When a Student’s “Right to Fail” Harms the University Brand: How a Lack of Guidance in Experiential Learning Affects University–Organization Relationships
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2019
When a Student’s “Right to Fail” Harms the University Brand: How a Lack of Guidance in Experiential Learning Affects University–Organization Relationships
Extant research on experiential learning primarily conceptualizes it as an opportunity for student learning. In this article, we broaden the scope to consider the impact of the student experience on two often-overlooked actors: the university and the host organization. We review three vignettes that illustrate core themes that can affect university–organization partnerships: developmental readiness and professional preparation. Through these vignettes, we demonstrate that, by offering minimal guidance to students during experiential learning, the risks surpass those related to student learning by generating very real risks to the institutional brand and its organizational partnerships. After discussing the considerations, risks, and recommendations for each theme, a generalized framework for implementing preparation, guidance, and support during experiential learning opportunities is presented as a way of mitigating key risk factors.
ArnettJ. J. (2007). Suffering, selfish, slackers? Myths and reality about emerging adults. Youth Adolescence, 36, 23-29.
2.
BridgstockR. (2009). The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research & Development, 28, 31-44. doi:10.1080/07294360802444347
3.
BrydgesR.CarnahanH.RoseD.DubrowskiA. (2010). Comparing self-guided learning and educator-guided learning formats for simulation-based clinical training. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66, 1832-1844. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05338
4.
BrydgesR.CarnahanH.SafirO.DubrowskiA. (2009). How effective is self-guided learning of clinical technical skills? It’s all about process. Medical Education, 43, 507-515.
5.
CannonJ.ArnoldM. (1998). Student expectations of collegiate internship programs in business: A 10-year update. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 202-205. doi:10.1080/08832329809601630
6.
DavisM. (2013). Beyond the classroom: The role of self-guided learning in second language listening and speaking practice. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 4(2), 85-95.
7.
DeanD.Arroyo-GamezR. E.PunkaisriK.PichC. (2015). Internal brand co-creation: The experiential brand meaning cycle in higher education. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3041-3048. doi:10.1016/j.busres.2016.01.019
8.
HaddenC. (2000). The ironies of mandatory placement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 823-838.
9.
HallM.StilesG.KuzmaJ.ElliottK. (1995). A comparison of student and employer expectations with regard to business internships. Marketing Education Review, 5(3), 41-49. doi:10.1080/10528008.1995.11488513
10.
JacksonS.KrajcikJ.SolowayE. (1998). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. In KaratC.-M.LundA.CoutazJ.KaratJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘98) (pp. 187-194). New York, NY: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley. doi:10.1145/274644.274672
11.
JonesT.AssaloneA. (2016). Not just faster: Equity and learning centered developmental education strategies. Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Foundation.
12.
JordiR. (2011). Reframing the concept of reflection: Consciousness, experiential learning, and reflective learning practices. Adult Education Quarterly, 61, 181-197.
13.
KirschnerP. A.SwellerJ.ClarkR. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
14.
KisfalviV.OliverD. (2015). Creating and maintaining a safe space in experiential learning. Journal of Management Education, 39, 713-740. doi:10.1177/1052562915574724
15.
KolbD. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source for learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
KornellN.BjorkR. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 219-224.
17.
MillerR. J.MaellaroR. (2016). Getting to the root of the problem in experiential learning: Using problem solving and collective reflection to improve learning outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 40, 170-193. doi:10.1177/1052562915623822
PapasolomouI.VrontisD. (2006). Building corporate branding through internal marketing: The case of the UK retail bank industry. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15, 37-47. doi:10.1108/10610420610650864
20.
RouecheJ. E.RouecheS. D. (1994). Climbing out from between a rock and a hard place: Responding to the challenges of the at-risk student. Leadership Abstracts, 7(3). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED369445.pdf
21.
RussV. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education, 22, 304-319. doi:10.1177/105256299802200304
22.
SoyerD. (1963). The right to fail. Social Work, 8(3), 72-78.
23.
WangenheimF. V.EvanschitzkyH.WunderlichM. (2007). Does the employee-customer satisfaction link hold for all employee groups?Journal of Business Research, 60, 690-697. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.019
24.
WurdingerS.CarlsonJ. (2009). Teaching for experiential learning: Five approaches that work. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
25.
ZinsserW. (1970). The lunacy bloom. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
26.
ZinsserW. (2008). The right to fail. In KennedyX. J.KennedyD. M.MuthM. F. (Eds.), The Bedford guide for college writers with reader, research manual, and handbook (8th ed., pp. 567-570). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
