Reconciling work-integrated learning assessment: A collaborative employer–coordinator approach

Abstract

Work-integrated learning is vital for graduate employability, yet assessment is often compromised by misaligned academic and industry expectations. A gap existed between advocating for collaboration in the literature and implementing it in practice to reconcile differing notions of valid evidence. This study aimed to identify key themes from collaborations between employers and module coordinators in designing work-integrated learning (WIL) assessments, to develop a framework that reconciles academic and workplace validity. The research was conducted within a diploma WIL programme at a South African University of Technology (UoT). A qualitative action research design was employed, comprising semi-structured interviews with seven module coordinators and 21 employers. Data were analysed thematically, guided by an integrated theoretical framework that drew on Activity, Stakeholder and Constructivist theories. Analysis revealed a surface-level consensus masking a deep ‘validity schism’, with coordinators prioritising academic construct validity while employers emphasised verifiable workplace performance. Despite this, both groups shared a vision for a digitally enhanced, communication-rich assessment system. Effective WIL assessment was reconceptualised as a managed negotiation between validity cultures, necessitating a co-designed, evidence-based framework as essential to cultivating work-ready graduates.

Contribution: This study addressed a theoretical and practical gap by modelling the ‘validity schism’ and proposing the Integrated, Reflective, and Evidence-Based (IREB) WIL assessment framework. It advanced scholarship by framing collaboration as an epistemological negotiation and offered actionable insights to align assessment and improve graduate employability.