Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 26 October 2014, At: 12:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Journal of Teaching in Travel &TourismPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttt20
Increasing Student Learning:A Comparison of Students'Perceptions of Learning inthe Classroom Environmentand their Industry-BasedExperiential LearningAssignmentsScott A. Lee aa Rosen College of Hospitality Management at theUniversity of Central Florida , Orlando, Florida, USAPublished online: 11 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Scott A. Lee (2008) Increasing Student Learning: A Comparison ofStudents' Perceptions of Learning in the Classroom Environment and their Industry-Based Experiential Learning Assignments, Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism,7:4, 37-54, DOI: 10.1080/15313220802033310
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15313220802033310
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, Vol. 7(4) 2007Available online at http://jttt.haworthpress.com
© 2007 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi:10.1080/15313220802033310 37
WTTT1531-32201531-3239Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, Vol. 7, No. 4, April 2008: pp. 1–27Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism
Increasing Student Learning: A Comparison of Students’ Perceptions of Learning in the
Classroom Environment and their Industry-Based Experiential
Learning AssignmentsScott A. LeeJOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM Scott A. Lee
ABSTRACT. Many hospitality curricula incorporate some form ofindustry-based experiential learning to complement the classroom environ-ment. This study analyzed hospitality management student perceptions oflearning both inside the classroom environment and in their experientiallearning assignments outside the classroom. A review of the literaturefound documented benefits of experiential learning. This study confirmedmany of these previously documented benefits of experiential learning andidentified new learning outcomes or benefits for students who participatein experiential learning, such as an increased understanding of how organi-zations function, increased ability to view career expectations realistically,an increased network of professional contacts, increased ability to takeinitiative, increased ability to adapt to change, increased leadership skills,and increased financial management skills. This study attempted to identifythe statistically significant differences, if any, between student perceptionsof learning in the classroom and their perceptions of learning in experien-tial learning experiences. Unlike similar studies, this study investigatedstudent perceptions of learning in both their classroom environments andtheir experiential learning assignments at the same time. This allowed the
Scott A. Lee, Ed.D. is an assistant professor in the Rosen College of HospitalityManagement at the University of Central Florida, 9907 Universal Blvd., Orlando,FL 32819, USA (E-mail: [email protected]).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
38 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
researcher a unique opportunity to compare and contrast the learningenvironments and identify specific benefits for each.
KEYWORDS. Hospitality, experiential learning, internship, classroom,learning outcome, curriculum, teaching, education
INTRODUCTION
Experiential learning is a broad term referring to multiple programs andsystems for providing students in educational institutions with work-basedapplied learning opportunities. Thomas Groenewald (2004) suggested thatthere are a litany of terms used, including (a) apprenticeship, (b) articles,(c) candidature, (d) career academics, (e) co-op, (f) experiential learningprograms, (g) exchange program, (h) externships, (i) field-based learning,(j) field placements, (k) internships or interns, (l) job shadowing, (m) on-the-job learning/training, (n) practice-orientated education, (o) professionalpractice, (p) project-based learning, (q) sandwich degrees or courses, (r)school-to-work, (s) service learning, (t) summer-hire programs, (u) work-based education or learning and (v) work experience. Cooper, Bottomley,and Gordon (2004) claimed that industry-based experiential learningassignments afford students opportunity for deeper levels of learning andapplication of classroom learning. They assumed that deeper learningoccurred as the student increased his or her level of involvement in theactivity. This idea fits well with Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle. Kolbexplained that there are four stages of learning: (a) experience, which leadsto (b) observation and (c) reflection, which leads to the development ofnew ideas and (d) experimentation, which leads to further experience.Learning is most effective when it is grounded in experience (Train &Elkin, 2001). Dewey stated that it is not sufficient for the teacher to merelytransmit information to the student or for the student to participate in activetasks in order for learning to occur (Cooper et al., p. 12). Dewey (1938)claimed that for real learning to occur at deeper levels, that educationneeded to be grounded in experience, and that experience needed to beaccompanied by the student’s active reflection on his or her experience.
Wilson (1970) explained that not all institutions will have the sameobjectives but that most institutions would share three commonobjectives: (a) to assist students in their vocational development, (b) toassist students in their personal development, and (c) to assist students in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scott A. Lee 39
their social development. Wilson asserted that these three commonobjectives were developmental in nature and are achieved by the student’sengagement in developmental tasks. Nasr (2004) suggested that experientialeducation benefited the student in a tangible manner and “has the potentialto produce a student with a higher aptitude for obtaining the soft skillsemployers in today’s market so desperately seek” (p. 13). They also quotedPierce (as cited in Nasr) describing the experience as the “classroomextended into the marketplace” (p. 13). S. Dressler (personal communication,September 23, 2003) asserted that although there are some fundamentaldifferences between different types of experiential learning programs,they all enable students to apply the theory they have learned. Dressleralso explained that industry-based experiential learning assignments areinherently developmental because they allow students the opportunity toapply what they are learning as they are learning it.
There are many benefits for students who participate in a cooperativeeducation program, including personal, academic, work and career relatedoutcomes (Dressler & Keeling, 2004). For instance, students in an experi-ential education program have the opportunity to learn about differentjobs, different industries, and specific occupations. This helps studentswho may not be aware of what it is that they want to do after they graduatestart to explore some real options. Dressler and Keeling described whatmany cooperative education practitioners have experienced: “Mostpractitioners can tell story after story of students who come to theirprogram as hesitant and confused freshman or sophomores and leaveas seniors with grace, confidence, and a bright future ahead of them”(p. 217). Experiential learning assignments allow hospitality studentsto see how they personally fit into the hospitality industry (Lee, 2006).
Another benefit, according to Grubb (1995), was the opportunity for astudent participating in a cooperative education program to apply whatthey learn in the classroom in an actual, real-world work experience, andvice-versa. Many times there was also an opportunity for students partici-pating in a cooperative education program to be directly placed into aprofessional position with their employer after graduation without aninterview. Students who participate in cooperative education programsgain the necessary experience to have a successful start to their career(Grubb, Dickenson, Giordano, & Kaplan, 1992). Experiential educationprograms help solve the chicken-and-egg situation that frustrates manystudents as they graduate: To get a job, one needs experience; but to getexperience, one needs a job (Stock, 2004). Of all of the possible benefitsavailable to students who participate in an experiential learning program,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
40 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
specific learning outcomes are of utmost importance. Identifying specificlearning outcomes associated with participation in an experiential learningprogram is a powerful way to demonstrate the academic value of experi-ential learning. This study investigated the statistically significant differ-ences between student perceptions of learning in the classroom and theirperceptions of learning in experiential learning experiences; itinvestigated student perceptions of learning in both their classroomenvironments and their experiential learning assignments at the sametime, allowing the researcher an opportunity to compare and contrast thelearning environments and identify specific benefits for each.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The documented benefits of experiential learning or cooperativeeducation programs is significant and includes (a) improved student selfconfidence, self-concept, and improved social skills (Gillan, Davie, &Beissel, 1984), (b) increased practical knowledge and skills (Williams,Sternberg, Rashotte, & Wagner, 1993), and (c) enhanced employmentopportunities (Clark, 1994; Sharma, Mannel, & Rowe, 1995). Manyprograms have taken note of these benefits. As a result, the placement ofstudents in various organizations as trainees has become an academicrequirement to foster work experience so that students will attain thenecessary skills to supplement their theoretical training (King, 1994).Fletcher (1989) identified three groups of learning outcomes as a result ofparticipation in an experiential learning program into which much of theliterature reviewed can be classified: personal development, careerdevelopment, academic development. Parks (2003) added professionaland work skills development as a fourth group of learning outcomes. InParks’ research, students reported increased development of learningoutcomes in these areas progressively over multiple semesters, althoughthe rate of increase in learning varied. Nasr (2004) claimed that industry-based experiential learning assignments prepare students for theworkplace by allowing students to “take what they have learned in theclassroom and apply it to something considerably more than situationalclassroom simulations (p. 13).” Marini and Tillman (1998) commentedthat students engaged in experiential learning assignments are able toenhance specific skills demanded by employers, such as their criticalthinking, communication, teamwork, and problem-solving skills. Langfordand Cates (1995) investigated the contribution of cooperative education to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scott A. Lee 41
a student’s development of communication and thinking skills, or thoseskills commonly referred to as soft skills. They concluded that these softskills of communicating and thinking “are more sought after by employ-ers than technical capabilities and high grade point averages” (p. 134).Hospitality programs have embraced these benefits in their curricula aswell. Busby (2005) outlined seven specific purposes for the “tourismplacement” (p. 94): (a) to experience employment and, where appropriate,accept responsibility for the completion of tasks and the supervision ofothers; (b) to develop key graduate attributes and skills; (c) to acquirefurther practical skills and experience; (d) to obtain an insight into man-agement and management methods; (e) to gain greater maturity and self-confidence; (f) to be involved in the diagnosis and analysis of problems;and (g) to develop attitudes and standards appropriate to career objectives.Richards (1995) and Cooper and Sheperd (1997) asserted that the inclusionof work experience into the hospitality curriculum was intended to providean appropriate vocational aspect to what otherwise would be mostly anacademic curriculum. Evans (2001) wrote that the placement experienceprovided a practical foundation for the final year of study, in which studentsattempt “to find solutions to real business problems” (p. 28).
The level of knowledge acquired by the student at their experientiallearning placement will impact their classroom experience (Morgan,2004), although some (Cooper & Sheperd, 1997; Richards, 1995) assertedthat the experiential learning or work experience placement may simplyadd a vocational slant to what might otherwise be a predominantlyacademic curriculum. One of the oldest forms of experiential education,cooperative education, was never intended to sway the focus of thecurriculum to vocational issues. Cooperative education programs haveconsistently been academic in nature, with the central focus to increasestudent learning. Herman Schneider launched the first cooperativeeducation program 100 years ago because he was convinced that manyprofessional concepts and skills were not learned effectively in theclassroom (Sovilla and Varty, 2004).
Cooperative education is a distinct educational model (Contomanolis,2005) “that blends traditional classroom preparation with industry basedwork experience” (p. 11). However, some faculty members do not takeadvantage of what the experienced co-op student brings to the classroom.Contomanolis explained why some professors may discount the experienceof a co-op student. “On the surface, this knowledge gap may appearunderstandable given the philosophical orientation of an educationalmodel such as cooperative education that emphasizes the value of what is
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
42 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
learned by the student during the work experience outside the classroom”(p. 11). Heinemann and DeFalco (1990) explained that many teachingfaculty “do not recognize that learning, thinking and general professionaldevelopment can be achieved by using the work environment as aclassroom with work serving as an instructional vehicle” (p. 38). Thevalue of industry-based experiential learning assignments as an academicfunction having an academic contribution has been in question since itsinception (Nasr, 2004). Branton et al. (1990) claimed that experientiallearning assignments continue to remain on the fringes of mainstreamhigher education. Simms (1985) wrote that experiential learning programsfaced an ongoing challenge of gaining recognition within institutions ofhigher learning as a worthwhile educational component. Branton et al.asserted that the lack of acceptance of experiential education by others inmainstream higher education was due to a lack of research demonstratingthe academic progress and success of students who participate in industry-based experiential learning assignments as compared to students who didnot participate in such assignments. A growing area of research interesthas been in understanding the relationship of experiential learning assign-ments to the core academic curriculum (Contomanolis). Branton et al.asserted that the lack of acceptance of industry-based experiential learningassignments by others in mainstream higher education was due to a lackof research demonstrating the academic progress and success of thestudents engaged with these assignments.
Educational practitioners from all around the world have responded bydefining and evaluating specific competencies or outcomes that studentsshould gain from education. Specific learning objectives have beenformed from these identified competencies (Dressler & Keeling, 2004).Parks, Onwuegbuzie, and Cash (2001) developed the Predicting LearningAdvancement through Cooperative Education (P.L.A.C.E.) instrument toevaluate student perceptions of learning outcome achievement. TheP.L.A.C.E. instrument has 34 items pertaining to student career, aca-demic, and personal growth. Many of these items are skills identified byemployers in the U.S. Secretary’s Commission on Advancing NecessarySkills ([SCANS], 1990) document. The P.L.A.C.E. instrument was devel-oped to be a standardized instrument measuring pregraduation outcomesin these four areas: (a) career development, (b) academic functionsachievement, (c) work skills development, and (d) personal growth anddevelopment (Parks et al.). Heinemann et al. (1988) emphasized thatmore needs to be known about the educational role of industry-basedexperiential learning assignments in the curriculum and its impact on
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scott A. Lee 43
student learning outcomes. The P.L.A.C.E. instrument was used withpermission in this study to evaluate and contrast student perceptions oflearning in both their cooperative education assignments and theirclassroom environments.
METHODOLOGY
The population for this study was the students enrolled at a majormetropolitan university in Central Florida. This population was selectedso that the study could focus on students in a hospitality curriculum thatwas based on classroom and experiential learning experiences. Thestudent population was about 1,700 students, and all hospitality majors atthe university have an experiential learning requirement. These experienceswere all similar, structured with learning objectives, reflection assignments,and assessment processes, supervised and monitored by the same twofaculty members for all students, minimizing some of the inherent variabilityin students’ experiences, therefore holding some variables constant.
A stratified cluster sample of classes offered at the institution wasselected for this study. The sample was stratified by selecting 4 sectionsof 1000-level courses, 4 sections of 2000-level courses, 8 sections of3000-level courses, and 12 sections of 4000-level courses. More upper-level (3000 and 4000) division courses were selected because more of thestudents enrolled in upper-division courses had participated in the experi-ential learning requirement than those enrolled in the lower-level (1000and 2000) division courses. There were 681 students who responded tothe in-class surveys, and 445 of those students had participated in anexperiential learning assignment.
A modified P.L.A.C.E. instrument was used in order to collect data forthe study. The P.L.A.C.E. instrument was created, tested, and validatedby a group of researchers in a previous study (Parks et al., 2001). The firstgroup of researchers who created the instrument also previously modifiedit based on exploratory factor analysis and extensive input from a com-mittee of cooperative education professionals. The modified P.L.A.C.E.instrument consists of twenty-nine 7-point rating-scale items as well asfour open-ended questions (Parks et al.). This study did not take advan-tage of the qualitative items but only used the 29 items that could be usedin a quantitative analysis. The items on the P.L.A.C.E. instrument per-tained to student career, and academic and personal growth. TheP.L.A.C.E. instrument was developed to be a standardized instrument
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
44 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
measuring pregraduation outcomes in these four areas: (a) career develop-ment, (b) academic functions achievement, (c) work skills development,and (d) personal growth or development (Parks et al.).
In this study, the researcher modified the P.L.A.C.E. instrument devel-oped by Parks into an instrument comprised of three parts. The first sectionincluded 29 items that were derived from the P.L.A.C.E. instrument andasked students to identify only their perceptions of learning in their expe-riential learning assignments. The second section included the same 29items as the first section, but this section asked students to report theirperceptions of learning only as they related to their classroom experi-ences. The third section collected demographic data that were used toidentify the different groups of respondents for purposes of analysis.
Data collection began on January 24, 2006, and concluded on February21, 2006. Each class was visited either at the beginning or ending of aclass meeting. Instructions were read aloud to students who agreed toparticipate in the survey. This study only analyzed data provided byrespondents who indicated that they had participated in at least onesemester of an experiential learning assignment. The dependent variableswere the 29 survey items measuring students’ perceptions of learning asthey related to their classroom experiences and the same 29 survey itemsmeasuring students’ perceptions of learning as they related to their experi-ential learning experiences.
RESULTS
The results of the analysis show that the majority of the respondentswho had participated in at least one semester of an experiential learningassignment were female (73%), upperclassmen (37% juniors, 49%seniors), and 23 years old or younger (87%). Most of the respondentswere U.S. citizens (96%), and many had worked at least 2 years in thehospitality industry (61%). About 60% of the student respondentsreported having a grade point average of 3.0 or higher.
A 7-point Likert scale was used to determine student perceptions oflearning in both the classroom environment and their experiential learningassignments. The degrees of measurement used were: 1 = DecreasedSignificantly; 2 = Decreased Moderately; 3 = Decreased Slightly; 4 = NoChange; 5 = Increased Slightly; 6 = Increased Moderately; 7 =Increased Significantly. Regarding student perceptions of learning in theclassroom, all items received mean scores above five, indicating that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scott A. Lee 45
student perceptions of learning as a result of their classroom experiencesincreased to some degree. These data are presented in Table 1.
All of the reported mean scores fell between five and six, indicatingresponses between Increased Slightly and Increased Moderately. Regardingstudent perceptions of learning in their experiential learning assignments,all items received mean scores above five, indicating that student percep-tions of learning as a result of their experiential learning assignmentsincreased to some degree. These data are presented in Table 2. Studentperceptions of learning for the practical knowledge related to major item
TABLE 1. Student Perceptions of Learning in the Classroom Environment
Learning Outcome N Mean* SD
Practical knowledge related to major 442 5.97 0.99Practical knowledge related to career goals 441 5.77 1.02Understanding of how organizations function 442 5.76 1.01Motivation to continue and persist to graduation 442 5.75 1.3Opportunities to learn from professionals 436 5.74 1.03Ability to apply core knowledge 439 5.66 0.97Maturity 438 5.66 1.11Ability to contribute to a team effort 442 5.65 1.09Leadership skills 442 5.6 1.08Ability to view career expectations realistically 439 5.57 1.15Clarity of career goals 440 5.56 1.18Ability to set priorities 439 5.56 1.02Ability to work with others to accomplish a goal 443 5.56 1.07Oral presentation skills 440 5.53 1.13Ability to adapt to change 441 5.51 1.02Ability to follow through 442 5.5 1.06Ability to make decisions 443 5.5 1.09Time management skills 443 5.5 1.08Ability to creatively identify, formulate, and solve problems 443 5.49 1.01Ability to take initiative 443 5.47 1.06Interpersonal communication skills 443 5.47 1.06Self-confidence 440 5.45 1.1Motivation to learn in the classroom 440 5.37 1.27Professional network of contacts 437 5.33 1.07Desire to pursue life-long learning 442 5.33 1.3Awareness of civic responsibilities 432 5.23 1.12Writing skills 441 5.2 1.11Ability to design and conduct experiments 431 5.11 1.09Financial management skills 437 5.03 1.11
*1 = Decreased Significantly, 7 = Increased Significantly.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
46 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
resulted in the highest mean score reported: 6.10. All of the other reportedmean scores fell between 5 and 6, indicating responses between IncreasedSlightly and Increased Moderately.
A paired samples t test was performed to compare the differencesbetween students’ perceptions of learning in the classroom and theirperceptions of learning in their experiential learning assignments. Of the 29items measured, 14 were found to have statistically significant differencesbetween student perceptions of learning in the classroom environment andtheir perceptions of learning in their experiential learning experiences.
TABLE 2. Student Perceptions of Learning as a Result of Their Experiential Learning Assignments
Learning Outcome N Mean* SD
Practical knowledge related to major 442 6.1 0.94Understanding of how organizations function 442 5.96 0.9Practical knowledge related to career goals 441 5.83 1.03Opportunities to learn from professionals 436 5.74 0.96Motivation to continue and persist to graduation 442 5.74 1.33Leadership skills 442 5.73 1.03Ability to view career expectations realistically 439 5.69 1.08Ability to apply core knowledge 439 5.69 0.9Maturity 438 5.69 1.07Ability to contribute to a team effort 442 5.68 1.01Ability to take initiative 443 5.65 1.09Clarity of career goals 440 5.61 1.19Ability to adapt to change 441 5.61 1.01Ability to creatively identify, formulate, and solve problems 443 5.56 0.97Self-confidence 440 5.55 1.09Ability to set priorities 439 5.54 1.06Professional network of contacts 437 5.5 1.05Time management skills 443 5.48 1.1Ability to follow through 442 5.46 1.14Ability to work with others to accomplish a goal 443 5.45 1.02Ability to make decisions 443 5.45 1.05Interpersonal communication skills 443 5.45 1.02Desire to pursue life-long learning 442 5.35 1.25Motivation to learn in the classroom 440 5.33 1.31Oral presentation skills 440 5.32 1.08Financial management skills 437 5.14 1.12Awareness of civic responsibilities 432 5.13 1.04Writing skills 441 4.95 1.06Ability to design and conduct experiments 431 4.89 1.06
*1 = Decreased Significantly, 7 = Increased Significantly.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scott A. Lee 47
Students reported learning more in nine areas as a result of their experientiallearning assignments. The nine areas that students reported a statisticallyhigher learning from their experiential learning assignments were practicalknowledge related to major (t (441) = 2.7, p < 0.05), understanding ofhow organizations function (t (441) = 3.86, p < 0.01), ability to viewcareer expectations realistically (t (438) = 2.25, p < 0.05), professionalnetwork of contacts (t (436) = 3.36, p < 0.01), ability to take initiative(t (442) = 3.88, p < 0.01), ability to adapt to change (t (440) = 2.02, p <0.05), leadership skills (t (441) = 2.7, p < 0.05), self-confidence (t (439)= 2.06, p < 0.05), and financial management (t (436) = 2.4, p < 0.05).These data are represented in Table 3.
Students also reported learning more in five areas from their class-room experiences. The five areas that students reported significantlyhigher perceptions of learning from their classroom experiences wereoral presentation skills (t (439) = −4.67, p < 0.01), writing skills(t (440) = −5.28, p < 0.01), ability to work with others to accomplish agoal (t (442) = −2.32, p < 0.05), ability to design and conduct experiments(t (430) = −4.77, p < 0.01), and awareness of civic responsibilities(t (431) = −2.44, p < 0.05), These data are reported in Table 4.
Not surprisingly, respondents reported statistically significant differ-ences in mean scores for both oral presentation skills and writing skills,
TABLE 3. Significant Differences in Learning from Experiential Learning Assignments
Learning Outcome N Mean* t-value p - value
Experiential Learning
Classroom Experience
Practical knowledge related to major 442 6.10 5.97 2.70 0.01Understanding of how
organizations function442 5.96 5.76 3.86 0.00
Ability to view career expectations realistically
439 5.69 5.57 2.25 0.03
Professional network of contacts 437 5.50 5.33 3.36 0.00Ability to take initiative 443 5.65 5.47 3.88 0.00Ability to adapt to change 441 5.61 5.51 2.02 0.04Leadership skills 442 5.73 5.60 2.70 0.01Self Confidence 440 5.55 5.45 2.06 0.04Financial Management Skills 437 5.14 5.03 2.40 0.02
*1 = Decreased Significantly, 7 = Increased Significantly.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
48 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
indicating that students perceived learning more about oral presentationskills and writing skills in the classroom than they did in their experientiallearning assignments. Students also reported higher mean scores regardingtheir ability to work with others to accomplish a goal and that their abilityto design and conduct experiments increased more as a result of the class-room than their experiential learning assignments. Another area in whichrespondents indicated a statistically significant difference was their aware-ness of civic responsibilities with a mean difference of , indicating that stu-dents perceived becoming more aware of civic responsibilities as a resultof classroom rather than their experiential learning assignments.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Results from this study indicate that students report that learningincreases in both the classroom environment and their experiential learn-ing assignments. A total of 14 items of 29 were found to have statisticallysignificant differences between student perceptions of learning in theclassroom environment and their perceptions of learning in their experi-ential learning experiences. Students reported learning more in nine areasas a result of their experiential learning assignments (see Table 3). Theresearcher believed that students reported comparatively higher levels oflearning in these nine learning outcomes as a result of the opportunity forstudents to develop and exercise specific skills in a real-world setting
TABLE 4. Significant Differences in Learning from the Classroom Environment
Area of Learning N Mean* t-value p-value
Experiential Learning
Classroom Experience
Oral presentation skills 440 5.32 5.53 −4.67 0.00Writing skills 441 4.95 5.20 −5.28 0.00Ability to work with others
to accomplish a goal443 5.45 5.56 −2.32 0.02
Ability to design and conduct experiments
431 4.89 5.11 −4.77 0.00
Awareness of civic responsibilities 432 5.13 5.23 −2.44 0.02
* 1 = Decreased Significantly, 7 = Increased Significantly.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scott A. Lee 49
structured for learning, in which they could experience the bigger pictureand context of how organizations function on a daily basis, as well as howorganizations work to accomplish specific organizational goals. Theresearcher concluded that the increased learning reported by participantsin these nine areas were the result of being a part of and interacting with ateam of coworkers and agreed that the specific interactions and intricaciesof teamwork are often difficult to produce in a classroom environment.
Respondents also reported learning more in five areas as a result oftheir classroom experiences (see Table 4). The researcher concluded thatthe comparatively higher levels of learning in these five areas were theresult of the classroom environment being structured to nurture these per-sonal growth learning outcomes. With the exception of the ability to workwith others to accomplish a goal item, these learning outcomes reflectindividual personal growth that allows a student to succeed in academicsettings. Although it can be difficult to create realistic team-oriented worksituations in the classroom, many classes do include a team or groupproject involving specific interactions with groups of students focused onone particular goal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study attempted to add to the literature of research regardinglearning outcomes by contrasting learning in the classroom environmentand industry-based experiential learning assignments. It is important topoint out in this discussion that participants in this study reportedincreases of learning for all learning outcomes measured in this study,regardless of the context of either experiential learning assignments or theclassroom environment. The following recommendations should be con-sidered for implementation into hospitality programs of study as a resultof this research.
Many leading hospitality programs currently incorporate an experientiallearning component into their curricula. Learning outcomes of experientiallearning programs have been well documented. They include (a) improvedstudent self-confidence, self-concept, and improved social skills (Gillan,Davie, & Beissel, 1984); (b) increased practical knowledge and skills(Williams et al., 1993); and (c) enhanced employment opportunities(Clark, 1994; Sharma et al., 1995). This study confirmed these previouslydocumented benefits of experiential learning. In addition, this study identi-fied a statistically significant difference in seven previously unidentified
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
50 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
areas for hospitality students engaged in an experiential learning program.These seven new learning outcomes were an increased understanding ofhow organizations function, an increased ability to view career expecta-tions realistically, an increased network of professional contacts, increasedability to take initiative, increased ability to adapt to change, increasedleadership skills, and increased financial management skills. Some pro-grams have taken note of the benefits of experiential learning. As King(1994) explained, the placement of students in various organizations andwork environments as trainees is an academic requirement to foster thework experience so the students will attain the necessary skills to supple-ment their theoretical training. The researcher recommends that those hos-pitality programs that currently do not incorporate experiential learninginto their curriculums should begin to do so in order to enhance andimprove student learning. In addition, the researcher recommends thatuniversity and program administrators continue to value and include expe-riential learning as a viable and important curriculum element necessary toproduce successful graduates for the hospitality industry.
Some hospitality programs use some faculty members to teach coursesin the curriculum and different faculty members to supervise students’industry-based experiential learning assignments, and some hospitalityprograms simply assign one of their faculty members to supervise theexperiential learning component of the curriculum in addition to teachingin the classroom. As a result of this study, the researcher recommends thatexperiential learning faculty members and classroom faculty increasetheir efforts to work together toward the common goal of increasing stu-dent learning. Classroom faculty members should take advantage of thebenefits experiential learning brings to the classroom environment, andexperiential learning faculty members should capitalize on the benefitsthat students’ classroom experiences bring to their structured workassignments. All of the students in this particular study were supervisedby two faculty members. The faculty members incorporated a commonmethod for experiential learning programs by requiring each student tostart the experiential learning assignment by selecting learning objectivesto achieve while they were engaged in their experiential learning assign-ments. At the end of the semester, the students wrote a reflective paperdiscussing how they specifically achieved their particular learning objectivesthat semester. If they had difficulty in achieving their learning objectives,they discussed the specific issues that created a hindrance as well. Theprocess of setting specific learning objectives and then reflecting back onhow successful they were in achieving these particular objectives may
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scott A. Lee 51
support the possibility that students report higher perceptions of learn-ing when engaged in an experiential learning program. In addition,these higher scores reported may indeed be the result of studentsengaged in experiential learning being able to apply what they learn intheir experiential learning assignments more appropriately in theclassroom, resulting in higher levels of learning overall being reportedby the students.
LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The study population was limited to hospitality students enrolled inhospitality management courses during the spring 2006 semester at alarge metropolitan university located in Central Florida. Therefore, theability to generalize the findings of this study may be limited because thestudy’s sample may not represent student populations at other institutions.It is important to note that the data collection was limited by the studentspresent on the days the survey was administered, and the data were self-reported data collected from students in the study sample. Informationand data were dependent on the accuracy of the data provided by therespondents on the survey instrument.
The focus of this particular study was to investigate specific learningoutcomes by students currently engaged in an experiential learning pro-gram. Future research may want to incorporate perceptions of industrypartners. Also, additional research should be considered to replicate thisstudy with more students involved with hospitality education at multipleinstitutions. This would allow future researchers to study and account forthe interaction of different curriculums, different institutional influences,and different experiential learning opportunities. Additional researchshould be considered to further investigate the relationship of industry-based experiential learning opportunities and how these impact studentlearning opportunities inside the classroom environment in the hospitalitymanagement curriculum, allowing future researchers to study moreclosely the interaction of the classroom environment and experientiallearning opportunities. Additional research should be considered toinclude a study similar to this particular study on a longitudinal basis,allowing researchers to study how the interaction of the classroom andexperiential learning opportunities affect individual students over time.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
52 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
REFERENCES
Branton, G. R., Van Gyn, G., Cutt, J., Loken, M., Ney, T., & Ricks, F. (1990). A model forassessing the learning benefits in cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Edu-cation, 26(2), 30–40.
Busby, G. (2005). Work experience and industrial links. In D. Airey & J. Tribe (Eds.), Aninternational handbook of tourism education (pp. 93–107). New York: Elsevier.
Clark, C. J. (1994, August). The effect of co-operative education on graduate employmentprospects. Paper presented at the conference on Industry and Education: The co-operative venture, Auckland, New Zealand.
Contomanolis, E. (2005). Integrating cooperative education based student learning in thecollege classroom: A study of engineering faculty attitudes and activities. Journal ofCooperative Education and Internships, 39(1), 11–23.
Cooper, C., & Sheperd, R. (1997). The relationship between tourism education and thetourism industry: Implications for tourism education. Tourism Recreation Research,22(1), 34–47.
Cooper, S., Bottomley, C., & Gordon, J. (2004). Stepping out of the classroom and up theladder of learning: An experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship education.Industry & Higher education, 18(1), 11–22.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Dressler, S., & Keeling, A. (2004). Student benefits of cooperative education. In R. K.
Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative education: An inter-national perspective of the theory, research, and practice of work-integrated learning(pp. 217–236). Boston: World Association for Cooperative Education.
Evans, N. (2001). The development and positioning of business related university tourismeducation: A UK perspective. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 1(1), 17–36.
Fletcher, J. K. (1989). Student outcomes: What do we know and how do we know it?Journal of Cooperative Education, 26(1), 26–38.
Gillan, L. M., Davie, R. S., & Beissel, K. R. (1984). Evaluating the career progressof Australian engineering graduates. Journal of Cooperative Education, 20(3),53–70.
Groenewald, T. (2004). Towards a definition for cooperative education. In R. K. Coll & C.Eames (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative education: An international per-spective of the theory, research, and practice of work-integrated learning (pp. 17–25).Boston: World Association for Cooperative Education.
Grubb, W. N. (1995). The sub-baccalaureate labor market and the advantagesof cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships,30(2), 6–19.
Grubb, W. N., Dickenson, T., Giordano, L., & Kaplan, L. (1992). Betwixt and between:Education, skills, and employment in sub-baccalaureate labor markets. Berkeley, CA:National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Heinemann, H. N., & DeFalco, A. A. (1990). Dewey’s pragmatism: A philosophical foun-dation for cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 27(1), 38–44.
Heinemann, H. N., Enright, J., Johnson, P. E., Murtaugh, K., Reed, V. G., Robinson, V.et al. (1988). Cooperative education and the academy: Ad hoc committee on
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scott A. Lee 53
cooperative education and the curriculum. Journal of Cooperative Education,24(2–3), 109–119.
King, B. (1994). Co-operative education for hospitality and tourism students: An Austra-lian case study. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 1(2), 53–70.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and develop-ment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Langford, D. R., & Cates, C. L. (1995). Developing general education skills throughco-operative education. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Co-operativeEducation (pp. 129–137). Kingston, Jamaica: World Association of CooperativeEducation.
Lee, Scott (2006). A comparison of student perceptions of learning in their co-op andinternship experiences and the classroom environment: A study of hospitality manage-ment students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, 2006). (UMI No.3233659)
Marini, R. C., & Tillman, R. R. (1988). Giving graduates worldwide the business skillsthey need through cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education. 33(2),50–59.
Morgan, M. (2004). From production line to drama school: Higher education for the futureof tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(2),91–99.
Nasr, K. J. (2004). A study of students’ assessment of cooperative education outcomes.Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 38(1), 13–21.
Parks, D. K. (2003). An examination of cooperative education students’ learning out-comes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Valdosta State University, Georgia.
Parks, D. K., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Cash, S. H. (2001). Development of a measure forpredicting learning advancement through cooperative education: Reliability and valid-ity of the P.L.A.C.E. scale. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 36(1),23–31.
Richards, G. (1995). Introduction. In G. Richards (Ed.), European tourism and leisureeducation: Trends and prospects (pp. 3–13). Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Secretary’s Commission on Advancing Necessary Skills. (1990). SCANS report. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
Sharma, L. A., Mannell, R. C., & Rowe, P. M. (1995). The relationship between educa-tion-related work experiences and career expectations. Journal of Cooperative Educa-tion and Internships, 30(3), 39–47.
Simms, M. W. (1985). Cooperative education and academia: When does the partnershipcome of age? Journal of Cooperative Education, 21(3), 29–33.
Sovilla, E. S., & Varty, J. W. (2004). Cooperative education in the USA, past and present:Some lessons learned. In R. K. Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International handbook forcooperative education: An international perspective of the theory, research, andpractice of work-integrated learning (pp. 3–16). Boston: World Association for Coop-erative Education.
Stock, J. (2004). Internships: Stepping-stones to employment. Career World, 33(2), 22–23.Train, B., & Elkin, J. (2001). Branching out: A model for experiential learning in
professional practice. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 33(2), 68–74.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
54 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
Williams, W. M., Sternberg, R. J., Rashotte, C. A., & Wagner, R. K. (1993). Assessing thevalue of cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 28(2), 32–55.
Wilson, J. W. (1970). On the nature of cooperative education. Journal of CooperativeEducation, 6(3), 1–10.
SUBMITTED: September 19, 2007FIRST REVISION SUBMITTED: January17, 2008
FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED: January 30, 2008ACCEPTED: January 31, 2008
REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
12:
54 2
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
