1 / 10

The role of collaborative policy development in progressing the UTAS WIL agenda

The role of collaborative policy development in progressing the UTAS WIL agenda. Brigid Freeman Dr Natalie Brown Mike Spurr TEACHING MATTERS CONFERENCE, 23 RD NOVEMBER 2011. Development of WIL Policy. http://dalchwellness.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/pebbles_in_row.jpg.

evelyn
Download Presentation

The role of collaborative policy development in progressing the UTAS WIL agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The role of collaborative policy development in progressing the UTAS WIL agenda Brigid Freeman Dr Natalie Brown Mike Spurr TEACHING MATTERS CONFERENCE, 23RD NOVEMBER 2011

  2. Development of WIL Policy http://dalchwellness.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/pebbles_in_row.jpg

  3. Literature – Work Integrated Learning • Participation targets • Social inclusion targets • Regulation • Academic standards • Massification • Diversification • Industry responsiveness • Variety of definitions and objectives • Vocationalisation

  4. Literature - Policy process Australian Policy Cycle, Bridgman and Davis, 1998

  5. Questions • What is the University of Tasmania’s position regarding WIL? • How should these guiding principles be reflected in formal policy documentation? http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcobellucci/3534516458/

  6. Method • Policy Delegate (Mike Spurr) • University Policy Development Cycle • WIL Working Party • WIL Reference Group • Literature review • Policy benchmarking • WIL Provocations Symposium • WIL Discussion Forums • Consultations and informal interviews • Collegial decision making • Approval (May, 2011)

  7. Results – Benchmarking • WIL as strategic point of differentiation (participation, provision, workplace assessment) • WIL as whole-of-university pedagogy • Range of definitions and nomenclature • Consistent key characteristics • Obligations – preparatory, placement, post-placement • Related policy questions http://gighive.com/the-buzz/tag/stand-out/

  8. Results – Provocations Symposium, Discussion Forum & Consultations • Range of disciplinary offerings • Local level, joint and central responsibilities • ‘Good practice principles’ • Minimum academic standards • Baseline obligations • Accreditation and regulatory authorities drive arrangements • Local requirements or peculiarities • Policy provisions – current practice and ‘stretch’ http://patrickcwalsh.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/lightbulbs_faith_goble.jpg

  9. Discussion • WIL curriculum, co-ordination, delivery, assessment and evaluation  • Shaping policy can shape principles of practice • Tensions in reconciling umbrella principles and local/disciplinary requirements • Self-perpetuating (policy questions) • Participation of academics in policy development is essential http://gighive.com/the-buzz/tag/stand-out/ I see what you mean at http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/701/images/images/DOCA_bluebear2.jpg

  10. Conclusion • Paper explored a policy process case study • Lessons learned can inform implementation of the University Policy Development Cycle • Consideration of UTAS policy platform for WIL and implementation in coming years http://gighive.com/the-buzz/tag/stand-out/ I see what you mean at http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/701/images/images/DOCA_bluebear2.jpg http://ipadwallpaper.org/wallpapers/tree-at-the-end-of-the-road-1024x1024.jpg

More Related