Embedding Authentic Learning: A Case Study in Curriculum Transformation

Abstract

Authentic learning is widely recognised as critical for graduate employability, yet embedding it across curricula presents challenges, including resourcing, time for redevelopment, and managing large-scale cultural change. Scalable approaches require pilot studies to explore how authentic learning principles can be implemented and scaffolded effectively. This paper presents a case study of an Australian university’s co-created ‘Authentic Learning Blueprint’, designed to embed industry/community engaged learning throughout the learner’s experience. Phase one involved a team of educators, drawing on insights from learners, and employer feedback to co-develop the Blueprint. The Blueprint allows learners to progress through scaffolded stages, Novice, Associate, and Emerging Practitioner, gaining discipline-specific and industry-ready skills through real-world project briefs and work-integrated learning experiences. The Blueprint distributes teaching and learning responsibilities across learners, educators, and industry/community in a three-way partnership model. Learning experiences were designed to reflect knowledge and skills relevant to professional practice. In phase two, the proof-of-concept was applied to two design units, one undergraduate and one postgraduate, and we tested acceptance and scalability, with positive student feedback. Phase three showcases how the Blueprint then informed curriculum redesign within the design school’s flagship course, including trials of ungraded assessment to further support authentic learning. The findings demonstrate that a co-created, scaffolded approach integrating industry-engaged experiences from enrolment to graduation can bridge the gap between academia and professional practice. This study contributes a practical framework for embedding authentic learning at scale, offering insights for institutions seeking to enhance employability through curriculum innovation.

1. Introduction

Authentic learning is an instructional approach that places learning within meaningful, real-world contexts, enabling students to apply disciplinary knowledge, collaborate, and solve complex problems in ways that resemble the real world of work (Herrington & Oliver, 2000; Lombardi, 2007). There are several well-validated principles for the effective implementation of authentic learning, and whilst application varies by disciplinary context, there is a consistent set of design features and pedagogical considerations.

The underlying principle involves the design of realistic, relevant tasks that reflect the complexity and uncertainty of real-world problems. Herrington et al. (2010) goes on to suggest that authentic tasks should be ill-structured, requiring learners to interpret information, explore multiple pathways, and justify decisions rather than follow predetermined steps. In this way, learners are encouraged to move from passively receiving knowledge toward active knowledge construction. Further, Nachtigall et al. (2022) argue that authenticity increases when learners remain engaged in sustained inquiry and problem-solving.

Effective implementation also depends on situated learning, in which disciplinary concepts are embedded in meaningful scenarios or roles rather than taught in isolation, otherwise it becomes passive learning (Brown et al., 1989). A critical goal is for students to understand not only what to apply but when and why. This contextual richness is often achieved via case studies, simulations, and industry placements. Indeed, students need to see the context as credible and relevant for authenticity to be sustained (Herrington et al., 2010). Authentic learning also requires collaborative knowledge building, as real-world tasks often require collective expertise. This encourages students to work together to develop understanding, integrate diverse viewpoints, and refine solutions together. To be effective, collaboration in authentic learning requires clear role structures, opportunities for discussion, and careful facilitation to ensure inclusion and accountability (Nachtigall et al., 2024).

Given that authentic learning is often intentionally complex, cognitive scaffolding is critical to avoid intellectual overload, especially for new or novice students. Scaffolding strategies include expert modelling, worked exemplars, prompts, and cumulatively phased tasks (Collins et al., 1991). As students progress through their studies, these scaffolds should be reduced to encourage independence. This can lead to an ‘authenticity dilemma,’ requiring educator discernment to calibrate the amount of guidance relative to the students’ expertise (Nachtigall et al., 2024).

A further requirement is the alignment of assessment practices, such as portfolios, presentations, model building, and reflective writing that mirror the discipline’s forms of evaluation. Herrington and Herrington (2006) note that assessment should be integrated throughout the authentic learning process, with iterative feedback from educators, fellow students, and professionals, thereby reinforcing the relevance of tasks and encouraging deep engagement. Approaches to authentic assessment are vast and a common concern raised is an over focus on the world of work context or work-integrated learning (WIL) as the panacea for embedding authentic learning in curriculums (Ajjawi et al., 2025; Fawns et al., 2025). Timperley and Schick (2025) argue that a relational pedagogy, which places the relationship between educators and students at the centre of the learning process, better informs authentic assessment, where ongoing formative, ungraded approaches to assessment feedback better support learning. Finally, the educator’s role in authentic learning moves from didactic knowledge transmission to a facilitator of inquiry by questioning, prompting reflection, and providing reasoning, thereby fostering learner agency, critical thinking, and metacognition (Maina, 2004; Rule, 2006).

Despite evidence of authentic learning’s effectiveness in promoting engagement, knowledge development, and higher-order thinking (Herrington et al., 2010; Rule, 2006), there is a gap concerning the scalability of authentic learning. Most studies examine small-scale, localised cases, typically confined to individual units (courses), limited cohorts, or controlled design experiments, which reduces the generalisability of findings and limits insights into institution-wide adoption (Nachtigall et al., 2022). Further, while authentic learning frameworks provide helpful core design principles, as discussed previously, they seldom address the organisational, structural, or systemic requirements for scaling these principles across programmes or institutions (Herrington & Herrington, 2006), nor do they consider cultural context implications (Hejri et al., 2022).

This leaves a gap in understanding how universities can manage workload implications, support professional development, align authentic pedagogies with accreditation requirements, or foster sustained industry partnerships at scale. This also highlights the challenge in scaling complex, authentic assessment, particularly regarding consistency, moderation, and the provision of timely, high-quality feedback for large cohorts (Gulikers et al., 2004). Technological solutions such as digital portfolios, simulations, or mixed-reality environments are frequently proposed as mechanisms for scalability, yet these have not been fully explored in the literature, where the focus has been on pedagogical effectiveness rather than the practicalities of deploying authentic learning at scale (Martínez-Argüelles et al., 2023). Furthermore, authentic learning is reliant on educators’ facilitative expertise, but there is limited insight into how such expertise can be developed and sustained across large teaching teams (Nachtigall et al., 2024).

In summary, longitudinal, programme-level research on the sustainability and institutionalisation of large-scale authentic learning initiatives remains limited, which highlights the need for research contributions, such as this case study, that go beyond isolated exemplars to develop better understanding of how to implement authentic learning at scale.

2. Methodology: Case Study

This study adopts a qualitative case study approach (Yin, 2018), as it suits educational contexts implemented in the real world. Merriam (1998) further supports the qualitative lens of using a case study in educational research, which supports more detail and nuance in the data.

Scope: The case selection centres on an Australian university-wide initiative around embedding authentic learning across the curriculum at scale. The case presents three phases, including research and development, the proof-of-concept pilot and the subsequent implementation within one of the schools via its flagship course. In the first phase, the research and the co-created model, ‘The Authentic Learning Blueprint’ is presented. In the second phase, the Blueprint was piloted with two units of study and assessment tasks and subsequently evaluated through student feedback. In the third phase, to illustrate how the model is applied at scale, one school within the university was chosen for in-depth examination, with the school’s flagship course used as an exemplar of how the framework functions across course accreditation as well as learning and teaching implementation.

• Phase 1: Development of the Blueprint: This included a series of informal workshops with university educators and professional staff from across the institution, learners and employers, comprising industry as well as community partners. This investigation was led by the second and third authors of this paper and included benchmarking, workshops within the organisation and discussions with various stakeholders.
• Phase 2: Pilot study: Proof-of-concept: We used two units of study, revised assessment and student survey feedback on the intervention. One of the units was evaluated with student feedback via the Net Promoter Score (NPS) to measure student satisfaction. This survey was undertaken with university ethics approval, and the second author of the paper was responsible for the analysis and discussion. The second unit was assessed via student feedback, with the lead educator, author two, leading the investigation, analysis and insights reported in this paper.
• Phase 3: Implementation at school level: The Blueprint was modified and used to inform an assessment initiative in a flagship course within a design school. The implementation included workshops with course teams and educational experts, which led to a reconfiguration of authentic assessment via ungrading. This investigation was led by the first and fourth authors of this paper.

The Case Description: In June 2018, an Australian university embarked on a yearlong project involving workshops with academics and interviews and workshops with students, exploring the efficacy of authentic learning. This project, underpinned by both primary and secondary research, was based on the principle of understanding the student journey from day one of their studies through to completing their studies and job readiness. This enabled the project team to fully appreciate the changing needs of students as they progress from new to experienced learners.

The working group completed a detailed review of current authentic learning practices within the university and researched exemplars outside of the institution, both local and international. This research enabled the group to gain insights into what makes a good authentic learning experience and how these experiences could be inclusively scaled across the university. The research aim led to the following working definition being developed for our university’s work on authentic learning: ‘Authentic Learning: A relevant, co-created learning experience, connecting your professional purpose with the world’.

The project involved the creation of an ‘Authentic Learning Blueprint’, which proposes that authentic learning for students needs to change over time as they grow and gain more confidence as independent learners. One of the key proposals of the working group was the need for three distinct scaffolded levels of authentic learning in a university course progression. Another important proposal we developed was to substitute university terms and words to discipline specific, professionally relevant language to describe the three stages linking to real-world industry contexts. The levels reflect the students’ progression from first to final year, using the terminology of Novice, Associate, and Emerging Practitioner.

In effect, this represents a continuum where a scaffolded learning and support structure enables students to progressively gain discipline-specific and work-ready skills through real-world projects and briefs, as well as work-integrated learning (WIL), culminating in multidisciplinary capstone experiences as they become more independent and self-directed learners. The following section presents the research findings that led to the development of the Authentic Learning Blueprint.

3. Case Phase 1: Research and Development

3.1. Research and Development of the Blueprint

Our approach involved adopting a multiple-stakeholder lens incorporating the perspectives of learners, educators and employers, including industry and community organisations. These three groups are all participants in the learning experience, arguably at differing degrees and different stages in the student life cycle. Their roles are co-dependent and as we delved in to their various perspectives, a tri-partite model became evident.

Learner insights: The student workshops provided insight into their authentic learning experiences and their desire for how this could be implemented in their courses. Several key insights emerged. Students want practical learning experiences that clearly connect what they learn to how it is applied in industry, making learning real-world and relevant. They believe that such experiences instil a stronger sense of purpose and confidence, emphasising that industry exposure must be meaningful rather than tokenistic. While students highly value these opportunities, they also acknowledged that they do not always feel fully equipped to engage with them, especially in their first year.

Further discussions with students revealed the diversity of student cohorts and showed that labels like ‘postgraduate vs. undergraduate’ or ‘international vs. domestic’ do not adequately capture the nuanced similarities or capabilities amongst students. Students differed on the clarity of their future goals, confidence to engage in education and co-curriculars, and comfort in co-creating their learning journey. Four insights emerged:

• Students need practical learning that connects study to real-world application.
• Such experiences build purpose and confidence.
• Industry/community exposure must be meaningful and relevant.
• Students value exposure but often feel unprepared.

Educator insights: It became evident from conversations with educators, that whilst their role is always pivotal, it changes according to whether they are teaching new or experienced students, that is, as learners progress from Novice to Emerging Practitioner. As they become more independent, resilient, and capable of handling ambiguity, educators shift from directing learning to mentoring and guiding learners in applying critical thinking and problem-solving to real-world situations. University-wide workshops with educators were held to check our ‘Authentic Learning Blueprint’ principles against units and courses, and three insights emerged:

• Our authentic learning approach must be flexible for educators to design context-appropriate activities and assessments.
• Many educators lack industry connections and need networking support.
• Our university already has excellent authentic learning exemplars; early adopters can mentor others.

Employers (industry/community) insights: From our conversations with our industry partners, we understood that the role of industry/community partners also changes throughout the student journey. In the early stages of a learner’s journey, the Novice stage, the industry/community focus is on contextualising discipline knowledge and understanding. In the mid stages of a learner’s journey, the Associate stage, they help sense-check learners’ application of knowledge against real-world practice. Within the final stages of the learner’s journey, the Emerging Practitioner stage, the industry/community plays a more directive role, building strong connections to the real world through work-integrated learning, placements, and capstone projects.

Overall insights: Feedback from educators and staff working with industry and community partners revealed four insights:

• Flexible project timelines over fixed semesters or terms.
• Hand-picking quality learners for employment opportunities.
• University learners’ creativity and innovation.
• Research capacity for their operational and strategic challenges.

3.2. Co-Creating the Authentic Learning Blueprint

These stakeholder insights were the genesis of our ‘Authentic Learning Blueprint’, which provided our educators with a framework to scale real-world, relevant, and rewarding learning experiences that connect learners to their professional purpose within units and across courses.

The Blueprint features three aspects of learning and teaching, acting as levers for learning to be appropriately pitched for real-world experience: (1) learning activities and assessment, (2) academic scaffolding, and (3) engagement with industry/community. Within this framework, students’ progress through three levels is monitored, from foundation to work-ready, building confidence, knowledge, and skills through scaffolded experiences.

One of the key features of our Blueprint was the introduction of new language to represents the stages of a learner’s journey. We introduced to our university the terms Novice, Associate, and Emerging Practitioner, reflecting the learner’s stages, guiding educators on when and how to introduce real-world experiences, and supporting employers in their advice on how to scaffold briefs and experiences. These stages focus on capacity building at foundation, application, and mastery levels for both undergraduate and postgraduate students, and correlating learners, activities, and assessments with these terms provides a window into the world of work, its practice and language.

3.3. Scaffolding Authentic Learning Across Three Levels

The Blueprint is designed to adjust each of the following three aspects of learning and teaching to provide learners with appropriate opportunities to engage in real-world learning experiences:

• Learning activities and assessment.
• Academic scaffolding.
• Engagement with industry/community.

A description of the three levels of a learner’s journey can be seen in Figure 1. First, the learner is called a Novice, wanting a safe and supported environment to learn about real-world discipline knowledge. Then the learner is called an Associate, with a level of confidence to apply knowledge in a real-world industry context with the support of their educator. Finally, the learner is positioned as an Emerging Practitioner, where they immerse their learning in a real-world industry context and know that their project outcomes have potential real-world impacts. Once the three levels of student learning were established and the new language was agreed upon, our working group began working on a matrix to guide all stakeholders on scaffolding authentic learning across the levels.

We developed a matrix to explain how to implement authentic learning across the three learning stages (see Figure 2). We demonstrate how (1) the complexity of the task and assessment, (2) the level of scaffolding required and (3) the level of proximity to industry change for each stage of the learner’s journey. For example, in the Novice stage, industry engagement would be low. The Novice learner may be given a brief or case study information delivered without meeting the industry partner and need a high degree of support from the educator, and the assessment would not be complex. However, at the other end of the matrix, an Emerging Practitioner needs low educator support or scaffolding and the industry client may attend several briefing meetings, and the learner would be tasked with a high level of complexity in the tasks and assessment.

Figure 3 shows the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in an authentic learning environment. It demonstrates the different needs of the learner across their learning journey and how each partner can assist in the journey. For example, at the Novice level, the industry partner might provide data and case studies; at the Associate level, they might act as an advisor or coach, guiding the learner in industry ways of investigating a context, whereas at the Emerging Practitioner level, the industry partner might play more of a directive role and set the context for the deliverables.

4. Case Phase 2: Pilot Study

To trial the Authentic Learning Blueprint, a pilot study in a small number of courses and majors in a School of Design within the university was undertaken to test the implementation of the Blueprint. A proof-of-concept approach was implemented by piloting the assessment approach at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels within the design school. The pilot study involved two design units, including at the undergraduate Novice level ‘Brand Identity Design’ and ‘Codesign Methods’ at the postgraduate, Emerging Practitioner level. The briefs and assessments within the units were designed to replicate professional practice by engaging students in authentic tasks. Students worked on genuine industry briefs, such as developing brand strategies for start-up companies, within a simulated brand agency. The unit convenor acted as ‘studio manager’ and students as ‘junior designers’. Learning activities in classes were embedded in collaborative team meetings we called Work-in-Progress (WIP) meetings, to foster peer interaction and knowledge sharing.

Assessment focused on producing industry-relevant outputs, we called ‘a brand booklet’ or ‘client report’ and ‘client presentations’, with evaluation conducted jointly by the ‘art directors’ and industry partners to ensure alignment with professional standards. This approach embeds professional language throughout the learning journey, reinforcing real-world relevance. Educator feedback from the pilot study indicated a positive learning experience, with many learners suggesting an increase in real-world client engagement.

Evaluation of postgraduate unit: After our 12-week trial, we surveyed the postgraduate students and used the Net Promoter Score (NPS) as a simple, industry-standard way to measure student satisfaction, classifying responses as promoters, passives, or detractors on a ten-point scale and producing a score from −100 to +100. While adopting the NPS requires viewing students as customers, this aligns with universities operating under business paradigms, providing an indication of student satisfaction with the Blueprint trial.

Four short answer questions were made available to students toward the end of the semester. The survey questions were as follows:

• What changes would the unit coordinator have to make for you to give it an even higher rating?
• Thinking about the sequence of learning activities in this unit, what worked for you?
• Still thinking about the learning activities, what did not work for you?
• General comment.

The postgraduate unit, ‘Co-Design Methods’: An NPS survey with four open-ended questions was administered to 56 enrolled students; 44 responded to the survey (78% response rate), providing a reliable reflection of the cohort’s experience. The unit achieved an NPS of 59, rated excellent, with 64% promoters, 32% passives, and only 5% detractors. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive, highlighting strong support for workshops, group collaboration, and industry engagement. Most respondents suggested no changes, though some requested more time with clients and additional workshops. General comments reinforced the unit’s value in developing professional skills, enhancing portfolios, and linking learning directly to career outcomes, with many noting it helped them grow as designers and produce portfolio-ready work.

Insights: This proof-of-concept case study highlighted how authentic learning was embedded through co-created experiences, structured progression, and meaningful industry collaboration. The initiative closed the gap between academia and industry, resulting in graduates who are more confident, skilled, and ready to contribute to future professional environments. The success of the proof-of-concept case led to a rollout across the flagship course and informed the authentic assessment approach that led to an investigation into how ungrading can support authentic learning.

5. Case Phase 3: Implementation at School Level

In the final phase, the Blueprint was applied to the design school’s flagship course, Bachelor of Design, employing the three levels of authentic learning, Novice, Associate, and Emerging, as a framework to scaffold skills across the program. This framework proved highly effective in supporting curriculum design and pedagogy. As per phase 2, authentic assessment was also investigated. The subsequent COVID-19 pandemic provided a conducive environment to rethink assessment strategies, e.g., ungrading to better support student success. Authentic learning and assessment approaches are rooted in real-world contexts, which prepare learners for feedback on performance outside the boundaries of discretionary grading within the learning environment.

5.1. Authentic Assessment Leading to Ungrading Approaches

The pedagogy of ungrading supports student-centred and independent learning and asserts that students perform better without the pressure of discretionary grading (Blum, 2020; Kohn, 2011). Ungrading in its approach has been applied across numerous disciplines and more recently in design (Wragg et al., 2023; Wright et al., 2025). The key literature in the area has shown that ungrading approaches increase student agency in learning, increasing engagement and intrinsic motivation (Hasinoff et al., 2024). Additionally, there are benefits in decreased student stress levels, as well as developing a culture of collaboration and risk taking in learning (Butler, 2025). The recent literature suggests promising outcomes through the implementation of ungrading in dealing with the challenges of AI and assessment (Crogman et al., 2023), as well as equity and learning outcomes (De Welde, 2025).

5.2. Developing the Approach

In 2021, a series of workshops with educators and education experts was undertaken to clarify the how the Blueprint and ungrading could work in tandem to support learner success and prepare graduates for industry. From this work, eight core units were ungraded to enhance student success. The ungrading approach, ‘Assessment for Learning’, aligns closely with authentic learning principles, emphasising real-world contexts. As design is an applied, practical discipline, combining authentic learning with industry-relevant skills provides a strong fit. The Blueprint was applied across the development of these units (Novice, Associate, and Emerging) and this worked in tandem with the mapping of work-integrated learning (WIL) experiences across the curriculum. The table in Figure 4 below illustrates how WIL maps to the Blueprint.

Evaluation: Evaluation of the implementation across the Bachelor of Design course includes an improvement in student satisfaction rates as per the Student Feedback Surveys across the units with ungraded assessment (Wright et al., 2025). This successful implementation within the flagship course led to the Blueprint being mapped into accreditation across all eight courses within the school.

Insights: One of the critical elements underpinning our ungraded approach, Assessment for Learning, adopted across eight core units in the Bachelor of Design, was an extended version of the Blueprint that extrapolated the relational aspects between students and staff. Not only were we providing an experience that mimicked industry, but we also established a framework to map the attributes educators expected of learners, as well as characterising what learners could expect of educators. Topics such as knowledge acquisition; mindset; types of thinking; initiative; technological skills; cultural and social literacy; research and investigation; and confidence and communication were all capabilities that educators could use to articulate their expectations of learners at each stage (Novice, Associate, and Emerging). Alongside these expectations, the framework enabled staff to communicate key characteristics of work-integrated learning, such as educator learning approaches; assessment; industry partners; and technology use, as well as competencies that students could expect to attain over their education journey.

Establishing a broad framework enabled its transference from a design school context to other disciplines. Extending the framework has been core to the uptake of Assessment for Learning across three schools, including design, business and arts, as well as work-integrated learning offerings. Using the framework acknowledges broad similarities and differences in the types of knowledge required across different cohorts. Importantly, the framework enables educators to work backwards from the graduating students’ attributes, skills and capabilities and curate learning experiences punctuated with rich feedback and space for reflection-in-action. Commencing in eight units in the design school in 2022, the authentic assessment approach of ungrading has been embraced in over 50 units across the university at varying stages—Novice, Associate and Emerging—including its translation in our transnational education partners and local partnerships.

6. Discussion

Authentic learning plays an important role in the broader educational context, in terms of legitimacy with industry, student readiness for the world of work and academic integrity. Academic integrity continues to be a major concern for educators (McCabe & Treviño, 1993, 1997), with assessment structures, such as those advocated in the Authentic Learning Blueprint, considered to play a central role in shaping integrity outcomes (Rettinger & Kramer, 2009).

The principles of authentic learning emphasise contextualised, personally meaningful, and process-oriented assessment tasks that require application, reflection, and individual judgement. As such, these approaches are inherently more resistant to cheating as they produce unique student responses and prioritise learning over performance, thereby reducing both the opportunity and motivation for misconduct (Herrington & Herrington, 2006; Rettinger & Kramer, 2009). We observe that fostering academic integrity is most effective when learning tasks are designed to be authentic, transparent, and intrinsically valuable, making it a natural consequence of engagement rather than compliance.

This is pertinent in light of our findings. In terms of learners, they flourish with learning that is practical and where they can see it connects study to real-world application. Indeed, learners reported having greater confidence and preparedness to embark on their careers post-study. Authentic learning, however, is not always comfortable for educators. Some reported feeling under-prepared for the style of teaching (didactic knowledge transmission versus facilitation, Rule, 2006) or felt uncomfortable to engage with industry partners, especially in terms of changing workplace landscapes and emergent technologies. Encouragingly, many indicated that our Authentic Learning Blueprint was helpful through the explicit articulation of the roles of each player in the tri-partite model and guidelines for curriculum and assessment development to support authentic learning outcomes.

Similarly, some industry partners indicated some hesitancy in engaging with educators due to limited exposure to academic learning, not always being clear about what was expected of them, nor always willing to dedicate the time and support required to make the relationships effective. These findings highlight the critical nature of relationship management and communication with clear, mutually understood roles agreed to from the outset, before any teaching actually commences. The Blueprint contributes to transparency and builds confidence through better understanding. This is consistent with the findings of Nachtigall et al. (2024), who state that collaboration in authentic learning requires clear role structures, opportunities for discussion, and careful facilitation to ensure inclusion and accountability. We see this as vital for all players, namely learners, educators and employers in industry.

Furthermore, our work also supports that of Herrington and Herrington (2006), who posit that assessment should be integrated throughout the learning process, with iterative feedback from educators, peers, and professionals to reinforce the relevance of tasks and encourage deep engagement. The Authentic Learning Blueprint is now a central tenet across our institution, underpinning our learning and teaching philosophy and our extensive industry engagement strategy, as it enables educators to communicate their expectations of learners and, in return, what learners can expect of educators. To date it has been seen to be relevant across all disciplinary contexts, from humanities to sciences, and across all year levels due to the explicit nuanced recommendations on which it is founded.

6.1. Limitations

Whilst our study presents a point in time within one university and the pilot, and initial implementation within a single school, thereby limiting the generalisability of the findings, we are confident that the approach is relevant to other institutions as it speaks to our common and shared challenges. Also, the results are limited to the discipline of design, which employs a practice-based learning and teaching approach; however, subsequent adoption by other schools in our institution provide confidence in its broader application as a learning methodology. We feel we provide valuable insights for others into the scalability and efficacy of authentic learning via our Blueprint.

One of the challenges in a contemporary university context is the capacity to scale up initiatives within and across schools due to the various learning environments, conventions and pedagogical approaches underpinning various disciplines. In recent years, there has been broader implementation across multiple courses and a variety of disciplines, with an understanding that this is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Nevertheless, the rollout of the Blueprint has evolved over time and has been extended to the wider university and dovetailed with the university’s 2025 strategy of work-ready graduates, delivering on the promise that every graduate undertakes a work-integrated learning experience. Our work in ongoing and currently continues to support all graduates in improving their learning and employability outcomes.

6.2. Implications and Future Research

We have been heartened by the positive feedback from learners, educators and industry partners for our approach, with it seen as a sensible and appropriate progression of learning for the 21st century context. Our major findings may best be summarised as follows:

• There is no ‘one size fits all’ in any institution-wide approach to learning modalities. Our Blueprint is nuanced and designed to be cognisant of what is appropriate for given contexts.
• Our approach involves institutional change, which in turn requires support from all internal and external stakeholders. Part of our success has been in ensuring a genuine co-creation approach, with all parties respectfully involved in finding the best learning solutions. Following on from this, ‘buy-in’ across all areas and echelons within the university is essential and hence, ongoing review, feedback, adjustment and communication must be a high priority.
• Recognising and utilising existing internal authentic learning expertise provides great value. Indeed, it would be wise to appoint ‘authenticity champions’ to assist educators and industry/community partners to genuinely embed authentic learning practices across courses and explore broader implications such as ungrading at a university-wide level across a range of disciplines.
• The magnitude of introducing wholesale change to learning practices requires a significant resourcing investment to support all parties, for example, re-educating learners on what is required, professional learning support to enable educators to confidently adopt authentic learning practices, and providing resources to source and manage relationships with industry/community partners.

Our focus now is to examine the implementation of the Authentic Learning Blueprint across the entire university, focusing on how scaffolding curriculum design influences student outcomes and how it is adapted to various disciplinary contexts.

There is a need for further research in this space. Future studies could explore the impact of setting whole-of-course goals centred on student outcomes rather than discipline content, as well as evaluating strategies such as mapping progression through concept maps. Further investigation into consistent teaching approaches, options for authentic assessment practices, and their effect on confidence, problem-solving, and professional readiness is essential. Longitudinal studies that track the performance of a learner cohort from commencement to completion will further evidence authentic learning’s positive impact on student performance (Newmann et al., 1996). Finally, the role of institutional support and professional development, including access to industry contacts, partnership guidance, and short, self-paced modules, could also be assessed for its contribution to scalability.

7. Conclusions

This paper presented a case study of how an Australian university co-created the ‘Authentic Learning Blueprint’ to embed industry-engaged learning throughout the student experience across three phases. In the first phase, collaboratively developed with educators and informed by learner and employer feedback, the Blueprint enables students to progress through scaffolded stages—Novice, Associate, and Emerging Practitioner. In the second phase, the Blueprint was piloted within a school and evaluated with two units of study to test its acceptance. In the third phase, it informed an assessment approach within a design school’s flagship course, which led to unpacking ungrading practices within the context of authentic assessment. This approach has been scaled across all levels in the design school in addition to its eight core units. Substantial work has been undertaken across the remaining schools, catering to varying discipline requirements as well as working with the WIL academic teams, though that is outside of the scope of this paper. The next step is evaluating the rollout across the university and offshore international campuses.

This study demonstrates how authentic learning can be embedded through co-created experiences, structured scaffolding, and meaningful industry collaboration. By closing the gap between academia and industry/community, the ‘Authentic Learning Blueprint’ promises to produce graduates who are more confident, skilled, and ready to contribute to professional environments. The findings show that students appreciate gaining discipline-specific merged with industry-ready skills through real-world project briefs and work-integrated learning experiences.

While this paper reports on practical ideas for embedding authentic learning with a pilot study in a school of design, this model is currently being rolled out to all schools and disciplines across the university. Dedicated resources, time for curriculum redevelopment, and strategies to manage cultural change have been essential. Further research will report on how authentic learning has been scaffolded and scaled effectively across a variety of disciplines and levels of study.

Overall, this study demonstrates that a co-created, scaffolded approach integrating industry engagement throughout the curriculum can be scaled to bridge the gap between academia and professional practice. Beyond positive graduate employability outcomes, the approach establishes a shared institutional language that supports consistent interpretation and application of key concepts while remaining adaptable to discipline-specific contexts.