WIL Evaluation: It Is Both What You Know, and Who "Knows" What, That Matters.

Abstract

This article examines the complexity of evaluating WIL, in particular the challenges associated with macro-evaluations (large-scale network of stakeholders invested in, varied, multiple approaches to WIL beyond a single program, i.e., across a school/faulty/institution). This paper presents a case study of a bespoke WIL Evaluation, based on the implementation of two critical guiding questions – the “who” and the “what” of WIL. Our version of the what is important as it involved the inclusion of the sum parts of single WIL programs, discipline-specific approaches, as the sum total of course-wide offerings for Faculty-wide reporting. The who in this study involved the pinpointing, recruitment, and engagement of a large-scale, internal and external network of stakeholders invested in WIL, evaluation, and WIL evaluation. The study finds that the who of WIL evaluation is deceivingly difficult. One of the ways to ensure relevance is to establish a robust group of stakeholders, to swiftly function as a collaborative network invested in the co-design of an evaluation process for an agreed set of WIL-types. In frame then, for the diverse group, is a mining of pertinent and reliable data, supplemented by expert advice, contributing to a rich understanding of the impact of WIL. The depth and breadth of the who is involved becomes fundamental when diverse WIL types are in frame. The scale of our macro-evaluation approach functions as a microcosm for how others might use a similar double-lens of the who-what to address the complicated process of designing and implementing a WIL evaluation that includes context-sensitive understandings of impact.