Fostering Student Work Readiness – a University Case Study

Student work readiness relates to the acquisition of relevant skills and knowledge which enable students to make meaningful contributions to industry, and assist them in their transition from student to practitioner. An individual's smooth transition into the workforce translates into higher levels of interactions in their workplace, ensuing in benefits for both the employee and the employer. In the built environment, employees are known to experience high levels of work-related stress, exacerbating the need for built environment professionals to be well prepared for the workforce. While work readiness is typically reserved for graduates who have completed their program of study, there has been a notable increase in built environment undergraduates combining work and study prior to graduation. This trend challenges universities to consider that these students need to be work ready prior to completion of their studies. Research notes that student work readiness can be attained through collaboration between universities, students and industry. This study uses the newly conceptualised work readiness model, known as The Life Buoy model, to explore the ways in which one Australian university collaborates with industry to i.) foster the development of work ready characteristics in built environment students; and, ii.) apply university-based initiatives to underpin the development of work ready characteristics. Analysis of course-related documents classified work readiness initiatives at the university into the eight components of the Life Buoy model, suggesting that it may be a useful framework to guide universities to better work with industry in designing and assessing their work ready initiatives.

[1]  The perceptions of recent business graduates of the transition experience from the collegiate environment to the work environment , 2010 .

[2]  M. Kramer Reality shock; why nurses leave nursing , 1974 .

[3]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[4]  Alex Radloff,et al.  Quality and Generic (Professional) Skills , 2000 .

[5]  Z. Irani,et al.  Work Stress, Support, and Mental Health in Construction , 2010 .

[6]  Calvin Smith,et al.  The impact of work integrated learning on student work-readiness , 2014 .

[7]  Timothy Bartram,et al.  Contributing to a graduate-centred understanding of work readiness: An exploratory study of Australian undergraduate students' perceptions of their employability , 2015 .

[8]  Normah Abdullah,et al.  Bringing Industry Practitioners on Board: The Way Forward , 2013 .

[9]  Andrew Litchfield,et al.  Contextualising and integrating into the curriculum the learning and teaching of work‐ready professional graduate attributes , 2010 .

[10]  Janice Orrell,et al.  Work-integrated Learning Programmes: Management and Educational Quality , 2004 .

[11]  A. Walker,et al.  Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment methods , 2010 .

[12]  Paul Hager,et al.  Nature And Development of Generic Attributes , 2006 .

[13]  Perry Forsythe,et al.  Improving student satisfaction in undergraduate construction management studies , 2006 .

[15]  Paul Hager,et al.  Graduate attributes, learning and employability , 2007 .

[16]  C. Watts,et al.  Pay as you learn: student employment and academic progress , 2000 .

[17]  S. Cranmer Enhancing graduate employability: best intentions and mixed outcomes , 2006 .

[18]  S. Cranmer,et al.  Employability skills initiatives in higher education: what effects do they have on graduate labour market outcomes? , 2009 .

[19]  Stephen Cotgrove The Social Psychology of Work , 1972, Mind and Mental Health Magazine.

[20]  Gregory Owen,et al.  Qualitative Methods in Higher Education Policy Analysis: Using Interviews and Document Analysis , 2014 .

[21]  J Borg,et al.  Thrown in the deep end: Work readiness in the built environment , 2016 .