AUTHENTIC LEARNING EXPERIENCES PROVIDED THROUGH THE ISPI CASE STUDY COMPETITION
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to describe how participating in the ISPI University Case Study competition influenced student learning. Authentic learning experiences provide learners with an instructional opportunity to apply previously obtained knowledge and skills to a simulated yet authentic work environment. The population for the study was limited to students who participated in ISPI University Case Study Competitions in the years 2010, 2014, and 2019. All students were online graduate students enrolled in a performance improvement degree program from a single participating university.
The study identified the most beneficial components of the experience. Authentic learning was achieved through investigating a real-world problem, interacting with a community of learners, presenting to external stakeholders, and reflecting on the process. The case study approach allowed us to discover detailed descriptions of how authentic learning experiences impacted the students academically and professionally.
Authentic Learning Experiences (ALEs) provide learners with the opportunity to apply the knowledge, skills, and abilities mastered in their academic programs in a simulated environment that mimics the real world in which they will be expected to perform postgraduation (Rule, 2006). Grounded in situated learning, cognitive apprenticeship, problem-solving, constructivism, and problem-based learning, ALEs provide learners with opportunities to experience the often messy, complex reality of their future workplaces (Lombardi, 2007). When these experiences involve working as a team member, learners are also given opportunities to demonstrate their abilities to work cooperatively and collaboratively with others. ALEs provide a bridge between the classroom and the real world. Their benefits are undeniable, and yet, their use remains limited. Creating high-quality, simulated learning environments and bringing in personnel who mimic the professionals students would interact with in the real-world setting can be a large undertaking for an academic department.
One solution to this challenge is to establish ALEs that serve more than a single academic department by either working with multiple academic departments within a single institution or participating in ALEs that are sponsored by an external organization and open to students from similar programs in multiple institutions. This study explores the impact of the latter on students who had the opportunity to participate in the ISPI University Case Study Competition.
BACKGROUND
Characteristics of ALEs include elements from various learning theories. In 2006, Audrey Rule and her team qualitatively analyzed 45 journal articles and identified four major themes of authentic learning within different disciplines. These themes include (a) the creation and development of real-world problems mimicking a professional work environment where learners must present findings to external stakeholders of the university or college; (b) the activity structure promotes open inquiry, critical thinking, and reflection; (c) the learning environment promotes collaboration and social interaction with community members and industry professionals; and (d) the structure of the activity allows for self-directed learning with minimal instructional guidance (Rule, 2006).
A year later, Lombardi (2007) elaborated on the characteristics of authentic learning, identifying the following 10 design elements: (a) real-world or contextually realistic professional practices to provide contextual and cultural relevant experience for learners; (b) provide an ill-defined problem to challenge learners to utilize multiple perspectives and avenues for identifying different tasks and subtasks for project or product completion; (c) promote sustained investigation allowing students to complete multifaceted projects over an extended period of time with a multitude of intellectual resources for thorough informational analysis; (d) provide unlimited and undefined resources, both theoretical and practical, providing learners with the opportunity to determine relevant and irrelevant information independently; (e) create a collaborative environment for learners to interact and discuss potential outcomes and/or products; (f) provide an opportunity for reflection or metacognition both individually and within a team or community; (g) encourage learners to approach the problem statement from multiple perspectives to consider the diversity of roles beyond a particular discipline; (h) goes beyond summative assessment and allows learners the ability to prove understanding and competence; (i) provide opportunity for students to provide complete project solutions and products to both internal and external stakeholders; and (j) allow for the diversity of solutions or problem-solving perspectives (Lombardi, 2007).
Providing ALEs is an increasing focus in preparing students to enter the workforce across many fields, including the instructional design industry. The overarching characteristics of the authentic learning environment are consistent. These characteristics include the following: (a) the instruction, project, or practice should imitate a real-world work environment in both task and culture; (b) the instruction, project, or practice must provide constant opportunity for social interactions and collaborative efforts with peers, instructors, and industry professionals; (c) the instruction, project, or practice must be ill-defined to provide an opportunity for self-directed learning and multifaceted interpretation of presented materials; and (d) the learner must present the process and final products/prototypes to external stakeholders who are outside of the academic environment (Rule, 2006).
THE PROBLEM
Universities continually improve to meet students’ needs and prepare them for the workforce. As the environment changes, so must institutions to meet those needs (Siddique et al., 2022). The traditional presentation of information and delivery of instruction in the university setting was to teach theory. Then as the students entered the workforce, it was up to them to learn how to apply the theories into practice (Candy & Crebert, 1991). Institutions have adapted to changes in the environment by exploring alternative methods of delivering content and providing students with hands-on learning experiences in order to better prepare them for the workforce. Experiential learning allows students to not only acquire new knowledge but also gain insights into the social, environmental, and cultural factors that can affect the transfer of knowledge. These experiential learning opportunities allow students to take newly acquired knowledge and apply in real-world settings (Benati et al., 2021). Preparing students to enter the workplace with the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful involves exposing students to and offering opportunities for work-based learning and hands-on experiential learning (Johnson, 2022).
Pandya et al. (2022) examined the necessary skills to be successful and persistent in the workforce. Pandya et al. (2022) conducted an exploratory and longitudinal study to investigate whether higher education institutions are equipping students with the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics required to be successful postgraduation? Their conclusions present a framework for providing experiences for students to develop the skills associated with developing resilience and competencies related to social and emotional skills, creativity, higher-level cognitive capabilities, and other skills that are more difficult to automate and acquire from simply reading a textbook. The skills necessary to be successful are those that cannot be automated. The findings of Pandya et al. (2022) provide a roadmap for how higher education institutions can approach the task of preparing their students for the future. By providing students with the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics necessary to succeed, higher education institutions can ensure that students are well-positioned to transition into the new world of work successfully.
The Association of American Colleges and Universities provided data from 613 students and 400 employers to The Hart Associates for analysis in 2015. The Hart Associates reviewed the responses from 304 public college/university students, 151 private college/university students, 158 community college students, and 400 employers from various private and nonprofit organizations holding titles including the president, vice president, owners, executives, and c-suite executives about 17 learning outcomes associated with post-graduate employability (Hart Research Associates, 2015).
One of the interesting findings in this report, Falling Short? The College Learning and Career Success (Hart Research Associates, 2015) is the discrepancy between students’ perception of preparedness and the perceived student preparedness by employers. When looking at 11 learning outcomes, students ranked themselves significantly higher than employers, with the most significant discrepancy being 66% of students who believe they were highly prepared to utilize critical/analytical thinking versus employers who found only 26% of students prepared to use critical/analytical thinking within the labor force (Hart Research Associates, 2015). Overall, students were notably more optimistic about their workforce preparedness and ability to meet most learning outcomes to a high degree. The students overestimated their preparedness for the workforce in comparison to employers. This discrepancy does not mean students are not adequately prepared for the workforce. It highlights the need for academic institutions to provide ALEs that accurately reflect the workplace and adequately prepare students for success. Additionally, students should be made aware of this discrepancy, and the university take measures to prepare students more accurately for the workplace.
When hiring recent graduates, 80% to 85% of employers agreed they had preferences for students who proved their ability to: (a) effectively communicate orally, (b) work effectively with differing perspectives in a team dynamic, (c) effectively communicate through writing, (d) perform ethical judgment and decision-making, (e) critically think and utilize analytical reasoning skills, and (f) apply knowledge and skills to a real-world setting. These learning outcomes were demonstrated on student resumes in the form of applied learning experiences, including internship/apprenticeships with a company or organization, senior thesis or project demonstrating knowledge, research, problem-solving, and communication skills, multiple courses involving significant writing, collaborative peer research projects, service learning projects with community organizations, field projects in a diverse community, and study abroad programs (Hart Research Associates, 2015).
Valuing the ability to apply learning to real-world settings, surveyed employers broadly endorsed and emphasized the need for applied learning experiences to prepare students for the labor force. The majority of employers expressed a preference for job candidates who have completed internships, collaborative research projects, and other applied learning experiences over candidates who did not complete or participate in similar experiences. Colleges and universities share the responsibility for ensuring all students are prepared with the skills, abilities, and knowledge to meet the expectations of employers. Preparing students to meet employer expectations, in turn, improves the quality of student career preparedness (Hart Research Associates, 2015).
Overall, the survey results conclude that 86% of employers do not believe college graduates are as prepared for the workforce or labor market as they should be (Hart Research Associates, 2015). Students’ inability to prove preparedness or proficiency in the skills and knowledge associated with the learning outcomes deemed highly valuable by employers impedes both students’ ability to join the workforce and employers’ ability to gain valuable employees. Increasing the need and requirement for universities and colleges to provide authentic student learning experiences will mutually benefit universities, colleges, students, and employers.
CASE STUDY COMPETITION
The ISPI offered a university case study competition to connect students with practitioners in the field. The organization worked with universities offering performance improvement degrees, instructional design, and instructional technology. The case study competition facilitated and required students to work in teams to collaborate and use the theories and models they had learned during their graduate studies in instructional design, instructional technology, and performance improvement to solve a real performance problem in an organization. The case study competition presented the opportunity for students to immerse themselves in a mock consulting experience, simulating real-world challenges faced by professionals in the field. Acting as consultants hired by a company’s executive board, the students were tasked with delivering innovative solutions to complex organizational performance issues. This scenario provided a multifaceted learning experience with significant benefits. The student teams worked through a precisely designed authentic case, mirroring the intricacies of actual performance challenges. The hands-on approach allowed them to apply theoretical knowledge to practical problems, fostering a deeper understanding of the subject matter. During the competition, participants received feedback from experienced industry experts. This mentorship improved their analytical and problem-solving skills and offered insights into industry standards and best practices, bridging the gap between academia and the professional world. Providing the students with this setting allowed them to develop their collaboration, communication, and critical thinking skills further. The design of the competition was to create a safe space for students to gain self-confidence in the world of performance improvement. The comprehensive nature of the deliverables, including a written executive summary, solution prototypes, and an innovative conference presentation, provided students with high-quality materials to include in their professional portfolios. These portfolios prove their capabilities, enhancing their resumes and showcasing their skills to potential employers. Students participated in the competition for 10 weeks, culminating in presentations at the annual ISPI conference. Presenting their solutions at the conference allowed students to demonstrate their competencies in a professional setting. This invaluable exposure allowed them to demonstrate their skills to colleagues, potentially opening doors to future career opportunities.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study was to describe how participating in the ISPI case study competition influenced student learning. This study examined how students’ involvement in the competition provided the opportunity for authentic learning through inquiry, real-world problems, a community of learners, and student choice. Data were collected and analyzed through the lens of an authentic learning framework.
FRAMEWORK
The framework of the study was based on four major characteristics of authentic learning within different disciplines (Rule, 2006):
-
The learning activity mimics real-world problems in a professional work environment, and learners must present findings to stakeholders external to the university or college
-
The activity structure promotes open inquiry, critical thinking, and reflection
-
The learning environment promotes collaboration and social interaction with community members and industry professionals
-
The structure of the activity allows for self-directed learning with minimal instructional guidance
Research Questions
The following question directed the case study research, “How has the ISPI case study competition influenced participant learning?” The following subquestions based on Authentic Learning theory (Rule, 2006) guided the study:
- RQ1:
How has the ISPI Case Study Competition influenced participants’ real-world practice?
- RQ2:
How has the ISPI Case Study Competition influenced inquiry thinking skills?
- RQ3:
How has the ISPI Case Study Competition influenced interactions with others in the field?
- RQ4:
How has the ISPI Case Study Competition influenced confidence in decision-making?
The study’s goals were to identify the most beneficial components of the experience to inform the development of future opportunities for students.
Research Design
The study design utilized a qualitative case study approach to capture the students’ experiences participating in ISPI’s case study competition. Three researchers conducted the study, two of whom were also participants. The population for the study was limited to students from a single regional-comprehensive university in the southeastern United States who participated in the ISPI Case Study Competition in the years 2010, 2014, and 2019. Each team consisted of four graduate students enrolled in an online performance improvement degree program, making the total population 12 students. Random or purposeful sampling was unnecessary because the entire qualifying population was asked to participate in the study. The participants were recruited by an email letter and follow-up phone call. Ten students participated in the study representing 83% of the total possible study population.
Methodology: Data Collection and Analysis
Written reflections, interviews, and focus groups provided the data for this research. Data for this research study was collected by case study participants providing a written lived experience reflection, followed by interviews and then focus groups. Case study participants were asked for a written reflection of their experiences as participants in the case study competition. Following the written reflections, willing participants were interviewed. After the individual interviews, participants participated in a focus group. Four characteristics of authentic learning guided the written reflection: (a) How has the Case Study Competition influenced participants’ actual world practice? (b) How has the Case Study Competition influenced inquiry thinking skills? (c) How has the Case Study Competition influenced interactions with others in the field? (d) How has the Case Study Competition influenced confidence in decision-making?
Data were collected using an iterative process as the written reflections of the lived experiences informed the development of the interview instrument, and the results of the interviews informed the development of the focus group data collection instrument. Once the written reflections were gathered, the data was analyzed for common and emerging themes using in vivo elemental coding methods as described by Saldaña (2021). Those themes guided the development of the interview instrument. The emergent themes from the written reflections included confidence and teamwork. The structure of the interview instrument included questions to examine these themes emerging from the characteristic of empowered self-directed learning. The responses from the interviews were analyzed, and emergent themes from the interviews were used to construct the questions for the focus groups. The emergent theme from this cycle of coding and analysis led to questions for the focus group to further examine teamwork as an emergent theme. The focus groups were conducted using specific interview instruments and structured according to results from the analysis of data collected during interviews. Data were collected using this iterative process as the written reflections of the lived experiences informed the development of the interview instrument, and the results of the interviews informed the development of the focus group data collection instrument. Second-cycle coding (Saldaña, 2021) continued to include emerging codes and themes from all three data sources. The convergence of data from these complementary collection sources and techniques led to the findings, augmenting the authenticity of the research through triangulation (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Data sources for triangulation included written reflections, individual interviews, and focus groups.
Findings
Data were collected from reflections, interviews, and a focus group. Ten individuals participated in the study. Responses to the questions were then coded to identify Rule’s (2006) original four codes and any emergent codes that might relate to authentic learning.
Table 1 summarizes the results of the reflections, interviews, and focus group analysis. The table presents the number of data sources in which a theme was mentioned as well as the total times the theme was mentioned across all data sources. If a theme was mentioned by all of the participants in all three data sources, the total maximum number of Total Data Sources was 21. The total number of mentions was unlimited.
During first and second cycle coding, quotes demonstrating characteristics of authentic learning were identified. The quotes of particular interest were those relating to critical thinking, community of learners, real-world, and empowered learning and confidence. These quotes are listed in Tables 2–5. The participants were excited to share their experiences. Many expressed how participating in the case study competition really did mimic real-world experiences and the impact on their confidence levels was still very memorable.
Discussion of Findings
The following discussion is presented in relation to the characteristics of authentic learning. The six most mentioned characteristics in the study were: critical thinking, a community of learners, real-world, teamwork, personal growth, and confidence. Teamwork, personal growth, and confidence were themes that emerged during data analysis from the initial coding of the data using the code to describe empowered self-directed learning as defined by Rule (2006). The discussion is presented in descending order of the number of times the specific characteristic was mentioned.
Critical Thinking was mentioned 154 times. Ennis (2011) states that critical thinking is “reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” (p. 5). The surveyed participants who competed in the ISPI competition overwhelmingly referenced the competition as an exercise that led them to better order and reflectively consider their assigned project. Participants described the competition as forcing them to engage in issues from a critical perspective. They were driven to a higher level of inquiry because of the presence of other students from differing backgrounds and environments. The experience was summarized by one participant, “Working with everyone else and everyone bringing their background to it caused me to look at things from different perspectives. It makes you stop and back up and look at something with different eyes”. Participants expressed that enhanced critical thinking was necessary because they were forced to communicate their positions while managing their and others’ emotions. The group/team setting made them more aware of not missing important information that they (in a noncollaborative setting) might have never considered.
Community of Learners was mentioned 148 times. Peter Senge, an American systems scientist and founder of the Society of Organizational Learning, references community learning when he describes the learning laboratory as a place where real-life situations can be constructed and management teams can “learn how to learn together” (Senge, 1990, p. 21). In the Fifth Discipline, Senge describes Team Learning as one of the five critical aspects of a learning organization (Senge, 2006). The students participating in the case study referred to team learning as one of the essential parts of the competitive and learning processes. They interestingly described their community of learners. They did not just refer to the students involved in the competition. They felt a connection to the experts overseeing the project as colearners. The community component was described as, “I felt able to bounce ideas off people that had the same education but different experiences.” They described this aspect of being able to brainstorm and interact as incredibly valuable to the overall learning experience. Another community component was the ability to build networks between students and experts, with both groups sharing meaningful dialogue. Another participant described the value of looking outside their “internal unit.” Words like “invaluable” and “expanded networks” permeated the participant’s responses. Participants also felt the ALE from the case study competition did not end with the completion of the competition, “It is interesting how the networking and connectivity will continue, and you may not see it directly, but it could be years down the road.”
Real-World was mentioned 126 times. Errington (2008) describes this educational method as offering students incomplete or unsolved problems with the expectation that the student(s) will connect the dots and produce deliverable solutions. Errington (2008) reminds us that people naturally enter the “scenario” process as a way to make sense of the real world. Brundiers et al. (2010) concurs with this mindset, positing that today’s complex and multifaceted problems need systems-thinking enhanced in participatory settings. Brundiers et al. (2010) describes three clusters of key competencies that engage the head, hands, and heart. These clusters are the knowledge that is strategic to the problem, hands-on learning that connects strategic knowledge to action, and collaboration that brings different knowledge groups into the process. In the ISPI competitive process, the students were offered real-world simulation to create a natural and realistic solution. Like Errington’s (2008) description of problem-based educational methods, the scenario was presented as a problem to be solved by the students. Students involved in the competition received positive and negative feedback, creating a process that mimicked the real world. As described, “All the research you had to do and all the questions you had to ask, it is like what I’ll do in my job.” The following perspective was provided by a participant, “Having the confidence to sell things to other people was huge. In my real job, I’m with leadership all the time, and I have to be confident with that idea I’m putting in front of them”. Another participant stated, “This really did replicate that experience to get people to be on-board with what you are trying to propose.”
Teamwork was mentioned 123 times. Students often feel isolated and tend to work independently. They may focus on schedules, deadlines, and completing their assignments. The competition provided opportunities to operate as a team, think as a group, and work collaboratively. According to Brundiers et al. (2010), creating real-world learning opportunities includes providing opportunities for collaboration. Fostering this environment for collaboration is necessary to (a) establish how we talk about and communicate the problem within and without our group, (b) model and build ways of being empathic to people from other backgrounds, and (c) bring a sense of solidarity in the group addressing the problem. Brundiers et al. (2010) highlights the team aspect of problem-solving, stating three principles necessary to engaging effectively in problem-solving. These three principles are collaboration in design, intentional coordination, and bringing together the final product. The benefits of this collaboration were expressed as this participant expanded on the experience by explaining how they all brought their individual skill sets to the team, “We all brought different strengths in, and we used our strengths to make the team better.” Participants reflected on the importance of not making the process personal. The collaborative aspect of the team was expressed as an essential and enjoyable part of the process. “The teamwork aspect was huge!” The same respondent said the “rapid team development” forced relationships with other team members that were “worthwhile and useful, both now and in the future.”
Personal Growth was mentioned 111 times. Many of our respondents referenced ways they grew personally in the competitive process. According to Errington (2008), scenario-based, real-world simulation as an educational tool enable participants to stretch beyond their familiar discipline and experience other disciplines. Many of the responses to the questions related to being moved out of personal comfort zones and into the worlds of the other participants. Several participants felt this growth was facilitated by recognizing the worth of other individuals’ experiences and abilities that varied from their own competencies, especially in a team environment. These abilities emerged as the teams assembled and structured the tasks needing to be done. This required growth and maturity was expressed as “Leaving your ego at the door.” Rather than individually controlling the project, each participant had to grow in the trust of the other team members while being willing to support if asked. Another growth area included learning to ask for help and ask for information. The team gained the ability to communicate effectively and work together to pose relevant questions at the right time and by the most suitable person. The team participant, “If you didn’t ask for help or information, you didn’t get it.” This required a new level of thinking through the work at hand.
Confidence was mentioned 75 times. Confidence is a measurable factor in the learning process and is necessary when successfully entering the workforce (Johnson, 2022). Olaussen et al. (2019) examined elements that influence student confidence in scenario-based education. The results of their work were consistent with participant-provided information regarding the ISPI competition. Olaussen et al. (2019) concluded that active learning (scenario-based) promotes student confidence. This is reflected in the responses of the ISPI competition participants. The students involved in the ISPI competition were constantly challenged to examine and apply their ideas and perspectives. “I found I became confident in what I was saying, enough to speak up in front of my peers. What ended up happening was it became a safe place to speak up and get constructive feedback based on what I was saying!” Another participant explained, “I found my gut is more correct than I previously believed.” This confidence was part of the community/team-building process “I began to feel like part of a PT community, as a professional and not just an aspiring student.” The participants expressed how being in the authentic role of a practitioner instead of merely a student, helped them connect the concepts taught in the courses to the actual practice of performance improvement.
CONCLUSIONS
Our conclusions highlight the academic and professional benefits of ALEs, while also reinforcing the many challenges faced in providing these experiences. A unique feature of this study is that data collection took place at varying lengths of time after participation. Examining the perceptions of students who had participated in the ISPI Case Study Competition one year, six years, and 10 years prior to data collection allowed us to examine the long-term, including post-graduation, implications of participating in the ALE. We learned that regardless of whether participants were still completing their degree programs, had moved on to additional/higher level degree programs, or had been professionally employed in their field of study for many years, they consistently expressed short- and long-term, academic and professional benefits associated with the ISPI case study competition. The top three themes identified in this study: critical thinking, real-world simulations, and community of learners align with the tenets of ALEs (Rule, 2006). Three additional themes: teamwork, personal growth, and confidence, also emerged. Participants noted that participation was valuable for their current academic pursuits, as well as for future endeavors, including relationships, networking, mentoring, and skill development.
However, any discussion of ALEs must note the challenges faced in providing these experiences. As was noted earlier, developing and staffing these simulations is time consuming and expensive, requiring significant involvement by many parties. The investment ISPI has made in the many students who have participated in the competition since its inception in 2009 is remarkable. Future research exploring the impressions of those responsible for hosting and “staffing” the simulation, and the faculty sponsors who support the student teams, may provide valuable insight into the time and financial resources required to provide truly ALEs to support the development of future professionals.
Contributor Notes
HOLLEY L. HANDLEY is currently working as Assistant Professor at Instructional Design and Technology. She teach courses and conducts research on applying the principles of Human Performance Technology (HPT) to improve individual and organizational performance in educational and non-educational settings. You may reach her at HHandley@uwf.edu.
NANCY B. HASTINGS is Associate Director at Instructional Design and Technology and Doctoral studies. Her research agenda includes three primary areas of focus: distance learning, human performance technology, and the theoretical and historical foundations of the fields of instructional and performance technology. You may reach her at NHastings@uwf.edu.
MEGAN SAUER is currently working as a Senior Business Solutions Manager. She has a master’s in Administration (HPT) and education (IDT). She is a Senior Business Solutions Manager for a pharmaceutical wholesaler/repackager responsible for implementing continuous improvement and change management initiatives. You may reach her at megansauer.013@gmail.com.
