The Continuum of Learner Disengagement

Abstract

This article explores the changing worldview of a new generation of learners and the threat that this poses to the future of experiential learning (EL). Initially the differing characteristics of three generations of learners, X, Y, and Z, are outlined, along with key educational reforms they have been subject to, particularly in the United Kingdom, the case study location. Following this, a series of ethnographic EL snapshots, collected between 1991 and 2010, are used to develop a continuum of learner disengagement. This continuum includes academically challenged, ambivalent, and formulaic learners. Of these, it is the formulaic learner who presents the greatest threat to EL. This is a discerning and discriminating learner who wishes to be in control of his or her own achievements and who sees EL activities as a threat to his or her success. Practical ways of responding to the changing EL landscape are proposed. These proposals include moving away from a linear learning experience, embracing EL projects that capitalize on learner technological capabilities, and reviewing the timing and conditions within which EL activities are situated.

Keywords

experiential learning learner disengagement ethnography marketing education

Experiential learning (EL), which “usually involves the integration of either simulation based exercises or a more generic form of workshop, which allows students to actively engage in an ‘event’ in a safe and supportive environment” (O’Malley & Ryan, 2006, p. 199), represents a powerful pedagogical tool (Billett, 2009; Gremler, Hoffman, Keaveney, & Wright, 2000; Karns, 2005, 2006; Morrison, Sweeney, & Heffernan, 2006). Experience may be lifelong and not merely episodic (Dewey, 1938) and is influenced by many factors. These factors include the learner, their learning styles (Honey & Mumford, 1992; Illeris, 2007; Mann, 2001; Reynolds, 1997), the type of experience (primary, secondary, actual, recalled, real, artificial), and the subject matter involved (Jarvis, Holford, & Griffin, 2003). EL has a long history of recognition. While varying interpretations of the approach exists (see, for instance, Weil & McGill, 1989), the landmark work by Kolb (1984) into the learning cycle is recognized as the forerunner in this area. It was heavily influenced by the earlier writings of Lewin (1951), a social psychologist and ambassador for action research; Dewey (1938), an educational philosopher interested in lifelong learning; and Piaget (1970), a cognitive development psychologist.

Literature and practice show that EL has a considerable amount to offer marketing education. It provides one vehicle for business and management schools to meet the needs of different stakeholder groups (Li, Barnett, Greenberg, & Nicholls, 2007). It equips corporations with more savvy and skilled future employees (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). It provides learners with a more stimulating educational experience (Ueltschy, 2001). Indeed, Karns (2005) goes as far as to claim that EL represents part of the bedrock of the sustained development of marketing education, a claim further endorsed by D. J. Lincoln’s (2008) editorial on the same subject. Multiple attempts have been made to understand the different facets of the learning experience, particularly why learners respond in the way they do. This has given rise to a considerable learning styles literature base, which has introduced us to the learning styles inventory (Kolb, 1984) and learning styles questionnaire (Allinson & Hayes, 1988), differential learner types (Honey & Mumford, 1992; Illeris, 2007; Marton & Saljo, 1976), and categorized the learning experience (Mann, 2001; Petkus, 2000). Common throughout the literature is a widespread acceptance that this vehicle offers an inspirational form of learning (Fallows & Ahmet, 1999; Gremler et al., 2000; Reynolds, 2009; Richards, 1997).

The EL toolkit used by faculty varies widely (Gremler et al., 2000; Petkus, 2000). It includes group-based and individual projects and client based, that is, working on a business problem for a public, private, or not-for-profit sector client, and non-client based. The project may be hypothetical, simulated, or real. Parsons and Lepkowska-White (2009) provide a detailed review of the literature covering the advantages and disadvantages to both the learner and faculty of EL engagement. Advantages to the learner include opportunities for real life, interesting, and at times challenging project work and developing skills that will help them secure and succeed in employment, skills that might include report writing, group work, communication, critical thinking, collaboration, and problem solving. Disadvantages to the learner include ambiguity in project content; imbalance in knowledge content between the client and learner, leading the learner to feel overwhelmed by the project; frustration linked to the speed of client response to questions; and indeed access to client information.

Implicit within much of the extant literature is an assumption that the learner is an integral actor helping to coauthor the EL experience (Reynolds, 2009). Yet alongside the EL literature is an increasing literature base that questions learner educational engagement more generally. Quoting the findings of a U.S. Higher Education Research Institute study, Bauerlein (2006) observes high levels of ‘academic disengagement’. Students say that they feel bored in class, submit assignments that underexercise their talent, and do minimal homework. These claims have sparked considerable debate over where the “fault” for this disengagement lies, fault that Essid (2006) and Arum and Roksa (2011) both attribute to the low priorities academic institutions attach to undergraduate teaching. Although this article does not seek to apportion blame, it does aim to contribute further to the learner disengagement debate, this time specifically within the context of EL and generational theory. Using a set of ethnographic snapshots, the article argues that, in the context of EL, disengagement is also linked to a change in the worldview of the learner population embedded within their generational association.

To present the argument, initially the differing characteristics of three generations of learners, X, Y, and Z, are outlined along with key educational reforms they have been subject to, particularly in the United Kingdom, the case study location. Next, the methodology details the distinct chapters in EL ethnographic data collection. The findings introduce us to a continuum of learner disengagement that is cross-referenced to generational theory within the discussion and conclusions. The article concludes with practical suggestions for encouraging engagement, which include moving away from a linear learning experience, embracing technological EL projects and reviewing the timing, and conditions within which EL activities are situated.

Theoretical Framework

Generational theory views society as consisting of consecutive “generations” (Strauss & Howe 1991, 1998). A generation is a grouping of individuals who share birth years and thus share life stages (Bickel & Brown, 2005). They are identified by peaks and declines in birth rates. Although not homogenous (Bartlett, 2004), each generation has its own distinctive character shaped by key forces that existed during its formative years (Kaye & Jordan-Evans, 2008). The three generations that have the most impact on this study are Generation X, Y particularly, and Z. Generation X, also known as the Baby Busters, includes the population born broadly between the 1960s and 1982 (Bickel & Brown, 2005; Roberts & Manolis, 2000; Solomon, Bamossy, Askegaard, & Hogg, 2006; Strauss & Howe, 1991, 1998). Generation Y, also known as the Digital Generation, Digital Natives, Baby Busters, I Generation, Net Generation, Netizens, and Gaming Generation, includes the population born broadly between 1977 to 2001 (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003; Bartlett, 2004; Dalton, 2003; Navvar, 2001; Noble, Haytko, & Phillips, 2009). Generation Z, also known as the Dreamer Generation, Generation I, Generation @, Generation 9/11, and Homeland Generation, includes the population born broadly between 1991 and 2010 (Howe & Strauss, 2000).

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of Generations X, Y, and Z. Each generation has been socialized into a society increasingly dominated by a consumer culture that positions them as consumers from an early age (see, for instance, Cook, 2004; Ekstrom, 2010; Guber & Berry, 1993; Gunter & Furnham, 1998; McNeal, 1987, 1999). For Generation X this has resulted in mixed consumer aspirations, some upbeat and optimistic about the future, others nonmaterialistic and influenced by the values of the 1960s (Roberts & Manolis, 2000). For Generations Y and Z, this has prompted grand ambitions and an optimism and self-confidence absent in earlier generations. Technical literacy has increased with each successive generation too: from the home computer, videogames, and cable television of Generation X, through to the multiple technical platforms Generations Y and Z engage in today, the Internet, text messaging, MP3 players, mobile phones, and YouTube, the tip of the iceberg (Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 2008).

Table 1.

Generational Characteristics

Characteristics	Generation X	Generation Y	Generation Z
Timeframe	1960s to 1982	1977-2001	1991-2010
Consumer socialization	Medium involvement	High involvement	High involvement
Technical literacy	Low/medium	High	High
	Home computers	“Digital natives”	“Digital natives”
Defining life events	Cold War	Columbine High	9/11 terrorist attacks
	1973 Oil crisis	School shootings	Iraq war
	Recession	9/11 terrorist attacks	Credit crunch
	AIDS epidemic	Iraq War	Middle East changes
	Fall of Berlin Wall	Credit crunch	Emergence of China
Traits	Low self-esteem	Self-confident	Individualistic
	Variable academic and career success	Optimistic	Self-directed
	Mixed aspirations	Global and environmental awareness	Reared by stay at home parents
	Focused on work–life balance	Educated	Rising obesity
	Reared by increasing numbers of divorced parents	Chronic boredom	Educated
		Disruptive behavior	Chronic boredom
		Opinionated	Low involvement with traditional media
		Success-driven	Success-driven
		Goal oriented	Goal oriented
		“Helicopter parents” hovering over in an advisory role	“Helicopter parents” hovering over in an advisory role
Compulsory education	Structure:	Structure:	Structure:
	Low/medium	High	High
Personal cost of higher education	Low	Medium/high	High

Note. Adapted from Bakewell and Mitchell (2003); Bartlett (2004); BBC (1984); Bickel and Brown (2005); Dalton (2003); Foscht, Schloffer, Maloles, and Chia (2009); Gibbs (2009); Howe and Strauss (2000); McCrindle (2002); Navvar (2001); Noble, Haytko, and Phillips (2009); Peterson and West (2003); Prensky (2001); Roberts and Manolis (2000); Solomon, Bamossy, Askegaard, and Hogg (2006); Strauss and Howe (1991, 1998); The Stationery Office (2009).

The extent to which these generational characteristics present particular challenges to marketing educators is currently uncertain. If we accept the work of McCrindle (2002) and Palfrey and Gasser (2008), then this suggests that traditional forms of teaching delivery and assessment are likely to be met by learner hostility. These authors argue that Generation Y, the majority of today’s undergraduate population, have a reduced learner attention span, reduced work ethic, and an inability to connect with traditional forms of media, books, and other printed material. But really these characteristics are only one part of the equation. Recognizing and making sense of the changing worldview different generations hold and the implications this has for the learning process is also important. For Generation Y, and Z, in the United Kingdom, alongside important world events mentioned in Table 1, this worldview has been influenced by two reforms to their compulsory education, alongside reforms to their higher education opportunities too.

The first reform to hit Generation Y in the United Kingdom was the introduction in 1989 of a compulsory National Curriculum (NC) into government-funded primary schools. U.K. primary schools cover the age range of 5 to 11 years. The idea behind the reform was to establish a common educational entitlement to children regardless of background or ability, with common standards for learning and attainment (The Stationery Office, 2009). Twenty years on the framework remains intact, although successive reviews (see The Stationery Office, 2009) have resulted in a slimmed down version of the original skill areas. This testing system is by no means unique to the United Kingdom, however. In the United States for instance, the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act, under review with the current administration (UPI, 2011), was introduced to improve educational standards, testing learners in basic skills areas (Peterson & West, 2003). Although linked to federal funding, achievement standards are state rather than nationally determined, the focus on rote learning and testing (Peterson & West, 2003), a focus that echoes the NC approach too.

The second major reform in the United Kingdom is linked to how learners are assessed at the critical ages of 16 and 18 years, just prior to university entry. Testing for 16 year olds was traditionally completed through sitting an Ordinary Level (O’level) or Certificate in Secondary Education (CSE) examination. These qualifications were designed for a time when the minority progressed into higher education. They “provided an assessment of children at the end of their compulsory education and they told an employer something about that student’s ability” (Blair, 2009). They ordinarily took the form of one or two examination papers, often 3 hours in length, sat on one occasion. “Grades were awarded primarily according to statistical rules which measured each candidate’s performance relatively against those of competing candidates” (BBC, 1984). Aimed at only the top 40% of the population, criticism of the system was rife with more than half of young people leaving school with no qualifications. In 1984, the O’Level and CSE system was replaced with the General Certificate in Secondary Education (GCSE) qualification. This qualification is designed to test absolute standards of knowledge and understanding across a cohort at a national level (BBC, 1984). The process has also been rolled out in the testing of 18 year olds too. Initially welcomed by the academic community, the modular nature of the GCSE qualification, the continuous assessment in “bite-sized” chunks over a 2-year period, and the ability to re-sit components to improve marks has led to increasing criticism regarding rote learning and concern over grade inflation (Blair, 2009).

Educational reform in the U.K. Higher Education (HE) sector, particularly linked to learner fees, has also hit Generation Y, and will hit Generation Z too. The 2004 Higher Education Act altered the structure of HE funding, for the first time requiring students to pay a fee upfront for their university education (Callender & Jackson, 2008). The recent publication of the Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance (Browne, 2010) and the U.K. Coalition Government Comprehensive Spending Review 2010 (HM Treasury, 2010) add a further level of uncertainty to the HE sector. Both reports recommend a shift away from traditional public sector funding support into a free market economy, alongside encouraging further HE competition. Although focused principally on the English HE sector, the ramifications of these changes are likely also to affect the international HE arena too as future learners, facing escalating HE costs, compare competitor offerings, home and abroad, in their institutional decision-making process.

Method

This study uses ethnographic data to examine learner disengagement linked to EL. Willis and Trondman (2000) describe ethnography as “a family of methods [which allows for] the disciplined and deliberate witness-cum-recording of human events” (p. 5). These methods encourage the collection of data that are culturally located, entrained within a time delineated landscape and internally sprung (Willis & Trondman, 2000). Put another way, this means that data collection is not staged, but rather unstructured, with collection occurring in environments naturally frequented by the research population (Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland, & Lofland, 2001).

In this study, data were collected from multiple academic research environments through a process of journaling. This process may take many forms ranging from a formal learning log, through to a simple notebook capturing ad hoc comments in scratch notes, that is, keywords, phrases, quick pointers (Lofland & Lofland, 1995), as and when they arise. The author used all forms in the data collection process. Literature coverage of this tool has been extensive (see, for instance, Cunliffe, 2004; Haigh, 2001; Pavlovich, Collins, & Jones, 2009), with authors commonly agreeing that it offers a clear opportunity to become a reflective practitioner, more equipped to identify, respond, and solve problems. Interestingly, the focus invariably is on the individual learning experience. As Locke and Brazelton (1997) put it, it involves a private process whereby the author flirts with self-indulgence to focus on “me” and develop self-awareness. In this study, data are drawn specifically from the author’s learning journal. These data provide insights into the individual and collective EL learner experiences albeit from the author’s perspective. The focus on the learner excludes client feedback, a study limitation.

Table 2 summarizes the EL projects central to the discussion. They are separated into three stages reflecting different educational contexts. The projects are not unique. Their value lies in the insights they provide into learner disengagement in EL. The project central to Chapter 1, A Lady of Leisure (1991-1997), was integrated into the delivery of a 10-credit, final year, undergraduate course “Recreational Management,” taken by 25 business studies learners. The 1992-1993 cohort organized “Football Crazy,” a “live event” for the general public with all monies raised donated to a local children’s charity. These were the days before Event Management had gained any real academic prominence, in the United Kingdom at least (results coded Project 1). In Chapter 2, A Hospitable Interlude (1997-2005), the author moved to the “flamboyancy and exuberance” (Author Journal entry: November 22, 1997) of a Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management and the role of academic placement tutor. The term tutor or lecturer in the United Kingdom refers to the academic staff member primarily responsible for delivering the course. The term equates to an American professor. The role of placement tutor involved overseeing the 48-week field placement period for undergraduate learners, which occurred in year 3 of a 4-year undergraduate program (results coded Project 2).

Table 2.

Experiential Learning (EL) Projects

Coding	Chapter/Timeline	Module/Level	Cohort + Origin	EL Project	Positive Outcomes^a	Negative Outcomes^a
Project 1	Chapter 1: 1991-1997	Recreational Mgt	25 learners: 10 female and 15 male	Football Crazy (1992-1993)	Motivation	Time consuming
					Fundraising skills	Overwhelming
					Leadership skills	Problem with group work
		Undergraduate	86% UK
		Final year
Project 2	Chapter 2: 1997-2005	Placement	Approx. 25-30 per year	48-week industrial placement	Business skills and leadership skills challenged	Long hours
						Overwhelming employee lethargy
		Undergraduate
		Level Three
Project 3a	Chapter 3: 2005-	Consumer Behavior	33 learners: 16 male and 17 female	Client project: Private sector (2006-2007)	Inspirational	Time consuming
					Applied theory	Limited client access
		MBA	96% international		Business skills	Short timescale
					Applied theory	Overwhelming
Project 3b	Chapter 3: 2005-	Consumer Behavior	40 learners: 26 male and 14 female	Client project: Not-for-profit (2007-2008)
		MBA	75% international			Too much work
						Aim/purpose unclear
Project 3c	Chapter 3: 2005-	Market Research	117 learners: 54 male and 63 female	Client project: Not-for-profit (2007-2008)	Challenging	Data collection hard
		Level Two+	72% UK		Exciting + fun
		Final Year			Multiple skills
Project 3d	Chapter 3: 2005-	Market Research	132 learners: 66 male and 66 female	Client project: Not-for-profit (2008-2009)	Applied theory	Data collection hard
		Level Two+	72% UK		Research skills	Time consuming
		Final Year			Self-confidence	Short timescale
Project 3e	Chapter 3: 2005-	Market Research	135 learners: 62 male and 73 female	Client project: Private sector (2009-2010)	Challenging	Overwhelming
		Level Two+	76% UK		Research skills	Limited client access
		Final Year			Tutor access	Changing client brief

Note. EL = experiential learning.

Represents most regularly occurring feedback.

Chapter 3, Back to Business (2005-present), involved a move into a Management School environment and responsibility for one 15-credit MBA course (co-taught with another tutor) and one 10-credit undergraduate course (second and final year business learners) with EL components. Five client-based projects have been completed, coded accordingly. In Project 3a, MBA learners were required to research and report on a customer strategy for a private sector operator (2006-2007). In Project 3b, MBA learners were required to develop a marketing strategy for a not-for-profit organization (2007-2008). In Project 3c, undergraduate learners were required to develop a marketing strategy for an independent preparatory school (2007-2008). In Project 3d, undergraduate learners were required to explore the effectiveness of predetermined marketing messages for a HE institution (2008-2009). In Project 3e, undergraduate learners were required to report on the market potential of a new customer base for a leading travel company (2009-2010). Projects 3a to 3e followed a similar format. The tutor negotiated the project with the client. Both then introduced the project to the learner cohort. The learner was expected to research and deliver on the project within a specified period of time.

Commenting specifically on auto-ethnographic work, Kempster and Stewart (2010) argue that approaches within this research family challenge the “traditional positivistic epistemological tenets of reliability, validity and generalization” (p. 209). The earlier work of Y. Lincoln and Guba (1985) into naturalistic inquiry addresses this in detail, suggesting the central tenet of such research to be fundamentally framed by the need to establish trustworthiness. Here, “the basic issue in relation to trustworthiness is simple: How can an inquirer persuade his or her audience (including self) that the findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to, worth taking account of?” (Y. Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 290). Questioning aspects of truth, value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality lead the authors to conclude that researchers should seek credible, transferable, dependable, and confirmable results in their pursuit of trustworthy data. In line with Y. Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) suggestions, credibility is sought in this study through prolonged engagement with the research population, transferability through the collection of thick descriptions, dependability, and confirmability through auditing the data. The use of a reflexive journal underpins each of these criteria and helps facilitate an “iterative and reflective process to building the narrative” (Kempster & Stewart, 2010, p. 210).

Findings

This study uncovered a number of positive outcomes and recurring problems linked to the administration of EL activity, which echo the findings of earlier studies (see Parsons & Lepkowska-White, 2009). As these outcomes and problems are not the focus of this study, they are not discussed in detail here, but rather they are summarized in Table 2 to provide the broader context to the study.

A Continuum of Learner Disengagement

At the heart of this study was a questioning of learner engagement, or otherwise, with EL. A number of patterns emerged within the findings. These patterns are not reviewed chronologically here but rather on a problem basis. They are illustrated through the following four examples that are drawn from projects completed in Chapter 3. These are not isolated examples, but they are chosen specifically as they illustrate fundamental patterns emerging in the wider research data. These examples provide evidence not only of learner disengagement but also of the complexity and different forms this disengagement might take. They are located on a continuum of learner disengagement (see Table 3). At one end of the continuum, the learner is disengaged through an inability to comprehend the EL exercise. This is the academically challenged learner in Table 3 (see Example 1). At the other end they choose to disengage. This is the formulaic learner in Table 3 (see Examples 2 and 3). The ambivalent learner represents the middle ground (see Example 4). Initially, the four examples are introduced and then explained through reference to generational theory in the discussion and conclusions that follow.

Table 3.

Continuum of Learner Disengagement

Academically Challenged Learner	Ambivalent Learner	Formulaic Learner
Limited understanding	Variable application	Discerning
Struggles with complexity	Resigned to task	Discriminating
Lacking in self-confidence	Motivational issues	Focused and confident
Struggles with group work	Questions group work	Highly selective in groups
Accepts EL activities	Accepts EL activities	Questions EL activities
Poor performer	Underachiever	High flier

Note. EL = experiential learning.

Example 1

Visiting Joe (Project 2), a Chinese undergraduate student on an industry placement year, the author discovered he had spent 4 months working in the hotel pot wash. Exploring why he had not questioned this (in)activity, the journal entry notes,

According to Joe, they [hotel management] asked him to work there, told him it was an important function and good for his training!!! He told me that his upbringing in China had taught him to be respectful of authority . . . he didn’t feel able to question their request [hotel management] of him. He kept making the point that for him the placement was about appreciating management practices . . . he also was very clear that in China it was simply not acceptable to question authority. It was considered rude and disrespectful. (Author Journal Entry: September 22, 1999)

Through this encounter the author began to empathize with earlier arguments that learners may be insufficiently equipped to know what to look for in experiences (Green & Taber, 1978) and that “experience is subjective and a form of thought, but these thoughts are constructed and influenced both by our biography and by the social and cultural conditions within which they occur” (Jarvis et al., 2003, p. 54). Whether his (in)activity was entirely linked to cultural differences is questioned by a further postexamination board journal entry however, “He’s failed pretty much everything . . . must be something fundamentally wrong here” (Author Journal Entry: June 22, 2000).

Example 2

Prior to the start of Project 3c, the author met with four learners to discuss the requirements of the Market Research course. All were final year learners and were able to select the course as an option. An outline of the project was given and the opportunities it presented to develop skills, research skills particularly, which could be transferable within different work-based contexts outlined. There was some uncomfortable shuffling around and then one learner commented “to be honest we’re not that interested . . . we just want to achieve the best marks possible . . . is this going to be possible, or would you suggest taking a course with a normal assignment?” (Author Journal Entry: October 4, 2007). Normal in this context meant the production of an individual essay.

Example 3

Project 3e began as any other: the tutor and client introduced the project and outlined the aims and expected outcomes of the work. Paul, Chloe, and Matthew approached the author at the end of the class. They wanted to “fire” the fourth member of their group as they felt this member did not have a suitable skill set for the work. The assessment requirements were explained to the group, including the fact that part of the assessment activity was the ability to work in groups and overcome such limitations. They would not be able to fire fellow employees in the workplace so easily. They remained unconvinced, one of the group subsequently leaving the course for another with an essay-based assessment.

Example 4

Project 3b involved analysis of customer databases. The learner was given access to these, but within a clearly defined timescale, confirmed at the outset of the activity. One group approached the author after their access had been denied. Their registration had expired as they had exceeded the set timescale. Only the client could reinstate their access and the client was unable to do so. The group became unhappy when their access could not be simply reinstated and argued that their assessment mark would be jeopardized as a consequence. They failed to appreciate that their lack of attention to time management had created the problem in the first place.

Discussion and Conclusion

To make sense of these examples, we return to examining the role generational association and differences play in learner disengagement. Joe, in Example 1, was born into the final years of the Generation X birth cohort. This is of little significance in Joe’s case though: his limited academic competence is not a by-product of generational characteristics but rather reflective of his level of cognitive development. As an international learner, this development will be influenced in part by cultural factors, not least language differences. As different as cultural nuances might be though, these factors alone do not reduce the academic capacity of an individual. Consequently, they cannot be relied on to entirely explain Joe’s academic shortfalls. In Example 1, Joe is not critical of the EL activity. He is insufficiently equipped to maximize its potential. He lacks what Bruner, a social constructivist, describes as the “scaffolding: [a] supportive technique used to offer verbal or non-verbal guidance to children in the process of gaining a new skill or understanding . . . once the child feels competent, this particular bit of scaffolding support can be removed” (Lindon, 2005, p. 41) necessary to engage with the activity.

Examples 2, 3, and 4 are quite different however. All learners are members of the Generation Y cohort. In Examples 2 and 3, the learner is discerning, discriminating, and strategic in the EL participation (Casey & Goldman, 2010). The learner demonstrates their criticality by either opting cautiously into the EL exercise or, indeed in a number of instances, opting out of the course altogether because of the EL exercise. This is the formulaic learner in Table 3. Examples 1, 2, and 3 present extreme scenarios; in effect, they represent opposite ends of a continuum of disengagement (Table 3). The picture is less clear-cut however. There is considerable evidence to suggest that a degree of learners may be located in the middle of this continuum. That said, even being in the middle does not necessarily provide a satisfactory experience for the learner as Example 4 illustrates. In this example, there is a sense of learner dissatisfaction, but a resignation to the task in hand. This is the ambivalent learner in Table 3. But do all learners fit into the category of being disengaged? The answer is no, but the findings suggest that increasing numbers of undergraduate learners are likely to. Generational theory can help explain why.

Project 1, the early years of Project 2, and MBA learners in Projects 3a and 3b were populated in the main by Generation X learners, a generation experiencing variable academic and career success. Author journal entries corresponding to these projects show little learner questioning of EL activities per se, rather a questioning of particular features of the projects, how to access sponsorship, and advertise events, for instance. That EL was a part of learning activity and “messy” was taken for granted at this point. The experience provided by the project was considered important as the comments of an MBA learner illustrate: “an MBA is an MBA, I mean employers aren’t interested in your marks, just that you have an MBA . . . being able to work on real-life projects will be really important to talk about with future employers” (Project 3a). In the United Kingdom, Generation X is the generation educated before state testing in compulsory education became so formulaic. Equally learners engaged on Projects 1 and 2 entered HE in the United Kingdom before changes in HE funding shifted a greater financial burden on the learner cohort. This is the generation whose formative years were only beginning to be influenced by consumerism (McNeal, 1999). This is the generation within which Kolb’s (1984) influential EL work was published. It is likely that the research process and development of the EL framework was influenced by the characteristics of Generation X too.

Contrast this with the latter years of Project 2 and Projects 3c, 3d, and 3e, which were largely populated by Generation Y learners. To remind us of the characteristics of these digital natives (Prensky, 2001), they are thought to be civic minded, connected 24/7, self-confident, service-minded, optimistic, environmental, educated, entrepreneurial, bored by routine, opinionated, success-driven, diverse, lifestyle-centered, and goal orientated (Deloitte, 2005). They have been socialized into a consumer driven society. Generation Y learners have arrived in higher education in greater numbers than earlier generations. The personal financial burden of HE is also greater than experienced by previous generations. Many of them are used to education being delivered in a highly structured manner and tested continuously in bite-sized chunks. The opportunity to continually enhance marks through resubmissions in compulsory education has fed their ambitious nature and raised their expectations of their educational “rights” in higher education. These “rights” play out in how they chose to engage, or otherwise, in the academic environment. Ethnographic data profiles them as wanting to follow tried and tested assessment formula, discriminating accordingly. They are less prepared, or even able, to be flexible and accommodating of other learners in case this has a negative influence on their overall mark. They want to be in control of their own achievements and are formulaic in achieving this.

Final year undergraduate learners in Projects 3c, 3d, and 3e illustrate this particularly well. These learners were particularly competitive and demonstrated both surface and strategic learner tendencies:

surface characterised by a focus on rote learning, memorisation and reproduction, a lack of reflection and a preoccupation with completing the task . . . strategic characterised by a focus on assessment requirements and lecturer expectations, and a careful management of time and effort, with the aims of achieving high grades. (Mann, 2001, p. 7)

Their primary concern was achieving the best possible mark for the course. The EL activities included were not appreciated by these learners; indeed, in some instances, they were perceived to present barriers to success. They simply saw data collection as instrumental, a means to an end. They discriminated between courses on the grounds of the assessment process and were more inclined toward courses following “traditional” pedagogical formulae, essays, report writing, and the “passivity [of] lecture-based classroom education” (Raelin, 2009, p. 403). Their primary motivation was to achieve the best degree classification possible so as to compete most effectively within the job marketplace.

With this mindset and worldview, EL projects become a threat to Generation Y. The innovative nature of EL may be perceived as a “wild card” (Project 3d). Group work reduces individual control. Constraints placed on access to clients and their information conflicts with the usual 24/7 connections of Generation Y and their expectations of immediate information access. Examination of the project, often through application measures, does not sit comfortably with the rote learning and examination this generation is used to. The financial burden of education is high. The learner need for results to outweigh this burden is equally high. This mindset threatens the future EL horizon. Not only may future learners be increasingly influenced by it, faculty and clients from other generations despair of it, but these are the leaders and faculty of tomorrow. Whether they will demonstrate the engagement and sensitivities toward future EL practices previous generations have remains to be seen. And this is also only the beginning of the story. Generation Z are being brought up in a similarly formulaic educational context. They are even more technically literate than Generation Y, retain individualistic tendencies, and are facing an even greater financial burden for HE. The oldest members of this generation will be entering HE in the near future. The question that we should now devote our attention to is how can we respond to this (r)evolution?

Practical Advice for Educators

We can simply ignore these changes and argue that learners gain from EL whether they like it or not. Adopting this stance might jeopardize the chance of learners appreciating the full benefits of EL however, to say nothing of the poor course feedback faculty will have to endure. The ethnographic data suggest that there is an appetite for EL. Learners do wish to be actively part of the “coauthored learning” experience, but so too they need academic and subsequent career success to offset the increasing costs attached to HE. There are a number of strategies we might employ to encourage learner buy-in. We could look closely at our selection of EL projects and match the project to the stage of study. Given the competitive nature of the learner cohort, particularly as they reach the final stages of their programs, using projects that are narrower in scope and have clear client terms of reference may reduce concerns. We could also move away from viewing coauthored learning as a linear process, that is, the facilitator presents the learner with the EL activity, the learner accepts and undertakes the work, to encouraging the learner to actually coauthor the experience from the outset. Making more of the project set-up process, and involving learners in project decision making, would allow us to move toward managing the expectations of the learner prior to the activity and including their expectations within the planning process.

We could also give more thought to matching projects to take account of the learner educational skill set as they enter HE and their wider generational learner characteristics. The call for integrating concurrency into team projects by Skilton, Forsyth, and White (2008) provides a possible direction here. Current (and future) generations of learners enter HE with high technical literacy. We need to question whether EL projects match this skill set or even use them in any discernible way. Although our institutions, even clients, may fall short in widespread access to technology our learner population does not. As Prensky (2001) argues,

Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach. . . . We need to invent Digital Native methodologies for all subjects, at all levels, using our students to guide us. (pp. 1, 6)

Projects linked to social networking, the use of smartphone technology, and other forms of social media would be a useful starting point. Alongside this, and recognizing that Generation Y learners are equally influenced by the ambitious characteristics of their peer generation, we could also seek ways of adding value to the project. Negotiating a certificate of completion from the client that could be used in job searches, for instance, could offer more tangible evidence of client-based experiences, so often a job selection discriminator, particularly in the early days of career development.

These suggestions are controversial and may be criticized as pampering to an already spoon-fed learner cohort (Raelin, 2009). Why should faculty adjust their practices to accommodate the learner? These suggestions are not intended, or designed, to compromise academic standards. Really, they offer practical ideas as to ways in which we can tinker with the architecture of EL in a measured way. As Essid (2006), commenting on education more generally, observes, “If we cherish our discipline’s survival, we should consider how to meet students halfway by encouraging active learning, multigenre projects, and writing for real-world audiences.” As faculty, we know that EL projects are time consuming to run yet can be incredibly beneficial experiences to be involved in. Our challenge now is to continue to articulate these benefits alongside facilitating learner engagement in such a way that the meaning and contribution of the EL experience to the learning process will stand a greater chance of being fully appreciated by future generations of learner cohorts too.

Future Research

There are many limitations to a study of this nature however. It is possible that the differences observed are influenced by the different subject areas (hospitality management, tourism management, marketing) contributing to the study. They may in fact provide further evidence of a discipline divide discussed in the seminal work of Becher (1989) and critiqued more recently by Neumann (2001). Equally there may be a tutor or client effect too, neither of which has been thoroughly investigated here. Ethnographic work is influenced heavily by the author, experiences are selected for inclusion, perhaps because they make the work appear more interesting. Observations are all treated as if they hold some hidden meaning when this may not necessarily be the case. This article does not look at ongoing experiences through everyday studies but rather selects particular case studies, snapshots, where there is a clear experiential element as its focus. Educational ethnographies are equally subjective and provide us with insights into particular environments at particular points in time. Can the findings be transferred elsewhere? That said, the ethnographic framework has allowed us an insight into the “complex and multi-layered practices and meanings” (Gordon, Holland, & Lahelma, 2007, p. 199) of the learning experience. It has raised some important questions about the learner of tomorrow, the implications of which are worthy of further research.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Allinson

C. W.

Hayes

(1988). The learning styles questionnaire: An alternative to Kolb’s inventory? Journal of Management Studies, 25, 269-281.

Arum

Roksa

(2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Atkinson

Coffey

Delamont

Lofland

(2001). Handbook of ethnography. London, England: Sage.

Bakewell

Mitchell

V. W.

(2003). Generation Y female consumer decision-making styles. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 31(2), 95-106.

Bartlett

(2004). Analyst: Understanding that shapes generation can help the . . . CU market to that generation. Credit Union Journal, 8(21), 14-17.

Bauerlein

(2006, January 6). A very long disengagement. The Chronicle Review. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/A-Very-Long-Disengagement/30350/

BBC. (1984, June 20). O-Levels to be replaced by GCSEs. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/junes/20/newsid_2516000/2516847.stm

Becher

(1989). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham, England: SHRE & Open University Press.

Bickel

Brown

A. J.

(2005). Generation X: Implications for faculty recruitment and development in academic health centers. Academic Medicine, 80, 205-210.

10.

Billett

(2009). Realising the educational worth of integrating work experiences in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34, 827-843.

11.

Blair

(2009, May 5). GCSEs are too easy and should be abolished. The Times. Retrieved from http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/a_level_gcse_results

12.

Browne

(2010). Securing a sustainable future for higher education. An independent review of higher education funding and student finance. Retrieved from http://www.independent.gov.uk/browne-report

13.

Callender

Jackson

(2008). Does the fear of debt constrain choice of university and subject of study? Studies in Higher Education, 33, 405-429.

14.

Casey

A. J.

Goldman

E. F.

(2010). Enhancing the ability to think strategically: A learning model. Management Learning, 41, 167-185.

15.

Cook

D. T.

(2004). The commodification of childhood: The children’s clothing industry and the rise of the child consumer. London, England: Duke University Press.

16.

Cunliffe

(2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28, 407-425.

17.

Dalton

(2003). Managing the generation. ABA Washington News, 11(19), 1-3.

18.

Deloitte. (2005). Who are the millennials? A.k.a. Generation Y. New York, NY: Author.

19.

Dewey

(1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi.

20.

Ekstrom

K. M.

(2010). Consumer socialization in families. In Marshall

(Ed.), Understanding children as consumers (pp. 41-60). London, England: Sage.

21.

Essid

(2006). “Disengaged” students are the victims, not the culprits [Letters to the editor]. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chroncile.com/article/Disengaged Students-Are-the/3834/

22.

Fallows

Ahmet

(1999). Experiential learning through practicals. In Fallows

Ahmet

(Eds.), Inspiring students. Case studies in motivating the learner (pp. 7-16). London, England: Kogan Page.

23.

Foscht

Schloffer

Maloles

Chia

S. L.

(2009). Assessing the outcomes of Generation-Y customers’ loyalty. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27, 218-241.

24.

Gibbs

(2009, November 20). Helicopter parents: The growing backlash against overparenting. Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/nation/article/0,8599,1940395,00.html

25.

Gordon

Holland

Lahelma

(2007). Ethnographic research in educational settings. In Atkinson

Coffey

Delamont

Lofland

(Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 188-203). London, England: Sage.

26.

Green

Taber

(1978). Structuring experiential learning through experimentation. Academy of Management Review, 3, 889-895.

27.

Gremler

Hoffman

Keaveney

Wright

(2000). Experiential learning exercises in services marketing courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 35-44.

28.

Guber

Berry

(1993). Marketing to and through kids. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

29.

Gunter

Furnham

(1998). Children as consumers. A psychological analysis of the young people’s market. London, England: Routledge.

30.

Haigh

(2001). Constructing Gaia: Using journals to foster reflective learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 25, 167-189.

31.

HM Treasury. (2010). Spending review 2010. October 2010. Norwich, England: Stationery Office.

32.

Honey

Mumford

(1992). Manual of learning styles (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, England: Honey Publications.

33.

Howe

Strauss

(2000). Millennials rising. The next great generation. New York, NY: Vintage.

34.

Illeris

(2007). What do we actually mean by experiential learning? Human Resource Development Review, 6(1), 84-95.

35.

Jarvis

Holford

Griffin

(2003). The theory and practice of learning (2nd ed.). Oxon, England: Routledge Falmer.

36.

Karns

(2005). An update of marketing student perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 163-171.

37.

Karns

(2006). Learning style differences in the perceived effectiveness of learning activities. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 56-63.

38.

Kaye

Jordan-Evans

(2008). Love ‘em or lose ‘em: Getting good people to stay (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

39.

Kempster

Stewart

(2010). Becoming a leader: A co-produced autoethnographic exploration of situated learning of leadership in practice. Management Learning, 41, 205-219.

40.

Kolb

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

41.

Lewin

(1951). Field theory in social sciences. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

42.

Barnett

Greenberg

Nicholls

J. A. F.

(2007). Teaching experiential learning: Adoption of an innovative course in an MBS marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 25-33.

43.

Lincoln

D. J.

(2008). The editor’s corner. Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 183-184.

44.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

45.

Lindon

(2005). Understanding child development. Linking theory and practice. Oxon, England: Hodder Arnold.

46.

Locke

Brazelton

(1997). Why do we ask them to write, or whose writing is it anyway? Journal of Management Education, 21, 44-57.

47.

Lofland

(1995). Analysing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

48.

Mann

S. J.

(2001). Alternative perspectives on the student experience: Alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 7-19.

49.

Marton

Saljo

(1976). On qualitative differences in learning—I: Outcomes and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

50.

McCrindle

(2002). Understanding Generation Y. Sydney, Australia: Australian Leadership Foundation.

51.

McNeal

(1987). Children as consumers: Insights and implications. Lexington, MA: Lexington.

52.

McNeal

(1999). The kids market. Myths and realities. New York, NY: Paramount Market.

53.

Morrison

Sweeney

Heffernan

(2006). Karn’s learning styles and learning effectiveness: A rejoinder. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 64-68.

54.

Navvar

(2001). Inside the mind of Gen Y. American Demographics, 23(9), 6.

55.

Neumann

(2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education 26, 135-146.

56.

Noble

S. M.

Haytko

D. L.

Phillips

(2009). What drives college-age Generation Y consumers? Journal of Business Research, 62, 617-628.

57.

O’Malley

Ryan

(2006). Pedagogy and relationship marketing: Opportunities for frame restructuring using African drumming. Journal of Marketing Management, 22, 195-214.

58.

Palfrey

Gasser

(2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York, NY: Basic Books.

59.

Parsons

Lepkowska-White

(2009). Group projects using clients versus not using clients. Do students perceive any differences? Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 154-159.

60.

Pavlovich

Collins

Jones

(2009). Developing students’ skills in reflective practice: Design and assessment. Journal of Management Education, 33, 37-58.

61.

Peterson

P. E.

West

M. R.

(2003). No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

62.

Petkus

(2000). A theoretical and practical framework for service learning in marketing: Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 64-70.

63.

Pfeffer

Fong

C. T.

(2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 78-95.

64.

Piaget

(1970). Genetic epistemology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

65.

Prensky

(2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, MCB University Press, 9(5), 1-6.

66.

Raelin

J. A.

(2009). The practice turn-away: Forty years of spoon-feeding in management education. Management Learning, 40, 401-410.

67.

Reynolds

(1997). Learning styles: A critique. Management Learning, 28(2), 115-133.

68.

Reynolds

(2009). Wild frontiers reflections on experiential learning. Management Learning, 40, 387-392.

69.

Richards

(1997). Developing cross-cultural management skills: Experiential learning in an international MBA programme. Management Learning, 28, 387-407.

70.

Roberts

J. M.

Manolis

(2000). Baby boomers and busters: An exploratory investigation of attitudes towards marketing, advertising and consumerism. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17, 481-497.

71.

Skilton

P. F.

Forsyth

White

O. J.

(2008). Interdependence and integration learning in student project teams: Do team project assignments achieve what we want them to? Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 57-65.

72.

Solomon

Bamossy

Askegaard

Hogg

M. K.

(2006). Consumer behaviour. A European perspective (3rd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

73.

Strauss

Howe

(1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. New York, NY: Quill.

74.

Strauss

Howe

(1998). The fourth turning: An American prophecy. New York, NY: Bantam.

75.

The Stationery Office. (2009). House of commons children, schools and families committee. national curriculum fourth report of session 2008-09 (Vol. I). London, England: Author.

76.

Tapscott

(2008). Grown up digital. How the Net generation is changing your world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

77.

Ueltschy

L. C.

(2001). An exploratory study of integration interactive technology into the marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 23, 63-72.

78.

United Press International. (2011). Obama law makers meet on No Child overhaul (UPI 17 February). Retrieved from http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/02/17/Obama-lawmakers-meet-on-No-Child-overhaul/UPI-67951

79.

Weil

McGill

(Eds.). (1989). Making sense of experiential learning: Diversity in theory and practice. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

80.

Willis

Trondman

(2000). Manifesto for ethnography. Ethnography, 1(1), 5-16.