In order to fulfil the expectations of industry for “highly skilled, adaptable and flexible graduates”, “who are change savvy, capable of solving complex and ambiguous problems”, and who are “work ready”, “universities should adopt pedagogical methods mirroring challenges faced in the workplace” say Schonell and Macklin (2019: 1197). They advocate ‘Live Case Studies’ (LCSs) as a means “to engage learners in approximations of desired future performances”; qualifying that “LCSs are a form of ‘work integrated learning’ (WIL), an umbrella term for student centred, structured education strategies that facilitate the integration of academic theoretical knowledge with experiential knowledge gained in practice contexts”. They remark that LCSs has significant currency in higher education “as a method where students are emotionally and behaviourally involved in experiential learning”. They indicate that “LCSs are experiential and highly authentic forms of learning that are fully embedded or integrated in academic” (p. 1199).
Although “the LCS approach is typically resource intensive”, Schonell and Macklin (2019: 1197) believe their “approach to LCS is suitable for all institutions, regardless of funding or time constraints”, including “publicly funded institutions where student numbers are high and funding is tight”. They acknowledge that LCSs generally require of “Lecturers [to] spend considerable time finding a business or professional practice provider, initiating contact, determining case details, supervising students and coordinating the case project” (p. 1199). Of particular importance, say Schonell and Macklin (2019: 1205) are “establishing strong networks with potential case study organisations”. Although “‘cold-calling’ on workplaces can lead to fortuitous opportunities” they admit, “an academic’s networks are likely to lead to less rejections and time delays”. They further indicate that preparatory planning should take into account unpredictability, such as changes in strategy that may lead to workplaces, for example, withdrawing their participation. Live cases furthermore cannot be left to run on their own without overseeing.
A live case study “enables students to engage with and evaluate real-world contemporary practice more effectively than traditional written cases while offering a WIL opportunity to a large group of students” say Schonell and Macklin (2019: 1201). They remark that their “LCSs enabled students to study real practices, fostering deep engagement with the discipline and moving their thinking beyond the abstract towards a dynamic interaction with” practitioners, and that “many students saw the LCS as an opportunity to apply their emerging understanding of theory and practice to real and weighty problems”. The LCS presentations and reports suggest students exceeded ‘minimum required effort’ attitude to pass, and instead reflect insights ground in literature and fitting to circumstances faced by the LCS organisations.
The efficiency of live case studies can be improved, and significant time savings achieved, through group-based assessment, indicate Schonell and Macklin (2019: 1201). Group assessment further contributes to team-based work which adds to authenticity, and mimics workplace realities, they say. However, that acknowledge that group work is sometimes put at risk by freeloaders, interpersonal conflicts, and around grade distribution. To overcome the potential of freeloading, they recommend requiring of groups write up and submit meeting minutes. Those students not minuted as participating would lose marks.
Schonell, S. & Macklin, R. (2019). Work integrated learning initiatives: live case studies as a mainstream WIL assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 44(7), 1197-1208. Electronically accessible from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2018.1425986
Comments