This paper explores how flexible assessment aligns with Luk and Chan’s (2024) three principles of effective work integrated learning (WIL) assessment: adaptive design, student ownership and self-reflection, and presents a practical implementation process for introducing flexible assessment into WIL, balancing student autonomy with administrative feasibility, industry partner needs and learning outcomes.
A qualitative case study explores Master of Business students in a capstone WIL unit at an Australian university, analyzing their experiences with flexible group assessment, and outlines a process for its introduction into WIL.
Students reported transformative experiences when given control over their learning, supporting self-determination found in prior flexible assessment research. Findings demonstrate that flexible assessment in WIL fosters meaningful industry partnerships while developing crucial workplace communication and problem-solving skills.
The case study is limited to a single marketing unit at one Australian university and focuses exclusively on group assessment. Future research should explore flexible assessment in individual WIL contexts and across different disciplines to enhance generalizability.
A five-step implementation process for integrating flexible assessment into WIL is outlined, balancing student autonomy with administrative feasibility and industry partner expectations. This process can be adapted across disciplines with modifications to support authentic learning experiences.
This paper enhances understanding of flexible assessment by examining its application in group contexts and offering a model applicable across disciplines, addressing the previously underexplored intersection of flexible assessment and work-integrated learning.
Introduction
The assessment challenges of work-integrated learning (WIL) are well documented, with systematic reviews recommending approaches to satisfy all stakeholders (Lasen et al., 2018; Luk and Chan, 2024). This paper explores the intersection of WIL and flexible assessment, the latter allowing students’ choice in their assessment (Irwin and Hepplestone, 2012), thereby fostering deeper connections with content and learning (Jopp and Cohen, 2020). By enabling students to choose their assessment topics and formats, they experience empowerment and self-determination, enhancing academic engagement and learning outcomes (Cowan, 2024; Wanner et al., 2024).
Although flexible assessment is under-researched in WIL, it is proposed here as a viable model aligning with Luk and Chan’s (2024) three principles of effective WIL assessment; adaptive design, student ownership and self-reflection. The limited application of flexible assessment for group work further highlights a gap in understanding and application. This paper therefore contributes by offering an implementation model that bridges flexible assessment and WIL, addressing a gap in both theory and practice. We outline the first study proposing a transferable five-step model for introducing flexible assessment in group WIL settings. This contribution is significant given the prominence of collaborative work in contemporary professional contexts (Boud et al., 2014) and the potential for flexible assessment to address the complexities for evaluating collaborative learning (Van den Berg et al., 2006). This case study explores the intersection of flexible assessment specifically within group work and the principles of effective WIL assessment outlined by Luk and Chan (2024). By examining how student-selected topics and deliverables within group contexts influence learning, we extend the understanding of adaptive assessment in WIL while exploring optimal levels of flexibility that do not overwhelm students and teaching staff (Barua and Lockee, 2025).
This case study addresses two key questions: (1) How does flexible assessment align with the three principles of effective WIL assessment as outlined by Luk and Chan (2024) and (2) What does a feasible implementation process for flexible assessment in WIL entail?
While this paper focuses on a Master of Business unit, the approach presented is applicable to other WIL units across disciplines and levels. The literature on WIL and flexible assessment is first reviewed, followed by responses from students undertaking flexible assessment in WIL, a discussion of these results and the presentation of an implementation process follows. The paper then concludes with discussions of implications for theory and practice.
Literature review
The assessment challenge in WIL
Industry demands work-ready graduates (Pažur Aničić et al., 2025), who can engage with organizational practices and apply knowledge to real-world scenarios (Cooper et al., 2010). However, graduates are often criticized for their disconnectedness from reality and lack of industry preparedness (Lu et al., 2018). Higher education providers have responded by developing programs incorporating industry stakeholders into their pedagogy (Grantham and Iachizzi, 2024). These are known as client-based, client-sponsored, live offerings (Tofighi, 2021), project-based learning (Torres et al., 2019), non-placement work-based learning (Dean and Rook, 2023) or WIL (Cooper et al., 2010) which is the term used in this paper. WIL is instrumental in equipping students with the required graduate and employability skills (Jackson, 2015) and to bridge the industry and academia gap (Ferns et al., 2025). In a business context, WIL is defined as “an active learning practice that involves students consulting with a business client on one of the company's existing problems or opportunities to recommend solutions” (Tofighi, 2021, p. 1). Examples of WIL include community-based projects, job shadowing, field trips, industry mentoring, internships, work-based learning and capstone units involving industry participation (Milliken et al., 2021).
Despite the benefits of WIL, a significant challenge remains in appropriately assessing student performance (Lasen et al., 2018). While Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory outlines a process for understanding how students translate workplace experiences into professional competencies, assessing these experiences can be complex. Kolb’s four-stage learning cycle, comprising concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation, outlines the iterative process learners use to construct and refine their knowledge (Kolb, 2015). Experiential learning enhances cognitive engagement, equipping students to navigate complex professional environments (Billett, 2014). Understandably therefore, assessing WIL requires sophisticated assessment, capturing the fluidity of real-world contexts and the interactions between academia and industry partners (Cooper et al., 2010). This challenge is compounded by the argument that traditional assessment methods often focus on certification rather than capability development (Boud and Falchikov, 2006), a critical WIL component, where learning objectives incorporate critical thinking, adaptability, self-confidence and professional identity (Jackson, 2015).
A systematic literature review by Luk and Chan (2024), analyzing 103 articles over 20 years, identified three design principles for effective WIL assessment: (1) adaptive assessment outcomes and design, (2) fostering student ownership through empowerment and (3) promoting self-reflection for lifelong learning. Despite its growing popularity, flexible assessment remains underutilized in WIL; however, it has the potential to embody these principles and address diverse student needs and the dynamic WIL environment, ultimately enhancing assessment for learning. As Boud et al. (2015) maintain, assessment should not only meet immediate learning needs but also prepare students for future professional contexts.
Flexible assessment: theoretical foundations and pedagogical applications
Emerging trends in flexible assessment include personalized assessment items allowing students to cocreate curricula and collaborate with staff (Wanner et al., 2024). Grounded in constructivist learning theory (Vygotsky and Cole, 1978), this approach encourages active knowledge construction through experience, emphasizing student-centered learning and enhancing engagement and retention (Chuang, 2021). Traditionally, assessment development has always been staff controlled (Gravett et al., 2021), but constructivist learning environments promote student engagement from the outset, allowing them to personalize their learning journey and create meaningful challenges (Tam, 2000).
While research on flexible assessment in higher education is limited (Jopp and Cohen, 2020), evidence increasingly supports its effectiveness. By allowing students choices in assessment type, time and/or weighting, flexible assessment can foster self-determination, empowerment and motivation (Coyne and Woodruff, 2022). For example, Jopp and Cohen (2020) found that choice in assessment formats improved class attendance and academic performance. Although Coyne and Woodruff (2022) found no grade improvement with flexible weightings, qualitative feedback indicated increased empowerment, personalization of learning and reduced stress. This aligns with Cook (2001), who found that multiple grading options increased students’ sense of control and perceived agency, echoing the increased levels of self-determination found by Cowan (2024). Pacharn et al. (2013) noted improved individual academic outcomes associated with flexible assessment.
Despite these benefits, flexible assessment does have limitations. For some students, choice overload can cause decision-making stress (Cowan, 2024). This type of exposure, however, can actually help students foster resilience and adaptability in complex decision-making (Querstret, 2019), but it does highlight the need for effective scaffolding and decision-making guidance, particularly for students with less self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2002). Another limitation of flexible assessment can be increased teaching staff workload (Cowan, 2024), creating a potential implementation barrier, despite advocacy from higher education agencies for its use (Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 2022).
Despite these limitations, flexible assessment offers substantial opportunities for WIL when managed appropriately. By integrating the constructivist approach of flexible assessment with the experiential approach of WIL, students can enhance their learning and work readiness. However, a gap exists in understanding how to effectively integrate WIL and flexible assessment within the classroom. While Tam (2000) outlines key components of constructivist strategies: shared knowledge and authority between teachers and students, teacher facilitation and small heterogeneous learning groups, developing a practical approach can be daunting.
Given these unknown elements, this paper explores the alignment of flexible assessment with Luk and Chan’s (2024) three key principles of effective WIL assessment, drawing from their systematic review. Following this exploration, a blueprint for implementing flexible assessment in WIL is presented, based on four primary criteria: (1) balance between structure and autonomy, (2) administrative feasibility, (3) alignment with industry partner needs and expectations and (4) achievement of student learning outcomes. The next section details the case study investigating flexible assessment alignment with Luk and Chan’s principles (2024).
Method
Research design
This qualitative case study explored student experiences of flexible assessment in a WIL context, capturing perceptions and reflections on its alignment with Luk and Chan’s (2024) principles of effective WIL assessment. Case studies are suitable in specific educational contexts where the boundaries between intervention and environment are blurred (Yin, 2018), such as the current study.
Participants
The paper was conducted with 21 postgraduate students enrolled in a double credit point capstone unit in a taught Master of Business degree (majoring in Marketing) at an Australian university. The unit, undertaken in the students’ final semester, typically enrolls 30–70 students and requires approximately 20 learning hours per week. The student mix is heterogeneous and comprises of domestic and international students, full- and part-time students and online and face-to-face delivery. Students have a variety of undergraduate degrees and years of work experience, providing diverse perspectives. Participation was voluntary, with no demographic data beyond enrollment status collected to ensure anonymity.
Data collection and analysis process
Data were collected at the end of the semester through a short open-ended written online questionnaire. Students were invited to reflect on their experiences with flexible group assessment, focusing on its impact on learning, empowerment and professional preparedness. Open-ended responses facilitated rich, descriptive data (Creswell and Poth, 2018). Flexible assessment in this unit allowed students to choose their group assessment topic and report style, aligned with an industry challenge/opportunity presented by an industry partner.
Data were analyzed using manual thematic coding guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase process. Thematic analysis in qualitative research allows for a detailed description of the data by identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns. Themes were mapped against Luk and Chan’s (2024) principles of effective WIL assessment. To enhance rigor, coding was cross-checked by another teaching team member, with discrepancies resolved through discussion (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Ethical approval for this paper was obtained from the university’s human research ethics committee. Participation was voluntary, with informed consent obtained, and students assured that their involvement would not affect their grades or relationship with the university. Responses were anonymized to protect confidentiality.
Results
Analysis of 21 student responses revealed three overarching themes aligned with the principles of effective WIL assessment: (1) adaptive outcomes and design, (2) ownership through empowerment and (3) fostering self-reflection for lifelong learning.
Adaptive WIL Assessment Outcomes and Design: Students described how flexible assessment allowed them to tailor projects to group strengths, manage time effectively and adapt to the industry brief. This freedom to shape assessment enhanced responsibility and engagement in project management. Examples include
I was quite direct and assertive and detailed the importance of starting the project early in the semester. In response, the team as a whole voiced their mutual agreeance to practicing good time management and creating effective and high-quality content. (Participant 19)
This causes all of us [working with a WIL industry partner] to be more responsible in carrying out our respective duties in the group and I can be more courageous in my opinions and give ideas about the project and be responsible. (Participant 9)
I put myself under pressure … to quickly review all materials and recordings covered in the first two weeks, including the industry briefing. (Participant 2)
Table 1 illustrates the adaptability of flexible assessment across five deliveries of the unit, showcasing how students addressed the same industry challenge with different topics. For example, students transformed three in-depth interviews with community elders into a monetary venture, resulting in a strategy for a book with educational resources, followed by a complementary service strategy.
Student scoped flexible assessment WIL topics
| Industry partner | Original WIL challenge | Marketing area under investigation | WIL student group Student scoped WIL challenge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal training company | Growth strategy for a fitness industry professional | Target market | People suffering from a mental health issue, aged 25–34, who want to get fit |
| Target market | Allied health professionals with interest in collaborating/development of a business collaboration | ||
| Volunteer group for regional town | Development of council services | Services strategy | Sustainable business case for a community van for the elderly |
| Services strategy | Sustainable business case for mobile aged and disability care | ||
| Local government department | Promoting health and well-being | Communication strategy | Promoting healthy food choices to low-income families visiting restaurants |
| Communication strategy | Promoting healthy food choices to independent, local fast-food restaurants | ||
| Philanthropist | Turning three in-depth interviews with community elders into a monetary venture | Goods strategy | Development of a book inclusive of educational resources and launch strategy |
| Service strategy | Development of a business plan for a stage play inclusive of a small tour | ||
| Women’s refuge organization | Peer-to-peer women’s refuge | Business development strategy | Recruitment of private spare rooms (shelters) to provide short-term, emergency shelter for women (and their children) inclusive of a strategy for vetting providers |
| Funding strategy | Development of a government funding strategy to increase the number of available shelters and to promote the service to the community |
Development of Students’ Sense of Ownership through Empowerment: Students emphasized that choosing topics and deliverables enhanced agency, responsibility and motivation. Several noted increased assertiveness in group discussions:
As everyone gets their own perspective about the topic, so many different ideas were created, and we can go faster with the idea for the main topic. Moreover, as a result, I feel more energetic and responsible when building a part of work. (Participant 4)
Flexible assessment in group work fostered individual and collective empowerment:
Four out of the five of the group attended, two of us had come prepared by pre-reading and had selected a topic while the other two did not. We all understood and accepted the underpinning framework. However, we could not come to a consensus on the two views presented regarding the topics. Therefore, I proposed that we build a case for each issue to be present to the team and a decision made by the end of tutorial week three, the group agreed. (Participant 15)
Fostering Self-reflection to Support Lifelong Learning: Although self-reflection was formally assessed in this unit through the students’ first assessment piece, ongoing self-reflection was evident throughout the unit. Students reported that the assessment experience prompted them to reflect on personal strengths, weaknesses and professional readiness. The emphasis on real-world application encouraged critical self-assessment in preparation for future careers:
After this [WIL group assignment], I realized my problem and also understood the negative effects of not being confident and understood the importance of self-confidence. I hope that I can make a radical change in the future, because I am about to enter society. I am about to enter the company. I am no longer qualified to escape everything that is happening in front of me, because society will not easily forgive a failed person. (Participant 6)
[The WIL unit] showed me a real business world and helped me change from a student to a real businessperson. By learning how to operate this project, I experienced how to deal with a series of problems in the real business environment. (Participant 13)
Discussion
This exploratory qualitative study examined how flexible assessment aligns with the three principles of effective WIL assessment proposed by Luk and Chan (2024). Findings indicate that flexible assessment fosters adaptive design, empowers students and promotes self-reflection, thereby strengthening both learning and professional readiness.
Students valued the opportunity to adapt project outcomes to group strengths and industry partner expectations, reinforcing accountability and enhancing time management, consistent with earlier studies showing that flexible assessment promotes autonomy and adaptability in learning (Wanner et al., 2024). Control and perceived agency have been linked to the benefits of flexible assessment (Cook, 2001), highlighting the practical skills gained from this approach. This adaptability mirrors the unpredictability of real-world business contexts (Cooper et al., 2010) and supports self-determination, which posits that autonomy is central to intrinsic motivation and learning effectiveness (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Autonomy is also associated with positive motivation and engagement in work-based learning (Parenrengi et al., 2025), illustrating the connection between flexible assessment and WIL.
A key theme was the sense of ownership developed through student choice, aligning with Luk and Chan’s principle of ownership through empowerment. Increased assertiveness and responsibility resonate with findings that student choice enhances motivation and engagement (Pacharn et al., 2013). This paper extends that evidence from individuals to groups, indicating that empowerment emerges not only from personal agency but also through collaborative negotiation. As a primary aim of WIL is developing future learning skills (Jackson, 2015), the qualitative findings suggest that flexible assessment supports this aim, enabling students to self-select topics and deliverables and enhancing their intrinsic motivation (Liden et al., 2000). Successfully mastering responsibilities enhances participative decision-making and self-management skills (Pearce et al., 2003), recognized as important competencies for employees (Neck and Houghton, 2006).
The third theme, self-reflection and lifelong learning, revealed that flexible assessment encouraged deep self-reflection, with students recognizing personal growth and areas for improvement. Reflection is critical to professional identity formation in WIL (Jackson, 2015; Billett, 2014). The ability to cognitively appraise situations and modify behavior based on this appraisal enables individuals to achieve their goals (Kwan et al., 2022). By combining reflective practice with flexible assessment, this paper suggests a pathway to cultivating lifelong learning habits. This aligns with Kolb’s (2015) experiential learning cycle, where reflection is integral to transforming experience into knowledge and future professional action.
Implementation process for flexible assessment in WIL
Having presented the findings from the qualitative case study, we will outline a blueprint trialed in the Master of Business unit to assist educators seeking to integrate flexible assessment into capstone and other applied units. The five-step process outlined below balances autonomy, feasibility and industry engagement, refined over multiple semesters to align student learning outcomes with staff workload and industry partner deliverables. Students are provided with an industry challenge or opportunity (examples seen in Table 1), allowing them to choose their topic and format for their written deliverable.
Unit learning outcomes
| ULO1 | Prepare a plan to investigate and creatively respond to your discipline-specific client issues or problems |
| ULO2 | Research contemporary client issues or problems, drawing on relevant, discipline-specific literature, data and information sources, to summarize the scope and key limitations of current understanding |
| ULO3 | Using rigorous research, propose and validate a business solution in response to client needs |
| ULO4 | Professionally communicate and defend ideas and thinking demonstrating academic and professional literacy in writing |
| ULO5 | Work independently and as part of a team by contributing to, and reflecting on, progress toward meeting team objectives |
| ULO6 | Engage ethically with the project stakeholders and the discipline-specific knowledge and skills |
Unit Background: The unit aims to assess students’ marketing-specific knowledge and skills and their ability to apply these to real-world challenges. An industry partner supports these aims by providing relevant, current and practice-based knowledge (Billore, 2021). Six unit learning outcomes (shown in Table 2) are assessed through two assignments: an individual self-reflective assignment submitted midway through the semester and the flexible assessment group assignment submitted at the end. Although flexible assessment pertains only to the second assignment, the individual self-reflective piece captures students’ accountability regarding their contributions to this flexible assessment assignment. Both assignments are evaluated using criteria-assessed rubrics provided at the beginning of the semester linked to course-level learning outcomes. Table 3 outlines the course learning outcomes and the associated assessment criteria.
Criteria assessed rubric
| Course (degree) learning outcome | Assignment criteria assessed | |
|---|---|---|
| Individual self-reflective assessment | Written communication | Written presentation |
| Self-reflection, responsibility and accountability | Critical reflection, reflective writing | |
| Group flexible assessment | Analysis, evaluation and synthesis of theory and practice | Review of industry and/or academic literature |
| Consolidation of literature and link to industry challenge | ||
| Independent judgment, planning, problem-solving and decision-making | Critical understanding | |
| Written communication | Written presentation | |
| Response to feedback | Taking responsibility, being present and adaptive | |
| Ethical and legal principles and practices | Methodology and/or research and/or analysis and/or design |
Students are assessed using the same weightings, with no option for them to allocate grades to individual criteria. The assessment levels are High Distinction, Distinction, Credit, Pass, Marginal Fail, Fail and Low Fail, with grading conducted by the teaching team. Students present their final written deliverable to the industry partner; but this is not graded.
Process: The implementation of flexible assessment in WIL follows five steps. The teaching team includes one lead academic and up to two part-time sessional staff (based on enrollment) to mentor students. To minimize inefficiencies in topic scoping or group cohesion, the teaching team provides weekly timetabled drop-in workshops as well as time in the lecture, throughout the semester.
Step 1: Before the semester, the lead academic secures industry partner(s) and suitable teaching staff. Strong engagement between teaching staff and students is fundamental to successful flexible assessment (Wanner et al., 2024). The lead academic and industry partner discuss current business challenges and opportunities, establishing trust and clarifying expectations for time commitments from both students and partners. Determining a relevant, authentic, industry challenge is essential for the unit’s success. The lead academic and industry partner aim to create a starting point that empowers students to customize their topics and deliverable while ensuring alignment with curriculum requirements. The challenge must also qualify as an authentic real-world industry challenge to classify as WIL (Ajjawi et al., 2020).
Practical arrangements, including partner accessibility and information for sharing, are also determined to help students meet learning outcomes. Partners are briefed on assessment criteria, theory application and other relevant factors, documented in a legally binding WIL.
Step 2: The first half of the initial lecture focuses on unit expectations and assessment parameters. Students learn about the unit structure, assignment process and project details. The lead academic introduces flexible assessment and clarifies elements that are university-set, partner-agreed and student-influenced. This part of the lecture emphasizes the students’ roles in the decision-making process and the development of extracted employability career skills, such as communication and critical thinking (Rohm et al., 2021).
In the second half of the lecture, the industry partner introduces their organization and the agreed industry challenge/opportunity followed by a Q&A session. To minimize group thinking and maximize student engagement, students are expected to spend three weeks individually researching the industry partner and their environment before finalizing the assessment topic as a group.
Step 3: The second lecture addresses group dynamics and topic scoping, which are important for student success. As groups of 4–5 members are randomly allocated, materials on group development and Tuckman’s stages are provided (Bonebright, 2010). The teaching team highlights processes for addressing team challenges, including minute-taking, group contracts and when to involve teaching staff. Ice-breaker activities are used to enhance engagement and reduce “storming” issues (Bonebright, 2010). In their groups, students discuss their strengths, weaknesses, expectations, availability and preferred roles.
Step 4: The third lecture focuses on refining the assessment topic and deliverable. The teaching team reinforces non-negotiable assessment elements (including discipline knowledge integration, word limits and due dates) while emphasizing flexibility. Students explore the challenge from various angles and articulate theoretical foundations and discipline knowledge. The teaching team assists in aligning the group’s collective skills with a well-scoped topic, which serves as the basis for grading against the rubric.
Step 5: After the initial three scoping lectures, the teaching team continues to mentor and support groups throughout the semester as recommended for WIL (Grantham and Iachizzi, 2024). Lectures over the next eight weeks cover topics such as project management, self- and peer-reflection and consultancy. Drop-in workshops are available for consultations to prevent project creep and other negative experiences. As a capstone unit, no new discipline content is introduced in lectures; instead, processes and theories from the students’ degree are integrated to provide a holistic view of the discipline. This integration reinforces students’ discipline knowledge and facilitates application to the industry challenge. Students are expected to approach the challenge, topic and deliverable from a whole of course perspective, as is expected in a capstone unit. The industry partner is available for Q&A sessions throughout the semester, with interactions managed by the teaching team to minimize partner imposition.
Contributions to theory
This paper is one of the first to explore flexible assessment in WIL, specifically within group work. Although exploratory, the qualitative case study provides initial insights into the suitability of flexible assessment in WIL and a process to guide educators in its implementation. The paper contributes to both flexible assessment and WIL literature by highlighting the intersection of these, particularly in group work.
While Coyne and Woodruff (2022) found no grade improvements with a flexible weighting scheme, students’ qualitative feedback indicated increased empowerment, personalization of learning and reduced stress. Supporting and extending these findings, this paper shows that allowing students to choose their topics and deliverables enhances their sense of agency, responsibility, assertiveness and energy. Students emphasized the transformative experience of having control over their learning, contributing to the work competencies gained. The flexible assessment process detailed here increased self-determination among students.
Well-executed WIL can significantly enhance higher education (McNamara et al., 2012) creating industry-ready graduates (Carter et al., 2025); however, suitable assessments can be challenging. The flexible assessment process presented here encapsulates three principles of successful WIL assessment for learning (Luk and Chan, 2024). In the current WIL experience, students engage in decision-making for their group assessment by refining the broad industry challenge into a manageable marketing initiative. Although WIL is one of the most challenging types of assessments (Cooper et al., 2010), and group assessments come with their own challenges (Gaur and Gupta, 2013), the outlined process successfully introduces flexible assessment into WIL, an area that remains underexplored (Lu et al., 2018), suggesting future opportunities for assessment design.
Contribution to practice
This case study is the first to outline flexible assessment in WIL, making several contributions to educational practice. The outlined process indicates that flexible assessment within WIL can extend beyond marketing to any business discipline with industry challenges, including management, human resources, accountancy and entrepreneurship. With minor modifications, it could also apply to other disciplines. In business, modifications might include discipline-specific theoretical framing and industry partner expectations. Other disciplines, like creative fields, may need advanced client engagement processes and alternative deliverables beyond written documents. Technical disciplines, such as engineering or architecture, might prioritize problem-solving over growth opportunities, necessitating tighter technical parameters and a more structured industry challenge. Similarly, professional competencies required for registration in fields like teaching, nursing or physiotherapy may need specific learning outcomes, potentially focusing on reflection, professional growth plans or innovation proposals.
Flexible assessment can also adapt to class size. Smaller classes allow for personalized guidance and industry engagement, whereas larger classes require standardized materials, formal group support and structured decision protocols. Digital tools, like Artifical Intelligence (AI) recording software, may facilitate project management documentation within groups and with industry partners. Larger units may benefit from engaging multiple industry partners each semester to ensure a spread of topics.
Successful integration of flexible assessment into WIL is more likely when industry partners are committed and understand students’ learning processes, not just the deliverables. Furthermore, an engaged teaching team is fundamental when students are scoping their assessment topics and deliverables, ensuring topic suitability against the assessment criteria (Cowan, 2024). Positioning the unit as a capstone experience at the end of a degree ensures that students have sufficient discipline knowledge, communication skills and reflective learning abilities.
At a policy level, adopting flexible assessment in WIL has implications for accreditation and curriculum innovation. Accrediting bodies increasingly emphasize authentic, work-ready graduate attributes (Ajjawi et al., 2020). Flexible assessment aligns these requirements with student-centered pedagogies. Policymakers and institutions may consider supporting flexible assessment frameworks to enhance employability outcomes while maintaining academic standards, possibility through networks or consortiums across universities to pilot and evaluate flexible assessment for shared knowledge resource investment.
Conclusion
The approach outlined in this paper demonstrates the suitability of flexible assessment within WIL, but further investigation is needed to ensure generalizability. The paper’s sample was small and limited to one discipline at a single institution. Reliance on self-reported data may introduce bias; therefore, future research should test flexible assessment across larger, more diverse cohorts and adopt a mixed-method approach to strengthen validity. Despite these limitations, this exploratory qualitative case study prioritizes depth over breadth (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016) and offers valuable insights given the limited understanding of flexible assessment in WIL. Future research should explore broader contexts as this assessment approach has potential applicability to any discipline with real-world challenges.
While one style of flexible assessment is proposed here, further options could involve allowing students to modify assessment weightings or rubrics (Irwin and Hepplestone, 2012). Given the evolution of the current flexible assessment and the mentoring time required, it is advisable to provide parameters to support student decision-making. Additionally, as the focus on verified identity assessment increases to address challenges posed by AI (Bouteraa et al., 2024), integrating these considerations is essential. Options may include assessment dissemination outcomes such as viva voces or debates to faculty and industry partners.
