STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

2018, VOL. 43, NO. 7, 1279–1294

https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1250073

Augmenting higher education students’ work experiences:

preferred purposes and processes
Stephen Billett, Melissa Cain and Anh Hai Le
School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Higher education students are increasingly engaging in work experiences, Work-integrated learning;
often directed towards enriching their study and promoting employability. post-practicum; higher
Considerable institutional and personal resources are directed towards education; health;
these experiences. It is important, therefore, to identify how to utilise employability
them in achieving particular educational purposes. An earlier study
found the optimum time for educational interventions is after students
had completed work experiences, as they can share, compare and
engage critically with those experiences. As these interventions are
premised on student engagement, it is important to understand: (i) the
reasons why and (ii) means by which they prefer particular
interventions. This paper discusses the findings of a survey of higher
education students from healthcare disciplines that sought to address
those two issues. Students reported a preference for processes assisting
them gauge and further develop their occupational capacities and
readiness to secure employment and practice effectively once
employed. Those interventions led, facilitated or guided by teachers or
experts (i.e. clinicians), were preferred over student-organised and led
ones. These students place lower value on peer assistance and feedback.
This finding contradicts recent literature indicating being assessed by
peers is greatly valued. It is these findings and discussions that are
elaborated here.

Augmenting higher education students’ workplace experiences

A common feature of contemporary higher education is the inclusion of work experiences either
directly in students’ programmes of study or as a requirement accompanying them. The provision
of these experiences is usually directed towards enriching those programmes by engaging students
in associated fields of occupational practice, and, developing the capacities likely to influence
employability on graduation. So, there are important and overlapping educational and employment
imperatives driving the provision of these experiences. Securing the provisions of work experiences
requires the deployment of considerable institutional and personal resources. Universities often have
to identify and secure placement opportunities through engaging with private and public sector
institutions that provide these experiences in a variety of ways, durations and kinds of engagements.
In some instances, higher education institutions fund these placements as part of course provisions.
In others, the task is to locate and organise these experiences and monitor students’ progress within
them. Equally, private and public sector workplaces expend resources in providing these experiences
and, in different ways and degrees, monitor, guide and supervise students during their work experi-
ence. Students also make investments in time and effort to engage in these work experiences, some

CONTACT Melissa Cain m.cain@griffith.edu.au School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University,
176 Messines Ridge Rd, Mt Gravatt, QLD 4122, Australia
© 2016 Society for Research into Higher Education
1280 S. BILLETT ET AL.

of which is in addition to the normal expectations of a study load. This use of that time might come at
a cost to paid part-time work, family or social contacts and can also attract costs in attending work-
places. In some disciplines, the onus is on the students to identify work experience opportunities and
make arrangements for placements. For some students, such as International students or those unfa-
miliar with workplace practices, this task presents challenges associated with securing access to and
participating effectively in those placements.
Given the potential benefits of these experiences and the investment of personal and institutional
resources to engage in them, it is important to identify how to effectively utilise and promote their
educational worth. An earlier study (Billett 2015) indicated that important and timely educational pro-
cesses needed to be enacted before and during work experiences, but the optimum point of engage-
ment is after students have had some work experiences. These interventions provided bases for
students to share, compare and critically consider what they have experienced and address impor-
tant educational goals associated with the development of occupational knowledge. As these edu-
cational interventions are ultimately premised on students’ experiences and engagement, it is
important to understand something of what motivates students to engage in such experiences
and in what ways.
This paper reports and discusses the findings of a survey of higher education students in health-
care disciplines that sought to address those two topics (i.e. what are these students’ preferred edu-
cational purposes and processes). What is reported and advanced here is that students had clear
preferences for processes that assisted them gauge and further develop their nascent occupational
capacities and readiness to secure employment and practice effectively. Whilst not surprising, these
concerns predominated in the kinds of purposes they wanted to achieve that extends critiques of the
experiences currently being provided. In terms of preferred processes, those that were led, facilitated
or guided by teachers or experts (i.e. clinicians) were preferred over student-organised and led pro-
cesses. In this way, there was considerable alignment between purposes and preferred post-practi-
cum processes. Yet, these students place low value on peer assistance and feedback. This finding
indicates a lack of confidence in their ability to judge the quality of their peers’ work, and contradicts
most recent literature on the value and role of peer assessment. In particular, students greatly value
their peers’ advice and that peer assessment assists to develop important self-evaluation strategies,
and a wide range of skills that can be transferred to future employment (Majdoddin 2010; Sambell,
McDowell, and Brown 1997; Vu and Dall’Alba 2007). It is these findings and the discussion that are
elaborated here.
In making its case, the paper first elaborates the rationale for focusing on post-practicum edu-
cational interventions. It then notes how the available literature provides little guidance in terms
of the purposes of or the means of progressing with post-practicum interventions. Then, the
approach to undertaking the inquiries is outlined followed by the presentation and discussion of
the survey data, including its implications for the provision of post-practicum experiences in contem-
porary higher education.

Focusing on post-workplace experiences

There are at least four bases from which to consider the worth of post-practicum educational inter-
ventions. Firstly, long-standing practices in higher education highlight the significant worth of these
experiences in generating key educational outcomes through students drawing on their work experi-
ences (Cooke, Irby, and O’Brien 2010; Grubb and Badway 1998). What these experiences often
provide is direct engagement in the kinds of settings where students’ intended occupations are prac-
tised and they can engage authentically in occupational activities and interactions; that is, using these
experiences to assist them develop the understandings, capacities and values required for employ-
ment in their preferred occupations and promoting readiness to practice them. For instance, as work-
places have diverse requirements for occupational performance (Billett 2001), it is not possible to
develop students’ understanding of those diverse requirements, without experiencing, sharing and
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1281

elaborating them. Students’ awareness of and knowledge about different workplace requirements
are likely to be helpful when supporting their transitions into occupational practice and initial work-
place performance upon graduation. Given work experiences are now widely provided for and
engaged with by higher education students across a range of countries, it becomes important to
find ways of optimising the learning potential of these experiences. Consequently, there is an edu-
cational imperative to: (i) optimise students’ practicum or work experiences, (ii) augment their experi-
ences and learning; (iii) realise specific outcomes through those experiences and, given their
variability and (iv) mediate the quality and kind of those experiences.
Secondly, evidence of ways to optimise these experiences emerged from an earlier teaching and
learning fellowship (Billett 2015). Comprising 20 teaching projects, this fellowship focussed on pro-
cesses for and outcomes of integrating students’ experiences in work and university settings
across a range of occupational fields. Key findings included how students’ learning could be sup-
ported by educational interventions before, during and after their work experiences. However, aug-
menting learning after students had completed their practicums stood out as being of particular
educational worth and potency. Having had those experiences provided bases for students to criti-
cally appraise, evaluate and compare with those of others. Incidents occurring during practicums
made students’ deliberations about them potentially pedagogically-rich as they were authentic,
and comprehensible to and comparable for the students. These experiences had the potential to
provide strongly contextualised outcomes that are pertinent to their intended occupational practice
and likely highly recallable. This is because these kinds of experiences are richly indexed and provide
bases for their subsequent recall and utilisation. So, importantly, drawing on, elaborating, contrasting
and comparing what they had experienced pressed students into roles as active, interdependently
critical learners, through post-practicum interventions.
Thirdly, as noted, the requirements for employability are not uniform. Occupational-specific
employability requires understandings, procedures and values associated with students’ selected
occupations and their manifestations in particular workplace settings (Henderson and Alexander
2011; Newton et al. 2009; O’Keefe, McAllister, and Stupans 2011). Hence, opportunities for comparing
work experiences can develop understandings and practices that can assist students adapt what they
know to novel contexts, such as subsequent practicums and/or transfer to employment (Solomon
1999). As neither students, nor their teachers, know where they will ultimately secure employment
or the specific requirements of those work settings, capacities that include openness to variations
of performance are important for making effective transitions to work. Having some understandings
of the diversity of workplace requirements likely makes the adaption to their employment being
‘near’ (i.e. easy to adapt to) rather than ‘far’ (i.e. difficult to adapt to) (Perkins and Salomon 1988)
and, more realisable (Royer 1979; Royer, Mestre, and Dufresne 2005). Also, these interventions pro-
moted students’ readiness through enhancing confidence as was the case for some students in
the survey and also the mitigation of negative and unsatisfactory experiences of other students
(Billett 2015).
Fourthly, occurring in settings beyond the control of higher education institutions, the kinds and
quality of students’ work experiences cannot be assured. Consequently, post-practicum interventions
are important to mediate those experiences in some ways as directed towards occupational compe-
tence. These kinds of outcomes are most likely achieved where there is a tradition of supervised one-
to-one placements and strong practitioner knowledge of educational goals, such as in healthcare and
education. Yet, many work experience placements being accessed by students appear to lack such
support as supervisors are often unaware of or uninterested in educational requirements. Hence,
mediation of these experiences through educational interventions is often warranted and necessary.
This is particularly the case when the risks of misalignment of outcomes are high and work experi-
ences might be described as unorganised and ad hoc. For instance, some students’ work experiences
were premised on gendered workplace practices. Yet, regardless, even the most organised and
supervised of placements can generate a range of unanticipated experiences and potentially nega-
tive learning outcomes (Filliettaz 2014; Molloy and Keating 2011; Newton et al. 2009) that warrant
1282 S. BILLETT ET AL.

mediation by educators. So, to secure the intended learning outcomes, or ameliorate negative or
inappropriate experiences, mediation through educational processes is essential, yet is often
absent in many university programmes with practicums.
These factors suggest that post-practicum interventions are rendered worthy through their realis-
ation of four educational outcomes: (i) transformation of practice experience into adaptable occu-
pational knowledge through consolidation of those experiences; (ii) reconciling and aligning that
learning with students’ educational programmes’ objectives; (iii) sharing, comparing and critically
appraising those experiences and learning across student cohorts in productive ways and (iv) redres-
sing difficult, unhelpful or confronting learning experiences and optimising the worth of those experi-
ences. In some ways, this focus on post-practicum experiences re-engages, rehearses and hopefully
reinvigorates the concept and practices of the co-op seminar introduced into the US tertiary edu-
cation institutions in the 1920s (Grubb and Badway 1998). Those seminars assisted students returning
from internships to integrate what they had experienced and learnt into their higher education pro-
grammes. Here, following that early lead the concern is to identify what group or individual processes
can be enacted to realise learning outcomes associated with occupations and graduate employabil-
ity. In addition, the focus is very much upon student engagement in these activities and how they can
meet their needs and preferred ways of engaging with their experiences. Some initial considerations
of these issues were identified through the literature.

Post-practicum experiences
The importance of engaging with students after the completion of their practicums has also been
elaborated by a number of studies indicating that securing feedback from students, academics
and industry professionals provides useful kinds of interventions. However, the advice about post-
practicum interventions in contemporary literature is quite limited. What is advanced in that literature
is largely restricted to two themes. Firstly, work placements are highly valued by students for linking
propositional occupational knowledge taught in education settings, with the requirements for prac-
tice, and also playing vital roles in assisting students meet graduate outcomes and industry stan-
dards. Secondly, there are themes associated with reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action by
students in which workplace experiences are the vehicle for those engagements and decision-
making about practice. These themes are broadly aligned with the factors identified earlier – (i)
the need to transformation students’ experiences into adaptable occupational knowledge, (ii) to
reconcile and align that learning with students’ educational programmes’ objectives; and (iii)
sharing, comparing and critically appraising those experiences initiates ways to redress difficult or
confronting learning experiences and capitalise on their educational worth.
Several studies identify the importance and value of students reflecting on their work experiences
both during and after practicums. Professional development logs kept by engineering students while
on work placements have been shown to be effective as an assessment tool (Doel 2008). In this case,
students were provided with purposeful scaffolding through a two-day workshop prior to their pla-
cements. Feedback on the effectiveness of the logs was secured through surveys and focus groups,
and furnished evidence that this approach encourages students to analyse incidents at a deeper
level, rather than just describing what had occurred. Post-practicum feedback from health care stu-
dents has also been found to provide a focus for students to appraise their clinical experiences in
ways that contribute to their occupational socialisation and identity (Stockhausen 2005). Evaluating
experiences through generating individual journal entries and peer debriefing sessions has been
shown to permit students to identify key learning outcomes from their clinical experiences, and clini-
cal educators are then encouraged to utilise this feedback to provide more effective learning experi-
ences (Stockhausen 2005). Such appraisals are seen as critical to professional development and
learning because carefully structured reflective tasks assist students identify links between prop-
ositional knowledge (i.e. facts, concepts and propositions) and the requirements for and actualities
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1283

of practice and reveal and address other issues that concern or challenge them (Dean and Clements
2010).
Importantly, the structure and facilitation of such appraisals must be constructively aligned with
course learning outcomes and assessment items for them to be effective. For instance, commerce
students requested to make daily eLogs as a means of appraising key areas of their placements,
viewed this task as irrelevant or a waste of time as these entries lacked alignment with assessment
tasks (Dean et al. 2012). A structured approach was recommended to reflective practice for Swedish
nursing students on the effectiveness of the clinical placement model (i.e. theoretical basis, purpose,
structure and design) (Lindgren et al. 2005). A focus on students developing critical thinking skills to
gain a deeper awareness of self and others by reflecting on specific incidences encountered in their
practicums was proposed. This practice is held to be compatible with clinical supervision processes
and that group supervision and reflection serves to support students during their placements. Post-
placement feedback from students and industry connections was also highlighted as providing a
vehicle through which to refine courses in rapidly changing areas such as information technology
(Holt, Mackay, and Smith 2004). In these ways, structured and directed efforts that press students
to actively appraise what they have experienced and when those efforts are directed to achieving
identified outcomes are most likely to be effective.
Elsewhere, findings from case studies (Macleod et al. 2011) led to interventions such as the devel-
opment of models for effective practice, and working towards providing more effective experiences
for international students. The process and outcomes of four post-work placement seminars for Chir-
opractic students completing a voluntary placement in Siliguri, India provides one example (Maire
2010). In these seminars, students shared experiences of different practices encountered whilst on
placement, made explicit links between their experiences and what was taught in classes, and chal-
lenged other students to think critically about orthodox chiropractic practices in diverse settings. In
another example, the potential impact of reflective practice as post-practicum experiences was high-
lighted by student contributions to a clinical legal education programme (Curran 2004). Through
engaging in ‘de-briefing’ sessions, students considered and appraised their learning experiences
during weekly placements within disadvantaged communities. As a result, student-initiated law
reform resulted in a positive change in these communities and also directly impacted future place-
ment experiences. Similarly, the dimensions of student workplace learning in journalism internships
were discussed (Forde and Meadows 2011). Feedback from post-placement sessions, individual inter-
views and student focus groups contributed to evaluating the relevance of content and effectiveness
of assessment, and industry partners’ perspectives about these internships. All of this prompted
refinements to the current internship model. These examples highlight the use of interventions
before, during and after practice-based experiences, as ‘workplace variability’ (i.e. vastly different indi-
vidual experiences in similar placements) was evident in student feedback and which influenced cur-
riculum design and pedagogy.
Post-practicum experiences can address short-coming of experiences in practice settings, includ-
ing the opportunity for students to share, reflect and critically appraise their experiences, as being
central to developing students’ occupational capacities. This prompted recommendations for
future intervention strategies include peer mentoring, peer teaching, to assist the development of
clinical reasoning skills and critical reflection (Nash 2012). The experiences of dentistry students
reveals a need for a stronger focus on outcomes-based programming within work placements
with all stakeholders having a clear outline about what is to be achieved (Owen and Stupans
2008). This study has recommended the development of a national repository of experiential place-
ment learning and assessment tasks, standardised developmental descriptors related to competen-
cies at several levels and the benefits of collaborative engagement to identify quality placement
success indicators (Owen and Stupans 2008). Research with practice nurses revealed a need for
further consultation and better communication with universities regarding the allocation of
student placements, as poor organisation and communication between universities and clinical facili-
ties greatly impacts the success of placements, which can be addressed through the provision of
1284 S. BILLETT ET AL.

post-practicum experiences (Peters, Halcomb, and McInnes 2013). This study also identified that
although students had completed prerequisite studies prior to their placements, they were still some-
times unable to connect the knowledge they learnt in educational institutions with the requirements
to practice and were inadequately prepared for the practical component of their placements.
Specific post-practicum feedback reported in the literature has also identified specific issues for
educational interventions. As work-integrated learning experiences are situationally, socially and cul-
turally embedded, accounts that illuminated students’ dissonance or ‘culture shock’ were evident for
both domestic and international students (Macleod et al. 2011). Students reported experiencing situ-
ations in which cultural mores were confronted which induced stress and anxiety, which could have
been addressed through post-practicum interventions. A project on health ethics education presents
an account of the challenges for students to address ethical issues associated with culturally diver-
gent approaches, beliefs and values (Fuscaldo 2013). Case studies are presented that demonstrate
how ethical principles as taught in university courses may clash with the cultural and religious
values of patients and their families. Here, post-placement engagements emphasised that Western
health ethics is not (always) cross-culturally applicable and that students need decision-making
capacities to assist them adapt ethical principles to specific cultural contexts. Hence, post-practicum
interventions can be used to mediate personal experiences to develop these kinds of capacities. The
outcomes of these activities all support post-practicum seminars as promoting greater integration
between academic and workplace settings, and effective and critical learning experiences for
students.
In sum, the literature focussing specifically on post-practicum interventions is limited in quantum
and scope. What it emphasises is the salience of having post-practicum interventions to variously
support and extend the learning from workplace experience, address limitations of those experiences
and respond to secure greater educational worth, such as making explicit links to what is being
taught in students’ courses and even critiquing the approach taken. Mentioned frequently were
appraising and comparing experiences of occupational practice, peer-based discussion and use of
logs. Strategies such as de-briefs and feedback were featured in this literature. What is noteworthy
is that many of the areas referred to in the students’ survey (see below) were not addressed in
this literature thereby exposing the limits of its scope and, therefore, its contributions. With the
exception of Forde and Meadows (2011) and Maire (2010), there was an absence of accounts of
post-practicum classroom-based activities. That is, the array of potential classroom-based activities
was largely absent in the reported studies.
Consequently, the findings of the survey reported below, which identify students’ preference for
the purpose for and enactment of those interventions stands to provide insights that are not cur-
rently available in the literature.

Surveying students’ preferences associated with post-practicum experiences

The survey instrument includes three sections. Section one comprises of 10 questions seeking partici-
pants’ demographic background. Section two consists of 11 items measuring levels of interest in
various educational purposes of post-practicum activities on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(Very interested) to 5 (Irrelevant). Section three is (i) to identify the preferences for different interven-
tions containing 16 items with a 5-point Likert scale 1 (High preference) to 5 (Would not participate),
and (ii) to rank the importance of post-practicum features via 14 items on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (Essential) to 5 (Irrelevant). Open-ended questions are also asked in sections 2 and
3 to seek further comments on educational purposes of and preferences for engaging in post-prac-
ticum activities. The survey titled ‘Post-practicum project (student survey)’ can be found online at
https://prodsurvey.rcs.griffith.edu.au/prodls190/index.php?sid = 93478&newtest = Y&lang = en.
The survey data reported here are an element of a larger project aiming to understand how best to
augment higher education students’ experiences in practice or workplace settings. It aims to achieve
this through 14 subprojects identifying, trialling and evaluating a range of educational interventions
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1285

(i.e. teaching and learning strategies) that will be implemented after students have completed prac-
ticum experiences across a range of programmes within the healthcare sector. Each subproject aims
to identify particular educational purposes and how these can be realised through specific post-prac-
ticum interventions. A particular concern for the overall project is to identify how such strategies can
be enacted without requiring significant resources by those teaching in universities. That is, to ident-
ify strategies that busy (time-jealous) university teachers can use and whose use is likely to be sus-
tained because those teachers see benefits for their students from strategies that fit within the
scope of their work. Quite intentionally, this project commences in healthcare disciplines because
of their long track record of providing and integrated practice-based experiences. As a means of
informing these subprojects, a survey was conducted to ascertain students’ perspectives on post-
practicum interventions. As noted in the review above, there is a paucity of studies on or data
about such interventions and no work to date has been identified that captures and presents
what students want from such interventions and their preferences for how they might proceed.
Hence, this gap is sought to be addressed in the survey reported here. In reporting these data, the
term practicum is used to refer to a range of workplace-based experiences which might also be
entitled clinical placements, clinical rotations or placements.

Procedures
The survey was developed iteratively through a process of suggestions from team members initially
identifying sets of items, including the range of educational purposes that such interventions could
be used to achieve, the kinds of processes that might be enacted through these interventions and
related measures of preference associated with these issues. These were trialled with a group of stu-
dents and refinements undertaken to improve comprehension of the items. For each listing of items,
informants were able to suggest their own. The survey was developed and trialled, ethical clearance
secured, and then administered across six Australian universities, each in a different state, using an
online format for gathering participants’ responses. The students were invited to participate in the
survey via an email message sent directly to them containing a link to the online survey. Their par-
ticipation is anonymous and they were advised that nobody, including those teaching them or asses-
sing their work, would be able to identify them and their responses to this survey. The survey took
between 10 and 20 minutes to complete and largely comprises ticked responses to sets of variables.
However, there was the option of making open (i.e. qualitative) responses within the list of preferred
processes and purposes. A total of 365 complete responses were obtained through this process from
health care students. The quantitative responses were then analysed using SPSS statistical package. It
is these quantitative data that are presented, findings drawn from them and discussed here.

Informants
A range of demographic information was gathered from informants: their gender, age groupings, the
disciplines in which they are enrolled, their mode of study, nationality, level of study and current year
of enrolment (see Table 1). Firstly, the participants reported being overwhelmingly female (81.1%).
This gender distribution may well reflect the large numbers of respondents indicating they were
Nursing and Midwifery students. Such a gender distribution may well represent the overall health
care workforce which is also overwhelmingly female, but is unrepresentative of the gender distri-
bution across Australian higher education. The respondents’ reported age groupings on those
used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and were well distributed, with as to be expected, a pre-
dominance of those at school leaving age through to the late 20s. However, there were reasonable
samples from each age grouping, as indicated in Table 1. This representation across age groupings
likely captures participation in higher education for both initial occupational preparation and
ongoing development as in post-graduate awards. Hence, the age groupings are held to be
broadly representative of higher education student populations.
1286 S. BILLETT ET AL.

Table 1. Demographic background of the respondents.

Variables Values N %
Gender Female 296 81.1
Male 69 18.9
Age 15–19 20 5.5
20–24 130 35.7
25–29 81 22.3
30–34 45 12.4
35–39 28 7.7
40 and over 60 16.5
Disciplines Nursing 162 44
Medicine 109 29.6
Midwifery 38 10.3
Dietetics 28 7.6
Physiotherapy 15 4.1
Pharmacy 2 0.5
Occupational therapy 5 1.4
Speech pathology 3 0.8
Education 3 0.8
Exercise science 2 0.5
Social work 1 0.3
Mode of study Full-time 337 93.4
Part-time 24 6.6
Nationality Domestic 341 95.3
International 17 4.7
Level of study Undergraduate 233 65.4
Post-graduate 123 34.6
Year of study 1st 44 12.1
2nd 99 27.2
3rd 173 47.5
4th 27 7.4
5th 21 5.8

The representation of healthcare disciplines within this cohort is quite uneven: Nursing (44%),
Medicine (29.6%) and Midwifery (10.3%), the strongest elements, followed by Dietetics (7.6%)
and Physiotherapy (4.1%). They were small numbers of respondents from Pharmacy, Occu-
pational Therapy, Speech Pathology, Education, Exercise Science and Social Work. This represen-
tation indicates that the survey data represent perspectives from some disciplines more than
others. Hence, the findings here are offering general patterns of responses that may be more
predictive of some disciplines than others. The respondents also largely represent perspectives
of those who attended higher education as those full-time students (93.4%), which is probably
consistent with students engaging in higher education post-school or to secure initial occu-
pational preparation. The informants were overwhelmingly domestic (95.3%) rather than inter-
national students. In addition, the informants were predominately (65.4%) undergraduate,
with only 34.6% reporting as post-graduate students. Moreover, these informants report cur-
rently participating in the range of year levels of study (i.e. 1–5), the majority (87.9) had com-
pleted at least one year of study. Year 3 was the mode of participation and by far the highest
year level reported by informants (47.5).
In sum, the survey respondents offer perspectives from a cohort of 365 current students enrolled
across 6 higher education institutions in 6 Australian states and from disciplines in healthcare. They
report being of both genders, representing diverse age groups and at a range of year levels in their
undergraduate and post-graduate higher education programmes. These data are considered and
analysed collectively on the basis of the responses the variables in the survey. Whilst no claims for
generalisability are made here, the size and diversity of the respondents provide a sound basis to con-
sider students’ preference for the kinds of educational purposes they want to realise through post-
practicum interventions and the form and kind of those preferences. These are what is now reported
across the following sections.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1287

Findings
Educational purposes
The survey respondents were asked to indicate their preferred reasons or educational purposes for
participating in post-practicum interventions. These purposes, listed in the left hand column of
Table 2, were generated during the development of the survey. The informants were asked to indi-
cate levels of interest in each of these purposes (i.e. Very interested; Some interest; Interest; Not inter-
ested; and Irrelevant). They were also given the option of stating other purposes and indicating a level
of interest at the end.
Table 2 presents the frequencies of responses and percentages for each of the stated purposes
and categories of interest. The data have been arranged hierarchically in this table on the basis of
highest levels of frequencies of reported Very Interested. Across the cohort of respondents, the
most frequently preferred purposes were associated with learning more about their selected occu-
pation (94.7%), including specialisms (95.5%), and how their performance within the practicum
can advise about or lead them to being employable in their selected occupation (95%). Hence, feed-
back on individual performance (94.4%), how that relates to occupational requirements (95.5%) and
learning more about the occupation (93.8%) were the purposes that these students reported as being
the strongest focus of their interest. These preferences are not surprising and are aligned with why
practice-based experiences have been included in higher education courses, that is, providing the
kinds of experiences that prepare students to move directly into productive employment beyond
graduation, and that are particularly aimed to develop applicable capacities that cannot be learnt
through experiences solely confined to educational settings. The preferences associated with
linking what had been experienced in the work setting with occupational-specific knowledge,
skills, processes and attitudes, and linking those experiences with related course requirements and
assessment, again emphasise the strong and pragmatic focus on individual student performance
and applicability of what they had learnt to success: in this case passing their courses. Dean et al.
(2012) note, such feedback must support the alignment of content knowledge, practicum experi-
ences and assessment of knowledge and skills for students to appreciate the value of the feedback
provided.
Also within the listing of purposes for these educational interventions were those associated
with improving the educational experiences for subsequent cohorts of students, which were of
less priority than those associated with students’ present concerns. The three least preferred pur-
poses were those associated with enriching the learning from specific kinds of experiences,
making informed choices about subsequent subject selection and, the lowest, an interest in learn-
ing about other students’ experiences during practicums. So, the overall preferences were

Table 2. Respondents’ preferred educational purpose.

Very Some Aggregated
interested interest Interest total
Educational purpose n % n % N % n %
Make informed choices about career, work options or specialisations 190 52.9 96 26.7 55 15.3 341 95.5
Identify how these experiences can make you more employable 180 50.3 104 29.1 55 15.4 339 95.0
Learn more about your preferred occupation 179 49.7 98 27.2 61 16.9 338 94.7
Secure feedback on your workplace experience 179 50.1 101 28.3 57 16 337 94.4
Linking what is taught at university to practice 172 47.9 113 31.5 56 15.6 341 95.5
Learn how your preferred occupation is practiced in across different 168 47.1 104 29.1 63 17.6 335 93.8
work settings
Improve the experience for the next cohort of students undertaking 150 42.4 115 32.5 70 19.8 335 93.8
practicum in that venue
Linking your work experiences with course work and assessments 150 41.7 118 32.8 65 18.1 333 93.3
Discuss experiences during placement you found 140 39.2 109 30.5 83 23.2 332 93.0
worthwhile/interesting/confronting
Make choices about selection of subsequent courses/majors 136 38.5 109 30.9 67 19 312 87.4
Learn about other students’ experiences during their practicum 110 30.6 114 31.8 103 28.7 327 91.6
1288 S. BILLETT ET AL.

associated with enhancing students’ understanding about their selected occupation, the success
of their engagement with it and how they were individually progressing towards the requirements
for effective occupational practice and its relation to successful completion of their university
courses. All of this emphasises a quite individual and personal-performance-oriented set of pur-
poses. This orientation raises concerns about on what bases students such as these informants
would be willing to collaborate, share, co-operate and otherwise engage in dialogues and pro-
cesses of comparing experiences that are likely to generate rich educational outcomes for
these students. Echoed here are sentiments associated with the time-jealous students that were
identified in an earlier study of higher education students’ participation in work integrating experi-
ences (Billett 2015).

Desired outcomes
The student respondents were also asked to indicate preferences amongst a set of desired outcomes
from the practicum experiences on a 5-point scale (i.e. Essential, Very important, Important, Not very
important and Irrelevant). Their responses are presented in Table 3 with a data ranked hierarchically
again in terms of frequencies, with the items having the highest frequency in Essential at the top of
the table and then moving down to those which are seen as being less preferred. From this data, the
most frequently desired outcomes reported were the development of capacities for coping in the
workplace (45.5%), followed by input they would receive from practising professionals as part of
their practicum experience (36.9%) and then providing feedback to the practicum site about the
kind of provided experiences (35%). So, here again, the desired outcomes are quite pragmatic in
terms of realising effective learning outcomes from their workplace experiences and feedback
from informed practitioners, and presumably because these are seen as being particularly credible
sources of advice and feedback.
As above, these kinds of preferences are well aligned with what is anticipated students will get from
their practicum experiences, and, also, are quite consonant with the findings above about concerns and
emphasis on receiving feedback about personal progress and performance as Dean and Clements
(2010) highlight. The next ordering of responses in Table 3 are those associated with elements of
the course, that is, content (33.4%), assessment (31.9%) and engagement with peers (27.7%), and
with as many perspectives as possible (23.5%) and through some kind of structured experience
(22.1%). So, these suggestions indicate a desire for structured experiences whose focus is actively
seeking to relate or integrate their experiences to the content and outcomes of their courses, their
assessment and this is to be realised through engagement with other students and their perspectives.

Table 3. Respondents’ desired outcomes.

Very Aggregated
Essential important Important total
Features n % n % N % n %
Development of coping skills for the workplace 157 45.5 105 30.4 61 17.7 323 87.5
Input from a practicing professional 127 36.9 124 36 78 22.7 329 89.2
Opportunity to provide feedback to the practicum site 121 35 118 34.1 86 24.9 325 88.1
about student experiences
Focused on course content 116 33.4 107 30.8 90 25.9 313 84.8
focussed on work activities of selected occupation 113 32.9 112 32.7 92 26.8 317 85.9
Linked to assessment items 111 31.9 107 30.7 76 21.8 294 79.7
Engaging with students at similar stages in the programme 95 27.7 111 32.4 117 34.1 323 87.5
Opportunity to share and discuss with peers 88 25.8 94 27.6 127 37.2 309 83.7
Engaging as many students’ perspectives as possible 80 23.5 105 30.8 116 34 301 81.6
Opportunity to share and engage in structured consideration 75 22.1 101 29.7 122 35.9 298 80.8
of experiences
Teacher-led and implemented 72 21 98 28.6 142 41.4 312 84.6
Engaging with students at different stages in the programme 50 14.7 97 28.5 109 32.1 256 69.4
Student-led and implemented 37 10.9 62 18.2 127 37.2 226 61.2
Engaging with students from other disciplines 30 8.7 57 16.6 84 24.5 171 46.3
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1289

Of lower levels of desirability were engaging with students at different stages in their programmes
(14.7%), and activities that are organised by students to promote learning (10.9%). Of interest, given
the context of a healthcare orientation of the respondents, there was the lowest interest in engaging
with students from other disciplines (8.7%). This particular finding is interesting given an emphasis on
inter-professional working and learning within healthcare disciplines. What it suggests is that whilst
many educators in the healthcare sector are keen to press students into working inter-professionally,
these students do not express the same interest or preference of these kinds of experiences. Coupling
these preferences with those above about focusing on individual progression and development,
suggests that students are possibly more concerned about developing their own occupational
capacities as a priority, and before, they engage with students or practitioners from other disciplines.
Of course, these analyses are just patterns across the entire cohort. Further analyses based on
cross tabulations of these two measures of educational purposes and desired outcomes, and the
occupational disciplines, plus other measures, such as year of study, for instance are needed. Yet,
some analysis undertaken across different age groupings within the nursing data, did not reveal
any significant differences in the patterning of student responses. It was anticipated that there
might be some difference given that, often, in nursing education programmes, students have
quite different backgrounds, from school and from being enrolled nurses. Yet, some analysis indi-
cated no real differences in the patterns of preferences across the age cohorts of nursing students.
Overall, what these undifferentiated data suggest is that the respondents are keen to use post-prac-
ticum experiences to understand more about their preferred occupations, and how they are progres-
sing towards being prepared adequately to participate in the work, including learning more about
the work, its variations and how this might inform their actions as students. This is consistent with
Stockhausen’s (2005) observations on the importance of assisting students to develop a professional
identity and contribute to their occupational socialisation.

Interventions
The respondents were also asked about their preferences for the timing and processes of post-prac-
ticum interventions (i.e. early in the programme, after a number of practicum experiences, towards the
end of the course or after every practicum experience). Respondents could indicate more than one pre-
ference. Table 4 presents these data, which are ordered hierarchically with those most frequently pre-
ferred being placed at the top. The strongest preference was for that to be interventions after every
practicum (58.3%) followed by a preference for early in the programme, perhaps after the first prac-
ticum (46.1%), after a number of practicum experiences (39.8%) and towards the end of the course
(25.2%). It would seem that from these responses the students would welcome interventions after
practicums, particularly at the beginning of the programme with a suggestion that these are seen
as being highly valued as students come to engage with practicum experiences, and seeking gui-
dance and feedback. So, the evidence here again suggests that these interventions are valued by
the students and they have particular views about the frequency and timing of these events. As
with other responses, this indicates that students provide an informed basis for making decisions
about the timing of focus of these interventions.
The informants’ preferences for the kinds of interventions offer patterns of responses that are con-
sistent with what has been proposed above. The students were presented with a list of possible

Table 4. Respondents’ preferred timing for post-practicum interventions.

Timing of interventions N %
After every practicum experience 215 58.3
Early in the programme, perhaps after your first practicum 170 46.1
After having had a number of practicum experiences 147 39.8
Towards the end of your course 93 25.2
1290 S. BILLETT ET AL.

interventions and requested to indicate their preference (i.e. High preference, Okay, Low preference
and, with an option to indicate they Would not participate). Table 5 presents the responses to
these options, with a measure of aggregating High preference and Okay responses. Although
ordered hierarchically based on the frequencies of respondents indicating ‘High preference’, the
columns to its right present frequencies and percentages of measures of interest. It is also worthwhile
considering measures which the respondent suggested those in which they Would not participate. In
the analyses above, the assumption has been that through ranking the highest frequencies of pre-
ferences that patterns of preferred processes and outcomes could be identified. However, these
data provide a different kind of preference associated with students being resistant or reluctance
to engage in those activities. This measure is important as student engagement is essential in
such activities, regardless of whether they are peer, teacher or expert-led.
The strongest patterns of preferred interventions are those associated with small group work
being led by either teachers or placement supervisors (85.9%). The first three most frequently
stated preferences are those in which small groups of students, maximum six (81.2%) and as low
as one on one meet with either teachers or placement supervisors (74%). This preference seems
to emphasise what was proposed in Tables 2 and 3, that the student concerns are about individual
performance in the practicums and how this relates to their performance within the course and pro-
spects for positive outcomes upon graduation. Again, this is not surprising, and even the fourth and
fifth most preferred options are, respectively, one-on-one (61.7%) and in small groups (68.8%), with
an experienced student. Indeed, the seventh most preferred option is one associated with self-
managed groups working with peers (66.8%). All of these preferences appear to emphasise the
dual concerns about personalised feedback on performance and this coming from a more experi-
enced person who can provide insights as an expert. There is then a considerable gap to the next
set of preferred responses. Across these options, peer-organised or led processes are generally far
less well supported, and also generate the highest frequency of reluctance by these informants.
Those responses associated with Would not participate offered a similar pattern, with ‘online with
peers’ (114 accounting for 33.5%); ‘on-line moderated by tutor’ (107–31.5%); ‘something students
should organise’ (105–31%); ‘presentations to peers’ (99–28.6%) and ‘as part of scheduled classes’
(24–7%) indicating interventions that would meet with high levels of reluctance, when taken as
being reported by at least 25% of the respondents in Table 5.
Overall, the data across the entire cohort indicate that interventions in small groups led by the
person in authority/standing, but outside of student group stand as being the most highly preferred
options by these students, which is analogous to what Lundgren claims but divergent to Nash’s
(2012) recommendations for the inclusion of peer mentoring activities to deepen critical analysis
of learning incidents. This is also consistent with the findings about students wanting feedback
from that practicum from either a teacher or a workplace supervisor.
Hence, assumptions about students needing and wanting to engage in peer-led and directed pro-
cesses in which they can develop critical and collective procedures for interdependent learning and
development are far from upheld here. Instead, collectively, students across genders, age groupings
from across a range of healthcare disciplines express a preference for engagement and feedback pro-
cesses that are largely mediated by another and more experienced counterpart (i.e. teacher, tutor,
practicum supervisor or experienced student). As has been mentioned, this preference may not be
surprising for novices learning from experiences which are new and potentially confronting for
them and looking for feedback, possibly recognition and endorsement, about their performance
and from an authoritative source. Of course there are real implications here for education provisions.
However, meeting such needs and preferences are intensely resource demanding and would have
difficulty being sustained within resource jealous higher education environments and by time-
jealous teachers. This then, leads to considerations about how such provisions might be afforded.
Perhaps as the most strongly supported preference such interventions would occur after every prac-
ticum, this might have to be moderated to occur, perhaps, after the first practicum and periodically
from that time forward.
Table 5. Respondents’ preferred kind of interventions.
Aggregation Would not
(HPref + Okay High preference Okay Low preference participate Total
Intervention n % n % n % n % n % n
Small groups (3–6 students) facilitated by teachers/tutors 299 85.9 184 52.9 115 33 38 10.9 11 3.2 348
Small groups (3–6 students) meeting periodically facilitated 280 81.2 154 44.6 126 36.5 54 15.7 11 3.2 345
by placement supervisor
One-on-one with teacher 259 74.0 146 41.7 113 32.3 79 22.6 12 3.4 350
One-on-one with a more experienced student 261 75.7 106 30.7 155 44.9 65 18.8 19 5.5 345
Small groups (3–6 students) facilitated by more 238 68.8 106 30.6 132 38.2 75 21.7 33 9.5 346
experienced students
Shared classroom-based group activities 219 63.7 104 30.2 115 33.4 93 27 32 9.3 344
Small self-managed groups (3–6 peers) across your course 231 66.8 90 26 141 40.8 84 24.3 31 9 346
Individually completed activity with feedback from teachers 198 57.9 89 26 109 31.9 112 32.7 32 9.4 342
One-on-one with a peer (another student) 214 61.7 68 19.6 146 42.1 97 28 36 10.4 347
As part of usual scheduled class activities 216 63.3 66 19.4 150 44 101 29.6 24 7 341
A special event each semester 169 49.6 48 14.1 121 35.5 130 38.1 42 12.3 341

STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Whole of class activities (i.e. large group processes 137 40.4 38 11.2 99 29.2 132 38.9 70 20.6 339
10–100 students)
On-line moderated by tutor 108 31.8 33 9.7 75 22.1 125 36.8 107 31.5 340
On-line with peers 95 27.9 27 7.9 68 20 131 38.5 114 33.5 340
Presentations to peers 101 29.2 23 6.6 78 22.5 146 42.2 99 28.6 346
Something students should organise 82 24.2 19 5.6 63 18.6 152 44.8 105 31 339

1291
1292 S. BILLETT ET AL.

Discussion: augmenting students’ post-practicum experiences

It is evident from the review of literature and the survey data discussed here that there is a need for
processes to augment students’ experience in practicums through educational interventions, the
most preferred timing for those interventions being after every practicum experience. The survey
data indicate that students view these interventions as having potential to support their learning
and, in particular, provide feedback on those experiences. To a lesser degree, post-practicum inter-
ventions are bases through which students can share those experiences and debrief with other stu-
dents. Beyond timeliness, the key finding is that students, not surprisingly, want to engage with
authoritative others to secure feedback, guidance and, perhaps, reassurance about that performance
during the practicum experiences. They also have an interest to be guided by others about connect-
ing what they have learnt to securing employment in their selected field upon graduation. All of these
preferences are well aligned with the kinds of reasons that practicums have become a common
feature of a variety of higher education programmes. Although the data gathered here are from a
sector which has a long tradition of practicum experiences and students would have expectations
about them, the evidence suggests the importance of not only providing such experiences, but
then finding means to augment, enrich and support the learning from those experiences after
their completion. Hence, students are seeking guidance and feedback, rather than merely being
taught. They want an appraisal of their experiences, clarifications and comparisons, it would seem,
and these are all indicative of not only means to reconcile and mediate what they have experienced
and make links back to their courses, but also the premium they place upon the learning potential of
these experiences. There is little evidence in this data that the students see post-practicum experi-
ences as not being relevant.
However, the students’ preferences whilst understandable and worthwhile suggest a level of
teacher engagement which probably does not currently occur, and in many situations may well
be beyond the bounds of resources to provide. The alternative of having peer-led processes is not
advanced as a strong preference by this cohort of students, preferring instead to obtain feedback
from teachers and practice supervisors. It is evident that this cohort of health care students who
are almost universally engaged in occupational preparation want support and guidance from
informed and authoritative sources. This suggests a significant anomaly when recent literature
about peer assessment and feedback is considered. These students place particularly low value on
peer assistance and feedback. Although most recent literature on peer assessment indicates that stu-
dents possess a lack of confidence in their ability to judge the quality of their peers’ work, in general,
they greatly value the advice of fellow students and find it constructive. Hence, an overall set of con-
siderations about the effective provision of post-practicum interventions is very much premised on
being embedded within the teacher activities within the University’s programmes. Whilst such pro-
visions do not sit easily within considerations of mass higher education, the preference here is that
these need to be considered. The use of tutorial time for such activities (for example) may well come
to the fore and be an important and viable option for engaging and augmenting students’ practicum
experiences. Regardless of how universities incorporate this suggestion, it is clear from the results
presented here that utilising post-practicum interventions offers very valuable opportunities to
enrich students’ educational outcomes, and enhance their employability upon graduation.

Implications and recommendations for future research

There is a range of implications for teaching and curriculum arising from these data and their analysis.
Although sitting outside of the scope of this paper, such findings prompt a consideration of some
perennial education issues. Perhaps most central here is how to respond to the request from students
about their preferences for educational processes. Against what others have proposed, the students
emphasised a preference to engage with and be guided by more authoritative others (i.e. teachers,
clinicians) to secure feedback and guidance about their progress, and, particularly, as it pertains to
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1293

subsequent employment. The concern here is whether these requests from student should be
accommodated (i.e. ‘what is’) or confronted (i.e. ‘what should be’). That is, whether a greater edu-
cational worth is found in responding to meet these requests, or helping students to have an exercise
of the preferences, and if so by how much and to what degree.
For the longer term, clearly it is unhelpful if students are going to be reliant upon the advice of more
authoritative others. However, in the short term it is understandable, particularly with these students
being novices, in many instances, that they would seek reassurance in this way. However, as they pro-
gress through their programme, it would be helpful for them to develop capacities to make their own
judgements, learn to work effectively with peers and increasingly take responsibility for their decision-
making. Hence, in terms of curriculum, whilst the kinds of small group activities which these students
prefer might be made available in the early years of their study, could perhaps transition into more
student- or peer-led processes in perhaps their third and fourth years. Hence, small groups might be
organised by teachers or tutors in those early years yet over time, the processes might be organised
and assessed, such as peer-led educational processes. Similarly, in terms of pedagogic practices,
such teacher-led small group activities might be modelled in the first year, but increasingly approaches
adopted and activities assessed which focus on student leadership in engaging in such processes and
responding accordingly. The progression here is to position the students to make judgements and
decisions about there is and others’ work-related experiences and learning.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by Office of Learning and Teaching, Australian government http://www.olt.gov.au/.

References
Billett, S. 2001. “Knowing in Practice: Re-conceptualising Vocational Expertise.” Learning and Instruction 11 (6): 431–52.
Billett, S. 2015. Integrating Practice-Based Experiences into Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Cooke, M., D. Irby, and B. C. O’Brien. 2010. Educating Physicians: A Call for Reform of Medical School and Residency.
Washington: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Curran, L. 2004. “Responsive Law Reform Initiatives by Students on Clinical Placement at La Trobe Law.” Flinders Journal of
Law Reform 7 (2): 287–301.
Dean, B. A., and M. Clements. 2010. Pathway for Student Self-development: A Learning Orientate Internship Approach.
University of Wollongong Research Online. http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2478&context=
commpapers.
Dean, B. A., Ch. Sykes, S. Agostinho, and M. Clements. 2012. Reflective Assessment in Work-integrated Learning: To
Structure or not to Structure, That Was Our Question. University of Wollongong Research Online. http://ro.uow.
edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3617&context=commpapers.
Doel, S. 2008. “Fostering Student Reflection During Engineering Internships.” 10th anniversary edition of the Asian-Pacific
Journal of Cooperative Education. Selected papers from the 2008 Biennial Asia-Pacific conference on Cooperative
Education, Manly, Australia.
Filliettaz, L. 2014. “Learning Through Interactional Participation Configurations: Contributions from Video Analysis.” In
Discourses of Professional Learning: On the Boundary Between Learning and Work, edited by C. Harteis, A. Rausch,
and J. Seigfried, 317–339. Dordrecht: Springer.
Forde, S., and M. Meadows. 2011. “Industry Placements in Journalism Education: Exploring Enhanced Learning and
Professional Growth for Interns.” Journalism Research and Education Section of IAMCR. http://jrejournal.com/ojs-2.3.
7/index.php/jre/article/view/12.
Fuscaldo, G. 2013. Addressing Cultural Diversity in Health Ethics Education. Sydney: Office for Teaching and Learning. http://
chs.unimelb.edu.au/programs/ethics_in_human_research_practice/projects/addressing_cultural_diversity_in_
health_ethics_education.
Grubb, W. N., and N. Badway. 1998. Linking School-Based and Work-Based Learning: The Implications of LaGuardia’s Co-op
Seminars for School-to-Work Programs. Berkeley: National Research Centre for Career and Technical Education.
1294 S. BILLETT ET AL.

Holt, D., D. Mackay, and R. Smith. 2004. “Developing Professional Expertise in the Knowledge Economy: Integrating
Industry-Based Learning with the Academic Curriculum in the Field of Information Technology.” Asia-Pacific Journal
of Cooperative Education 5 (2): 1–11.
Henderson, A., and H. Alexander. 2011. “Maximising the Integration of Medical and Nursing Students in Clinical Learning
Environments: An Australian Perspective.” In Developing Learning Professionals: Integrating Experiences in University and
Practice Settings, edited by S. Billett and A. Henderson, 131–48. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lindgren, B., C. Brulin, K. Holmlund, and E. Athlin. 2005. “Nursing Students” Perception of Group Supervision During
Clinical Training.” Journal of Clinical Nursing 14 (7): 822–29. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01245.x.
Macleod, C., L. Sweet, A. Cavaye, C. Fanning, D. Mills, and J. Oliphont. 2011. “Learning and Leading: An Innovative
Approach Towards Maximising the Effectiveness of Work-Integrated Learning at Flinders University.” Ergo 1 (2),
August. http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/ergo/article/view/1068/758.
Maire, J. 2010. “Bridging the Gap Between Learning at Work and in the Classroom Through a Structured Post-Placement
Seminar.” Special Issue of the Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education Work Integrated Learning (WIL): Responding
to Challenges: 103–113. http://www.apjce.org/files/APJCE_11_3_103_113.pdf.
Majdoddin, K. 2010. “Peer Assessment: An Alternative to Traditional Testing.” Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics 2 (5):
396–405.
Molloy, L., and J. Keating. 2011. “Targeted Preparation for Clinical Practice.” In Developing Learning Professionals:
Integrating Experiences in University and Practice Settings, edited by S. Billett and A. Henderson, 59–82. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Nash, R. 2012. Good Practice Report. Clinical Teaching. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Newton, J., S. Billett, B. Jolly, and C. Ockerby. 2009. “Lost in Translation: Barriers to Learning in Health Professional Clinical
Education.” Learning in Health and Social Care 8 (4): 315–27.
O’Keefe, M., S. McAllister, and I. Stupans. 2011. “Health Service Organisation, Clinical Team Composition and Student
Learning.” In Developing Learning Professionals: Integrating Experiences in University and Practice Settings, edited by
S. Billett and A. Henderson, 187–200. Dordreht: Springer.
Owen, S., and I. Stupans. 2008. Experiential Placements in Pharmacy. ‘Quality Indicators for Best Practice Approaches to
Experiential Placements in Pharmacy Programs’. Adelaide: Carrick Institute, University of South Australia.
Perkins, D. N., and G. Salomon. 1988. “Teaching for Transfer.” Educational Leadership 46 (1): 22–32.
Peters, K., E. J. Halcomb, and S. McInnes. 2013. “Clinical Placements in General Practice: Relationships Between Practice
Nurses and Tertiary Institutions.” Nurse Education in Practice 13 (3): 186–91. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2012.09.007.
Royer, J. 1979. “Theories of the Transfer of Learning.” Educational Psychologist 14: 53–69.
Royer, J. M., J. P. Mestre, and R. J. Dufresne. 2005. “Introduction: Framing the Transfer Problem.” In Transfer of Learning
from A Modern Multi-Disciplinary Perspective, edited by J. P. Mestre, vii–xiv. Washington: Information Age.
Sambell, K., L. McDowell, and S. Brown. 1997. “‘But Is It Fair?: An Exploratory Study of Student Perceptions of the
Consequential Validity of Assessment.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 23 (4): 349–371. doi:10.1016/SO191-491X
(98)00012-1.
Solomon, N. 1999. “Culture and Difference in Workplace Learning.” In Understanding Learning at Work, edited by D. Boud
and D. J. Garrick, 119–131. London: Routledge.
Stockhausen, L. 2005. “Learning to Become a Nurse: Students’ Reflections on Their Clinical Experiences.” Australian
Journal of Advanced Nursing 22 (3): 8–14.
Vu, T. T., and G. Dall’Alba. 2007. “Students’ Experience of Peer Assessment in a Professional Course.” Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education 32 (5): 541–56. doi:10.1080/02602930601116896.