Work-integrated learning: 3 insights for effective policy from Alberta

Source: The Conversation – Canada

Educational reforms often begin with a compelling idea. Policymakers identify a problem, develop a policy solution and expect institutions to implement it.

When reforms fall short of expectations, attention often turns to the policy itself. Was it poorly designed, underfunded or insufficiently communicated?

While these questions may be relevant, it’s essential to remember educational reforms don’t move directly from government announcements to classrooms. They pass through multiple levels of decision-making.

In the case of Canadian post-secondary institutions, provincial governments establish priorities, funding mechanisms and performance expectations, as education is primarily a provincial responsibility under the Canadian Constitution.

However, the federal government also influences educational priorities through research funding, labour market programs and immigration policies, as well as Indigenous education responsibilities and initiatives.

Post-secondary institutions then interpret those priorities. They must also align them with institutional goals, and determine how reforms fit with existing programs and resources. Faculty members, administrators, employers and students each influence how policies take shape.

My ongoing research on work-integrated learning in Alberta shows that outcomes depend on both policy and how governance and educational leadership align.

What is work-integrated learning? The non-profit organization Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada defines it this way: “experiential education that formally integrates a student’s academic studies with quality experiences within a workplace or practice setting.”

Alberta’s experience

Alberta’s government and post-secondary institutions have invested significant effort in strengthening connections between education and employment.

Work-integrated learning has become an increasingly prominent strategy for improving workforce readiness and supporting economic development. Through legislation and performance-based funding agreements, Alberta has tied some public funding to how well post-secondary institutions expand work-integrated learning opportunities for students.

The Alberta 2030 strategy, released in 2021, aims to expand work-integrated learning opportunities to all students, strengthen ties between education and industry and improve graduate employment outcomes.

By connecting classroom learning with workplace experience through apprenticeship, work-integrated learning is expected to improve students’ employability. It’s also expected to help employers address labour market needs.

The policy logic is straightforward: students gain practical experience, employers gain access to emerging talent and the government strengthens workforce development.

Translating those ambitions into practice, however, is far more complex. My research has found that students’ access to work-integrated learning remains uneven.

Student access remains uneven

I first analyzed the Alberta 2030 strategy to understand its goals. I then interviewed 48 students (both domestic and international), 28 post-secondary leaders or faculty members and eight employers involved with work-integrated learning to examine how that vision was implemented and experienced across the province.

International students and skilled immigrants were purposefully recruited because of the distinct barriers they face in accessing and experiencing work-integrated learning.

I learned that post-secondary leaders face co-ordination and resource challenges. They struggle to balance their democratic purpose with government and industry demands.

Institutions included in this research were the universities of Alberta, Calgary and Lethbridge, Mount Royal University, the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, the Northen Alberta Institute of Technology, Lethbridge Polytechnic, Bow valley College and NorQuest College.

This research draws on my work on the governance and institutionalization of work-integrated learning, learning innovation, integrating skilled immigrants and the tensions shaping higher education reform.

Interviews revealed that employers differ in their capacity to host students, including international students who may face additional barriers related to work eligibility and support.

The University of Alberta Students’ Union conducted a 2020 survey of students who had participated in work-integrated learning about harmful experiences in this context. Some students reported experiencing discrimination, sexual harassment and pressure to perform tasks outside their assigned roles.

This also highlights that the quality and safety of placements can vary considerably.

3 types of experiences

Based on my interviews, I propose that three types of work-integrated learning experiences now exist in Alberta. This research, while yet to be peer reviewed, was presented in a panel at a recent Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education conference.

Transformative: Deep and meaningful learning that benefits students and partners. Examples include students in supply chain management, environmental technology and the arts. These experiences were authentic and well-mentored.
Performative: Superficial placements that meet policy requirements but offer limited learning. Examples include placements of international students and internationally educated professionals in business, engineering and health-related programs.
Restrictive: Experiences that disproportionately disadvantage international students and racialized skilled immigrants in fields such as business, law and pharmacy. Here, barriers in recognizing existing credentials, limited networks and discrimination restricted access to meaningful opportunities.

Variance in how learning placements are unfolding means successful implementation of work-integrated learning policy requires co-ordination among governments, institutions, employers and learners. When one part of the system lacks capacity or support, the effectiveness of the broader reform can be affected.

3 lessons for policymakers

What can policymakers learn from Alberta’s experience?

First, implementation capacity should be considered alongside policy design. Announcing ambitious goals is easier than ensuring institutions, employers and students have the resources necessary to achieve them.

Second, faculty members, administrators, employers and students should be involved earlier in developing education policy related to work-integrated learning. Varied participants often identify practical opportunities and challenges that may not be visible from a government perspective.

Third, reforms should include mechanisms for ongoing feedback and adaptation. Educational systems are complex, and successful policy implementation often requires adjustments as policies move from design to practice.

Looking beyond policy

Alberta’s experience with work-integrated learning offers a broader insight for education systems across Canada and beyond.

Educational change is not simply a matter of designing better policies. It also requires understanding how institutions, leaders, students and communities work together to translate those policies into practice.

The most important question for policymakers may be whether the conditions exist to make a desired policy successful. This perspective is echoed in discussions in my podcasts concerned with holistic educational policy and governance approaches.

Kashif Raza receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/30/work-integrated-learning-3-insights-for-effective-policy-from-alberta/