and planning (Gamboa et al., 2009).
Flexibility – is consistently in the top attributes that employers are
looking for in employees, with individuals needing to have a willingness
 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT 37

and ability to be adaptable within a fast-changing work context. Savickas

and Porfeli (2012) present four areas of adaptability; concern (looking to
the future and any opportunities coming up), control (responsibility for
themselves and shaping the environment), curiosity (considering differ-
ent possible situations or roles) and confidence (to bring things to reality
and implementation), which can be considered and applied when design-
ing the content of the WBL opportunity.
Problem solving, planning and organisation – are key characteristics
within the workplace to work out solutions and logical progression of
task completion, maximising efficiencies and planning competencies,
through the application and development of organisational skills (Sisodia
and Agarwal, 2017).
Commercial awareness – is an important graduate understanding, of
how commercial organisations work, what impacts on that, and how profit
is achieved (McConnell, 2022). The WBL design can include developing
an understanding and then application of the principles of commercial
awareness during specific WBL learning tasks/activities.
Enterprise/innovation/entrepreneurship – employability enterprise
and innovation are very closely linked and need to be addressed within
HE (Tibby and Norton, 2020). Entrepreneurial competencies can be
enhanced by live project work, with WBL being an authentic and ideal
context for this learning (Dalrymple et al., 2021).
Cross cultural awareness – with an increasingly globally connected
world, cultural awareness and appreciation of cultural background has
become an important employability resource for graduates to be able
to develop apply and evidence (Falkner et al., 2018; Kenayathulla et al.,
2019).
Digital Literacy – is now a crucial part of individual’s employabil-
ity toolkit (Bejaković and Mrnjavac, 2020) when many workplaces are
now adopting hybrid mode of working, requiring a change in mindset
to online delivery of WBL to better prepare students for this changing
workplace context (Taylor, 2020b).
Pre-professional identity – professional identity formation is a crucial
part of employability and career development (Bennett, 2018). Portfolios
can be used to help develop personal and professional identities (Rowley
et al., 2015). Jackson (2016) argues that graduate employability needs to
38 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT

embrace the concept of pre-professional identity, and to go beyond the

skill development that has been the focus in the past. An individual’s
professional identity develops over the course of a career, with three ele-
ments: same knowledge/ideology/skills as others in your profession, dif-
ferent to those not in your profession, and being identified as part of your
profession (Trede et al., 2012). Reflection is a critical process to translate
placement learning to the individual and their own learning, identity and
futures (Harrington and Hall, 2007; Rowley et al., 2015) to help them
form their own professional identity.

Conclusions
Employability has now become one of the most important considera-
tions within the HE context, with employers demanding evidence from
graduates of employability resources beyond academic qualifications.
Various models of employability exist to provide frameworks to con-
textualise employability and all stakeholders need to be aligned in their
expectations of employability. Employability resources have been identi-
fied in the literature that are key for students to develop – which can all
be enhanced through online peer group WBL placements, supporting
student efficacy and agency, but also with an appreciation of their contri-
bution to wider society.

References
Abelha, M, Fernandes, S, Mesquita, D, Seabra, F, and Ferreira-Oliveira, A. (2020) Grad-
uate employability and competence development in higher education—A sys-
tematic literature review using PRISMA. Sustainability, 12(15), 5900. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su12155900
Aliu, J, and Aigbavboa, C. (2022) ‘Examining pedagogical approaches in developing
employability skills in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic’, in Howlett, J, Jain, L,
Littlewood, J, and Balas, M. (eds.) Smart and sustainable technology for resilient cit-
ies and communities. Advances in Sustainability Science and Technology. Singapore:
Springer. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/978–981-16–9101-0_2
Alt, D. (2015) Assessing the contribution of a constructivist learning environment to aca-
demic self‐efficacy in higher education. Learning Environments Research, 18(1), 47–67.
Arsenis, P, Flores, M, and Petropoulou, D. (2022) Enhancing graduate employability
skills and student engagement through group video assessment. Assessment & Evalu-
ation in Higher Education, 47(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.
1897086
Bejaković, P, and Mrnjavac, Z. (2020) The importance of digital literacy on the labour
market. Employee Relations 42(4), 921–932.
 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT 39

Bennett, D. (2017) ‘Metacognition as a graduate attribute: Employability through the

lens of self and career literacy’, in Huda, N, Inglis, D, Tse, N, and Town, G. (eds.)
Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering
Education, Sydney, December 10–13, pp. 214–221.
Bennett, D. (2018) Embedding employABILITY thinking across Australian higher educa-
tion. Submitted July, 2018. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Edu-
cation and Dawn Bennett 54 Training. Available at: https://altf.org/wp‐content/
uploads/2017/06/Developing‐EmployABILITY‐draft‐fellowship‐report‐1.pdf
Bennett, D. (2019) Graduate employability and higher education: Past, present and
future. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 5, 31–61. Available at: http://www.
herdsa.org.au/herdsa‐review‐higher‐education‐vol‐5/31‐61
Bennett, D, and Ferns, S. (2017) ‘Functional and cognitive aspects of employability:
Implications for international students’,. in Barton, G, and Hartwig, K. (eds.) Pro-
fessional learning in the work place for international students. New York, NY: Springer,
pp. 203–223.
Biggs, J, (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education,
12, 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436930120107
Bonnard, C. (2020) What employability for higher education students?. Journal of
Education & Work, 33(5/6), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2020.184
2866.
Bridgstock, R. (2020) Graduate Employability 2.0: Enhancing the connectedness of learn-
ers, programs and higher education institutions. Brisbane: Griffith. Available at: http://
www.graduateemployability2-0.com/
Bridgstock, R, and Jackson, D. (2019) Strategic institutional approaches to graduate
employability: navigating meanings, measurements and what really matters. Journal
of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(5), 468–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1360080X.2019.1646378
Cameron, R, Dhakal, S, and Burgess, J. (2018) Transitions from education to work –
Workforce ready challenges in the Asia Pacific. London: Routledge.
Carter, J. (2021) Work placements, internships & applied social research. London: Sage Pub-
lishing.
Cheng, M, Adekola, O, Albia, J, and Cai, S. (2021) Employability in higher education: a
review of key stakeholders’ perspectives. Higher Education Evaluation and Develop-
ment, 16, 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-03-2021-0025
Chernikova, O, Heitzmann, N, Stdaler, M, Holzberger, D, Seidel, T, and Fischer, F. (2021)
Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta analysis. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 90(4), 499–541. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654320933544
Cook, E. (2022) A narrative review of graduate employability models: their paradigms,
and relationships to teaching and curricula. The Journal of Teaching and Learning for
Graduate Employability, 13(1), 37–64.
Cole, D, and Tibby, M. (2013) Defining and developing your approach to employability: A
framework for higher education institutions. York: Higher Education Academy.
Crisp, G, Letts, W, and Higgs, J. (2019) Education for employability (Volume 1): The employ-
ability agenda. Leiden: Brill Sense.
Dacre-Pool, L. (2020) Revisiting the CareerEDGE model of graduate employability.
Journal of the National Institute for Career Education and Counselling, 44(1), 51–56.
Dacre-Pool, L, Qualter, P, and Sewell, P. (2014) Exploring the factor structure of the
CareerEDGE employability development profile. Education + Training, 56(4), 303–
313. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-01-2013-0009
Dacre-Pool, L, and Sewell, P. (2007) The key to employability: Developing a practical
model of graduate employability. Education and Training, 49(4), 277–289.
40 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT

Dalrymple, R, Macrae, A, Pal, M, and Shipman, S. (2021) Employability: A review of

the literature 2016–2021. Advance HE. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/
knowledge-hub/employability-review-literature-2016-2021
Falkner, K, Ornellas, A, and Stålbrandt, E. (2018) Skill Up: matching graduates’ skills
and labour world demands through authentic learning scenarios. University of Pinar
del Rio, Presented at the Educational Research Landscape – A forum for future
cooperation, Cuba, March 19–21, 2018. Available at: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-154531
Gamboa, J, Gracia, F, Ripoll, P, and Peiro, J. (2009) Employability and personal initiative
as antecedents of job satisfaction. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 632–640.
Guilbert, L, Bernaud, J, Gouvernet, B, and Rossier, J. (2015) Employability: Review and
research prospects. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance,
16(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-015-9288
Harrington, B, and Hall, D. (2007) Career management and work-life integration – Using
self-assessment to navigate contemporary careers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-
tions Inc.
Heymann, P, Bastiaens, E, Jansen, A, van Rosmalen, P, and Beausaert, S. (2022) A con-
ceptual model of students’ reflective practice for the development of employability
competences, supported by an online learning platform. Education + Training, 64(3),
380–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2021-0161
Hill, N, Denholm-Price, J, Atkins, N, Dourado, L, Nimoh, O, and Page, N. (2016) Does
group assessment impact BME attainment? New Directions in the Teaching of Physi-
cal Sciences, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.29311/ndtps.v0i11.579
Hillage, J, and Pollard, E. (1998) Employability: developing a framework for policy
Analysis. Research Report RR85 Department of Education and Employment November
1998.
Hinchliffe, G, and Jolly, A. (2011) Graduate identity and employability. British Educa-
tional Research Journal, 37(4), 563–584.
Holmes, L. (2013) Competing perspectives on graduate employability: Possession, posi-
tion or process? Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 538–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03075079.2011.587140
Jackson, D. (2013) The contribution of work-integrated learning to undergraduate
employability skill outcomes. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(2),
99–115.
Jackson, D. (2015) Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: barriers
and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367.
Jackson, D. (2016) Re-conceptualising graduate employability: The importance of pre-
professional identity. Higher Education Research and Development, 35(5), 925–939.
Jackson, D, and Bridgstock, R. (2021) What actually works to enhance graduate employ-
ability? The relative value of curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular learning
and paid work. Higher Education, 81(4), 723–739.
Kenayathulla, H, Ahmad, N, and Idris, A. (2019) Gaps between competence and impor-
tance of employability skills: evidence from Malaysia. Higher Education Evaluation
and Development, 13(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-08-2019-0039.
Knight, P, and Yorke, M. (2002) Employability through the curriculum. Tertiary Educa-
tion and Management 8, 261–276.
Lacković, N. (2019) ‘Graduate employability (GE) paradigm shift: Towards greater soci-
oemotional and ecotechnological relationalities of graduates’ futures’, in Peters, M,
Jandrić, P, and Means, A. (eds.) Education and technological unemployment. Singapore:
Springer, pp. 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6225-5_13
Le Huu Nghia, T. (2020) Building soft skills for employability – Challenges and practices in
Vietnam. London: Routledge.
 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT 41

Mason, R. (2016) in Taylor, L. (ed.) How to develop your healthcare career – a guide to
employability and professional development. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
McConnell, S. (2022) A systematic review of commercial awareness in the context of
the employability of law students in England and Wales. European Journal of Legal
Education, 3(1), 127–175.
McGunagle, D, and Zizka, L. (2020) Employability skills for 21st-century STEM stu-
dents: The employers’ perspective. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning,
10(3), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1108/heswbl-10–2019–0148
McQuaid, R, and Lindsay, C. (2005) The concept of employability. Urban Studies, 42(2),
197–219.
Mitchell, L, Skinner, L, and White, B. (2010) Essential soft skills for success in the twenty-
first century workforce as perceived by business educators. Journal of Research in
Business Education, 52(1), 43–53.
Parker, R, and Badger, J. (2018) The essential guide for newly qualified Occupational
Therapists – Transition into practice. London: Jessica Kinsley Publishers.
Pham T, and Soltani, B. (2021) Enhancing student education transitions and employability –
From theory to practice. London: Routledge.
Robinson, S. (2005) Learning and employability series two – Ethics and employability. York:
The Higher Education Academy.
Romgens, I, Scoupe, R, and Beausaert, S. (2019) Unraveling the concept of employability,
bringing together research on employability in higher education and the workplace.
Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 1–16.
Rowley, J, Bennett, D, and Dunbar‐Hall, P. (2015) ‘Creative teaching with performing
arts students: developing career creativities through the use of ePortfolios for career
awareness and resilience’, in Burnard, P, and Haddon, E. (eds.) Activating diverse
musical creativities: Teaching and learning in higher music education. London: Blooms-
bury Academic, pp. 241–259.
Ruch, W, Gander, F, Platt, T, and Hofman, J. (2018) Tem roles: Their relationship to char-
acter strengths and job satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology 13(2), 190–199.
Savickas, M, and Porfeli, E. (2012) Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, reliabil-
ity, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
80, 661–673
Simper, N, Gauthier, L, and Scott, J. (2018) Student learning in the workplace: The
Learning Evaluation and Reflection Narrative (LEARN) framework. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 30(8), 658–671. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-04-2018-0060.
Simper, N, Kaupp, J, Frank, B, and Scott, J. (2016). Development of the Transferable
Learning Orientations tool: Providing metacognitive opportunities and meaningful
feedback for students and instructors. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
41(8), 1159–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1070117
Singh, A, and Singh, S. (2021) Do employability skills matter in placement: an explor-
atory study of private engineering institutions and IT firms in Delhi NCR. Indian
Journal of Labour Economics, 64(4), 1093–1113. Available at: https://link.springer.
com/content/pdf/10.1007/s41027-021-00341-x.pdf
Sisodia, S, and Agarwal, N. (2017) Employability skills essential for healthcare industry.
Precedia Computer Science, 122, 431–438.
Stanley, D. (2006) In command of care: clinical nurse leadership explored. Journal of
Research in Nursing, 11(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987106059458
Succi, C, and Canovi, M. (2019) Soft skills to enhance graduate employability: comparing
students and employers’ perceptions. Studies in Higher Education, 45(9), 1834–1847.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1585420
Super, D. (1980) A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Voca-
tional Behaviour, 16, 282–298.
42 EMPLOYABILITY AND THE ONLINE WBL PLACEMENT

Taylor, L. (2016) How to develop your healthcare career – A guide to employability and profes-
sional development. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Taylor, L. (2020a) Employability – Nature AND nurture. Available at: www.advance-he.
ac.uk/news-and-views/employability-nature-and-nurture
Taylor, L. (2020b) Placements post Covid-19 – time for re-evaluation?. Available at: https://
www.advance-he.ac.uk/news-and-views/placements-post-covid-19-time-re-
evaluation
Tibby, M, and Norton, S. (2020) The embedding employability framework guide. Available at:
https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/news-and-views/launch-embedding-employability-
framework-guide
Tomlinson, M. (2017) Forms of graduate capital and their relationship to graduate employ-
ability. Education + Training, 59(4), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05–
2016–0090
Trede, F, Macklin, R, and Bridges, D. (2012). Professional identity development: A review
of the Higher Education literature. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 365–384.
Trish, L, and Fouries, E. (2016) Graduate employability and communication competence:
are undergraduates taught relevant skills? Business and Professional Communication
Quarterly, 79(4), 442–463.
Truonga, H, and Laura, R. (2015) Essential soft skills for successful business graduates
in Vietnam. Sociology Study, 5(10), 759–763. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159‐5526/
2015.10.001
Wareing, M, Taylor, R, and Wilson, A. (2017) The influence of placements on adult
nursing graduates’ choice of first post. British Journal of Nursing, 24(4). https://doi.
org/10.12968/bjon.2017.26.4.228
Yong, B, and Ling, Y. (2022) Skills gap: The importance of soft skills in graduate employ-
ability between the perspectives of employers and graduates. International Journal of
Social and Humanities Extension (IJSHE), 2(1), 10–24. Available at: http://ijshe.info/
index.php/ijshe/article/view/21
Yorke, M, and Knight, P. (2006) Learning and employability – Embedding employability in
the curriculum. Higher Education Academy April 2006.
 4
Peer group learning

Concept and principles

Peer learning is widely understood as “the use of teaching and learning
strategies in which students learn with and from each other without the
immediate intervention of a teacher” (Boud et al., 1999, p.2). Piaget’s
learning theory (1932) builds on the premise that individuals can learn
better from their peers than those in authority, with examples of posi-
tive peer learning experiences reported in the literature across many dif-
ferent subjects ( Jensen and Thomsen, 2021; Tai et al., 2021; Zha et al.,
2019). Peer discussion develops a depth of learning and understanding,
offering the opportunity to practice skills and to facilitate consolidation
of learning (Ravanipour et al., 2015), through summarising, question-
ing, explaining and working through potential cognitive conflicts in
the groups, advocating active and collaborative learning (Howe, 2015;
Topping, 1996; Topping and Ehly, 2001; Topping et al., 2017). Sce-
narios and situations that encourage social interaction facilitates stu-
dent learning, and Work-based learning (WBL) should be organised to
facilitate both co-operative and collaborative learning within the peer
group, to maximise the potential of the peer learning process (Topping
et al., 2017). Students within peer groups have a shared understanding,
offering students a safe space for learning, with an additional element

DOI: 10.4324/9781003315872-443
44 peer group learning

of support for each other. Within the WBL context, the students can
work together without the need or feeling of being constantly super-
vised by academics or employers. Peer learning is gaining momentum
within education, based on the beneficial learning experiences that have
been reported in the literature (Markowski et al., 2021), being described
as one of the richest learning resources (Topping, 2005). Within higher
education (HE), the initial models of peer learning were predominantly
students being trained to support less experienced peers to understand
subject specific material (Hilsdon, 2013) and were more on a one-to-
one basis than in groups. This peer assisted learning model – with stu-
dent mentor and mentees – is less appropriate for the online peer group
WBL placement context presented in this book, as the peer group learn-
ing from students all at the same stage of learning is a key ingredient in
its design and delivery. From the subject specific beginnings, the peer
learning concept has developed to facilitate more generic employabil-
ity skills and attributes that are cross-disciplinary, equipping students in
their graduate transitions (Carr et al., 2018; Hill, 2015; Keenan, 2014)
developing valuable reflection and professional skills (Chou et al., 2011).
Critical thinking, consolidation of learning and metacognition is devel-
oped through peer group learning, and an increased individual awareness
of their own attributes and how they relate to the workplace – supporting
the individual approach to employability (Carr et al., 2018; McPake,
2019; Pratiwi, 2019), which has already been presented in Chapter 3, with
benefits of peer learning extending to improved academic achievement,
retention and progression (Dawson et al., 2014). The use of group peer
learning principles can provide a more consistent and equitable experi-
ence for students, encouraging all learners within the peer group to have
a voice (Sevenhuysen et al., 2013; Topping et al., 2017). Peer learning and
feedback has been recommended frequently in the literature (Pitt and
Quinlan, 2022), offering an opportunity for in- depth learning to enhance
learning outcomes (Adachi et al., 2016; Chojecki et al., 2010; Carr et al.,
2016; Tai and Sevenhuysen, 2018) and can also assist with making judge-
ments of others and their work – described as evaluative judgement (Tai
et al., 2016). Evaluative judgement is developed through the peer discus-
sion, observation and assessment which supports the crucial self-efficacy
component of employability discussed in previous chapters.
 peer group learning 45

Challenges
Time is needed to design and deliver a robustly structured and supported
learning experience, which is essential to the success of the peer learning
process ( Jolliffe, 2015). Concerns have been raised in the potential for
poor relations between the students, unequal effort between students or
the accuracy of the information that is being shared between the students
(Del Barco et al., 2017; Sevenhuysen et al., 2013) and there have been
some reported mixed outcomes from some studies where planning and
preparation was not sufficiently robust (Markowski et al., 2021). Support
and supervision external to the group is crucial to manage any issues that
may arise. A change in mindset may be needed at an individual, academic
or institution level to fully appreciate the benefits that can be achieved
with this different mode of learning, where the preparation, introduc-
tion and clarity of the learning opportunity are crucial for all involved
(Topping et al., 2017). The use of threshold concepts has been reported,
to aid the transition for individuals to see things in ways that have not
been previously possible (Wright and Hibbert, 2015). Gamlath (2021)
provides a framework to support peer learning and to overcome the addi-
tional potential barriers of wider education or individual institution pol-
icy and learning culture, attitudes of academics and students and student
demographics and characteristics. Despite some of the potential barriers,
there is great potential value that can be added to learning through a peer
group learning process within WBL. Clear planning and preparation,
defined roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders, clear ground rules
and expected behaviours within the peer groups, and structured support
and feedback from educators and employers, can mitigate these concerns.

Co-operative and collaborative learning

Peer learning advocates active, co-operative and collaborative learning,
underpinned by social learning theory (Topping and Ehly, 2001), and
promotes interaction between peers to clarify and discuss information
together further, thereby facilitating a deeper enquiry than would be
achieved with independent learning (Topping et al., 2017). Common
goals and mutual learning as provided by the WBL placement learning
outcomes are important to provide “anchors” for the peer group learn-
ing. Both co-operative and collaborative learning is student-centric with
46 peer group learning

students learning by doing, interacting, discussing, questioning and being

part of a group, with slight differences in the meaning and application
of both concepts, but the terms are often used synonymously (Topping
et al., 2017).
Co-operative learning is groups complete a task that has a clear struc-
ture with minimal input from an educator – students within the group
help each other to learn together through a defined learning activity –
and is more structured than traditional group work exercises ( Johnson
and Johnson, 2014; Jolliffe, 2015). Four key elements to co-operative
learning have been reported by Davidson and Worsham (1992) with a
fifth element added subsequently by Davidson (1994).

1. Suitable learning activity

2. Interaction between the students
3. Interdependence between the students to complete the learning
activity
4. Individual accountability
5. Working relations between the students

Learning contexts and environments and the scheduling of the learn-

ing opportunities need to be planned to maximise the facilitation of
co-operative learning and to support the process of interdependence –
every individual is dependent of the success of others to succeed them-
selves to contribute to the overall outcomes ( Johnson and Johnson, 2014).
This is an important consideration within the peer group learning process
for the WBL design and delivery.
Collaborative learning is when students work with each other within
social constellations/group (for example, within the peer group online
WBL context), for the same goal, to build knowledge through their inter-
actions with each other with a focus on specific tasks and goals – with
an evaluation of individual progress against WBL learning outcomes
(Strijbos, 2016). In the past, less literature was reportedly available on
collaborative learning (Topping and Ehly, 2001) but it is now receiving
more attention within HE curriculums (Meijer et al., 2020). Collabora-
tion is a crucial skill for students to develop, and can be built into learning
experiences (Laur, 2013).
 peer group learning 47

Structure and scaffolding

Structure and scaffolds need to be built in to the WBL to provide an
explicit learning framework within which the peer groups can develop
and progress, to encourage engagement in the learning, that often does
not happen by itself (Topping et al., 2017). The self-regulated learning
demonstrated from peer learning in the online learning environment is
reported to support the achievement of learning outcomes (Lim et al.,
2020). Student interaction and engagement within the peer group is key
and particularly important to structure and support within an online peer
group WBL experience, to maximise its potential (Lloyd and Ferney-
hough, 1999). Students engage with learning when they know that they
need to share their learning with others (Duran, 2016; Topping et al.,
2017). All stakeholders need to be clear over the roles and responsibili-
ties and expectations from the WBL, with a structured introduction and
induction process at the beginning of the WBL experience, to make this
explicit. Ground rules set at the beginning, will help to mitigate some
of the risks associated with peer group pedagogy, particularly within
the context of online delivery. Co-operative digital skills are becoming
very important within society with relationships being built increasingly
online ( Johnson and Johnson, 2014), and therefore the opportunity for
students to experience an online WBL placement, working within peer
groups, offers an experience to prepare students for the changing work
environment.

Group work processes

A group is when two or more people come together for a specific purpose
and the members feel part of a group (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2010), and
has long been reported within the literature (Lewin, 1958). Individual
attitudes can be influenced by other members of the group, with the sum
of the parts of the group being greater than the whole, otherwise known
as the sinergy effect (Slocum and Hellriegel, 2009). An awareness of the
group work processes is required when designing the WBL, to maxim-
ise the benefits that have been reported in the literature, such as better
efficiencies and learning outcomes (Gençer, 2019). Groups are dynamic
and have the potential to influence (Bargal et al., 1992) but is affected by
multiple factors – for example, internal influences (individual need) and
48 peer group learning

external forces (the task in hand) as reported by Thrift (2021). Important

considerations are needed when planning the design and delivery of the
peer group aspect of the WBL.
The decision of how to put the groups together depends on what you
want the group formation to represent for the students. It may be that
you want discipline specific groups, groups with specific characteristics
or those students who already know each other. Or you may like to have
random group allocation so that students need to start from scratch with
the group formation (Topping et al., 2017), which although challenging –
does provide an authentic experience of the realities of joining a new
team within the workplace.
During the process of group formation and the development of group
dynamics – interactions need to be scaffolded, providing a framework, to
increase the effectiveness of the peer learning (Leung, 2015). The effect
of online groups has been examined by Wageman et al. (2012) and more
recently with the development of technology and online communities
(Gençer, 2019) with structure and scaffold needed to support the group
member engagement and learning process. Planning and preparation
for students in the peer group, supports engagement within the team
and facilitates the feeling of psychological safety within the group (Salas
et al., 2018). Group norms and ground rules are an important part of the
group structure and expectation (Gençer, 2019) and play a part in knowl-
edge transfer (Millar and Choi, 2010). Within the group, there is often a
leader – however, this is not necessarily the case within peer group WBL
placements – and is more of a case of individuals contributing equally to
the peer group. However, any need to have specific roles within the group
should be established, based on the activities planned to support achieve-
ment of the WBL placement learning outcomes. Shared leadership has
been shown to be more accepted within groups (Kivlinghan et al., 2012)
and could be built into the design of WBL groups to support the equal
contribution of all within the group. Team forming using Belbin’s role the-
ory has been shown to help teams with development of interdependence,
interpersonal relations, social skills and accountability, resulting in higher
achievement from the outcomes of team tasks (Aranzabal et al., 2022).
Peer group learning processes support inclusion, offering the
opportunity for everybody’s voice to be heard, being more open for
 peer group learning 49

communication, with individuals not so afraid of making mistakes

(Hilsdon, 2013). Different perspectives and diversity can be represented
and appreciated, as the benefits of peer learning is reported to apply
across the spectrum of learners (Topping et al., 2017). Hilsdon (2013)
presents the learning development concept, to enable the widest access
possible for students to engage within HE with genuine collaborative
relationships in the planning and delivery of WBL placements to foster
a good learning relationship with students being partners, producers and
having their own voice in their learning.
Team roles are described within Belbin role theory, focussing on how
individuals behave, contribute and interrelate with each other with mul-
tiple team roles being developed by individuals simultaneously (­Belbin,
2010). The team roles are reported to be influenced by six factors ­(Lupuleac
et al., 2012) personality, mental abilities, values, and motivation, working
environment, personal experience and culture and role learning. Belbin
team roles look for how the behavioural patterns of individuals are devel-
oped, changed and interact with the other team roles, which ultimately
impact on the outcome of the group (Batenburg et al., 2013), and could
be considered as part of the preparation and subsequent reflection for the
students.
Group size is generally kept small (no less than five and not too many
more than six) to maximise the potential of the group process (Oakley,
2004) and to avoid social loafing or passengers – i.e. individuals within
the group who are not pulling their weight (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2010;
Topping et al., 2017). It is important to empower group members to
be able to report any members of the groups who are social loafing or
passengers to their supervisors. Within the online WBL placement con-
text, small peer group sizes are advised with the provision of a structured
induction to the peer group working design principles, processes, expec-
tations and responsibilities.

Conclusions
Within the literature and research, there is overwhelming support for
peer group learning and its potential positive impact on learning. The
workplace requires individuals to be able to work with others, and
increasingly online. The opportunity for students to experience an online
50 peer group learning

WBL placement within an evidence-based peer group delivery, offers the

opportunity for students to develop crucial and high demanded employa-
bility resources. Time needs to be spent in the design and delivery of peer
group learning opportunities and a change in mindset may be needed for
some stakeholders. A key part of the consolidation of learning from the
peer groups is reflection – which is discussed in the next chapter.

References
Adachi, C, Tai, J, and Dawson, P. (2016) ‘Enabler or inhibitor? Educational technology
in self and peer assessment’, in Barker, S, Dawson, S, Pardo, A, and Colvin, C (eds.)
Show me the learning. Proceedings ASCILITE 2016, Adelaide, pp. 11–16.
Aranzabal, A, Epelde, E, and Artetxe, M. (2022) Team formation on the basis of Bel-
bin’s roles to enhance students’ performance in project based learning. Education
for Chemical Engineers, 38, 22–37, ISSN 1749-7728, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ece.2021.09.001
Bargal, D, Gold, M, and Lewin, M. (1992) Introduction: The heritage of Kurt Lewin.
Journal of Social Issues, 48(2), 3–13.
Batenburg, R, van Walbeek, W, and in der Maur, W. (2013) Belbin role diversity and
team performance: Is there a relationship? Journal of Management Development, 32,
901–913. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-08-2011-0098
Belbin, M. (2010) Team roles at work. 2nd Edition.London: Routledge (2010).
Boud, D, Cohen, R, and Sampson, J. (1999) Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–426.
Carr, R, Abu-Saif, H, Boucher, R, and Douglas, K. (2018) Peer-learning to employa-
ble: learnings from an evaluation of PASS attendee and facilitator perceptions of
employability at Western Sydney University. Journal of Peer Learning, 11, 41–64.
Carr, S, Brand, G, Wei, L, Wright, H, Nicol, P, Metcalfe, H, Saunders, J, Payne, J, Seubert,
L, and Foley, L. (2016) Helping someone with a skill sharpens it in your own mind:
A mixed method study exploring health professions students experiences of Peer
Assisted Learning (PAL). BMC Medical Education, 16, 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12909-016-0566-8
Chojecki, P, Lamarre, J, Buck, M, St-Sauveur, I, Eldaoud, N, and Purden, M. (2010)
Perceptions of a peer learning approach to pediatric clinical education. Interna-
tional Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1548-
923x.1893
Chou, C, Johnston, C, Sungh, B, Garber, J, Kaplan, E, Lee, K, and Teherani, A. (2011)
A “safe space” for learning and reflection: One school’s design for continuity with a
peer group across clinical clerkships. Academic Medicine, 86(12), 1560–1565.
Davidson, N. (1994) ‘Cooperative and collaborative learning: An integrative perspective’,
in Thousand, J, Villa, R, and Nevin, A. (eds.) (Creativity and collaborative learning:
A practical guide for empowering teachers and students. 1st Edition. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Davidson, N, and Worsham, T. (1992) Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dawson, P, van der Meer, J, Skalicky, J, and Cowley, K. (2014) On the effectiveness of
supplemental instruction. A systematic review of SI and PASS literature between
2001 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 609–639.
 peer group learning 51

Del Barco, B, Mendo-Lázaro, S, Felipe-Castaño, E, Polo del Río, E, and Fajardo-Bullón,

F. (2017) Potencia de equipo y aprendizaje cooperativo en el ámbito Univer-
sitario. Revisata de Psicodidactica, 22(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1136-
1034(17)30038-2
Duran, D. (2016) Learning-by-teaching. Evidence and implications as a pedagogical
mechanism. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(5), 476–484.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1156011
Gamlath, S. (2021) Peer learning and the undergraduate journey: A framework for stu-
dent success. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(3), 699–713. https://doi.
org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1877625
Gençer, H. (2019) Group dynamics and behaviour. Universal Journal of Educational
Research, 7(1), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070128 http://
openaccess.pirireis.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12960/156/00156.
pdf ?sequence=1&isAllowed=yA
Hill, R. (2015) Selling Students Short, Why you won’t get the university education you deserve.
Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.
Hilsdon, J. (2013) Peer learning for change in higher education. Innovations in Education
and Teaching International, 51(3), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.201
3.796709
Howe, C. (2015) Dialogue and knowledge transformation: Towards a socio-cultural theory of
cognitive growth. Paper presented at EARLI conference, Limassol, Cyprus, 3–5 August.
Jensen, C, and Thomsen, L. (2021). Collaborative learning and peer tutoring: Can this
enhance the biomedical laboratory science students learning outcome in laboratory educa-
tion. Poster session presented at The International Federation of Biomedical Labora-
tory Science conference in Copenhagen 2021, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Johnson, W, and Johnson, T. (2014) Cooperative learning in the 21st century. Anales de
Psicología, 30(3), 841–851. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.201241
Jolliffe, W. (2015) ‘Developing cooperative learning pedagogy in initial teacher educa-
tion’, in Gillies, R. (ed.) Collaborative learning: Developments in research and practice.
New York, NY: Nova Science, pp. 175–200.
Keenan, C. (2014) Mapping student-led peer learning in the UK. The Higher Education
Academy. Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resource/mapping-student-
led-peerlearning-uk
Kivlinghan, D, London, K, and Miles, R. (2012) Are two heads better than one? The
relationship between number of group leaders and group members, and group cli-
mate and group member benefit from therapy. Group Dynamics Theory, Research, and
Practice, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1037/a0026242
Kreitner, R, and Kinicki, A. (2010) Organizational behavior. 9th Edition. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Laur, D. (2013) Authentic learning experiences – A real-world approach to project- based
learning. An Eye on Education book. London: Routledge.
Leung, K. (2015) Preliminary empirical model of crucial determinants of best practice
for peer tutoring on academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107,
558–579.
Lloyd, P, and Fernerhough, C. (1999) Lev Vygotsky – Critical assessments. Volume III: The
zone of proximal development. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Lupuleac, S, Lupuleac, Z, Rusu, C. (2012) Problems of assessing team roles balance –
team design. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 935–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s2212-5671(12)00253-5
Lewin, K. (1958) ‘Group decision and social change’, in Newcomb, T, and Hartley, E.
(eds.) Readings in social psychology. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 201–216.
52 peer group learning

Lim, C, Jalil, H, Ma’rof, A, and Saad, W. (2020) Peer learning, self-regulated learning and
academic achievement in blended learning courses: A structural equation modelling
approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(3), 110–125.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i03.12031
Markowski, M, Bower, H, Essex, R, and Yearley, C. (2021) Peer learning and collaborative
placement models in health care: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis of
the literature. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 30, 1519–1541. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jocn.15661. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jocn.15661
McPake, M. (2019) Radiographers’ and students’ experiences of undergraduate radiother-
apy practice placement in the United Kingdom. Radiography, 25(3), 220–226.
Meijer, H, Hoekstra, R, Brouwer, J, and Strijbos, J. (2020) Unfolding collaborative learn-
ing assessment literacy: A reflection on current assessment methods in higher edu-
cation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1222–1240. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1729696
Millar, M, and Choi, C. (2010) Networks, social norms and knowledge sub-network.
Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 565–577.
Oakley, B, Brent, R, Felder, R, and Elhajj, I. (2004) Turning student groups into effective
teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2, 9–34.
Piaget, J. (1932) The moral judgement of the child. Glencoe, IL. Free Press.
Pitt, E, and Quinlan, K. (2022) Impacts of higher education assessment and feedback policy
and practice on students: A review of the literature 2016–2021. York: Advance HE.
Pratiwi, M. (2019) Student tutoring, facilitator and explaining models: A problem solv-
ing metacognition towards learning achievement of informatics students. Journal of
Educational Sciences, 3(2), 145–254.
Ravanipour, M, Bahreini, M, and Ravanipour, M. (2015) Exploring nursing students’
experience of peer learning in clinical practice. Journal of Education and Health Pro-
motion, 4(46), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277–9531.157233
Salas, E, Reyes, D, and McDaniel, S. (2018) The science of teamwork: progress, reflec-
tions, and the road ahead. The American Psychological Association, 73(4), 93–600.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000334
Sevenhuysen, S, Nickson, W, Farlie, M, Raitman, L, Keating, J, Molloy, E, Skinner, E,
Maloney, S, and Haines, T. (2013) The development of a peer assisted learning
model for the clinical education of physiotherapy students. Journal of Peer Learning,
6, 30–45. Available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl/vol6/iss1/4
Slocum, J, and Hellriegel, D. (2009) Principles of organizational behavior. 12th Edition.
Beijing: Cengage Learning, pp. 345–350.
Strijbos, J. (2016) ‘Assessment of collaborative learning’, in Brown, G, and Harris, L.
(eds.) Handbook of social and human conditions in assessment. New York, NY: Rout-
ledge, pp. 302–318.
Tai, J, Molloy, E, and Haines, T. (2016) Same-level peer-assisted learning in medical clin-
ical placements: A narrative systematic review. Medical Education in Review, 50(4),
469–484.
Tai, J, Penman, M, Chou, C, and Teherani, A. (2021) ‘Learning with and from peers in
clinical education’, in Nestel, D, Reedy, G, McKenna, L, and Gough, S. (eds.) Clini-
cal education for the health professions.Singapore: Springer.
Tai, J, and Sevenhuysen, S. (2018) ‘The role of peers in developing evaluative judgement’,
in Boud, D, Ajjawi, R, Dawson, P, and Tai, J (eds.) Developing evaluative judgement
in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work.London: Rou-
tledge, pp. 156–165.
Thrift, M. (2021) Group type differences and the dimensions of group cohesion. Emerging
Leadership Journeys, 15(1), 1–12. Regent University School of Business & Leadership.
 peer group learning 53

Topping, K. (1996) Effective peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology
and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32, 321–345.
Topping, K. (2005) Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology 25, 632–645.
Topping, K, Buchs, C, Duran, D, and Van Keer, H. (2017) Effective peer learning – From
principles to practical implementation. London: Taylor and Francis Group.
Topping K, and Ehly S. (2001) Peer assisted learning: A framework for consultation.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(2), 113–132. https://doi.
org/10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1202_03
Wageman, R, Gardner, H, and Mortensen, M. (2012) The changing ecology of teams:
New directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 301–315.
Wright, A, and Hibbert, P. (2015) Threshold concepts in theory and practice. Journal of
Management Education, 39(4),443–451.https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562915574866
Zha, S, Estes, M, and Xu, L. (2019) A meta-analysis on the effect of duration, task and
training in peer-led learning. Journal of Peer Learning, 12(2), 5–28.
 5
Reflection to support learning

Reflection
Bandura (1986) states that reflection enables self-evaluation and progres-
sion towards goals. However, reflection needs to be understood and sup-
ported by all involved, to maximise the potential of the reflection process
(Moon, 1999, 2004, 2007). Reflection is evident in the literature from
as early as 1933, where the definition of reflection was linked to criti-
cal thinking (Mann et al., 2009) and the literature has been reported by
Fergusson (2022), highlighting the importance of reflective practice as a
key part of transformative learning (Kolb, 2014). The process of reflec-
tion assists with the theory practice link for students (Griffiths and Tann,
1992), and improved academic performance (Tsingos-Lucas et al., 2017).
Reflection is important for students to learn and apply not only within
the higher education (HE) context (Taylor, 2021; Webster-Wright, 2013)
but also within the workplace and professional context, to support their
employability life-long and life-wide journey (Paget, 2001; Taylor, 2022)
as already discussed in Chapter 3.
The active and dynamic learning, and agency being encouraged with
students within HE, already discussed throughout this book, is supported
by reflection (Bolton and Delderfield, 2018; Jackson and Bridgstock,
2021; Kolb, 2014) and facilitates a deeper level of learning consolidation

54 DOI: 10.4324/9781003315872-5

 reflection to support learning 55

and metacognition (Alt, 2015; Bennett, 2018). An iterative process of

reflection is frequently reported in the literature, but this process is not
always made explicit for the learner (Mann et al., 2009), highlighting the
importance of clear communication and feedback. Feedback acceptance
was reported to be positively enhanced by reflection, even when the feed-
back was inconsistent with individual self-perceptions, as it encouraged
further reflections on their own individual emotional and behavioural
responses to the feedback (Sargeant et al., 2009). Planned and structured
use of dialogue feedback within the reflection process can play an impor-
tant part with formative and summative assessments, to bridge the gap
between giving and receiving feedback (Clouder, 2000; Sargeant et al.,
2009) and can address some of the sociocultural considerations reported
elsewhere in the reflection literature ( Johns, 1995). Mann et al. (2009)
reported that reflection helps individuals to make sense of complex sit-
uations and can be used in anticipation as well as during and after expe-
riences, which is particularly pertinent within the Work-based learning
(WBL) environment, which often presents challenging and complex sit-
uations to anticipate and navigate.
The Learning Evaluation and Reflection Narrative (LEARN) frame-
work (Simper et al., 2018) reported reflection to be particularly useful
within the WBL context, supporting a more in-depth employability
learning process. Kitchenham (2008) highlights the importance using
pre-existing experiences and knowledge (also reported by Moon, 2004),
learning new meanings to link with previous meanings and the learn-
ing of learning through transformation, achieved by the process of critical
self-reflection. Resilience can also be developed through the reflection of
positive and negative experiences and planning of how to deal with similar
situations in the future. It also supports reflexivity (students using learning
experiences to learn about themselves) which supports self-efficacy of all
key aspects of individual development as already highlighted in this book.
Receiving critical reflection from different perspectives can maximise the
reflective process for the individual (Brookfield, 2017). Using multiple
lenses of reflections from educators, careers advisors, peers and employers
within the WBL context, provides the learner with opportunities for crit-
ical conversations with others to then compare their individual reflections
56 reflection to support learning

with the wider theory and literature evidence base (Brookfield, 2017). A
comprehensive approach to reflection helps to avoid a Johari Window
(Luft and Ingham, 1955) blind spot (something is not known by the indi-
vidual but is known by others) or hidden area or façade situation (where
something is known by the individual but not known by others) and may
even unearth an unknown (not known by the individual or others).

Features of reflection
Core consistent features of reflection are to facilitate student learning
through engaging with a process of exploration of the learning and
identifying the impact of that learning (Delves-Yates, 2021; Lew and
Schmidt, 2011). Ryan (2013) suggests four levels of reflection – report
and respond, relate, reasoning and reconstruct and reframe (which can
be the most difficult to achieve). A simple process of reflection follows
the process of the experience itself (E) description of it (D) analysis of
the experience and learning (A) and then revision of the learning for
future experiences (R) – EDAR (Gravells, 2021). Six important features
of reflection are presented by Delves-Yates (2021).

1. Critical incident/learning experience (positive or negative)

2. Description of the experience
3. Analysis of the experience
4. Interpretation of the learning from the experience
5. Getting other’s perspective on the experience and learning
6. Action – a very important aspect – what is going to be done as a
result of the learning?

There are influences on reflection, including macro (sociocultural and insti-

tutional) and micro (teachers and students), with reflection literacy being
key for all stakeholders involved for clarity of the reflection process, and to
maximise its potential (Chan and Lee, 2021). Fessl et al. (2017) explored the
use of reflective prompts for students and found the following three consid-
erations in relation to the design and delivery of reflective experiences.

1. Clear purpose of the reflection for all involved

2. Combination of reflective tools and questions and to encourage
individual and peer discussions
 reflection to support learning 57

3. Allow time to support engagement in an authentic reflective

experience

Similarly, Chan and Lee (2021) include being clear on the purpose and
expectations of the reflections, appropriate structure and scaffolding,
time built into the learning experience to engage with reflection, support
students through the process, share reflections with peers and provide
constructive and sensitive feedback. Bain et al. (2002) suggests five ele-
ments within reflection – reporting, responding, relating, reasoning and
reconstructing.
Reflection is not just about experiences that have not gone well, it is
just as important for experiences that have gone well (Gravells, 2021). The
student-centred learning theme that runs through this book – supports
individual student reflection to encourage engagement and ownership in
their individual learning journey. However, this does provide challenges
for educators who may struggle with the process of reflection and its
relationship with traditional academic teaching practice, and how to use
reflective authentic assessments and feedback in an objective unbiased
way. Chan and Lee (2021) have identified some of the barriers to reflec-
tion, which need to be considered when planning a WBL placement.

1. Student learning – preparation, understanding and motivation

to engage, ethical and emotional concerns and impact, student–
teacher/employer–/supervisor relationship
2. Teacher pedagogical level – pedagogical implementation, termi-
nology, learning outcomes and processes, reflective approaches,
assessment and feedback mechanisms/practice
3. Institutional challenges – teaching and learning strategic priori-
ties, institutional support
4. Sociocultural level – educational/work based/societal cultures –
the predominance of passive learning practices

WBL
Reflection is key to an experiential learning process such as WBL place-
ments (Boyd and Fales, 1983), and needs to be at the heart of WBL,
as it offers the opportunity to develop critical employability resources
such as self-awareness, identity and individual agency (Fergusson, 2022;
58 reflection to support learning

Helyer, 2015). Carson and Fisher (2006) found that teaching strategies
combined with WBL experiences led most students to report a process
of critical reflection and transformative learning. The process of reflection
within the WBL context allows the enquiry at an individual level rather
than an academic knowledge level, aiding transitions into the workplace
(Carter, 2021). Four main types of reflective learning opportunities have
been identified specifically within the WBL context by Fergusson (2022) –
empathic learning, action-orientated learning, scholarly and applied
learning and social and environmental learning, and can be facilitated
within small groups such as peer groups. The use of reflection to sup-
port problem-solving within the WBL context is an important aspect
of professional behaviour and can be particularly useful to pre-empt
potential issues or prepare for changes required (Malthouse et al., 2015),
supporting flexibility and adaptability for individuals, as already discussed
in earlier chapters is so crucial for graduates to be able to evidence to
employers.

Models
All stages and purposes of reflection are relevant for individuals through-
out life (Griffiths and Tann, 1992). Reflective models may all look similar
as they all share the very similar characteristics and concepts, but some
may be better suited to some WBL contexts more than others. It is use-
ful for students to be introduced to a range of models so that they can
adopt the model that best suits them for that particular experience, and
when used in conjunction with the multiple lenses of reflection suggested
earlier in this chapter, it adds further mitigation from the occurrence of
the Johari Window blind spot or hidden area/façade that can occur if the
same model is used for each situation (Luft and Ingham, 1955). Briefing
and debriefing is a crucial part of the reflective process (Cox 2005), which
does need to be built into the WBL design and delivery.
Borton (1970) presents a straightforward model of reflection – what, so
what and what now which provides the basic tenants for reflection that
have been developed by other models such as Driscoll (1994) and Rolfe
et al. (2001).
Kolb (2015) developed an experiential learning cycle encourag-
ing individuals to identify what they need to change as a result of the
 reflection to support learning 59

reflection, made up of concrete experience (doing), observation and reflec-

tion (thinking), abstract conceptualisation (planning) and active experi-
mentation (redoing based on reflection). This is a well-known model of
reflection and is particularly relevant within the WBL context.
Schon (1983) proposes reflection in action at the time of the experi-
ence, with reflection on action occurring after the experience, helping
with the theory practice gap that can exist within learning (Boyle and
Charles, 2014). WBL can be complex for students to navigate, reflection
in action can be used to help identify some of the less obvious learning
that may otherwise go unnoticed (Schon, 1983).
The Griffiths and Tann (1992) cycle of reflection is underpinned by a
conscious effort to reflect, maximising deeper consideration in five parts –
planning, action, observation, analysis and evaluation. This cycle is
repeated at different times encompassing the reflection in action as well
as the reflection on action presented by Schon (1983). This would be
useful for a task within the WBL context that is repeated multiple times
throughout the WBL experience.
The Gibbs (1988) reflective cycle provides questions to prompt thought
processes including – Description – what happened? Feelings – what was
I feeling at the time of the experience? Evaluation – what was good and
bad about the experience? Analysis – what do I think about the expe-
rience? Conclusion – what else could I have done? Action plan – what
would I do differently another time with a similar experience? Other
models have built on the core features of Gibb’s reflective cycle – such
as Bassot’s (2013) integrated reflective cycle – but has fewer steps of –
experience, reflection on action, theory and preparation. Another simi-
lar model developed by Greenaway (1995) includes do, review and plan,
being later developed into the Four Fs model – facts, feelings, findings and
future. The REFLECT model (Barksby et al., 2015) is also a modification
of the Gibbs reflective cycle with an additional element of timescale as
the final stage of the reflective process – Recall Examine Feelings Learn
Explore Create action and Timescale.
The CARL framework – Context, Action, Results and Learning – was
developed from a structure used within the interview context and needs
support to facilitate an authentic in-depth refection process (The Univer-
sity of Edinburgh, 2018). The framework does not have an explicit action
60 reflection to support learning

planning process, instead it relies on the learning itself to affect future

experiences.
Johns’ model of reflection (1995) was developed for nursing but is par-
ticularly useful for more complex situations as it includes aspects such
as ethics and the translation of the knowledge into practice – which is
particularly appropriate within the WBL context and when building
pre- professional identity. The model is a cycle of – description of the
experience, reflection, any influencing factors on the experience, how it
could have been dealt with better, and the learning from the experience –
acknowledging the inward-looking elements (own thoughts and feelings)
as well as the outward looking elements (ethical aspects, and any external
factor influences), and consideration of an individual’s impact and wider
societal responsibilities.
Atkins and Murphy’s model of reflection (1994) takes the individual
through a cyclical process of reflection to learn from what may have been
an uncomfortable experience, working through awareness, description
of the situation, analysis of feelings and knowledge, evaluation of the
relevance of knowledge for the situation and then identification of any
learning that could be taken from the experience.
Bass et al. (2017) presents a holistic model of reflection – including
self-awareness (inner) description (external/outer), reflections (thoughts
and feelings), influences (knowing external/external) evaluation (anal-
ysis and conclusions/external) and learning (synthesis, action internal/
external). The process of reflection starts with self-awareness to focus the
individual on themselves rather than the experience itself.
Fergusson (2022) presents a proto-theoretical model of learning, which
combines the four groups of learning presented earlier in the chapter –
with 12 further modes of learning (represented in Figure 1 in Fergus-
son’s 2022 paper) spanning across workspaces (for example, the peer
group learning sessions), workplaces (the online WBL environment)
and domains of practice (specific service provision/learning tasks/activ-
ities within the WBL). There are a mix of informal and formal modes
of reflective learning, with a dynamic and interconnected relationship
between them all.
The key aspect of any model of reflection within the WBL context
is that there is active engagement and action planning from students
 reflection to support learning 61

through reflecting on their experiences – to ensure onward learning,

impact and progression as a result of the reflection.

Tools
Portfolios – the structured use of reflections to build a portfolio of learning,
can offer scaffolded learning which is valuable within the WBL place-
ment context. Engagement with portfolios of learning can be designed
into the beginning middle and end of the learning experience as a min-
imum (Carter, 2021) to support the theory practice link and to develop
a life-long approach to learning (Syzdykova et al., 2021). The social con-
structivist theory of learning discussed in other chapters in this book is
supported by portfolios – students are making sense of their learning –
which has been influenced by interactions with others, reflecting on
the meaning of that experience for them as an individual (Knight and
Yorke, 2003). Applying structured reflection within portfolios enhance
metacognition, self-esteem, goal-setting and critical thinking (Syzdykova
et al., 2021), and helps develop professional identity (Sibson and Riebe,
2022) all crucial employability resources. An exploration into the effect of
guided questions during the reflection process on transformative enquiry
skills (Kori et al., 2014) found reflective and transformative enquiry
skills improved and was recommended within technology enhanced
environments – which is pertinent for the online WBL context. Port-
folios are authentic and flexible to the assessment requirements within
the WBL environment, with good ecological validity (Knight and Yorke,
2003; Syzdykova et al., 2021). However, the personal nature of portfolios
requires clear objective learning outcomes and process of reflection guid-
ance for those who will be providing marking and feedback, to avoid any
potential bias pitfalls.
The use of e-portfolios to support reflection has been reported by
Bolton and Delderfield (2018) which are particularly relevant within the
online WBL placement context. Physical portfolios have been used for
some years within education to document and evidence student learn-
ing, but e-portfolios offer a huge potential for functionality and learning,
increasing in prominence in response to the IR 4.0 the increased use of
technology within the HE context (Syzdykova et al., 2021). A capability
envelope approach to portfolios has been reported by Knight and Yorke
62 reflection to support learning

(2003) which can be a useful framework to apply to the portfolio plan-

ning and implementation. The capability envelope consists of an explo-
ration, engagement and review of progression throughout the learning
activities (reflection, feedback, consolidation and metacognition of learn-
ing) and then demonstration of the learning by the students.
Logs/journals/diaries – reflective logs/journals/diaries are reported to be
beneficial for learning and understanding (Moon, 1999; Feest and Iwugo,
2006), through the active process of writing the logs, and then the recall
of that information (Feest and Iwugo, 2006) with impact demonstrated
on in-depth cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Mann et al., 2009;
McCrindle and Christensen, 1995). A range of other benefits include a
timeline of learning, building individual confidence in the progression of
their learning, supporting changes in attitude through the reflective learn-
ing, offering an individualised tool for either dialogue with supervisors or
for private use, and can be used as a useful revision tool in relevant con-
texts (Ahmed, 2020). Student preparation and support is crucial to build
individual confidence in the application of the reflection process and use
of tools. Time for reflection needs to be scheduled within the WBL
placement, along with a range of templates and resources for students to
access and apply to their individual learning as required (Ahmed, 2020).

Conclusions
Reflection is a crucial part of WBL to support and develop learning.
Regardless of whether a cycle-based or linear base reflective model is
adopted – the very nature of action being part of the reflective process
means that the process of learning is continual and ongoing. The reported
impact of reflection on the consolidation of learning and the opportunity
for metacognition of learning makes it a crucial part of the content and
assessment structure of the WBL design and delivery. Tools such as port-
folios and reflective diaries can support and record the reflective process
for students.

References
Ahmed, A. (2020) From reluctance to addiction: The impact of reflective journals on
Qatari undergraduate students’ learning. Reflective Practice, 21(2), 251–270.
 reflection to support learning 63

Alt, D. (2015) Assessing the contribution of a constructivist learning environment to aca-

demic self‐efficacy in higher education. Learning Environments Research, 18(1), 47–67.
Atkins, S, and Murphy, K. (1994) Reflective practice. Nursing Standard, 8(39), 49–56.
Bain, J, Ballantyne, R, Mills, C, and Lester, N. (2002) Reflecting on practices: Student teach-
ers’ perspectives. Flaxton: Post Pressed.
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Eng-
lewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barksby, J, Butcher, N, and Whysall, A. (2015) A new model of reflection for clinical
practice. Nursing Times, 11(34/5), 34–35.
Bass, J, Fenwick, J, and Sidebotham, M. (2017) Development of a model of holistic reflec-
tion to facilitate transformative learning in student midwives. Women and Birth,
30(3), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2017.02.010
Bassot, B. (2013) The Reflective Journal. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Bennett, D. (2018) Embedding employABILITY thinking across Australian higher educa-
tion. Submitted July 2018. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Edu-
cation and Dawn Bennett 54 Training. Available at: https://altf.org/wp‐content/
uploads/2017/06/Developing‐EmployABILITY‐draft‐fellowship‐report‐1.pdf
Bolton, G, and Delderfield, R. (2018) Reflective practice: writing and professional develop-
ment. 5th Edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Borton, T. (1970) Reach, touch and teach. London: Hutchinson.
Boyd, E, and Fales, A. (1983) Reflective learning: Key to learning from experience. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 23(2), 99–117.
Boyle, B, and Charles, M. (2014) Formative Assessment for Teaching and Learning. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Brookfield, S. (2017) Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Carson, L, and Fisher, K. (2006) Raising the bar on criticality: Students’ critical reflection
in an internship program. Journal of Management Education, 30(5), 700–723.
Carter, J. (2021) Work placements, internships and applied social research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Chan, C, and Lee, K. (2021) Reflection literacy: A multilevel perspective on the chal-
lenges of using reflections in higher education through a comprehensive liter-
ature review. Educational Research Review, 32, 10076. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.edurev.2020.100376
Clouder, L. (2000) Reflective practice: Realising its potential. Physiotherapy, 86(10), 517–
522.
Cox, E. (2005) Adult learners learning from experience: using a reflective practice model
to support work‐based learning. Reflective Practice, 6(4), 459–472. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14623940500300517
Delves-Yates, C. (2021) Beginner’s guide to reflective practice in nursing. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Driscoll, J. (1994) Reflective practice for practise. Senior Nurse, 13, 47–50.
Fessl, A, Blunk, O, Prilla, M, and Pammer-Schindler, V. (2017) The known universe of
reflection guidance: a literature review. International Journal of Technology Enhanced
Learning, 9(2–3), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2017.084491
Feest, A, and Iwugo, K. (2006) Making reflection count. Engineering Education, 1(1),
25–31.
Fergusson, L. (2022) Learning by… Knowledge and skills acquisition through work-
based learning and research. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 14(2), 184–199.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-12-2021-0065
Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford:
Further Education Unit, Oxford Brookes University.
64 reflection to support learning

Gravells, A. (2021) Principles and Practices of Assessment – A guide for assessors in the FE and
skills sector. 4th Edition. Exeter: Learning Matters, A SAGE Publishing Company.
Greenaway, R. (1995) Powerful learning experiences in management learning and develop-
ment: A study of the experiences of managers attending residential development train-
ing courses at the Brathay Hall Trust (1988–9). Doctoral dissertation, University of
Lancaster.
Griffiths, M, and Tann, S. (1992) Using reflective practice to link personal and public
theories. Journal of Education for Teaching, 18(1), 69–84.
Helyer, R. (2015) Learning through reflection: the critical role of reflection in work-
based learning (WBL). Journal of Work-Applied Management, 7, 15–27. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JWAM-10-2015-003
Jackson, D, and Bridgstock, R. (2021) What actually works to enhance graduate employ-
ability? The relative value of curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular learning
and paid work. Higher Education, 81(4), 723–739.
Johns, C. (1995) Framing learning through reflection within Carper’s fundamental ways
of knowing in nursing. Journal of Advanced Learning, 22(2), 226–234.
Kitchenham, A. (2008) The evolution of John Mezirow’s transformative learning the-
ory. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(2), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1541344608322678
Knight, P, and Yorke, M. (2003) Assessment, Learning and Employability. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Kolb, D. (2015) Experiential learning experience: Experience as the source of learning and
development. 2nd Edition. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kori, K., Mäeots, M, Pedaste, M. (2014) Guided reflection to support quality of reflec-
tion an inquiry in Web-based learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112,
242–251.
Lew, M, and Schmidt, H. (2011) Self-reflection and academic performance: Is there a
relationship? Advances in Health and Science Education, 16, 529–545.
Luft, J, and Ingham, H. (1955) The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal aware-
ness. Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development. Los
Angeles, CA: UCLA.
Malthouse, R., Watts, M, Roffey-Barentsen, J. (2015) Reflective questions, self-question-
ing and managing professionally situated practice. Research in Education, 94, 71–87.
Mann, K, Gordon, J, Macleod, A. (2009) Reflection and reflective practice in health
professions education: A systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education,
14(4):595–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-007-9090-2
McCrindle, A, and Christensen, C. (1995) The impact of learning journals on metacog-
nitive and cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction,
5, 167–185.
Moon, J. (1999) Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. 1st
edition. London: Routledge.
Moon, J. (2004) A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice.
London: Routledge Falmer.
Moon, J. (2007) Getting the measure of reflection: Considering matters of definition and
depth. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice, 6(4), 191–200.
Paget, T. (2001) Reflective practice and clinical outcomes: practitioners’ views on how
reflective practice has influenced their clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing,
10, 204–214.
Rolfe, G, Freshwater, D, and Jasper, M. (2001) Critical reflection in nursing and the helping
professions: a user’s guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ryan, M. (2013) The pedagogical balancing act: Teaching reflection in higher education.
Teaching in Higher Education, 18(2), 144–155.
 reflection to support learning 65

Sargeant, J, Mann, K, Van der Vleuten, C, Metsemakers, J. (2009) Reflection: A link

between receiving and using assessment feedback. Advancement in Health Science
Education, 14, 399–400.
Schon, D. (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London:
Temple Smith.
Sibson, R, and Riebe, L. (2022) ‘The role of ePortfolios in shaping professional iden-
tity and employability’, in Rayner, M, Webb, T, (eds.) Sport management education –
Global perspectives and implications for practice. London: Routledge Research in Sport
Business and Management.
Simper, N, Gauthier, L, and Scott, J. (2018) Student learning in the workplace: The
Learning Evaluation and Reflection Narrative (LEARN) framework. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 30(8), 658–671. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-04-2018-0060
Syzdykova, Z, Koblandin, K, Mikhaylova, N, and Akinina, O. (2021) Assessment of
E-portfolio in higher education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in
Learning (iJET), 16(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i02.18819
Taylor, L. (2021) Mirrors and reflection – The key to student success? York: Advance HE,
April 2021. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/news-and-views/mirrors-
and-reflection-key-student-success
Taylor, L. (2022) Doing, being and becoming – The synergetic relationship of occupa-
tional therapy principles and employability. British Journal of Occupational Therapy
2022, 85(1), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F03080226211062489
The University of Edinburgh. (2018) The CARL framework or reflection. Edinburgh: The
University of Edinburgh, 9 November 2018. Available at: https://www.ed.ac.uk/
reflection/reflectors-toolkit/reflecting-on-experience/carl
Tsingos-Lucas, C, Bosnic-Anticevich, S, Schneider, C, and Smith, L. (2017) Using
reflective writing as a predictor of academic success in different assessment for-
mats. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81(1), article 8. https://doi.
org/10.5688%2Fajpe8118
Webster-Wright, A. (2013) The eye of the storm: A mindful inquiry into reflective prac-
tices in higher education. Reflective Practice, 14(4) (2013), 556–567. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14623943.2013.810618
 6
Learning outcomes and assessment

Learning in HE
There has been a recent increase in work-based learning (WBL) provi-
sion to enhance higher education (HE) experiences, but further clarity
is required over what WBL can offer students and how the WBL links
to academic curriculum learning (Morris, 2016). The design and deliv-
ery of any learning opportunity needs to align with authentic and rele-
vant learning outcomes, built around student learning needs (Bale and
Seabrook, 2021), and these principles should extend into the WBL con-
text. Historically, WBL placement opportunities did not always have the
formal learning outcomes and assessment processes applied to them, but
WBL has progressed to become a more pedagogically robust and quality
assured learning experiences for students (Lester and Costley, 2010), but
needs to be further developed and accepted consistently across the HE
sector.
Learning outcomes in HE have historically focussed on knowledge
and theory (what and why) but students need to also consider the pro-
fessional and interpersonal aspect of learning and development (how
and who) (Stek, 2022). The employability resources aspect of learning
(already presented in the Chapter 3 of this book) such as communication,
teamwork, ethics, time management are crucial for a twenty-first century
workforce (Hang and Ronald, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2010; Stek, 2022),

66 DOI: 10.4324/9781003315872-6

 learning outcomes and assessment 67

with the increased use of technology highlighting the importance of

soft skills within the workplace and for career progression (Borghans
et al., 2014; Cobo, 2013), all of which can be supported within the online
peer group WBL placement context. Quality assurance is an important
consideration for learning (Gravells, 2021) with the use of learning out-
comes being an important part of this process, to ensure alignment with
the learning content and related assessment (Gibbs and Simpson, 2004).
Threshold concepts are useful to apply – particularly in the context of the
online delivery of the learning and within peer groups, where new ways
of thinking may be adopted by students and their educators/supervisors/
employers (Meyer and Land, 2005).
Inclusive practice is crucial within HE provision, and the principles
of universal design should be adopted for the design and delivery of any
curriculum (Bale and Seabrook, 2021), including WBL placements. A
literature review by Pitt and Quinlan (2022) focussing on assessment
and feedback within higher education 2016–2021, recommend the use
of technology within learning and assessment processes when this is the
most appropriate mode to use and justified. This justification is impor-
tant for the online provision of WBL placements, where appropriate and
justified online/technology enhanced assessment and feedback processes
need to be considered and built into its design and delivery.
The shift within HE to prepare students for autonomous learning
and agency already presented in earlier chapters in this book (Alt, 2015;
Yorke, 2003), is reflected across the globe (Cameron et al., 2018). To
achieve autonomous learning and agency, students need support with
their self-efficacy, with authentic learning experiences such as WBL
being identified as having a significant impact on self-efficacy (Bandura,
1986), with self-reflection and awareness of learning being a critical part
of the engagement with, and impact of learning experiences (Alt, 2015).
Within the online WBL placement – peers can have the opportunity to
watch others performing which helps to develop an individual’s beliefs
about themselves, with peer discussions and reflections on their emo-
tions and feelings during their learning further enhancing self-efficacy.
Scaffolding of learning is important to provide a framework for student
learning (Laur, 2013), and this scaffolding extends to the assessment
process. Students need multiple assessment opportunities to build from
68 learning outcomes and assessment

previous learning and feedback in a scaffolded and structured way (Owen,

2016; Pitt and Quinlan, 2022) with adequate time and resources allo-
cated within the WBL placement timetable to support this process.

“Anchors” for learning

Outcomes based university teaching is evident worldwide, and well estab-
lished in many countries (Biggs and Tang, 2011). Learning outcomes are
important within WBL experiences for students (Dollinger and Brown,
2019; Kaider et al., 2017) to assist with the theory practice link and to shift
the focus to what is being learned rather than what or how it is being taught
(Allan, 1996). Learning outcomes are crucial to “anchor” those designing
and delivering the WBL placements, but also provides an “anchor” and
common purpose, facilitating engagement in the peer groups and the pro-
cess of learning (Salmon, 2011). Often WBL does not always have explicit
learning outcomes, due to the traditional implementation of WBL being
separate from the academic curriculum. However, to help forge a peda-
gogical link between the academic curriculum and employability learning
within the WBL context, more formal learning outcomes need to be part
of the WBL opportunities, to provide an explicit pedagogical focus for the
structure, content and assessment of the experience. Any baseline student
knowledge and experience should be established, to help inform the gen-
eration of relevant and authentic learning outcomes, to recognise and build
on the existing knowledge and experiences of the students.
Learning outcomes need to include interpersonal skill development
and intrapersonal characteristics to develop the range of employability
resources required for graduate work readiness (Stek, 2022). Learning
outcomes can include subject specific, individual and teacher specific
outcomes (Allan, 1996), with the process of writing learning outcomes
offering the WBL designers a chance to focus on what the students need
to learn, and then construct the teaching and learning activities around
that – using a student-centric rather than teacher-centric approach.
Clarity about existing student knowledge and understanding and the
development opportunities through the WBL is essential.
Bloom’s taxonomy was originally developed in 1956 with three aspects
(cognitive, skills and behaviours and attitudes) described as hands, head
and heart, which is more holistic than the cognitive focus of Bloom’s
 learning outcomes and assessment 69

taxonomy that many HE courses frequently focus on (Gravells, 2021).

The taxonomy was revised in 2001 to replace some of the static nouns
with more active verbs for student learning (Anderson et al., 2001). The
use of Bloom’s taxonomy in its holistic form can provide a useful frame-
work and terminology to assist those generating the learning outcomes.
The wording of the learning outcomes will direct the best form of assess-
ment, for example – are the learning outcomes about knowledge and
understanding, practical skills or values, attitudes, or professional behav-
iours? Answering these questions will help you word the learning out-
comes in a specific and explicit way to then inform the best way to assess
the achievement of the learning outcomes (Bale and Seabrook, 2021,
Gravells, 2021).

Individual learning outcomes

Learning agreements and learning contracts have been used in UK HE
since the 1970s (Knowles, 1975). Personal development requires freedom
to be given to the individual for their own learning (Stek, 2022), facilitat-
ing student learning and goal setting at an individual level, and encour-
aging student engagement and autonomy (Bale and Seabrook, 2021;
Rye, 2008). Learning contracts offers an opportunity for individuals to
set specific goals for themselves, which can support belief in their learn-
ing abilities, a crucial part of the learning process (Alt, 2015; Knowles,
1986) and individual development. Learning contracts are relevant to use
within the WBL context (Doncaster, 2000; Nixon et al., 2006; Osborne
et al., 1998; Stephenson and Saxton, 2005) and can help formalise learn-
ing that otherwise may be more informal or ad hoc (Lee et al., 2004).
Employers can potentially be an active partner in the development of the
learning contract (Garnett, 2000). However, the learning contract does
need to be primarily focussed on the individual learning, and care taken
to mitigate the risk of purely focussing on wider employer/organisational
needs (Nikolou-Walker and Garnett, 2004).
Components of learning contracts have been identified by Anderson
et al. (1998), Knowles (1986) and Rye (2008) as:

1. Formal learning objectives agreed between the student and their

educator/supervisor/employer
70 learning outcomes and assessment

2. Learning resources and strategies to support the learning process

3. How achievement of the learning objectives will be evidenced
4. Help and support to be provided
5. How and who will assess and corroborate the evidence
6. Clear timescales for completion of learning objectives

An example of the learning contract process in practice, is through

the use of a capability envelope (Stephenson, 2001; Stephenson &
Yorke, 1998). A capability envelope involves drawing up the learning
contract at the beginning of the learning experience which is then sup-
ported by ongoing review and educator/supervisor/employer support,
enabling changes/renegotiation of objectives during the learning process
as needed, whilst still being part of the overall learning contract. Learn-
ing contracts play a central role in helping to meet quality criteria and
quality assurance requirements within HE (Lyons and Bement, 2001;
Nixon et al., 2006).
The use of wider shared WBL placement learning outcomes alongside
the use of individual learning contracts, is the most robust way of sup-
porting engagement and focussed learning experiences for students, and
should be built into WBL design and delivery.

Assessment literacy
Winstone and Boud (2020) state that assessment and feedback are both
related processes but have important but distinct functions that needs
consideration when planning and designing learning opportunities. The
concept of assessment literacy defined as “the ability to design, select,
interpret, and use assessment results appropriately for education deci-
sions” (Quilter and Gallini, 2000, P116), needs to be applied for those
involved in the design and delivery of the WBL placement. Assessment
can be formal or informal – commonly broken into formative and sum-
mative assessments and needs to be explicitly linked to the learning out-
comes. Development of an authentic WBL assessment framework is
needed to support the development of employability resources through-
out the HE learning journey (Kaider et al., 2017). Gibbs and Simpson
(2004, p.12) outline ten conditions of assessments, with additional con-
siderations within the ten conditions added from work by Knight and
 learning outcomes and assessment 71

Yorke (2003). Consideration of these conditions will support a compre-

hensive and clear approach for all stakeholders, to maximise engagement
with, and the potential learning from the assessment process.

1. Sufficient for the learning experience/effort – formative/summa-

tive/ clearly defined
2. Engagement with the assessments – sufficient structure and scaf-
folding of learning
3. Engaging and relevant mode of assessment activities and
individuals
4. Feedback points during the learning process – role of the peer/
educator/supervisors
5. Constructive feedback focussed on student performance
6. Timely assessment and feedback
7. Feedback relevant to the learning outcomes
8. Feedback relevant to understanding the learning activities
9. Feedback is received by students
10. Student’s engagement/action on the feedback

A balance of divergent (student success in more open-ended tasks) and

convergent (fulfilment of specific pre-determined objectives) assessments
need to be considered (Knight and Yorke, 2003), to offer students the
opportunity to extend their learning beyond what they may have thought
was possible – enhancing their self-efficacy. Group work assessments
have been suggested to support a more inclusive form of assessment (Hill
et al., 2016) and peer feedback has had positive reports (Morris et al.,
2021), which is applicable within the peer group WBL placement.
Summative assessments are generally at the end of the learning
experience to measure the learning at that point in time rather than moni-
toring progress commonly associated with formative assessments. Learn-
ing outcomes represent the route for the learning experience. Formative
assessment has been suggested as assessment FOR learning with summa-
tive being assessment OF learning (Bale and Seabrook, 2021), with both
assessing specific aspects of the student learning journey (Gravells, 2021).
Monitoring formative assessments need to be built into the learning jour-
ney for students, to be destinations on the way, adjusting the route where
72 learning outcomes and assessment

necessary, with the summative assessments being the final destination for
that specific learning experience journey, but with feed forward directions
and signposts to the next learning destination opportunity. Formative
assessments are reported as a better representation of the student learning
journey and growth and needs to be appreciated and implemented in a
more methodological, rather than an as and when approach (Laur, 2013).
This methodological approach is important to consider when planning
the WBL structure and learning opportunity.
Both formative and summative assessments exist to gather evidence
on student learning. The original emergence of formative assessment was
in response to the traditional grading assessment processes, to guide stu-
dent learning (Boyle and Charles, 2014). Formative assessment can be
formal and informal from educators/supervisors/employers/peers, with
peers being reported as a particularly useful form of formative feed-
back (Knight and Yorke, 2003). Peer feedback is particularly pertinent
in the context of peer group WBL placements but is reported to be
under researched (Meijer et al., 2020). The importance of the formative
assessment process needs to be highlighted to students, to support struc-
tured and active engagement, facilitate reflection and consolidation and
in-depth learning, with actions for further learning from the remainder
of the learning experience and beyond (Evans et al., 2014; Grosas et al.,
2016; Henderson et al., 2019; Yorke, 2003). Monitoring of learning has
become increasingly important with the diversity of learners within HE,
to provide support and direction to the wide range of learners (Gibbs and
Simpson, 2004). High value is assigned to formative assessments within
the literature to support the student learning – but this is not always
evident, with grade orientated summative assessments still the domi-
nant form of assessment (Wu and Jessop, 2018) with as many as eight
times as many summative assessments as formative assessments ( Jessop
and Tomas, 2017). The lack of formative assessments may be in part due
to resource constraints within HE (Gibbs and Simpson, 2004) but to
­provide a pedagogically robust quality learning opportunity, a compre-
hensive quality assessment structure is needed. A shift in assessment cul-
ture is proposed by Harrison et al. (2017) towards an assessment to learn
rather than an assessment on learning, to support the use of formative
assessments in conjunction with summative assessments. Accepting the
 learning outcomes and assessment 73

benefits of formative and summative assessments as complementary pro-

cesses, maximises the potential of the communication and understanding
about the learning process to students (Houston and Thompson, 2017;
Lau, 2016). A very important consideration is the authenticity of the
assessments – which the WBL environment provides an ideal context for.
Authentic assessments need to be realistic, challenging but support the
student progression towards learning outcomes (Pitt and Quinlan, 2022)
with an appreciation of authentic assessment processes and the support
needed to implement these effectively (Tai et al., 2022). Authentic assess-
ments have a closer relationship with the real world, how the knowledge
and skills are applied by the students within that context with students
owning the learning and knowledge production process (Ashford-Rowe
et al., 2014) which can all be maximised within the WBL context, but
student evaluative judgement needs to be supported through this process
to be able to ascertain and appreciate the quality of the learning (Tai
et al., 2017).
Various tools can be used for formative assessment – for example,
journals/diaries, structured discussions, portfolios, recorded discussions,
individual or peer group meetings. Simple quizzes have been found
to be useful in the formative assessment process (Morris et al., 2021)
and simple rubrics related to the learning outcomes can be used to pro-
vide more structured feedback to students. A range of pros and cons
have been associated with various modes and methods of assessments
(Gravells, 2021; Lidster and Wakefield, 2022; Knight and Yorke, 2003)
with the cons including the limits of numbers/grades, making reliable
and objective judgements, or how to communicate the assessment results,
for example, which all need to be mitigated where possible.

Constructivism
The constructivism view of learning is made up of cognitive constructiv-
ism and social constructivism, underpinned by the premise that individ-
uals are active agents in their learning (Alt, 2015; Lidster and Wakefield,
2022). Both the cognitive and social constructivism are very relevant
within the WBL context, particularly for peer group WBL placement
experiences. The key process of constructivism is how the students inter-
pret the information that they learn for themselves, therefore requiring
74 learning outcomes and assessment

a higher level of engagement and cognitive processing and metacogni-

tion (Biggs and Tang, 2011). A constructivist learning experience with
reflection and metacognition built into its design, will support student
confidence, impacting positively on their self-efficacy, supporting devel-
opment, understanding and mastery of their learning, with interaction
and sharing learning (for example, through peer group learning) being
rated very highly by students (Alt, 2015). A constructivist approach has
the potential to assist with mitigating some of the problems identified
within the literature relating to assessments, but a clear understanding of
the principles and application of the process of learning and associated
assessment process is needed (Rust et al., 2005).
Tenenbaum et al. (2001) highlight some key features to a constructiv-
ist learning environment, ensuring that the features are embedded suffi-
ciently within the design and delivery of the WBL placement, to wholly
embrace and adopt the constructivist approach. These features have been
applied within the peer group online WBL context below.

1. Active learning process with articulation of ideas – supported

through debates and discussions in peer groups with a clear focus
on WBL learning outcomes
2. Students challenged in their learning and knowledge by dealing
with conceptual dilemmas and conflicts – with employers/super-
visors/peers
3. Peer interaction and collaboration to share ideas – through peer
group WBL delivery
4. Inclusive course materials and resources addressing different
needs of students – application of universal design principles/
range of different activities and tasks for the WBL placements
5. Stimulation of higher order metacognitive learning and
knowledge – achieved through structured reflection built into
the WBL timetable/process/resources
6. Making sure that students are being supported in their progres-
sion in learning towards their WBL learning outcomes – through
supervision and feedback (discussed in the next chapter)
7. Meaningful contexts for real life learning – authentic WBL
experiences offer the context for real life learning
 learning outcomes and assessment 75

Conclusions
Formalising the learning and assessment process within the WBL
context, using evidence-based pedagogical design and delivery – will
facilitate the link between the academic curriculum and the WBL/
employability context. Learning outcomes need to be at the heart of the
WBL design and delivery as “anchors”, as these will direct the associated
learning activities and assessments. The WBL placement should include
a carefully designed assessment structure with authentic modes of assess-
ment. In addition, individualised learning goals are important to estab-
lish, which assists with active engagement – essential to maximise the
learning potential of the WBL experience.

References
Allan, J. (1996) Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 2(1),
93–108.
Alt, D. (2015) Assessing the contribution of a constructivist learning environment to aca-
demic self‐efficacy in higher education. Learning Environments Research, 18(1), 47–67.
Anderson, G, Boud, D, and Sampson, J. (1998) ‘Qualities of learning contracts’, in
Stephenson, J, and Yorke, M. (eds.) Capability and quality in higher education. Lon-
don: Kogan.
Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank A., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths,
J., and Wittrock, M. (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision
of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longman Inc.
Ashford-Rowe, K, Herrington, J, and Brown, C. (2014) Establishing the critical elements
that determine authentic assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
39(2), 205–222.
Bale, R, and Seabrook, M. (2021) Introduction to university teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Bandura, A. (1986) The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359–373.
Biggs, J, and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Borghans, L, Weel, B, and Weinberg, B. (2014) People skills and the labor mar-
ket of underrepresented groups. ILR Reviews, 67(2), 287–333. https://doi.
org/10.1177/00197939140 6700202
Boyle, B, and Charles, M. (2014) Formative assessment for teaching and learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cameron, R, Dhakal, S, Burgess, J. (2018) Transitions from education to work – Workforce
ready challenges in the Asia Pacific. London: Routledge.
Cobo, C. (2013) Skills for innovation: Envisioning an education that prepares for the
changing world. The Curriculum Journal, 24(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/095
85176.2012.744330
Dollinger, M, and Brown, J. (2019) An institutional framework to guide the compari-
son of work-integrated learning types. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate
Employability, 10(1), 88–100.
76 learning outcomes and assessment

Doncaster, K. (2000) Learning agreements: Their function in work-based programmes at

Middlesex University. Education and Training, 42(6), 349–355.
Evans, D, Zeun, P, and Stanier, R. (2014) Motivating student learning using a forma-
tive assessment journey. Journal of Anatomy, 224, 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/
joa.12117.
Garnett, J. (2000) ‘Organisational cultures and the role of learning agreements’, in
Portwood, D, Costley, C. (eds.) Work based learning and the university: New per-
spectives and practices. . SEDA paper (109).Birmingham: SEDA, pp. 59–66. ISBN
9781902435121.
Gibbs, G, and Simpson, C. (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports stu-
dents’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3–31. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-8348–9837-1
Gravells, A. (2021) Principles and practices of assessment – A guide for assessors in the FE and
skills sector. 4th Edition. Exeter: Learning Matters, A SAGE Publishing Company.
Grosas A, Raju S, Schuett B, Chuck J-A, and Millar T. (2016) Determining if active
learning through a formative assessment process translates to better performance in
summative assessment. Studies Higher Education, 41, 1595–1611. https://doi.org/10
.1080/03075079.2014.988704
Hang, T, and Ronald, L. (2015) Essential soft skills for successful business graduates in
Vietnam. Sociology Study, 5(10), 759‐763. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159‐5526/201
5.10.001
Harrison, C, Könings, D, Schuwirth, L, Wass, V, and van der Vleuten, C. (2017)
Changing the culture of assessment: The dominance of the summative assessment
paradigm. BMC Medical Education, 17, 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-
0912-5
Henderson, M, Phillips, M, Ryan, T, Boud, D, Dawson, P, Molloy, E, and Mahoney,
P. (2019) Conditions that enable effective feedback. Higher Education Research &
Development, 38(7), 1401–1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807
Hill, N, Denholm-Price, J, Atkins, N, Dourado, LT, Nimoh, O, and Page, N. (2016) Does
group assessment impact BME attainment? New Directions in the Teaching of Physi-
cal Sciences, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.29311/ndtps.v0i11.579
Houston, D, and Thompson, J. (2017) Blending formative and summative assessment in
a capstone subject: ‘It’s not your tools, it’s how you use them’. Journal of University
Teaching and Learning Practice, 14(3), 1–19. http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss3/2
Jessop, T, and Tomas, C. (2017) The implications of programme assessment patterns for
student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 990–999.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1217501.
Kaider, F, Hains-Wesson, R, and Young, K. (2017) Practical typology of authentic
work-integrated learning activities and assessments. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooper-
ative Education, 18(2), 153–165.
Knight, P, and Yorke, M. (2003) Assessment, learning and employability. Buckingham:
Open University Press McGraw-Hill Education.
Knowles, M. (1975) Self-directed learning: a guide for learners and teachers.New York: Asso-
ciation Press.
Knowles, M. (1986) Using learning contracts: practical approaches to individualizing and
structuring learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lau, A. (2016) Formative good, summative bad? – A review of the dichotomy in assess-
ment literature. Journal of Further Higher Education, 40, 509–525. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0309877X.2014.984600
Laur, D. (2013) Authentic learning experiences – a real-world approach to project-based learn-
ing. An Eye on Education book. London: Routledge.
 learning outcomes and assessment 77

Lee, T, Fuller, A, Ashton, D, Butler, P, Felstead, A, Unwin, L, and Walters S. (2004)

Learning as work: Teaching and learning processes in the contemporary work organisation.
Leicester: University of Leicester, Centre for Labour Market Studies.
Lester, S, and Costley, C. (2010) Work-based learning at higher education level: Value,
practice and critique. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 561–575. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03075070903216635
Lidster, J, and Wakefield, S. (2022) Student practice supervision & assessment learning mat-
ters. 2nd Edition. London: A SAGE Publishing Company.
Lyons, F, and Bement, M. (2001) ‘Setting the standards: judging levels of achievement’,
in Boud, D, and Solomon, N. (eds.) Work-based learning: A new higher education.
Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.
Meijer, H, Hoekstra, R, Brouwer, J, and Strijbos, J. (2020) Unfolding collaborative learn-
ing assessment literacy: A reflection on current assessment methods in higher edu-
cation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1222–1240. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1729696
Meyer, J, and Land, R. (2005) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epis-
temological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning.
Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068074
Mitchell, L, Skinner, L, and White, B. (2010) Essential soft skills for success in the twen-
ty-first century workforce as perceived by business educators. Journal of Research in
Business Education, 52(1), 43–53.
Morris, L. (2016) Experiential learning for all. Innovative Higher Education, 41, 103–104.
Morris, R, Peery, T, and Wardle, L. (2021) Formative assessment and feedback for learn-
ing in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Education, 9(3), e3292.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3292
Nikolou-Walker, E, and Garnett, J. (2004) Work based learning. A new impera-
tive?: Developing reflective practice in professional life. Reflective Practice, 5(3),
297–312.
Nixon, I, Smith, K., Stafford, R, and Camm, S. (2006) Work-based learning: Illuminating
the higher education landscape. York: The Higher Education academy. Available at:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/research/WBL.pdf
Osborne, C, Davis, J, and Garnett, J. (1998) ‘Guiding the learner to the centre of the
stakeholder curriculum’, in Stephenson, J, and Yorke, M. (eds.) Capability and quality
in higher education. London: Kogan Page, pp. 85–101.
Owen, L. (2016) The impact of feedback as formative assessment on student perfor-
mance. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 28(2),
168–175. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1111131.pdf
Pitt, E, and Quinlan, K. (2022) Impacts of higher education assessment and feedback policy
and practice on students: A review of the literature 2016–2021. York: Advance HE.
Quilter, S, and Gallini, J. (2000) Teachers’ assessment literacy and attitudes. The Teacher
Educator, 36(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730009555257
Rust, C, O’Donovan, B, and Price, M. (2005) A social constructivist assessment pro-
cess model: How the research literature shows us this could be best prac-
tice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 231–240. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02602930500063819
Rye, K. (2008) Perceived benefits of the use of learning contracts to guide clinical educa-
tion in respiratory care students. Respiratory Care, 53(11), 1475–1481.
Salmon, G. (2011) E-moderating – The key to teaching and learning online. 3rd Edition.
London: Routledge.
Stek, K. (2022) Personality development in higher education in the era of Industry 4.0: Com-
paring educational practices and philosophies in Industry 1.0 and Industry 4.0. In Smart
78 learning outcomes and assessment

industry – Better management (Advanced Series in Management). Bingley: Emerald

Publishing Group.
Stephenson, J. (2001) ‘Ensuring a holistic approach to work based learning: the capability
envelope’, in Boud, D, and Solomon, N. (eds.) Work based learning: a new higher edu-
cation. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University
Press.
Stephenson, J, and Saxton, J. (2005) Using the Internet to gain personalized degrees from
learning through work: some experience from Ufi. Industry and Higher Education,
19(3), 249–263.
Stephenson, J, and Yorke, M. (1998) Capability and quality in higher education. London:
Kogan Page.
Tai, J, Ajjawi, R, Bearman, M, Boud, D, Dawson, P, and Jorre de St Jorre, T. (2022)
Assessment for inclusion: Rethinking contemporary strategies in assessment design.
Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022
.2057451
Tai, J, Ajjawi, D, Boud, P, Dawson, and Panadero, E. (2017) Developing evaluative judge-
ment: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Educa-
tion, 6(3), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220–3
Tenenbaum, G, Naidu, S, Jegede, O, and Austin, J. (2001) Constructivist pedagogy in
conventional oncampus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation.
Learning and Instruction, 11, 87–111.
Winstone, N, and Boud, D. (2020) The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in
higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03075079.2020.1779687
Wu, Q, and Jessop, T. (2018) Formative assessment: Missing in action in both research-
intensive and teaching focused universities? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Edu-
cation, 43(7), 1019–1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1426097.
Yorke, M. (2003) Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and
the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477–501.
 7
Feedback and supervision

Feedback
Assessment and feedback are related processes but do have some distinc-
tions (Winstone and Boud, 2020) so the information presented in the
previous chapter needs to be consolidated and built on in this chapter.
Feedback is a complex process and is difficult to manage (Carless and
Winstone, 2020) with the capacity of stakeholders, design and cultural
acceptance all impacting on its effectiveness (Henderson et al., 2019a).
However, feedback is a crucial part of the learning process with a signif-
icant body of evidence to support its impact on learning (Bale and Sea-
brook, 2021; Morris et al., 2021) with the content and delivery of feedback
being highlighted as a priority within higher education (HE) (Boud and
Malloy, 2013). As well as an understanding of the delivery of effective feed-
back, it is imperative to also understand how students demonstrate pro-
active recipience, that is – the student reception of, engagement with and
actions on the feedback they receive (Pitt and Quinlan, 2022; Winstone
et al., 2017a). The application of this understanding within the feedback
processes within the work-based learning (WBL) context facilitates the
development of student agency, a theme running throughout the chapters
in this book, however, the focus of feedback has traditionally been focussed
on the marks awarded, rather than authentic engagement by students at

DOI: 10.4324/9781003315872-779
80 feedback and supervision

an individual level (Carless, 2006; Winstone et al., 2017a), reinforced by

the focus on summative assessments as discussed in the previous chapter.
Despite its extensive reporting in the literature, feedback is consistently
rated as one of the least satisfying aspects of courses (Boud and Molloy,
2013; Dawson et al., 2019) with students and educators being frustrated
by feedback processes, with a recommendation for more relational and
dialogue feedback processes (Price et al., 2010). The relational aspect of
feedback, supporting dialogue and being explicit about the importance,
meaning and structure of the feedback process can be built into the WBL
placement design and delivery, with a clear link to the learning outcomes
(Adcroft, 2011; Billett, 2015). The needs of the learner should be at the
centre of feedback design, rather than the context of the feedback, or the
capacity of the educator/employer (Boud and Molloy, 2013).
Price et al. (2010) presents five main purposes of feedback:

1. Correction of any mistakes/misunderstandings

2. Reinforcement of learning from the experience
3. Identification of any problems within the work
4. Identification of any discrepancy between the learning outcomes
and standard of work achieved
5. Feed forward points to support ongoing learning and development

Four core factors have been identified by Winstone et al. (2017b), that
need to be taken into account when planning feedback processes –
Awareness – clarify for all stakeholders as to what the feedback means
and what it is for, Cognisance – clear instructions and knowledge of how
to make full use of the feedback given, Agency of students to maximise
the engagement and utility of the feedback process at an individual level
and a Lack of proactivity, readiness or volition may exist preventing full use
of the feedback, so strategies need to be adopted within the design of the
WBL feedback experience, to facilitate this.
In addition, Henderson et al. (2019b) discusses three main themes
of capacity, design and culture, with twelve corresponding conditions to
consider, to enable successful feedback. The capacity focusses on the
stakeholders involved in the feedback and their understanding, valuing
and engaging with the feedback processes, and having the space and
 feedback and supervision 81

technology to implement the feedback process. The design for feedback

refers to the learning outcomes and achievement of these being supported
through appropriate and inclusive feedback methods. The culture refers
to the commitment by all for a consistent and quality feedback process,
which has also been highlighted as important by Nieminen et al. (2021).
Cultural capacity is particularly pertinent within the WBL context where
the cultural capacity for the feedback process may be a challenge, when
working with a range of external organisations within the context of try-
ing to implement a new model of WBL delivery.
Orsmond and Merry (2011) found little self-assessment, peer assess-
ment or feedback dialogue built into feedback processes. Recommen-
dations from Orsmond and Merry (2011) and Carless et al. (2020)
include increasingly student awareness of self-assessment, more dialogue
between students (supported by the peer group model of WBL) as well
as between students and educators, encouraging feed forward principles
for future learning and progression. Explicit and structured support is
needed for students to process and act upon the feedback, with a social
as well as technical process of feedback, to better understand the values,
behaviours and attitudes underpinning individual student’s behaviours,
and better judge how to support any change needed (Adcroft, 2011). The
WBL context offers an opportunity to embed these recommendations,
maximising the social process via peer group feedback, supported by a
structured and comprehensive supervision process.
Authentic feedback reflecting what would be received within the
workplace should be replicated within learning experiences (Carless
et al., 2020), more easily achieved within the WBL placement context
when working in partnership with employers to establish workplace
feedback processes, and marrying the processes and content to the WBL
learning outcomes. Diversity considerations are imperative with feed-
back too – not only for the students who are receiving the feedback, but
also for the educator’s awareness of the importance of inclusive practices
(Dawson et al., 2019). Feedback needs to be valid, authentic, reliable, cur-
rent, and sufficient (VARCS) with a fair and ethical attitude and response
to the work that individuals are producing (Gravells, 2021). Discipline
specific feedback practices both culturally and socially (known as signa-
ture feedback) have been reported (Carless et al., 2020; Shulman, 2005)
82 feedback and supervision

highlighting the importance of a clear and justified design and delivery of

the feedback that spans across disciplines, to address increasing numbers
of interdisciplinary WBL placements.
Continuous feedback and interaction can be restricted by the already
discussed ongoing focus on summative assessments and grades within
HE. However, the continuous feedback and interaction that can be
offered by regular formative assessments, with robust feedback processes
is crucial to support continuing depth individual learning (Boud and
Molloy, 2013; Pitt and Quinlan, 2022). Embedding reflection into the
feedback process facilitates student engagement and agency, and their
consolidation and appreciation of the learning achieved from the feedback
(Carless and Boud, 2018; Quinton and Smallbone, 2010; Winstone et al.,
2017a). Reflection and action planning provides a framework to facilitate
student awareness and confidence in their self-efficacy and autonomy in
their learning as already discussed in Chapter 5. Other authors have rec-
ommended multi-level feedback processes, not only providing feedback
about the task, but also including support with the self-regulation and
processing of the task (Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Nicola-Richmond
et al., 2021), which the process of reflection would support. Continuous
feedback can be facilitated by adopting the social constructivist approach,
where students can provide feedback in their peer groups and with their
supervisors/educators/employers, to provide a collaborative continu-
ous co-construction of learning, knowledge and feedback (Carless and
Boud, 2018; Winstone et al., 2020). The constructivist theory – already
been presented in this book to underpin the pedagogical process for
students – is further supported in the design and delivery of the feed-
back process. Feed forward points facilitate the action planning phase
of reflection (Winstone et al., 2017a). Feedback is not just a tick box
exercise and should always include feed forward points, supporting stu-
dents’ onward learning journey, making it authentic and meaningful for
students for them to consolidate at an individual level.
The principle of sustainable feedback is reported by Boud and Molloy
(2013) and facilitates a more student-centric approach to feedback.
However, implementation of sustainable feedback requires a change in
the traditional roles of educator and student, with even more importance
being placed on the design of the learning experience and articulation
 feedback and supervision 83

of that to all involved within the WBL, to understand and support its
implementation in their respective roles. Sustainable feedback has four
main features (Boud and Malloy, 2013).

1. Awareness of quality of learning through dialogue with student

with educator/supervisor/peers/employers
2. Facilitating student engagement in the evaluation and monitor-
ing of their own learning through the feedback structure and
processes
3. Students setting their own individual goals and planning their
own learning (such as through the learning contracts within
WBL)
4. Multiple opportunities for students to engage with assessment
and feedback processes to support ongoing learning

Self-assessment and reflection in learning, coupled with dialogue between

all stakeholders, offers a rich environment for sustainable feedback
(Carless et al., 2011), which can all be facilitated through the design and
delivery of the peer group WBL placement structure.
Student engagement in feedback is crucial. Smith (2022) has gener-
ated three themes of feedback – guiding hand (formative, future devel-
opment, mistakes, skill feedback), strategies for use of feedback (refer and
reflect, collate, summarise and prioritise and apply) and the qualities for
feedback use (relevance, generative, agreement and format and process).
Within Smith’s work (2022), relevance was the overriding finding, deter-
mining whether students engaged with the feedback or not. Five broad
reasons have been identified by Jonsson (2013) as to why students may
not engage with their feedback, which are useful to consider when plan-
ning and implementing the feedback processes within the WBL context:

1. Feedback is not relevant or useful

2. Feedback is not sufficiently detailed or individualised
3. Feedback can be too authoritative and not collaborative
4. Students are not always clear about what to do with the feedback
and how it fits into their learning journey
5. Terminology used in feedback is not understood
84 feedback and supervision

Some students demonstrate feedback seeking strategies which can be

evident through direct inquiry, indirect enquiry, or by monitoring cues
within the learning context and environment ( Joughin et al., 2021), but
these feedback seeking strategies tend to be seen in high performing stu-
dents (Tacoma et al., 2020). However, the understanding of and engage-
ment with the feedback process (feedback literacy) should be supported
and developed in an inclusive and accessible way for all students, edu-
cators and employers. It is important when considering the accessibility
of engaging with and understanding the feedback process, to ensure it
is available for students from a practical, confidence and ability point of
view, and not just accessed by high performing students.

Feedback literacy
Feedback literacy is not only essential within the HE environment, but
the ability to use feedback and respond to feedback, supporting stu-
dent self-regulation and evaluative judgement, is a critical skill for the­
workplace (Carless and Boud, 2018; Carless and Winstone, 2020).
­Feedback literacy principles need to be aligned for all involved in the
learning experience (Carless and Boud, 2018; Molloy et al., 2020;
Tai et  al., 2017; Winstone et al., 2017b) with the opportunity to have
­discipline focussed feedback literacy within disciplinary specific WBL
placements (Winstone et al., 2022). Feedback literacy principles can be
used to help design, introduce, implement and engage with the feed-
back process. WBL feedback literacy has been explored, with authentic
WBL contexts and outsider feedback perspective being valued by stu-
dents (Chong, 2020). A cultural change and change in mindset for all
stakeholders within WBL is needed, to be facilitators of student feed-
back, rather than information givers for students, which can result in
mutual benefit for all involved (Carless and Winstone, 2020), which can
be achieved by considering the following points:

• Engaging with feedback as an improvement process, facilitating

students to be active rather than passive in the process
• All WBL stakeholders contribute to the learning experience
through sharing information
• Recognition and mitigation of the potential effects of emotions
that are inevitably part of the feedback process
 feedback and supervision 85

• Respect for the reciprocal nature of feedback – encouraging a

student-centric approach
• Dialogue and reflection to make sense of the feedback process
• Response and action planning from processing and consolidation
of the learning

Student engagement and understanding of the feedback process is key

to maximise the learning and future learning experiences, through reflec-
tion, to consolidate the learning and feedback and the impact of that
learning on future learning (Gravells, 2021).

Relations, roles and responsibilities

As already reported in this chapter, relationships play a crucial part in
feedback. Roles and expectations need to be clear from the outset to build
trust and clarity for everyone involved in the feedback process, and to
encourage dialogue between the stakeholders (Boud and Malloy, 2013;
Carless, 2006; Carless and Boud, 2018; Price et al., 2011). Supervisor
and supervisee relations are crucial for the success of the process and are
reported as more important than the supervision models that are applied
(Shklarski and Abrams, 2021). A robust supportive feedback structure
facilitates the development of agency for the students in their learning,
in the reception and the subsequent response to and action on the feed-
back received (Molloy et al., 2020; Nieminen et al., 2021). Students need
to be adequately prepared to receive and act upon feedback as part of
their learning process, to develop their feedback literacy (Molloy et al.,
2020; Noble et al., 2020). Feedback literacy of educators and supervisors
can be enhanced through respect for the relationship with the student
and providing a positive and supportive learning environment (Carless
and ­Winstone, 2020), which is crucial when so much reliance is given to
feedback in the process of learning for students (Adcroft, 2011). Ensur-
ing that there is clarity in the meaning of the language used in the feed-
back process and focussing on fostering a trusting and caring relationship
between students and educators will support the enhancement of feed-
back literacy (Sutton, 2012). Students will come to their WBL with dif-
ferent experiences and expectations, and differences need to be identified
through building relations with the students, and then considered when
giving feedback, tailored to the individual student need (Pitt and Quinlan,
86 feedback and supervision

2022). The WBL context needs to offer an environment and positive rela-
tionships where students are encouraged to and feel confident and able to
fully engage and respond to feedback at an individual level.

Mode and method of feedback

Learning how to provide feedback (feedback literacy for educators and
not just for students) may result in less, but better-quality feedback for
students (Winstone et al., 2017b), focussing on the core information that
students find useful (Winstone et al., 2016). Feedback can take many
types and needs to be – timely, based on facts, clear, have the students’ best
interests at heart, descriptive, discursive, developmental, be supportive,
constructive and action focussed to support student development (Bale
and Seabrook, 2021; Baughan, 2020; Boyle and Charles, 2014; G ­ ravells,
2021). Clear communication of the mode and reasons for feedback
between educators and students is key to maximise the engagement and
benefits for all (Winstone and Boud, 2020).
With the advancement of technology, online tools offer a mode of
feedback delivery that can be tailored to maximise the benefits from the
feedback process. The online functionality can support the relational
aspect of feedback and development of key employability resources
(Baughan, 2020; Bearman et al., 2020; Carless and Boud, 2018; Carless
and Winstone, 2020; Winstone et al., 2020; Zimbardi et al., 2017). Con-
structive comments, rather than the amount of comments was raised as
an important consideration and a preference for feedback interactions,
rather than just written feedback (Dawson et al., 2019). Care needs to
be taken to design and plan appropriately to avoid exacerbating pre-
existing barriers to feedback (Winstone et al., 2020) and to use the
potential increase in efficiencies and usefulness that technology can offer,
without compromising quality (Caress and Winstone, 2020).
Recorded audio feedback is positively received by students (Parkes
and Fletcher, 2017; Ryan and Henderson, 2018; Zimbardi et al., 2017)
as a more personal method of feedback, and supports the relationship
between the educator/employer/supervisor and the student (Brearley and
Cullen, 2012; Pitt and Quinlan, 2022). The expertise of those giving the
recorded feedback is imperative, to maximise the potential of this mode
of feedback (Dawson et al., 2019).
 feedback and supervision 87

Peer feedback facilitates individual engagement with feedback and

encourages reflection (Winstone et al., 2017a) and is a useful adjunct
to supervisor feedback (Winstone et al., 2017b), particularly pertinent
within the online peer group WBL placement context. But peer feed-
back needs careful guidance and structure for all involved, to achieve the
success that has been reported (Carless and Boud, 2018), supporting the
link of feedback and its translation into meaningful learning (Archer,
2010; Quinton and Smallbone, 2010). Evaluative judgement of their own
performance and their peers through peer feedback, and development of
self-efficacy is a crucial skill to transfer into the workplace (Boud et al.,
2018).
Good feedback involving guidance for future learning and improve-
ment is most important for students – but the relative importance of this
was dependent on individual student learning styles (Senko et al., 2012).
Comments on grammar and understanding were not rated as highly with
students focussing more on transferable skills for future learning. Sut-
ton (2012) suggests a multidimensional approach to feedback to include
feedback on knowing as well as feedback for knowing. Ensuring that
there is clarity in the meaning of the language used in the feedback and
fostering a trusting and caring relationship between students and educa-
tors will support the enhancement of feedback literacy (Sutton, 2012).
Written feedback has been found to be more effective than grades,
with positive as well as negative feedback having benefits – negative feed-
back can be more effective at the self-level of learning and positive feed-
back more effective with task-based learning (Boyle and Charles, 2014).

Supervision
Supervision is a two-way process and is influenced by the context within
which the supervision is being delivered but a gap exists in the liter-
ature around supervision (Kettle, 2015). Supervision of students is an
important part of the WBL placement experience, to support and guide
the students in their learning and work towards their learning outcomes
and goals. Bordin (1983) developed the supervisory working alliance
principles of goal setting and agreement for the supervisory process, the
supervisory tasks and the relationship between the supervisor and super-
visee. Attributes such as empathy, support, respect, giving and receiving
88 feedback and supervision

feedback, communication, positive mindset, committed to learning and

knowledge have been identified as important to facilitate the supervi-
sor and supervisee relationship (Beinart and Clohessy, 2017; Callahan
and Love, 2020; Lidster and Wakefield, 2022). Kadushin (1992) states
three main functions to supervision – educational, supportive and
administrative – including psychological as well as practical aspects of the
role. However, tensions are reported to exist between the mediation (psy-
chological) and scrutiny (practical) aspects, which need to be considered
and mitigated as far as possible (Malahleka, 1995).
The 4 × 4 × 4 model of supervision reported by Wonnacott (2012,
p.54) can be applied to the WBL learning environment, involving the
key stakeholders, functions (management of the student on WBL, devel-
opment of student learning, supporting the student and mediating with
the student through challenges) and elements of the supervisory cycle
(the student learning experience, reflection on the experience, analys-
ing the impact of the experience and action planning for future learning
experiences). This dynamic supervision supports engagement and reflec-
tion from the students as shown in Kolb’s reflective cycle (Kolb, 1984)
reported in Chapter 5.
The importance and complexities of supervision cannot be underes-
timated, and planning and communication is essential for a robust and
quality experience for all involved. Group supervision has been posi-
tively evaluated (Egan et al., 2021) and can be used alongside individual
supervision, but not instead of individual supervision. This is a relevant
consideration for the peer group model of WBL placements. However,
care needs to be taken with the dynamics of the group supervision to be
used positively for team building and associated learning, but can reduce
the individuals becoming reliant on their supervisor and support autono-
mous learning (Kettle, 2015).
Students have been reported to engage more easily with online support
and supervision, but appropriate structures and support are still needed
for clarity for all involved (Billett, 2015). An offsite supervision role has
been reported positively by students as a useful link between the HEI and
the student when in the WBL context (Egan et al., 2021). Supervisory
relationships are complex, and mitigation is needed against any behav-
iours or attitudes that will influence the relationship, for example, control,
 feedback and supervision 89

power struggles, or manipulation but also allow the supervisor to highlight

aspects that students may not have recognised – which can sometimes be
uncomfortable and challenging to work through (Kettle, 2015).

Conclusion
The structure and process of feedback is one of the most important aspects
of learning and needs to be carefully planned and delivered. Feedback lit-
eracy is important for all stakeholders, to maximise the engagement and
potential impact of the learning from the feedback process. The relations,
roles and responsibilities need to be clear, with authentic and relevant
modes and methods of feedback being deployed. Supervision of students
throughout the WBL placement is important to support and guide stu-
dents through the learning process.

References
Adcroft, A. (2011) The mythology of feedback. Higher Education Research & Development,
30(4), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.526096
Archer, J. (2010) State of the science in health professional education: Effective feedback.
Medical Education, 44, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03546.x
Bale, R, and Seabrook, M. (2021) Introduction to university teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Baughan, P. (2020) On Your Marks: Learner-focused feedback practices and feedback literacy.
York: Advance HE. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/
your-marks-learner-focused-feedback-practices-and-feedback-literacy
Bearman, M, Boud, D, and Aijawi, R. (2020) ‘New directions for assessment in a dig-
ital world’, in Bearman, M, Dawson, P, Aijawi, R, Tai, J, and Boud, D. (eds.) Re-­
imagining university assessment in a digital world. The enabling power of assessment, Vol
7. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10/1007/978-3-030-41956-1_2
Beinart, H, and Clohessy, S. (2017) Effective supervisory relationships: Best evidence and
practice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Billett, S. (2015) Integrating practice-based experiences into higher education. Professional and
practice-based learning, Vol 13. New York, NY: Springer.
Bordin, E. (1983) A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling Psycholo-
gist, 11(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000083111007
Boud, D, Ajjawi, R, Dawson, P, and Tai, J. (2018) Developing evaluative judgement in
higher education – Assessment for knowing and producing quality work. London: Rout-
ledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Boud, D, and Molloy, E. (2013) Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The chal-
lenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Boyle, B, and Charles, M. (2014) Formative assessment for teaching and learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brearley, F, and Cullen, W. (2012) Providing students with formative audio feedback.
Bioscience Education, 20(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.11120/beej.2012.20000022
90 feedback and supervision

Callahan, L, and Love, K. (2020) Introduction to the special issue: Supervisee perspec-
tives of supervision processes. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 30(1), 1–8. https://
doi.org/10.1037/int0000199
Carless, D. (2006) Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Educa-
tion, 31(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132
Carless, D, and Boud, D. (2018) The development of student feedback literacy: enabling
uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Carless, D, Salter, D, Yang, M, and Lam, J. (2011) Developing sustainable feedback
practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03075071003642449
Carless, D, To, J, Kwan, C, Kwok, J. (2020) Disciplinary perspectives on feedback pro-
cesses: Towards signature feedback practices. Teaching in Higher Education. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863355.
Carless, D, and Winstone, N. (2020) Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with
student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13
562517.2020.1782372.
Chong, S. (2020) Reconsidering student feedback literacy from an ecological perspective.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02602938.2020.1730765
Dawson, P, Henderson, M, Mahoney, P, Phillips, M, Ryan, T, Boud, D, and Molloy, E.
(2019) What makes for effective feedback: Staff and student perspectives. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.
2018.1467877.
Egan, R, David, C, and Williams, J. (2021) An off-site supervision model of field edu-
cation practice: Innovating while remaining rigorous in a shifting field education
context. Australian Social Work. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2021.1898004
Gravells, A. (2021) Principles and practices of assessment – A guide for assessors in the FE and
skills sector. 4th Edition. Exeter: Learning Matters, A SAGE Publishing Company
Publications.
Hattie, J, and Timperley, H. (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,
77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Henderson, M, Phillips, M, Ryan, T, Boud, D, Dawson, P, Molloy, E, and Mahoney, P.
(2019b) Conditions that enable effective feedback. Higher Education Research &
Development, 38(7), 1401–1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807
Henderson, M, Ryan, T, Phillips, M. (2019a) The challenges of feedback in higher edu-
cation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1237–1252. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1599815
Jonsson, A. (2013) Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learn-
ing in Higher Education, 14, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467125
Joughin, G, Boud, D, Dawson, P, and Tai, J. (2021) What can higher education learn from
feedback seeking behaviour in organisations? Implications for feedback literacy.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1080
/02602938.2020.1733491
Kadushin, A. (1992) Supervision in social work. 3rd Edition. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Kettle, M. (2015) Achieving effective supervision Insight 30. IRISS. Available at: https://
www.iriss.org.uk/resources/insights/achieving-effective-supervision
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lidster, J, and Wakefield, S. (2022) Student practice supervision & assessment learning mat-
ters. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: A SAGE Publishing Company.
 feedback and supervision 91

Malahleka, B. (1995) Interface or interference? Professional Social Work, July 1995,

10–11.
Molloy, E, Boud, D, and Henderson, M. (2020) Developing a learning-centred frame-
work for feedback literacy. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4),
527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
Morris, R, Peery, T, and Wardle, L. (2021) Formative assessment and feedback for learn-
ing in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Education, 9(3). https://doi.
org/10.1002/rev3.3292
Nicola-Richmond, K, Tai, J, and Dawson, P. (2021) Students’ feedback literacy in work-
place integrated learning: How prepared are they? Innovations in Education and
Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.2013289
Nieminen, J, Tai, J, Boud, D, Henderson, M. (2021) Student agency in feedback: beyond
the individual. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.108
0/02602938.2021.1887080
Noble, C, Sly, C, Collier, L, Armit, L, Hilder, J, and Molloy, E. (2020) It’s yours to take:
Generating learner feedback literacy in the workplace. Advances in Health Sciences
Education, 25(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09905-5
Orsmond, P, and Merry, S. (2011) Feedback alignment: Effective and ineffective links
between tutors’ and students’ understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602930903201651
Parkes, M, and Fletcher, P. (2017) A longitudinal, quantitative study of student attitudes
towards audio feedback for assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Educa-
tion, 42(7), 1046–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1224810
Pitt, E, and Quinlan, K. (2022) Impacts of higher education assessment and feedback policy
and practice on students: A review of the literature 2016–2021. York: Advance HE.
Price, M, Handley, K, and Millar, J. (2011) Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement.
Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.
2010.483513
Price M, Handley K, Millar M, and O’Donovan B. (2010) Feedback: All that effort, but
what is the effect? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289.
Quinton, S, and Smallbone, T. (2010) Feeding forward: using feedback to promote stu-
dent reflection and learning – A teaching model. Innovations in Education and Teach-
ing International, 47(1), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903525911
Ryan, T, and Henderson, M. (2018) Feeling feedback: Students emotional responses to
educator feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 880–892.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1416456
Senko, C, Belmonte, K, and Yakhkind, A. (2012) How students’ achievement goals
shape their beliefs about effective teaching: A ‘build-a-professor’ study. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8279.2011.02036.x
Shklarski, L, and Abrams, A. (2021) A contemporary approach to clinical supervision. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Shulman, L. (2005) Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027998
Smith, C. (2022) Architecture students’ uptake and use of formative and summative feed-
back. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10
.1080/02602938.2021.1892028
Sutton, P. (2012) Conceptualizing feedback literacy: Knowing, being, and acting. Innova-
tions in Education and Teaching International, 49(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14703297.2012.647781
92 feedback and supervision

Tacoma, S, Geurts, C, Slof, B, Jeuring, J, and Drijvers, P. (2020) Enhancing learning with
inspectable student models: Worth the effort? Computers in Human Behavior, 107,
106276, ISSN 0747-5632, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106276
Tai, J, Ajjawi, R, Boud, D, Dawson, P, and Panadero, E. (2017) Developing evaluative
judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher
Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3
Winstone, N, Balloo, K, and Carless, D. (2022) Discipline-specific feedback literacies: A
framework for curriculum design. Higher Education, 85, 57–77.
Winstone, N, and Boud, D. (2020) The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in
higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03075079.2020.1779687
Winstone, N, Bourne, J, Medland, E, Niculescu, I, and Rees, R. (2020) Check the grade,
log out’: Students’ engagement with feedback in learning management systems.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.
2020.1787331
Winstone, N, Nash, R, Parker, M, and Rowntree, J. (2017a) Supporting learners’ agentic
engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience pro-
cesses. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.20
16.1207538
Winstone, N, Nash, R, Rowntree, N, and Menezes, R. (2016) What do students want
most from written feedback information? Distinguishing necessities from luxuries
using a budgeting methodology. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(8),
1237–1253. https://doi.org/10.1080/026029 38.2015.1075956
Winstone, N, Nash, R, Rowntree, J, and Parker, M. (2017b) It’d be useful but I wouldn’t use
it’: Barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher
Education, 4(11), 2026–2041. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032.
Wonnacott, J. (2012) Mastering social work supervision. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Zimbardi, K, Colthorpe, K, Dekker, A, Engstrom, C, Bugarcic, A, Worthy, P, Victor, R,
Chunduri, P, Lluka, L, and Long, P. (2017) Are they using my feedback? The extent
of students’ feedback use has a large impact on subsequent academic performance.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 625–644. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02602938.2016.1174187
 8
Theory into practice – A case
example
The Peer Enhanced e-Placement (PEEP)

Context
Historically work-based learning (WBL) placement capacity chal-
lenges have existed within health and social care, with increased stu-
dent numbers being recruited into higher education (HE) courses to
address increased service demands (Health Education England, 2020).
This WBL placement capacity challenge is reflected worldwide, and
across the health and social care professions (McBride et al., 2018; Salifu
et al., 2022; Taylor et al., 2016), as most health and social care courses
have embedded statutory WBL experience requirements, as part of the
professional body requirements for course validation, to put the the-
ory from the academic curriculum into practice. The WBL placements
support the development of the necessary professional skills, attributes
and competencies, for students to qualify in their individual profession
(Bridge et al., 2022). Placement capacity challenges were compounded
by placement suspension during the pandemic, forcing a reimagination
of how WBL and the statutory and professional standards and related
learning outcomes could be achieved, to support course progression for
students. The provision of WBL experiences has historically been deliv-
ered in person in situ within the WBL environment, predominantly on a
one-to-one student-educator/supervisor ratio. An innovative model that

DOI: 10.4324/9781003315872-893
94 theory into practice – a case example

was created to deal with the emergency pandemic situation, was the Peer
Enhanced e-Placement (PEEP). This chapter will explore the design and
delivery of the PEEP, highlighting how the theoretical and pedagogical
design and delivery principles presented in this book are applied within
the PEEP model. The award winning PEEP model has now evolved
into a sustainable online WBL placement model, beyond the emer-
gency pandemic response and is being adapted and adopted by numerous
disciplines across the HE sector.

PEEP design
The University of East Anglia (UK) second year Occupational Therapy
students had their usual in person in situ WBL placements suspended
due to the pandemic. The PEEP was created to provide a WBL place-
ment designed to replicate the key elements and processes of a WBL
placement experience, usually completed within the in person in situ
placement setting, but was delivered entirely online using peer group
learning, to support progression of learning for the students (Taylor and
Salmon, 2021). The PEEP model has helped to pioneer entirely online
delivery of WBL placements within health and social care professions,
demonstrating equivalence in the achievement of the placement learn-
ing outcomes from traditional placement experiences. The PEEP pro-
vides an alternative option from all placements needing to be in person
and in situ. Details of the structure and implementation of the original
PEEP has been published on the Health Education England website as
an exemplar (Taylor, 2020a) but the PEEP model has evolved since its
inception, through research and development, but the core pedagogical
principle of the placement learning outcomes being “anchors” at the heart
of the PEEP design, and the other key pedagogical design and deliv-
ery principles remain true. Additional learning opportunities are offered
from a PEEP from the peer group learning, and its flexible structure
and design to address specific identified learning needs for students. A
deeper metacognition of learning is supported, using individual, peer and
supervisory learning, feedback and reflection, underpinned by fundamen-
tal pedagogical principles. Quality WBL has been consistently evidenced
through evaluation of the many PEEPs that have now been implemented
across numerous professions.
 theory into practice – a case example 95

The usual practice placement process, paperwork and practice place-

ment outcomes were adapted for online delivery for the original PEEP,
using the virtual learning environment/learning management system
Blackboard. The PEEP model contains a mixture of authentic online
simulation with case study leads and live interactions/service delivery
with service users via video link. This enabled students to manage their
caseload of service users as they would within the in situ placement
environment – applying the core occupational therapy process and pro-
gressing their learning towards their placement learning outcomes. A
Delphi study on simulated placements, has reported enhancements in
learning for students, can be used online and with small groups, with a
conclusion that between 11% to 30% of placements could be replaced by
simulation – depending on individual professional learning and stand-
ards requirements (Bridge et al., 2022). There has been a rise in tele-
health delivery, changing the landscape for future health and social care
provision, reinforcing the importance of preparing health and social care
students for the online mode of service delivery as part of their WBL
experiences within HE (Shirley et al., 2022).
The potential benefits of online learning within HE has been reported
widely by Salmon (2011) and discussed in Chapter 2 of this book.
Digital technology has received increased attention within the health and
social care disciplines, but more widely within HE, highlighting the need
for graduates to be prepared and able to use and apply digital technolo-
gies within the work-based context (Ngai et al., 2019). The pandemic has
forced a shift in culture to adopt and maximise the virtual learning and
digital technology opportunities that are available for student learning.
The online WBL environment within PEEP allows students to make
mistakes without the real-world repercussions, applying theory to prac-
tice in complex and high-pressure situations and offers the ability to have
a range of scenarios/simulations/role plays to target specific learning out-
comes that are not always possible in the traditional in person in situ
WBL placements (Savin-Baden, 2010).

Preparation
Despite the original PEEP being an emergency response to the suspen-
sion of the usual WBL experience, preparation was still a crucial part
96 theory into practice – a case example

of the PEEP process. This involved preparation of the stakeholders, to

brief on the PEEP process and structure and the use of the peer group
pedagogy to support the learning journey for students. Clear roles and
responsibilities were set out at the beginning which was important as the
PEEP model introduced different roles and responsibilities to a usual
placement. Key information relating to professional standards, behav-
iours and guidelines for practice for peer groups and the online place-
ment delivery was presented and reinforced during the induction sessions
for the stakeholders.

Peer learning
The PEEP utilised the peer group learning pedagogy discussed in
Chapter 4 of this book – with students being split into small groups,
who were allocated a supervisor for the duration of the WBL place-
ment experience. Each week, the students were assigned an online case-
load of patients to manage (as they would within the in person in situ
WBL placement experience), working individually but also in their peer
groups. Case study leads provided a range of supportive resources and
guidance for the students for the specific cases that they were leading.
Students reported benefits of peer learning for team working and devel-
oping in-depth professional reasoning (a similar principle as critical
analysis and reasoning – the ability to critically analyse and justify deci-
sions made). Students are less likely to challenge and interrogate their
supervisors about their professional reasoning as they did in their peer
groups. Professional reasoning is a notoriously difficult aspect of practice
to master, due to the complexities of the knowledge and understanding
required to apply, justify and to then be able to articulate decisions that
have been made. As discussed in Chapter 3 of this book, employers rate
critical analysis and reasoning as one of the most important employabil-
ity resources for graduates to possess.

Employability
Being a health and social care professional is more than hands on clin-
ical skills, with placements providing an opportunity to develop a wide
range of employability resources (Taylor, 2020b). The case study weeks of
the PEEP supported the students to apply their theoretical knowledge
 theory into practice – a case example 97

of the occupational therapy process within an online WBL placement

context in an authentic way. Students worked with, and took respon-
sibility for a caseload, developing individual and team working skills,
interpersonal and problem-solving skills to manage the clinical cases.
All students had the opportunity to conduct live treatment sessions with
service users, with the rest of the cohort listening, developing criticality
and self-efficacy of their and other’s knowledge. Online multidisciplinary
visits with key professionals involved with their cases helped students
to develop their pre-professional identity. Occupational Therapy theory
and practice were integrated through practical activities, related written
reflections and activities embedded in the PEEP e-portfolio and through
the student’s learning contracts and case presentations (which students
presented at the end of the PEEP as part of their assessment process).
Reflective practice activities within the e-portfolio supported consolida-
tion and metacognition of their learning. The design and delivery of the
content maximised the development of crucial employability resources
for the students that were discussed in Chapter 3 of this book.

Assessment and feedback

Students were required to submit their own written feedback and reflec-
tions to their supervisors, to support their engagement and ownership
of the feedback process, as already discussed in Chapter 7, is a crucial
part of learning. The supervisors provided a regular process of feedback,
with dialogue feedback/feed forward information as well as written
feedback to support individual progression towards learning outcomes
and learning contract goals. Ongoing dialogue discussion and feedback
within the peer groups supported the feedback processes throughout the
PEEP. Regular feedback points between the students, case study leads
and supervisors, mirrored the supervision traditionally provided on an in
person in situ placement. All students individually prepared and delivered
an online case study presentation as part of their assessment process of
the PEEP to demonstrate their fulfilment of their learning outcomes,
and another opportunity to consolidate learning from the PEEP and
reflect on and consider future learning needs.
The principles of learning and assessment discussed in Chapter 6
were applied within the PEEP. The students distilled their evidence of
98 theory into practice – a case example

learning and used this to write up their final assessment paperwork which
contained the placement leaning outcomes and learning contract goals,
evidencing their achievements. The combined evidence of the continu-
ous formative assessment and feedback processes throughout the PEEP,
e-portfolio evidence, case study presentation and final assessment paper-
work provided the content for an online dialogue summative assessment
conversation between individual students and their supervisor, to estab-
lish whether the PEEP learning outcomes had been met or not.

Online learning
Graduates of the future are key to drive a new culture of digitally ready
health and social care professionals within the workplace as highlighted
in Chapter 1 of this book. Recent technological advancements offer an
opportunity to provide meaningful online WBL placement – with the
development of more accessible and advanced functionality. This is not to
say that in person in situ health and social care WBL experiences are not
needed, as there are a range of clinical skills that can only be learned within
the in situ placement environment. However, the PEEP offers a valuable
WBL option to replace part of the traditional in person in situ placement
experiences and is repeatedly reported to offer equivalence and added
unique value to the usual in person in situ WBL placement experiences.
The PEEP design and delivery principles map onto the evidence-based
five-stage model of online learning (Salmon, 2013) already outlined in
Chapter 2. Accessibility of the online learning is a key tenet of Stage 1
of the 5-stage model. The PEEP was delivered using Blackboard – the
usual virtual learning environment/learning management system that
students used – which was accessible for all students via their laptops or
their phones. International students were also able to access the PEEP
in their home countries (having returned home due to the pandemic)
alongside their UK peers. During the induction to the PEEP, the stu-
dents were briefed in the technical side of the PEEP and how the online
delivery of the PEEP would facilitate their learning towards the PEEP
learning outcomes, learning contract goals and any other wider learn-
ing. All synchronous sessions throughout the PEEP were recorded and a
link made accessible for students to go back to if needed to support not
only accessibility of the information, but also reflection and consolidation
 theory into practice – a case example 99

of their learning. The transformation of the learning was facilitated in

part through the synchronous interactive sessions that were being led by
themselves, or listening, feeling, thinking and critically analysing others
leading.

Common purpose
The students worked together in their individual peer groups on a com-
mon purposeful task (the PEEP learning outcomes – the “anchors” for
learning presented in Chapter 6) but also had the element of self-interest
on wanting to pass their placement. This motivation facilitated engage-
ment from the students in developing their online socialisation (Stage 2
of the 5-stage model). Mutual trust and respect was required between
peer group members. On occasions there were differences of opinions
within the group, which students reported as valuable and authentic
learning, as it replicated the multidisciplinary team within clinical prac-
tice. Not everybody will always agree with your opinion within a team
and working through disagreements develops crucial interpersonal skills.
The peer groups were encouraged to work through the disagreements,
but also to report any individuals who were not behaving or engaging
professionally within the group. The process of peer group interrogating
and defending decisions relating to the clinical case study, helped the
students to build confidence in their professional reasoning and justifying
the clinical decisions that they were making at an individual level. The
peer group thinking and sharing understanding was established quickly
through the structured approach to their timetable. Peer group work and
peer support was encouraged throughout the week, developing the social
side of the PEEP applying the social constructivist principles of learning
and cementing relations within the group. This peer learning process was
reported as a particularly valuable aspect of the PEEP for the students.

Timetable structure
The PEEP timetable consisted of synchronous cohort, peer group and
asynchronous individual task and reflective sessions. The timetable struc-
ture enabled non-student PEEP stakeholders to commit to specific ses-
sions that they were involved with within the timetable, without needing
to commit to the whole of the PEEP. The induction week introduced the
100 theory into practice – a case example

students to the PEEP process and paperwork, and the theoretical and
professional knowledge that they would need to work towards fulfill-
ing the practice placement learning outcomes within the online learning
environment. All students wrote their own learning contracts at the start
of the PEEP and were reviewed, and individual feedback. The learning
contracts facilitated individualised learning for the students alongside
the standard practice placement learning outcomes – supporting student
engagement and agency of their learning.
The timetabled weeks were structured to reinforce the process of
thinking required for the students as professionals, developing valuable
case management, time management and other relevant employability
and professional resources. Social interactions of the peer group learn-
ing married with self-directed timetabled individual learning, providing
in-depth behavioural and cognitive learning that otherwise may not have
been achieved, facilitating the development of self-efficacy. Students
reported the online environment as safe space for enquiry and learning
and valued the scheduled reflection and consolidation of learning in the
timetable. The continuous timetabled and ad hoc feedback processes
within the PEEP from the peers, case study leads and supervisors sup-
ported the learning process for students. Critical analysis and student’s
grasp of concepts was teased out by the online peer group process and
interrogation (Stage 4 of the 5-stage model) and was reported by stake-
holders to add value compared to what can usually be developed within
the usual in person in situ WBL placement environment. The timetable
was structured to scaffold the learning for the students, supporting the
shift in the locus of control for their learning towards the students taking
more control of their individual learning as the PEEP progressed, to sup-
port student-centric and student agency approach to learning.

Co-operation and collaboration

The transferable skills and confidence developed from the peer group
interaction was a strong theme from the stakeholder feedback, with
the need to be co-operative and collaborative, to maximise the learning
potential of the experience. The input of the supervisor was key to pro-
vide regular support and guidance to the groups where needed, as well
as tailored individual feedback to students. The PEEP was structured so
 theory into practice – a case example 101

that students had the opportunity to learn from other peer groups, as well
as within their individual peer groups. For example, there were oppor-
tunities for each peer group to lead synchronous online assessment and
treatment sessions with service users, with the rest of the cohort listening
and observing. Familiarity with the WBL learning outcomes supported
student engagement with the learning opportunity and the mutual learn-
ing experience that they were going through together, and the encourage-
ment for everybody to play an equal part enhanced the depth of learning.
The peer groups the students were allocated purposely did not include
friendship groups, to support an authentic group formation process where
they had to learn co-operation and collaboration. Students reported that
positive peer relationships had been developed, to work together in their
common purpose in a professional manner – despite not always agreeing
on everything and were key to their learning.

Communication
Continuous dialogue between all stakeholders ensured parity and con-
sistency in the information and experience for the students, with a
space made on Blackboard for any announcements. Active engagement
and participation by students was supported by supervision, the time-
table structure, online register monitoring and the respective student
engagement on the chat/message functions. Guided reflections from the
e-portfolio and written and verbal feedback between students and super-
visors at the end of the week consolidated the student learning, offer-
ing an additional chance to monitor engagement, provide guidance and
formative feedback and to progress the students in their learning (Stage 3
of the 5-stage model). The PEEP timetable and the online environment
were designed to support a scaffolded process of learning to support the
learning journey. The scaffolds supported students to reach a level of
learning to be able to be critical in their thinking – guided by their reflec-
tions in their student e-portfolio – critically appraising the decisions that
they had proposed for managing their weekly caseloads (Level 5 of the
5-stage model). The feedback that the students gave their supervisors
both in written and verbally evidenced the student learning gains with
student’s individual personal learning contract goals being monitored
and supported throughout. The design and delivery of the PEEP applies
102 theory into practice – a case example

the 5-stage of online learning presented by Salmon (2013) repeatedly

during the PEEP.

Scaling up the PEEP

Scaling up of WBL has been reported as an issue due to limits on employer
engagement ( Jackson and Bridgstock, 2021), but the timetable structure
of the PEEP offers a WBL placement model that enables employer
involvement at specific time periods, without the need for time commit-
ment for the full duration of the PEEP. However, changing delivery of
WBL to an online PEEP model involves a complex system of embed-
ded beliefs and traditional practice, which may require cultural change.
A critical part of adoption is the ability of HE staff and employers to be
able to adapt and contextualise the PEEP for their individual context and
course requirements. Students also require reassurance that an alternative
WBL model, in this case, the PEEP, is valid and valuable for their learn-
ing. A PEEP acquisition experience was developed by the PEEP creator,
Professor Lisa Taylor, and Professor Gilly Salmon, to facilitate placement
teams to pivot to the online WBL placement delivery, and to custom-
ise their own PEEPs. The PEEP acquisition experience structure was
designed to develop participant’s knowledge and understanding of the
pedagogical underpinnings to the design and delivery of a PEEP, to then
support their own adaption and adoption of the PEEP for their own con-
text/students. The PEEP acquisition experience offers placement teams
a three-staged approach with pre-workshop preparatory activities, a half
day online synchronous workshop and then post-workshop activities.
The pivots in thinking required, included moving from a belief that
all WBL placements need to be delivered in person in situ, one to one
between the student and the supervisor – to an appreciation of the value
of the online peer group delivery of the PEEP in its ability to provide
equivalence of placement learning outcomes, with additional learning
opportunities to those experienced on a usual in person in situ WBL
placement. To date more than 65 teams across the UK, spanning 20
health and social care professions and the wider HE sector disciplines
have completed the PEEP acquisition experience. Multiple teams have
now implemented their PEEPs, with consistent positive feedback on
its success for student learning in occupational therapy, diagnostic
 theory into practice – a case example 103

radiography, orthoptists, speech and language therapy, nursing, physio-

therapy, operating department practitioners and dietetics. Many PEEPs
are now planned to be embedded within the usual placement provision
for students, providing students with the benefits of the PEEP learning
to add to the in person in situ placement learning experiences, that still
provides a significant proportion of the overall placement provision for
health and social care HE students.
Professor Lisa Taylor and Professor Gilly Salmon continue to work
with placement teams across the HE sector, both within and beyond
health and social care disciplines, delivering PEEP acquisition experi-
ences. This work has resulted in PEEPs now being planned and devel-
oped for students across the HE sector beyond health and social care,
internationally as well as within the UK, with discipline specific and
interdisciplinary PEEPs. The PEEP has not only contributed to reduc-
ing the placement capacity challenges discussed at the beginning of the
chapter but also in Chapter 1 of this book as an HE wide capacity issue,
as whole cohorts of students can complete the PEEP at the same time.
For some courses, there are reports of expansion in student intake num-
bers, based on the increased placement capacity offered by the PEEP. The
PEEP ethos of design once and deliver multiple times adds sustainability
and efficiency for future delivery for subsequent cohorts of students.

PEEP research
A continuous process of evaluation and ethically approved research has
been, and is being undertaken for the PEEP, to extend and build on the
existing evidence base for the model, and to provide ongoing develop-
ment and quality assurance for the model. One part of the research has
evaluated the PEEP acquisition experience with the following objectives:

• Identification of what works in the PEEP acquisition experiences

to help placement teams reconstruct WBL placement delivery,
and to adapt and adopt the PEEP for their own contexts/students
• Identification of the underpinning principles of the PEEP to sup-
port quality online WBL placement learning
• Exploration of the sustainability of PEEP as an online model to
support student to achieve their placement learning outcomes
104 theory into practice – a case example

An online survey was distributed to PEEP acquisition experience par-

ticipants with a mix of closed and open questions to gather qualitative
and quantitative data (n = 26 placement teams represented). The survey
addressed experiences of the PEEP acquisition experience and their sub-
sequent contextualisation of the PEEP model for their own students.
Evaluative interviews were conducted (n = 3) to enable more in-depth
exploration of the key themes that were identified through the question-
naire survey. An independent research assistant was employed to gather
and analyse the data, conducting an inductive reflexive thematic analysis
of the qualitative data (Braun and Clarke, 2006) from the survey and the
interviews using NVivo 12 (Richards, 2005). The quantitative data was
collated and analysed descriptively.
Three main themes were identified from the data analysis – knowledge
and understanding, PEEP plans, and PEEP outcomes, with a summary
of the key findings summarised below.

PEEP knowledge and understanding

• There was an impact PEEP acquisition experience participant’s
understanding in relation to online placements/key pedagogical
elements of the PEEP design
• Participation in the PEEP acquisition experience impacted on
wider innovative thinking and the value of peer learning for other
innovation opportunities

PEEP plans
• Most participants were planning one PEEP per programme of
study
• The PEEPs were implemented predominantly for second year
students with examples in the first and final years of a student’s
learning journey
• The most common length of a PEEP was three to four working
weeks with reports of successful PEEPs lasting six weeks

PEEP outcomes
• PEEP has a wide range of benefits, for example, a safe space for
in-depth learning and the peer group learning benefits
 theory into practice – a case example 105

• Very positive and successful experience for placement teams and

students
• Students met their placement’s learning outcomes and added
value in reflection, critical analysis and metacognition
• A diverse range of content can be included in the PEEP design
• Extra support and engagement from PEEP stakeholders needed
to deliver maximum benefits from the PEEP
• The flexible nature of PEEP is one of its main strengths.
• The design of PEEP is sustainable – able to design once and deliv-
ery multiple times
• Time commitment is required to design and deliver a robust PEEP
• The main recommendations from the research are listed below.
• Work with staff to help change mindset in the pivot to online
delivery of placements
• Collaboration between HE and employers in the design and
delivery of the PEEP
• Use PEEP timetable template to apply the PEEP pedagogical
principles
• Adequately resource the organisation of the PEEP
• Design once and deliver multiple times
• Share resources for ongoing efficiencies

It is through the feedback and research and development process that

the PEEP has and continues to evolve, to address the needs of individual
placement teams across the HE sector – now including beyond health
and social care disciplines. The PEEP enables HE and employers to work
in collaboration in its design and delivery, to adapt and adopt to their
individual students’ needs, offering students the opportunity to work
synchronously directly with service users/customers/colleagues via video
link or any other available technology or simulation. The flexibility in
the PEEP delivery enables statutory/professional body/employer WBL
placement standards and statutory requirements to be fulfilled, with the
ability to have bespoke learning outcomes focus and related content. The
PEEP continues to demonstrate that appropriately well-designed and
delivered, online peer group WBL experiences can offer equivalence and
emergent benefits to in person in situ WBL placements, but they do need
106 theory into practice – a case example

to be robustly designed and delivered, with strong pedagogical under-

pinnings. The rich learning and strong pedagogical underpinning of the
PEEP makes it a very desirable option for those exploring sustainable
alternative models of WBL placement delivery, which can be adapted
and adopted for students from disciplines across the HE sector.

Conclusion
The feedback and research evidence suggests that the PEEP model offers
a legitimate and pedagogically robust WBL placement for students across
the HE sector, relevant beyond the original student healthcare population
that the PEEP was created for. There is consistent overwhelming support
for the PEEP model, and the breadth and depth of quality learning that
this online model of WBL can facilitate. The adaptability of the PEEP
model is very appealing to address specific learning needs for students
through the bespoke content, whilst underpinned with PEEP pedagog-
ical principles, supporting a robust and quality learning experience for
students. The principles of the design and delivery of the PEEP demon-
strates the application of the key theoretical considerations presented in
the previous chapters of this book. PEEP offers a tried and tested WBL
model to consider, at a time when challenges exist to access sufficient
quality WBL experiences for students across the HE sector.

References
Braun, V, and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bridge, P, Adeoye, J, Edge, C, Garner, V, Humphreys, A, Ketterer, SJ, Linforth, J,
­Manning-Stanley, A, Newsham, D, Prescott, D, Pullan, S, and Sharp, J. (2022)
Simulated placements as partial replacement of clinical training time: A Delphi
consensus study. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 68, 42–48, ISSN 1876-1399. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2022.04.009
Health Education England (2020) NHS launches renewed recruitment drive. London:
Health Education England.
Jackson, D, and Bridgstock, R. (2021) What actually works to enhance graduate employ-
ability? The relative value of curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular learning
and paid work. Higher Education, 81(4), 723–739.
McBride, LJ, Fitzgerald, C, Costello, C, and Perkins, K. (2018) Applied health pre-entry
student clinical placement capacity: Can it be sustained? Australian Health Review,
44(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH18088
Ngai, C, Lee, W, Ng, P, and Wu, D. (2019) Innovating an integrated approach to col-
laborative ELearning practices in higher education: The case study of a corporate
communication e-Platform. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1990–2010.
 theory into practice – a case example 107

Richards, L. (2005) Handling qualitative data: A practical guide.London: Sage Publica-

tions, ISBN 0-7619-4259-9
Salifu, D, Heymans, Y, and Christmals, C. (2022) Teaching and learning of clinical com-
petence in Ghana: Experiences of students and post-registration nurses. Healthcare,
10(3), 538. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10030538
Salmon, G. (2011) E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. 3rd Edition. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Salmon, G. (2013) E-tivities: The key to active online learning. 2nd Edition. London and
New York, NY: Routledge.
Savin-Baden, M, Gourlay, L, Tombs, C, Steils, N, Tombs, G, and Mawer, M. (2010)
Situating pedagogies, positions and practices in immersive virtual worlds. Journal of
Educational Research, 52(2), 123–133.
Shirley, M, Bruck, M, Patton, E, Bowers, D, and Watts, P. (2022) COVID-19 telehealth
fair partnership for capacity building in primary care nursing. Nursing Administra-
tion Quarterly, 46(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000517
Taylor, L. (2020a) Occupational Therapy virtual practice placement case study. Health
Education England website. Available at: https://www.hee.nhs.uk/our-work/
allied-health-professions/occupational-therapy-virtual-practice-placement
Taylor, L. (2020b) An employability roadmap for placements. Health Education England.
Available at: https://www.hee.nhs.uk/our-work/allied-health-professions/helping-
ensure-essential-supply-ahps/employability-roadmap-placements
Taylor, C, Angel, L, Nyanga, L, and Dickson, C. (2016) The process and challenges of
obtaining and sustaining clinical placements for nursing and allied health stu-
dents. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(19–20), 3088–3110. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jocn.13658
Taylor, L, and Salmon, G. (2021) Enhancing peer learning through online placements for
health and social care professions. International Journal of Practice-Based Learning in
Health and Social Care, 9(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.18552/ijpblhsc.v9i2.723
 9
Workbook – Reflection,
consolidation, design and delivery
of an online work-based learning
placement

Introduction
Asking yourself the questions of what?, why?, when?, how?, where? and
who? is a good basis for designing and delivering robust and quality
learning opportunities. This workbook chapter takes the theory from
the previous chapters in this book and applies it into reflective ques-
tions and practical activities for you to engage with, to consolidate your
learning. Engaging with the information in this workbook chapter
should provide a theory practice link for you considering the design
and delivery principles of a robust, comprehensive and evidence-based
online work-based learning (WBL) placement experience such as
the Peer Enhanced e-Placement (PEEP) model. In completing this
information – you will also have the key information that you will need
to share with your key WBL stakeholders with whom you will collab-
orate with.

Before you start

Personal reflection
Before you begin to plan your WBL placement, you need to reflect and
ascertain where you are on your own learning relating to the principles
of design and delivery presented in this book. Use the table below to

108 DOI: 10.4324/9781003315872-9

 WORKBOOK – REFLECTION, CONSOLIDATION, DESIGN 109

Areas covered in the book Your knowledge and understanding rating

(with the main chapter where this area is covered) Confident Not confident
Work based learning rationale – Chapter 1
Online learning principles – Chapter 2
Employability resources – Chapter 3
Peer learning pedagogy – Chapter 4
Reflection rationale and principles – Chapter 5
Constructing learning outcomes – Chapter 6
Assessment literacy – Chapter 6
Feedback literacy – Chapter 7
Supervision processes – Chapter 7
Constructivism approach to learning
Universal design principles

Figure 9.1  Knowledge and understanding rating

rate yourself in the key elements of online WBL placement design and
delivery. Take some time to reflect on your rating of your knowledge and
understanding on the key areas of WBL placement design and consider
any further learning needs that you may have (Figure 9.1).
Any areas that you have rated not confident, it may be worth revisiting
the relevant chapters and references, or locate relevant information on
specific pages via the index at the back of the book, to build your confi-
dence and knowledge in these identified areas.

Rationale
What is your rationale for the online WBL placement? How will you
link it to the current curriculum provision? Are there any intended or
unintended consequences that may arise in addition to the student learn-
ing from the WBL?

Current WBL provision

It would be useful to conduct a mapping exercise on your current curric-
ulum provision, to identify gaps in the provision relating to employability
and WBL. This exercise will give you the opportunity to establish the
knowledge and understanding your students already have, and what they
need to develop through the WBL placement learning outcomes. Explore
the interdisciplinary WBL placement opportunities at your organisation,
to develop the key generic employability resources identified by employ-
ers for graduates to evidence.
110 WORKBOOK – REFLECTION, CONSOLIDATION, DESIGN

Strengths Weaknesses

What are the strengths of existing What are the weaknesses of existing
employer relations for online WBL? employer relations for online WBL?

Opportunities Threats

What opportunities exist to develop What are the threats to developing

relations with employers for online WBL? relations with employers for online WBL?

Figure 9.2  SWOT analysis on current employer links

Existing partnerships
Consider the existing links that you have with employers and those links
that you may like to develop further. Who is going to be key for your stu-
dents to build networks with through their WBL experience? Complete
a Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis on
your current employer links. What needs to be addressed to enable them
to be a stakeholder? (Figure 9.2)
When you have decided the employer/s you will collaborate with you
need to introduce them to the concept of online peer group WBL place-
ments. How do you think you will best facilitate this introduction and
understanding of the WBL model that may be different to their previous
experiences? How will you sell the concept with them to get them on
board? Write the key messages that you want to convey to the employer.

Design
Below are questions to consider linked to the evidence presented in the
chapters in this book, to support the design considerations of a quality
and robust pedagogical peer group online WBL placement.

Planning
• What co-creation opportunities are there for you between stu-
dents, supervisors, employers and HE organisations?
• What local barriers may there be to implementing a robust design
and delivery, and how can these be mitigated?
• What access to technology do you have to provide the plat-
form for the learning environment? Do you have existing virtual
 WORKBOOK – REFLECTION, CONSOLIDATION, DESIGN 111

learning environments/learning management systems that stu-

dents can already access? How can you maximise accessibility to
the online learning for students?
• Where in the course does the online WBL placement best fit, to pro-
vide a theory/practice link for their employability learning journeys?

Personnel
• Who are the stakeholders – students, HEI academics/careers
advisors, or employers?
• Are the stakeholders aware of the design and delivery principles?
Consider the change in culture or threshold concepts that may
need to be supported for some individuals. How will you facilitate
this change?
• What roles will each of the stakeholders fulfil?
• What responsibilities will each stakeholder have?
• How are you going to make the roles and responsibilities clear to
all involved?
• What are the ground rules for all involved? How will these be
made clear to all stakeholders?
• How are you going to support positive relationships between
employer, student, supervisor and HE staff ?
• What networking opportunities can be maximised for students?
• Who will provide supervision for the students? How will the
supervisors be briefed about the supervision framework and pro-
cess? What supervision principles will be important to consider
for your supervisors and students?
• How can you build HE and employer relations through collabora-
tive design and delivery?
• How will you support a student-centric approach to learning?
• What processes will you put into place to manage the expectations
of students, supervisors, employers and HE institutes?

Learning journey structure and pedagogy

• How will you structure delivery to ensure sufficient introduction
and induction?
• How will you apply social constructivism to frame the learning
environment?
112 WORKBOOK – REFLECTION, CONSOLIDATION, DESIGN

• How will you support a student agency and student-centric ethos?

• What are the key authentic learning outcomes relevant for your
students at their stage of learning? Take the information from
your earlier gap analysis of your curriculum to inform the genera-
tion of relevant and authentic learning outcomes.
• What storyboarding principles will you apply to the design of the
learning journey structure?
• How will learning contracts be generated by the students?
• How will the individual learning contract goals be supported
alongside the generic learning outcomes?
• How will the learning contract goals be confirmed and monitored?
• How will you build and progress the learning opportunities for
the students through pacing and scaffolding, using the learning
environment, content and structure?
• How are you going to ensure all stakeholders can demonstrate and
apply feedback literacy?
• Which models of reflection do you think would work best for
your students? How will you support the process of reflection for
students?
• Which reflective tools can you build into the learning structure?
• What principles of group formation will you implement? How
will you allocate the groups and monitor the group dynamics?
• How will group formation and dynamics be supported through
the learning environment?
• How will peer group learning be built into the design?
• What team roles and support will you integrate into the groups?
• What planned cooperative and collaborative learning opportuni-
ties can you build into the WBL structure?
• What challenges may you need to manage to achieve the optimum
group size of 6–8 students in each group?

Universal design principles

• How are you going to make sure that you embed the univer-
sal design principles to provide as many means as possible from
the learning guidelines to support the learning for all students?
(https://udlguidelines.cast.org/)
 WORKBOOK – REFLECTION, CONSOLIDATION, DESIGN 113

• Consider the key elements of universal design principles and how

these will be applied into the design and delivery of your WBL.
What resources will you develop to support all learners?
• How can the functionality of the online delivery maximise the
accessibility and inclusivity of the information and learning?

Content
• How long will the WBL placement be?
• What prior knowledge do students have relevant to the WBL
context?
• What employability resources can be supported and developed
during the WBL experience?
• How will an individualised approach to employability be imple-
mented incorporating both hard and soft skills?
• Do you have priority employability resources that you would like
to focus on?
• What activities will best support the learning for your students?
• What quality assurance mechanisms will you build into the con-
tent of the WBL?
• What structures/logistics need to be considered/planned for the
delivery of the WBL content?
• Will you adopt a particular model of employability to guide the
content of your WBL? If so, what will this be and why?
• How will the content of the WBL support evaluative judgment
and self-efficacy for students?
• How will you ensure that there is adequate time within the time-
table structure to support reflection and consolidation of learning?
• How will you build time for regular feedback processes into the
timetable?
• Structure – what is going to be an appropriate structure of the
timetable for the WBL to implement the key online content and
support the pedagogical journey for your students with both indi-
vidual and peer group learning?
• Can you build in any networking or opportunities for students to
liaise with wider team members to facilitate their pre-professional
identities?
114 WORKBOOK – REFLECTION, CONSOLIDATION, DESIGN

Assessment
• How will you design your assessment processes so that they adopt
the assessment to learn principles rather than assessing learning/
what is taught?
• What modes of assessment best support the learning outcomes for
your WBL placement?
• How can repeated formative and overall summative assessments
be built into your WBL placement design to support the learn-
ing journey of the students from day one to the end of the WBL
placement experience and beyond?
• How can you make your assessment methods authentic to the
workplace context?
• What formative assessment planning is needed to support an iter-
ative process of learning?
• What summative assessment would be appropriate to enable the
link between the WBL placement learning and the HE curricu-
lum? Would this enable inclusion of the WBL experience within
the overall marks for their academic qualifications?

Support, supervision and feedback

• How will you facilitate the students feeling supported during their
learning?
• How will peer groups be explicitly encouraged to support each
other?
• What feedback and feed forward planning/structures will be built
into your WBL placement?
• Who will provide feedback to the students?
• When will feedback be provided to students?
• How will a range of modes of feedback be provided to the stu-
dents? eg dialogue feedback, directive feedback, facilitative feed-
back, video feedback etc.
• How will feedback literacy be supported and made explicit for all
stakeholders?
• How will the students record their learning from feedback as they
progress through their WBL placement?
• Can you build in structured peer observation and feedback, to
support student criticality and learning from each other?
 WORKBOOK – REFLECTION, CONSOLIDATION, DESIGN 115

• What mechanisms will you put into place to increase engagement

with feedback?
• What record of supervision will you keep? How will this record
link with the WBL placement learning outcomes and learning
contract goals?
• How often will you provide group and individual supervision for
students and why? What guidance will you give to the supervisors
and supervisees for this process?
• Do you need to adapt any existing WBL placement paperwork or
processes for the online delivery of feedback?
• How could you apply the principles of the 4 × 4 × 4 model of
supervision (Wonnacott, 2012) within your WBL placement?
• How will you plan to support and develop student self-efficacy/
agency/capital?

Delivery
Support
• How will you deal with any problems that are identified within
the groups or between stakeholders during the WBL placement
delivery? What processes will you have in place to mitigate any
potential issues? What mechanisms will you put into place to deal
with any issues that do arise?
• What information technology support may you need during the
delivery of the WBL placement?

Review
• What structures/logistics need to be monitored and reviewed?
• How will you maximise potential ad hoc collaborative and
co-operative learning opportunities that arise?
• What external influences may impact on student learning within
the WBL experience that needs to be monitored and managed?
• What formal review mechanisms will you put into place to eval-
uate the design and delivery of the WBL for all involved during,
and at the end of the WBL placement?
• How will group formation and dynamics support be implemented
eg any whistleblowing that may need to be managed and followed
up in the case of any problems?
116 WORKBOOK – REFLECTION, CONSOLIDATION, DESIGN

• How will the feed forward and mechanisms for the ongoing learn-
ing be supported?

E-portfolio
The e-portfolio is a valuable document to give students the structure and
prompts to evidence their progression towards their learning outcomes.
Within the e-portfolio, it is useful to also have wider handbook type
information for students – to provide the context, structure and logistics
of the placement. The suggested content for an e-portfolio is listed below.

• Introduction to online peer group WBL placements

• Full description of the placement
• Group allocation and supervisor/employer/educator names and
contact details
• Weekly content themes/activities
• Placement learning outcomes
• Individual learning contract template
• Assessments – formative assessment details and summative assess-
ment details
• Weekly timetables
• Feedback templates
• WBL placement evaluation information

Conclusion
The content of this chapter demonstrates the complexity and importance
of the design process of learning, with every part impacting on the poten-
tial of the overall learning experience for students. However, a compre-
hensive and robust design is crucial to provide a quality experience and to
maximise the engagement and learning for students, so that the delivery
of the WBL placement offers students the maximum chance to fulfil
their learning potential.

Reference
Wonnacott, J. (2012) Mastering social work supervision. London: Jessica Kingsley.
 Index

accessible/accessibility 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 18, 29, employability 1–5, 9–13, 28–42, 44, 50,

84, 98, 111, 113 54, 55, 57, 61, 63–66, 68, 70, 75, 76, 86,
agency 29–31, 35, 38, 54, 57, 67, 79, 80, 96–97, 100, 106, 107, 109, 111, 113
82, 85, 91, 100, 112, 115 equality 6
assessments 4, 6, 7, 11, 35, 51, 55, 57, 66, equity 6, 12
67, 69, 70–76, 79, 80, 82, 97–98, 109, equivalence 2, 8, 22, 94, 98, 102, 105
114, 116 evaluative judgement 44, 52, 73, 78, 84,
authentic learning 2, 11, 32, 40, 51, 57, 67, 87, 89, 113
68, 76, 112
feedback 7, 9, 12, 16, 20, 21, 24, 35, 41,
capital 2, 29, 30, 42, 60, 115 44, 45, 52, 55, 57, 61, 62, 65, 67, 68,
collaboration 4, 8, 18–20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 70–74, 76–92, 94, 97–98, 100–102,
32, 34, 35, 46, 74, 100, 101, 105 105, 109, 112–116
collaborative learning 11, 15, 43, 45–46, 5-Stage model 15–25, 98–102
50–52, 77, 112
constructive alignment 4, 13, 32 inclusion 6, 7, 9, 48, 78, 114
constructivism 16, 73–74, 109, 111
co-operative learning 15, 18, 19, 43, learning outcome/s 4, 20, 22, 24, 32, 44,
45–46, 50, 51, 82, 83, 100–101 46–48, 57, 61, 66–71, 73–75, 80, 81, 87,
critical thinking 32, 34, 44, 54, 61 93–95, 97–103, 105, 109, 112, 114, 116
literacy/literacies 7, 30, 37, 38, 52, 56, 63,
diversity 6–8, 19–21, 49, 50, 72, 81 70–71, 77, 84–87, 89–91, 109, 112, 114

117
118 

metacognition 20, 22, 26, 30, 31, 35, 39, 97, 98, 100, 101, 105, 108,
44, 45, 55, 52, 61, 62, 74, 94, 97, 105 109, 112, 113
relationships 2, 4, 34, 47, 49, 57, 85, 86,
online learning 6, 7–9, 11, 14, 15, 21–22, 88, 89, 101, 111
25–27, 33, 40, 44, 47, 67, 94, 95, 98–99, roles and responsibilities 4, 6, 8, 32, 45,
100, 102, 103, 107, 109, 111 47, 85–86, 89, 96, 111

pedagogy/pedagogies 2, 3, 8, 12, 26, 30, 33, scaffolding 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 26, 33, 36, 47,
34, 47, 48, 51, 66, 68, 75, 78, 82, 91, 94, 57, 67, 71, 112
96, 102, 106, 107, 109, 111–112, 113 self-efficacy 5, 35–36, 44, 55, 67, 71, 74,
Peer Enhanced e-Placement (PEEP) 21, 75, 82, 97, 100, 113, 115
93–106, 108 social constructivist/social
peer group learning 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, constructivism 16, 29, 36, 61, 73,
30, 31, 35, 36, 43–50, 56, 58, 60, 67, 68, 77, 82, 99, 111
72, 74, 81, 87, 88, 94–96, 99, 100, 104, storyboarding 15, 24, 25, 27, 99, 112
109, 112, 113 student-centric 3, 4, 8, 45, 57, 68, 82, 85,
portfolio/s 30, 33, 37, 41, 61–62, 65, 73, 100, 111, 112
97, 98, 101, 116; diaries 23, 62, 73; supervision 11, 15, 45, 74, 77, 81, 85,
journals 62, 73; logs 62 87–92, 97, 101, 109, 111, 114–116

quality 2, 3, 5–6, 8, 9, 13–15, 22, 28, 33, 52, theory practice link 6, 32, 54, 59, 61,
64, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73, 75, 78, 81, 83, 86, 68, 108
88, 89, 94, 103, 106, 108, 110, 113, 116
universal design 7, 9, 10, 12, 67, 74, 109,
reflection 5, 7, 22, 23, 29, 30, 33, 35, 38, 112–113
41, 44, 49, 50, 53, 54–65, 67, 72,
74, 77, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 91, 94, work readiness 4, 5, 28, 68