The Effectiveness and Impact of Action Learning on Business Graduates’ Professional Practice

Abstract

The organizational world has long recognized action learning (AL) as an invaluable tool for managerial development. However, AL’s popularity among organizations did not translate into its adoption by business schools. A lack of evidence on what competencies AL fosters in students and whether these competencies transfer to practice has limited its wider acceptance. We address this issue by examining the learning outcomes of an undergraduate business program that has been using AL as a central didactical feature for the past 10 years. Based on a qualitative cross-sectional study following five alumni cohorts, results show that AL fosters the development of knowledge (theoretical and practical), skills (communication and collaboration), and attitudes (self-knowledge and self-efficacy); competencies graduates transferred to practice years after completing the program. Although management education has been continually criticized for its inability to provide undergraduates with the competencies necessary for practice, our study shows that AL contributes to narrowing this relevance gap. It also expands our understanding of the effectiveness and impact of AL beyond executive training to include undergraduate education, thus informing and inviting educators to consider AL as an alternative to expand their teaching practices.

Keywords

action learning experiential learning management education business school

Introduction

A growing concern among employers is the failure of business schools to provide students with the set of competencies that 21st-century businesses need (Davey et al., 2018). Additionally, employers complain that the learning imparted by business schools has little impact on or use in real management practice (Birtwistle et al., 2016; Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013). This points out the so-called “relevance gap” that haunts management education (Raelin, 2009). Organizations need managers who command (1) business knowledge, both declarative (know that) and procedural (know how); (2) soft skills, such as advanced communication and collaboration; and (3) attitudes, or the ability to critically interpret a situation, select knowledge and skills, and apply them appropriately (Allen & Simpson, 2019; Baartman & de Bruijn, 2011; Lycko & Galanakis, 2019; McMurray et al., 2016; Paglis, 2012).

In contrast, business schools mostly focus on transferring business theory from the teacher to the student (Glen et al., 2014). This gives learners the (false) impression that management problems fit neatly into technical packages that can be solved by simply applying business theory (Mintzberg, 2004). Consequently, when confronted with the complexity of managerial reality, graduates (and their employers) feel they are unprepared for practice (Rubin & Dierdorff, 2009).

Recognizing this relevance gap, educators have spent the past 40 years developing didactical approaches to better align what is demanded from business graduates with what business schools typically teach. Considering the social, contextual, and provisional nature of management practice (Raelin, 2016), there has been a call for management education to embrace the central role of action and to teach management along the lines of a craft rather than a science (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013). For Mintzberg (2004), because business problems are always context-embedded, more authentic managerial experiences are not only desirable but also necessary to management learning.

Against this background, action learning (AL) emerges as a promising alternative. Scott (2017) defined AL as a collaborative, experience-based approach to learning where participants solve complex, real-world problems by taking action and reflecting on the experience. It is argued that AL’s capacity to combine collective action on real-world problems with careful reflection on the experience can better prepare learners to handle the problems they will meet in professional life (Groves et al., 2018; Lackéus, 2014; Rae, 2009; Yeo & Gold, 2011).

However, while popular in the organizational world, where it is recognized as one of the most valuable tools for managerial learning and development (Brook & Milner, 2014), AL has not been fully accepted or adopted by business schools (Ruane, 2016). Although intuitively appealing, a lack of empirical studies limits our understanding of which competencies AL fosters in business students and the impact AL has in the transferability of the competencies gained in the business school to the workplace (Cho & Egan, 2009; Rae, 2009; Ruane, 2016; Scott, 2017).

Despite evidence showing that AL develops a series of competencies on experienced managers (Marquardt & Banks, 2010), it is not possible to affirm that similar outcomes will be found when participants are inexperienced business undergraduates (Groves et al., 2018). This lack of evidence prevents AL’s wider adoption by business schools (Edmonstone, 2015; Johnson & Spicer, 2006).

To address this research gap, this article follows five alumni cohorts from an undergraduate business program that has been using AL as a central didactical feature for the past 10 years, to explore (1) what competencies result from AL and (2) if these competencies are transferred to professional practice.

By researching these questions, this study seeks to develop insight into the impact of AL beyond executive training to include undergraduate education. If AL can indeed be as effective for undergraduates as it is for experienced managers, business educators could explore AL as a mean to bridge the relevance gap that has been haunting management education for decades (Edmonstone, 2015; Scott, 2017).

Theoretical Background

AL traces back to the 1940s when Reg Revans first introduced it in the coal mines of Wales as a method to improve the quality of managerial training. In AL, groups of people (mostly managers) take action on complex organizational problems, learning through questioning and reflection as they do so (Scott, 2017). Unique to AL is its focus on effective action for real-life problems that takes place in an inductive, almost exploratory way where collaboration is essential. Ideally, AL’s dual nature (combining action and reflection) will develop “reflective practitioners” with the capacity not only to take action but also to critically reflect on their actions, promoting personal and professional growth (Raelin, 1997).

However, while there is a general understanding of what AL entails, there is great inconsistency in AL delivery (Brook & Milner, 2014; Pedler et al., 2005). In higher education, some initiatives described as AL seem to contradict its definition, such as in consulting modules where participants do not take action but simply suggest hypothetical solutions to company problems (e.g., Lycko & Galanakis, 2019). Others have used the term to describe business simulations where there is no contact with the real world (e.g., Gabrielsson et al., 2010).

Although Revans himself encouraged experimentation and exploration, without some consensus on what its central features are, it is hard to distinguish AL from other forms of active learning (Johnson, 2010). What, then, is the essence of AL and how it is different from other forms of active-based learning?

Action Learning’s Design Features

The literature identifies four design features that outline the nature and the philosophy of AL: the use of (1) real world, (2) ill-defined problems that allow for the (3) execution (and not only the articulation) of envisaged solutions, mediated by a process of (4) reflection (Cho & Egan, 2009; Raelin, 2016; Scott, 2017; Tan et al., 2016; Yeo & Gold, 2011).

Different from simulations, real-world problems carry elements of uncertainty, pressure, moral judgments, and risk—all real-world situations managers need to handle (Baaken et al., 2015). Also, interaction with an authentic work environment allows learners to observe practitioners’ daily routines, strategies, and manners, thus getting acquainted with the workplace dynamics (Boud & Solomon, 2001; Tan et al., 2016).

Similarly, the value of AL is in its capacity to solve complex, ill-defined problems on which the direct application of theory is insufficient (Edmonstone et al., 2019; Schön, 1987). For Revans (2011) well-defined problems do not require the collaborative efforts of an AL setting. AL is most useful to suggest courses of action for problems “on which honest and reasonable men may well disagree” (p. 6).

Likewise, AL prescribes execution and not merely hypothetical solutions (Yeo & Gold, 2011). As in a real business situation, participants should live with the choices they make so they can learn from mistakes (Revans, 2011). This is perhaps the most overlooked element in business schools’ attempts to introduce active-based learning in their curriculums (Blaylock et al., 2009). Take Navarro’s (2008) examination of the curriculum of the top-50 U.S. business schools as an example. It shows that, in all situations where active-based learning was adopted, activities culminate with students recommending improvements in the form of a presentation to senior management (Navarro, 2008). Similarly, in Lycko and Galanakis (2019), “presentations solve the clients’ problem and commonly include the selection of attractive markets, market entry strategies and aspects of product localisation” (p. 12). While students may have a “correct” answer to present to companies, no one could prove that a given solution is correct without implementing it (Smith, 2005).

Last, scholars highlight the importance of reflection (Cho & Egan, 2009; Raelin, 2016). Action alone is not the best guide to learning because people often make wrong judgments about their actions and what they mean (Lambie, 2009). However, action combined with reflection helps learners distinguish the world as it is from their take on the world. Reflection is, therefore, essential to help learners integrate an understanding gained from action into improved behavior (Raelin, 2016).

Particularly relevant for AL is an instance of reflection that Schön (1987) has called reflection-on-action: the process of stepping back from an experience to carefully review and draw lessons from it. A dialogue among peers that should make more explicit to the learner what happened in action, foregrounding learning outcomes that might have been overlooked during the action (Nicol et al., 2013).

Action Learning Versus Other Forms of Active-Based Learning

Based on the aforementioned features, one can distinguish AL from other forms of active-based learning like problem-based learning (PBL), project-based learning, and work-based learning.

While all active-based methods start from a problem scenario to stimulate and facilitate learning (Acton, 2019), AL emphasizes the level of authenticity in these scenarios and highlight the importance of reflection. For instance, both AL and PBL make use of ill-defined problems (Scott, 2017), but AL stresses the thorough execution of the proposed solutions in close interaction with an authentic work environment (Yeo & Gold, 2011). Contrariwise, most PBL interventions begin with a problem briefing at the start of the module and culminate with a presentation of recommendations to management at the end, therefore lacking execution and close contact with the work environment (Smith, 2005; Tan et al., 2016).

On the other hand, project-based learning and work-based learning both offer immersive first-hand experiences, including opportunities for execution and workplace contact, yet often at the expense of reflection (Mintzberg, 2004). AL, however, calls explicit attention to the role of reflection as a catalyst agent for learning, especially reflection-on-action (Cho & Egan, 2009; Raelin, 1997, 2016).

Action Learning and Business Higher Education

AL’s popularity in the organizational world has increased in the past two decades (Brook & Milner, 2014). Its capacity to address complex organizational problems while promoting employees’ personal growth makes AL one of the most powerful tools for managerial learning and development (Mukesh et al., 2019).

Research suggests that, by allowing participants to collectively work in the solution of unstructured organizational problems, with their action examined through collective reflection, AL increases theory-to-practice transferability, fosters collaborative leadership, develops a series of soft skills (teamwork, communication skills, relationship building, and networking), improves participants’ ability to handle conflicting situations, promotes life-long learning, and fosters self-efficacy and critical thinking (Leonard & Marquardt, 2010; Mukesh et al., 2019; Park et al., 2013) as Figure 1 illustrates.

Figure 1.

Action learning conceptual framework.

However, despite being relevant, the aforementioned contributions were either (1) proposed at the conceptual level (e.g., Edmonstone, 2015; Marsick & O’Neil, 1999; Raelin & Coghlan, 2006; Yeo & Gold, 2011) or (2) based on interventions conducted in organizational settings having experienced managers as targets¹ (e.g., Leonard & Marquardt, 2010; Park et al., 2013). There are very few studies of AL that aim at undergraduates with no managerial experience (Groves et al., 2018).

In addition to the barriers common to most active-based learning interventions, such as academic culture privileging programmed knowledge over practical experience, academics’ resistance to change, and administrative issues (Jackson & Chapman, 2012), the lack of studies on AL’s effectiveness for and impact on inexperienced students prevents its wider adoption by business schools (Edmonstone, 2015; Johnson & Spicer, 2006; Scott, 2017). Few studies look into which competencies AL fosters in business undergraduates, even fewer look beyond impressions right after the intervention to investigate if the competencies gained have actually impacted managerial practice (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013). This article addresses these research gaps.

Method

In the context of business undergraduate education, this study explores the following research questions:

Research Question 1: Which competencies does AL foster when it is introduced in business higher education?

Research Question 2: To what extent were these competencies transferred to professional practice?

To answer these questions, this study follows a single case study research design based on the Management Experience Program (MEP). MEP is a 4-year, full-time business undergraduate program offered by a Brazilian university that embraces AL as its central pedagogical approach, making it a suitable case to address the RQs. MEP’s primary objective is to enable students to fulfil the role of managers by allowing them to solve varied managerial-level problems in connection with different organizations. To achieve this, MEP combines the foundation taught modules that are typical of most business bachelor programs (e.g., finance, marketing, operations) in the morning with so-called “real-world practices” (the AL component) in the afternoon (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Research design.

Each real-world practice offers learners managerial experience of a different “level.” In the first year, an entrepreneurial dimension is explored. In the second and third years, students support companies to solve complex problems in different business areas. Also in the third year, students have a corporate-level experience, where they make stock market investment decisions based on the strategic positioning of different Brazilian corporations.

To support learning from action, reflective dialogue sessions are conducted during and at the end of each real-world practice (the real-world practices are described in detail in the Results section). In the fourth year, the students spend one year studying abroad. MEP expects students to acquire concretely (1) a more accurate understanding of the managerial practice, (2) a series of soft skills, and (3) a better notion of potential career avenues.

The 4 years of studying result in the acquisition of a set of competencies in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Research Question 1 explores which competencies exactly are acquired through the AL component of the program. Research Question 2 examines to what extent these competencies are transferred to professional practice.

Data Collection

The research questions were addressed based on the experience of five different MEP alumni cohorts who started the program between 2008 and 2012.² Data were collected through a questionnaire containing four open questions, sent electronically to all 64 MEP alumni. A response rate of around 66% (n = 42) was attained. Respondents included six alumni from cohort 2008 (of 10 in the cohort), eight from cohort 2009 (of 12), eight from cohort 2010 (of 12), 12 from cohort 2011 (of 15), and eight from cohort 2012 (of 15). The four questions that comprise the questionnaire are detailed in Table 1.³

Table 1.

Overview of the Questionnaire.

Research Question (RQ)	Collection mechanism	Respondents	Questions
RQ1: Competence output	Open-ended questionnaire	Alumni from cohorts 2008 to 2012 (n = 42)	1. Has MEP helped you understand what managers do and what challenges are associated with running a business? Please, elaborate.
			2. Has MEP helped you develop skills that you did not already have? Please, elaborate.
			3. What was the most relevant contribution of MEP to your personal and professional development?
RQ2: Impact on managerial practice	Open-ended questionnaire	Alumni from cohorts 2008 to 2012 (n = 42)	4. Could you give one or more examples of situations where your MEP education helped you in a real work situation?

Note. MEP = Management Experience Program.

The questionnaire invited alumni to openly describe the contributions of real-world practices to their personal and professional development and whether these contributions were transferred to their professional practice. In doing that, the researchers moved away from what is most common in research evaluating active-based learning—the self-assessment of learning outcomes conducted with current students, based on a list of predefined competencies (Acton, 2019)—to focus on an exploratory examination of the learning outcomes that emerge naturally from the data.

Garnjost and Brown (2018) and Acton (2019) both drew attention to the benefits of this approach, noting that it is more likely to uncover genuine views because it allows respondents to reply in their own words. It also reduces bias, as respondents can state what was more salient and significant to their learning without being guided by the researcher’s preordained understandings of what competencies the program should impart (Braun & Mishra, 2016; Gioia et al., 2013).

Similarly, the use of alumni is consistent with Kirschner et al. (2006) and Van de Velden (2013), who argued that alumni are in an advantageous position to evaluate the contribution of a didactical intervention because they can examine it not against what higher education proposes (where standards vary), but in terms of the actual requirements of professional practice, translating into a more robust predictor of achievement and performance.

Data Analysis

Data analysis adhered to the coding approach developed by Gioia et al. (2013). Summaries of participants’ answers formed first-order concepts. In translating raw data to first-order concepts, the researchers strove to be as faithful as possible to the alumni’s answers—informant terms were adhered to faithfully and little attempt was made to cluster the data into broad categories. Next, the researchers used competence definitions offered by Sánchez and Ruiz (2008) to seek similarities and differences among the first-order concepts. This analytical process resulted in the creation of second-order concepts. Finally, now firmly in the theoretical realm, the second-order concepts were combined to form aggregated dimensions. These correspond to the three broad competence dimensions described in the AL literature: knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

In the Results section, there is a visual representation of how the data analysis progressed from raw data to first- and second-order terms to the aggregated dimensions. Data were coded with the support of MAXQDA qualitative analysis software by the lead researcher, with interrater reliability confirmed by a second researcher. The second researcher analyzed 100% of the data with no disagreement in interpretation.

Results

This section is divided into three parts. The first describes the real-world practices in greater detail, stressing their connection to the four AL components highlighted in the theoretical framework (see Figure 1). Data for this description arrives from personal communication with the current and former program manager and the person responsible for the reflection mechanisms; multiple site visits; the program syllabus; information available on MEP’s website and the authors’⁴ personal knowledge about the program. The second explores our Research Question 1, or which learning outcomes result from MEP real-world practices. The third addresses Research Question 2, evaluating if these outcomes were transferred to professional practice after the end of the program.

AL at MEP: The Real-World Practices

MEP’s real-world practices are consistent with AL design. Students engage with ill-defined problems that demand solutions to be thoroughly implemented in connection with a real organization. To support learning from action, reflective dialogue processes are conducted during and at the end of each real-world practice.

Role of Lecturers

Each real-world practice is led by a different lecturer/facilitator—a faculty member with professional experience in project management and technical expertise in the topic in question. The lecturer supports the students’ inquiry process by (1) sharing programmed knowledge, both through short lectures and according to specific project needs; (2) asking probing questions; and (3) offering specific feedback on the feasibility of students’ ideas.

Having faculty with both technical knowledge and practical experience is essential to the success of the real-world practices. As students are often confronted with situations where programmed knowledge alone is insufficient to solve the problem, managerial experience allows lecturers to provide students with new insights. Practical experience also helps lecturers conduct the projects efficiently, establishing priorities and ensuring that deadlines are met. Finally, lecturers’ professional “savviness” allows them to give feedback to students that go beyond the problem-resolution to include skills and attitudes related to the profession.

Ill-Defined Problems

All MEP real-world practices are designed around unstructured problems where the solution requires more than the straightforward application of business theory. The first real-world practice is a two-semester module (8 hours per week) called “entrepreneurship,” where students organize and implement fund-raising activities to support a children’s hospital. Within certain ethical confines, students can develop almost any fund-raising idea they want. The conceptualization of these ideas is supported by the practice lecturer and by the hospital management. Past examples include setting up a stand-up comedy show, arranging agreements with movie theatres where a percentage of the box office is donated to the hospital, or the sale of hospital-licensed products.

In the second and third years of the program, students take part in so-called “company projects”: a two-semester practice (8 hours per week) where students identify, develop, and implement improvements to constraints faced by local companies in different business functions (finance, marketing, logistics, etc.). In the second-year practice, students work with small companies then move on to medium-size organizations in the third year, addressing problems demanding higher technical expertise. Examples include the development of loyalty programs, salesforce training, and the design and implementation of a new corporate identity. Third-year students also take part in the two-semester (4 hours per week) “asset management” practice. In this module, the students must, in connection with a corporate investor and using real money, manage a portfolio of Brazilian stocks. Like the other real-world practices, the students are free to define their portfolio strategies and make buying or selling decisions according to market conditions.

Execution

In all real-world practices, students spend at least one full semester implementing their envisaged solutions in the real world. In the entrepreneurship practice, students are fully responsible for the implementation of their fund-raising events. That includes financial planning, negotiation with suppliers, advertising, hiring of external staff, and so on. In the company projects, once approved by management, students spend 6 months (one and a half semesters) implementing their foreseen improvements to the company’s operations. Similarly, in the asset management practice, students actively manage their portfolios, buying and selling stocks in the real market for at least 6 months.

Noticeably, as in any corporate venture, activities often do not turn out well. There are a few reasons for that, but two happen most often: (1) students’ ideas prove not to be successful once implemented (e.g., fund-raising action that did not appeal to the public) or (2) errors are made during the execution phase (e.g., a student forgets to put a trade order). While in many situations one cannot change the outcome (e.g., reverse a bad trade), especially through reflection students should identify their mistakes and use them as a vehicle for learning.

Reflection

All the real-world practices are accompanied by three reflection mechanisms: (1) reflection during practices, (2) group reflection, and (3) one-on-one reflection. Their purpose is to support the evaluation of project outcomes, foreground the competencies students developed in action, and illuminate career perspectives.

The reflection during projects happens alongside the project work. It is conducted by lecturers and company representatives, who give (informal) oral feedback to students both on their use of programmed knowledge and their interpersonal skills. The lecturer help students adjust theoretical concepts to their practical applications by asking probing questions that invite learners to reflect on their proposed solutions (e.g., Is this the best approach to solve this problem?). Similarly, lecturers use their professional experience to offer professional counselling to students (e.g., be more objective in your presentations). Managers and employees of the partner companies play a similar role. They provide oral feedback on students’ business ideas and their professional performances at project presentations and during informal conversations.

The group reflection is a reflective session exclusively dedicated to the structured discussion of the critical events that occurred during practice. Organized by a faculty mediator, these sessions are comprises of two parts. In the first, the mediator invites each student to share with his or her working group (4 to 8 students) their impressions of the outcomes of the practice. In the second, students evaluate each other’s performance on a series of soft skills (e.g., communication, teamwork, and initiative) using an objective scale. An open dialogue follows the assessments, allowing students to constructively discuss their evaluations. The sessions last for approximately 1.5 hours and take place every 2 months, totaling four sections per practice.

Finally, the one-on-one reflection is a 1-hour discussion session between each student and a faculty mediator. The objective of this session is to help the student critically reflect on his or her development throughout the program. In preparation for it, students complete a self-evaluation report containing questions that invite reflection (e.g., What are your career objectives? What competencies could help you achieve such goals?). These questions are carefully debated during the session and a parallel with the student’s career objectives is made. Out of it, areas that the student should develop further are foregrounded (e.g., be more proactive, keep improving your presentation skills, consider if your career choices are compatible with your competence profile).

As conducting these sessions impose an impractical workload on lecturers, both the group and one-on-one reflection are led by faculty staff that is exclusively responsible for these activities. Having the reflective sessions conducted by the same group of persons (and not different lectures) also helps MEP’s coordination team to accompany the students’ trajectory throughout the program.

Formal Assessment

The real-world practices’ formal assessment derives from the reflection processes described above, consisting of three dimensions. In the first dimension, the object of evaluation is the quality of the work performed by the student. The assessment comes from the lecturer and the company representatives for which the students carry out the work, translated in the form of a final grade. In the second dimension, evaluation comes from peers (as described in the group reflection) and the objects of evaluation are the competencies developed rather than project output. In the third dimension, the object of evaluation is the evolution of the student during the program, with assessment arriving from learning objectives established by the students themselves during the one-on-one conversations with faculty management. This evaluation cycle repeats itself every semester. Table 2 summarizes the real-world practices’ design and delivery.

Table 2.

Real-World Practices in MEP.

	Entrepreneurship	Company Project 1	Company Project 2	Asset management
	Year 1 (8 hours/week)	Year 2 (8 hours/week)	Year 3 (8 hours/week)	Year 3 (4 hours/week)
Description	In cooperation with a children’s hospital, students design fund-raising ideas.	In cooperation with a small company, students work on improving complex issues in different business areas.	In cooperation with a medium-size company, students work on improving complex issues in different business areas.	On behalf of a corporate investor, students manage a portfolio of shares with real money.
First semester	Design phase	Design phase	Design phase	Design phase
	Group reflection	Group reflection	Group reflection	Group reflection
	Design phase	Execution phase	Execution phase	Execution phase
	Group reflection	Group reflection	Group reflection	Group reflection
	One-on-one reflection	One-on-one reflection	One-on-one reflection	One-on-one reflection
Second semester	Execution phase	Execution phase	Execution phase	Execution phase
	Group reflection	Group reflection	Group reflection	Group reflection
	Execution phase	Execution phase	Execution phase	Execution phase
	Group reflection	Group reflection	Group reflection	Group reflection
	One-on-one reflection	One-on-one reflection	One-on-one reflection	One-on-one reflection

Note. MEP = Management Experience Program.

Learning Outcomes: Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes

Through the analysis of alumni responses, 15 competencies were identified as the main learning outcomes of the real-world practices (Table 3).⁵ These 15 competencies were then clustered into six groups: theoretical business knowledge, practical business knowledge, communication skills, collaboration skills, self-efficacy, and self-knowledge. Theoretical and practical business knowledge were grouped into the aggregated dimension “business knowledge.” Communication and collaboration skills were grouped into the aggregated dimension “soft skills.” Last, self-efficacy and self-awareness became the “attitudes” dimension. In the following paragraphs, we describe each dimension in detail and establish a parallel with the real-world practices.

Table 3.

Alumni’s Perceptions of the Competencies Fostered by the Real-World Practices.

Example of raw data	First order	Second order	Aggregated dimensions
I could see how the situation affected the company’s financial planning, its profit and loss, and its balance sheet.	Theoretical knowledge	Theoretical knowledge	Business knowledge
Having to solve complex problems. The challenge was often simple, for example, improve the purchase process, but the answers could come in various forms.	Problem solving	Practical knowledge
The great challenge was to make decisions with limited knowledge or experience, a challenge that repeated itself throughout my career.	Decision making
Being able to work with different themes and projects allowed us to experience the corporate world even before leaving college.	Practical experience
To this day, I attribute my communication skills to MEP practices.	Communication	Communication skills	Soft skills
Interact with different people, from classmates to executives to entrepreneurs, helped me develop my relationship skills.	Interpersonal relation	Collaborative skills
The main contribution was flexibility. The ability to work with different people as well as in different areas and different companies.	Flexibility
MEP developed my ability to work with other people and together seek solutions to the problems	Team work
Great networking . . . MEP inserts you in a high-level environment.	Networking
The MEP showed me the capacity that I had. In the group evaluations, I was always among the best. This helped me to believe in my potential.	Empowerment	Self-efficacy	Attitudes
Confidence in working with the unknown. Trust in your ability and that of your colleagues. Confidence in my professional choices.	Self-confidence
Proactivity, no doubt, because projects demand you to be proactive every day.	Proactivity
Awareness of who I am, what my abilities are, what I need to develop, where I want to go professionally.	Self-awareness	Self-knowledge
MEP was a very big change in my life. The turning point from youth to adult life.	Maturity
MEP has helped me a lot to understand how big my dreams can be and what my motivation and ambitions are.	Recognize own motivations

Note. MEP = Management Experience Program.

Business Knowledge

Alumni pointed out that the opportunity to solve unstructured problems for different organizations and in different business areas (e.g., marketing, finance) that real-world practices promote, imparted in them theoretical business knowledge.

Through the knowledge in marketing that I gained from MEP practices, I publicized (our products) through social media and Google with positive results. Another example is in the way I invest my money. Through the knowledge I gained in the stock markets project, I have a good base to invest (Graduate A, Cohort 2012, response to Question 4).

Better defining problems, being meticulous in organizing the steps of the project, and thinking and rethinking through the possibilities/effects that the problem causes or can cause. I believe I have learned to look into a problem from different angles without rushing into decision making (Graduate B, Cohort 2011, response to Question 2).

Similarly, the hands-on nature of real-world practices and the close contact it offers with real organizations allowed alumni to translate theory into practice (fostering problem solving and decision-making competencies).

The direct connection we had with the companies gave us the chance to apply our ideas in real life, guided by lecturers specialized in the area. (Graduate C, Cohort 2012, response to Question 1)

MEP enabled students to take part in the daily challenges that managers face when running their business. The (2nd year]) company project is one of the most striking examples. At the start of the project, we took part in the daily operations of the restaurant. This allowed us to delve into internal processes and identify problematic issues (Graduate D, Cohort 2011, response to Question 1).

MEP practices have put me in touch with real situations and problems faced by companies. Together with teachers and colleagues, we had the opportunity to design and implement the most appropriate solutions (Graduate E, Cohort 2010, response to Question 1).

The proximity with real organizations also allowed students to critically reflect on the actual nature of the management practice, equipping them with a clearer notion of what managers do and the challenges associated with running a business.

Management is a broad discipline. That is why it is hard to understand what a manager does—especially because there are no identical companies, with identical internal procedures, that do the same thing, in the same way. This makes it difficult to understand what it is like to run a company and see the connection between the business school and business reality. MEP practices bring one closer to companies’ reality because of the experiences it offers to students. (Graduate F, Cohort 2011, response to Question 1)

In the MEP practices, I had contact with several managers and understood the most varied challenges they need to overcome. I learned the importance of all areas within a company, but especially the importance of the people behind them (Graduate G, Cohort 2010, response to Question 1).

Proximity to real companies “flung open” their greatest deficiencies and, in my case, completely erased the image that companies are somehow well-functioning organizations (Graduate H, Cohort 2009, response to Question 1).

We have called the combination of theory to practice transferability and the understanding of the nature of management, practical business knowledge.

Soft Skills

The real-world practices played an important part in developing various soft skills, particularly collaboration and communication. Students mentioned that their continuous interaction with different stakeholders (students, lecturers, and employees of different companies) helped them to develop these skills.

I believe that a life-changing contribution has been to learn how to deal with different people, people with difficult temperaments and who are extremely competitive (my colleagues). (Graduate F, Cohort 2011, response to Question 3)

I believe that MEP’s difference is that it enables students to, sometimes play the role of leaders, guiding the group to achieve a certain goal, and sometimes to be a better team player, exposing ideas with clarity and confidence. (Graduate I, Cohort 2010, response to Question 2)

MEP helped me develop my communication skills. Especially the public presentations, since we had many activities where results had to be presented, both for the class and the lecturers and managers of the companies. (Graduate J, Cohort 2010, response to Question 2)

Furthermore, some participants characterized soft skills as more beneficial to managerial performance than hard skills. That is because hard skills are context-dependent and easier to learn at the workplace. Soft skills, on the contrary, are harder to develop on the job, so those who command them have an advantage in performing managerial tasks.

In my current job, I developed operational skills almost entirely at work. Yet I can feel MEP’s contribution to my relationship with co-workers, especially when I come across challenges and new projects. (Graduate L, Cohort 2009, response to Question 3)

Attitudes

Perceived outcomes of the real-world practices surpass knowledge and skills to also include attitudes. Two were particularly significant: self-knowledge and self-efficacy. Alumni said that the active nature of the real-world practices forced them to take initiative and to act proactively toward problems. This proactivity then built students’ confidence in their own capabilities. We have called this combination of proactivity and confidence self-efficacy.

MEP is different because it teaches that doing business is not just working in an office, filling in spreadsheets, making accounts payable and receivables, or pricing something. MEP teaches us the real essence of a manager, which has to do with pro-activity, attitude, creativity. It is to go over difficulties with intelligence and well-defined strategies. That the problem is yours and only you can solve it. (Graduate M, Cohort 2011, response to Question 1)

I would say confidence. Confidence in being who you are. Trust in working with the unknown. In your own work and in others. Conviction of the career path you can achieve (Graduate N, Cohort 2011, response to Question 3).

The greatest contribution of MEP was the challenge of being a better person and not content with the basics, understand my limits and trying to overcome them. There is always a way to do more (Graduate O, Cohort 2008, response to Question 3).

Concurrently, combining action with reflection offered participants a clearer notion of their capabilities, limitations, strengths, weaknesses, and motivations—what we have called self-knowledge.

With the experiences I obtained in MEP, together with the feedback from my colleagues and the discussion sections with the program coordination about career, I got to know myself better . . . MEP stimulates this self-knowledge through practice and reflection, and mainly, by giving us the opportunity to further develops these points. (Graduate N, Cohort 2011, response to Question 2)

The most important contribution was the creation of personal awareness. Awareness of who I am, what my skills are, what I need to develop, where I want to go professionally, how that connects with my personal wishes (Graduate P, cohort 2012, response to Question 3).

MEP has always encouraged self-reflection and self-criticism. . . . Learning only happens completely with self-reflection. This has helped me a lot to identify and develop my strengths and weaknesses (Graduate Q, Cohort 2012, response to Question 2).

MEP provides several situations that help us identify our strengths and weaknesses. But most important, it encourages students to develop their weak points and leverage their strengths. When I graduated from college, I already had in mind which areas were of most interest to me because MEP practices allowed me to reflect on what my aptitudes were Graduate G, Cohort 2010, response to Question 2.

Transferability to Professional Practice

Alumni’s answers to our fourth open-ended question (could you name one or more examples where the personal or professional learning you experienced at MEP helped you cope with a real work situation?) shows that graduates applied the competencies they acquired during the real-world practices in their jobs—abilities that directly contributed to better work performance. This is true for each aggregated dimension: business knowledge, soft skills, and attitudes.

The challenge was to improve the prospecting process for sales teams. For this I had to do as I did in MEP, to understand the problem, to divide into smaller pieces and to solve one by one until everything was ready to be presented to the whole team. (Graduate B, Cohort 2011, Question 4)

At my current job, I presented one project for over 300 salespeople, the CEO, the CMO, and other managers. I believe my university training was crucial to making the presentation a success (Graduate R, Cohort 2008, Question 4).

Having understood my personal and professional profile during MEP feedback processes helps me until this day to make the most important professional decisions of my life. (Graduate S, Cohort 2010, Question 4)

Furthermore, alumni pointed out that the situations they faced during the real-world practices were comparable to real business situations they encountered in professional life. This similarity explains, in part, where this transferability comes from.

In my current business project, I use the lessons I learned at MEP to design and plan my new business. From the HR experience in the restaurant [2nd-year project] to the strategic planning for the hardware shop [3rd-year project]—it is amazing how the experiences are comparable and how MEP’s practices are helping me to decide on one particular direction or another. (Graduate P, Cohort 2012, Question 4)

Notwithstanding the recognized comparability, alumni mentioned that, because students join (and leave) the program at a very young age, some only fully appreciate the contributions of AL to their education once they graduate or enter the job market.

As much as the MEP has a practical component, I believe students do not appreciate the value of this because they are too young, taking things as a “college experience.” They will only realize the importance of the practices when they are at the end of the course or when they have already entered the job market (Graduate T, Cohort 2010, Question 1).

Discussion

The literature shows that AL promotes a series of managerial competencies in participants. In particular, it advances theory-to-practice transferability, collaborative leadership, the ability to handle conflict situations, soft skills (teamwork, communication skills, relationship building, and networking), lifelong learning, self-efficacy, and critical thinking (Leonard & Marquardt, 2010; Mukesh et al., 2019; Park et al., 2013). However, most of these results were obtained in organizational settings with experienced managers. Our results show that (1) a similar range of competencies can also be fostered in inexperienced undergraduate students and (2) the competencies developed through AL were transferred to practice years after the intervention, being useful to alumni in the workplace.

These findings carry important theoretical and practical implications. First, they expand our understanding of the effectiveness and impact of AL beyond executive training to include undergraduate education. Second, they demonstrate AL’s potential to address a long-standing discontent of educators, students, and employers: business schools’ inability to provide graduates with the competencies they will need in the workplace.

Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes

Although business problems can occasionally be solved with the straightforward application of business theory, the “art” of management lies in solving complex problems (Edmonstone et al., 2019; Revans, 2011; Schön, 1987). Our results show that AL contributes to students’ command of this art.

Through AL, alumni mentioned having developed an understanding of management theory and practice. It includes not only knowing that, translated into theoretical knowledge but also knowing how in the form of problem-solving capabilities. This supports Raelin and Coghlan’s (2006) assertion that AL offers “substantial advantages over conventional education when it comes to the application of practical learning and more actionable forms of knowledge” (p. 682). Additionally, due to their closer contact with real-work environments, alumni grasped what Boud and Solomon (2001) and Tan et al. (2016) have called the “dynamics of the workplace”: a more realistic view of what managers do, a better understanding of their daily challenges, and more interaction with companies’ daily struggles.

Research conducted in organizational settings shows that the highly collaborative nature of AL helps participants develop soft skills—particularly communication, interpersonal relations, and conflict management (Leonard & Marquardt, 2010). Our findings show that the intensive interaction among students and between students and real organizations fostered similar skills in MEP undergraduates.

Moreover, the results show how graduates perceive the importance of soft skills. While the respondents joined business school expecting hard skills to be central to managerial success, AL helped them realize that soft skills (and attitudes) were often more important for managerial performance than programmed knowledge. These results align with the findings from Graham (2017), and Mintzberg (2004), who suggested that management is a social practice and that the ability to communicate and relate to people is the most (if not the only) transferable managerial skill.

Last, studies conducted in organizational settings show that AL’s combination of action and reflection can develop attitudes such as self-efficacy and critical thinking in managers (Lackéus, 2014; Mukesh et al., 2019). Our findings show that AL can foster similar attitudes in undergraduates. The highly practical nature of AL increase students’ confidence in their capability to design and deliver practical solutions to real companies (self-efficacy). At the same time, reflective mechanisms increase students’ awareness of those capabilities (self-knowledge) through critical thinking—even if, in some cases, this awareness only manifests itself at the end of the course, or when entering the job market.

The results agree with Raelin’s (1997, 2016) proposition that central to AL is the concern with the surfacing (through learning dialogues) of social, political, and emotional reactions that might be undermining participants’ operating effectiveness and personal development. By combining practical experience and critical reflection, MEP undergraduates extracted from the experience an understanding that exceeds programmed knowledge to include a better notion of the nature of management practice (what managers actually do and the challenges companies typically encounter) and a clearer understanding of their capabilities and limitations (self-knowledge).

Transferability of Competencies Into Professional Practice

Traditionally, active-based learning evaluation draws its results from the impressions formed by students right after the event. Although valid, this approach is problematic as it does not give an accurate impression of the long-term impact the intervention had on participants’ professional lives (Edmonstone, 2015). To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to look at the long-term impact of AL in business higher education, demonstrating that the learning outcomes gained through AL actively contributed to participants’ professional practice, sometimes years after the intervention.

This carries two important implications. First, it reinforces the strength of the outcomes, since the competence levels alumni refer to did not come from short-term reactions based on pure self-assessment but instead reflect an authentic professional demand. In other words, if alumni say the competencies they acquired through AL help them in their daily work, this suggests that they have developed them to the level that is demanded by business practice. Second, our results support assertions that AL better promotes the transfer of learning from the context of the intervention (in our case higher education) to future ones (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Johnson & Spicer, 2006; Scott, 2017).

AL’s capacity to promote competence transferability becomes particularly relevant in light of other findings that show that less than 5% of learners claim to have used their higher education instruction in professional life (Raelin & Coghlan, 2006), 70% to 90% of workplace learning arrives from on-the-job experiences and not from formal education, and 85% of MBA alumni reported feeling a need for additional management education (Rubin & Dierdorff, 2009). This places AL as a promising alternative to respond to students’ and employers’ frustration with the lack of applicability of higher education instruction to managerial practice.

Conclusions

The organizational world recognizes AL as one of the most valuable tools for managerial development. To date, however, this powerful tool has been underused by business schools. The literature suggests that further evidence of its effectiveness, to demonstrate both its learning outcomes and its impact on students’ professional practice, is necessary for its wider adoption in business schools.

Against this background, our results show that AL can foster a wide range of competencies in inexperienced undergraduates, including knowledge (theoretical and practical), skills (communication and collaboration), and attitudes (self-knowledge and self-efficacy). Competencies transferred to practice years after the intervention, actively contributing to respondents’ daily work.

These findings advance the understanding of AL by showing that it can be beneficial not only to experienced managers but also to inexperienced undergraduates. There are few records in the literature of didactical approaches capable of promoting such a wide range of competencies in undergraduates. Results showing that the gained competencies directly contributed to graduates’ professional practice are even rarer. This opens a window of opportunity for educators considering didactical alternatives to promote a broader range of competencies in business undergraduates—ones more in line with the professional demands of managers.

Limitations and Further Research

There are a few limitations associated with this research. First, the results portrayed here only tell which competencies AL fosters. They do not explain how the design features of AL proposed by the literature (real-world, ill-defined problems with execution and reflection) undergird those results. Although alumni responses indicate that all four features contributed to the outputs found here, further studies (including those currently being conducted by the researchers) should evaluate how this relationship builds up. Second, we base our results on a single undergraduate program (MEP), so their generalizability can be questioned. Although our results encompass multiple cohorts and reflect four different AL settings (the four MEP real-world practices), the literature would benefit from similar investigations conducted outside of MEP.

Along the lines of this study, future research could entail a longitudinal study of business education programs which incorporate AL in their curriculum. Such an investigation would create a more comprehensive account of how AL impacts, not only professional life (of alumni) but also the development of students’ competencies in solving real-life problems. Such studies could make significant contributions to closing the relevance gap in business education.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Andre Perusso

Notes

References

Acton

(2019). Mapping the evaluation of problem-oriented pedagogies in higher education: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 9(4), 269-284. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040269

Allen

Simpson

(2019). Inquiry into graduate attributes: Reviewing the formal and informal management curricula. Journal of Management Education, 43(3), 330-358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562919839736

Baaken

Kiel

Kliewe

(2015). Real world projects with companies supporting competence development in higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(3), 129-139. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n3p129

Baartman

de Bruijn

(2011). Integrating knowledge, skills and attitudes: Conceptualising learning processes towards vocational competence. Educational Research Review, 6(2011), 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.03.001

Birtwistle

Brown

Wagenaar

(2016). A long way to go . . . a study on the implementation of learning-outcomes based approach in the EU. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 3(2), 429-463. https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe-3(2)-2016pp429-463

Blaylock

McDaniel

Falk

Hollandsworth

Kopf

(2009). A borrowed approach for a more effective business education. Journal of Management Education, 33(5), 577-597. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562908327889

Boak

(2011). Blending Q and P: Incorporating action learning in a master’s programme. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 8(2), 165-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2011.581022

Boud

Solomon

(2001). Work-based learning: A new higher education. Open University Press.

Braun

Mishra

(2016). Methods for assessing competences in higher education: A comparative review. Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, 2, 47-68. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-375220160000002003

10.

Brook

Milner

(2014). Reflections on “creative” action learning in business education: Some issues in its theory and practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(2), 126-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827651

11.

Carriger

. (2016). What is the best way to develop new managers? Problem-based learning vs. lecture-based instruction. International Journal of Management Education, 14(2016), 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.02.003

12.

Cho

Egan

(2009). Action learning research: A systematic review and conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 8(4), 431-462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309345656

13.

Davey

Meerman

Orazbayeva

Riedel

Galan-Muros

Plewa

Eckert

(2018). The future of universities thoughtbook. University-Industry Innovation Network.

14.

Edmonstone

(2015). The challenge of evaluating action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 12(2), 131-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2015.1041452

15.

Edmonstone

Lawless

Pedler

(2019). Leadership development, wicked problems and action learning: Provocations to a debate. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 16(1), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2019.1568967

16.

Gabrielsson

Tell

Politis

(2010). Business simulation exercises in small business management education: Using principles and ideas from action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 7(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767330903576812

17.

Garnjost

Brown

(2018). Undergraduate business students’ perceptions of learning outcomes in problem-based and faculty centered courses. International Journal of Management Education, 16(2018), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.12.004

18.

Gioia

Corley

Hamilton

(2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151

19.

Glen

Suciu

Baughn

(2014). The need for design thinking in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(4), 653-667. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0308

20.

Gosling

Mintzberg

(2006). Management education as if both matter. Management Learning, 37(4), 419-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507606070214

21.

Graham

(2017). Embedding employability behaviours. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 9(1), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-01-2017-0001

22.

Groves

White

Panya

Stewart

(2018). Can business schools increase student employability by embedding action learning into undergraduate management education? An account of practice. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 15(3), 258-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2018.1510631

23.

Jackson

Chapman

(2012). Non-technical skill gaps in Australian business graduates. Education+Training, 54(3), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211210224

24.

Jarzabkowski

Giulietti

Oliveira

Amoo

(2013). We don’t need no education—or do we? Management education and alumni adoption of strategy tools. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(1), 4-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492612460588

25.

Johnson

(2010). A framework for the ethical practice of action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 7(3), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2010.518373

26.

Johnson

Spicer

(2006). A case study of action learning in an MBA program. Education+Training, 48(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610645725

27.

Kirschner

Sweller

Clark

(2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

28.

Lackéus

(2014). An emotion-based approach to assessing entrepreneurial education. International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 374-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.06.005

29.

Lambie

(2009). Emotion experience, rational action, and self-knowledge. Emotion Review, 1(3), 272-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073909103596

30.

Leonard

Marquardt

(2010). The evidence for the effectiveness of action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 7(2), 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2010.488323

31.

Lycko

Galanakis

(2019). Student consultancy projects playbook: Learning outcomes and a framework for teaching practice in an international entrepreneurial context. International Journal of Management Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.02.005

32.

Marquardt

Banks

(2010). Theory to practice: Action learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(2), 159-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310367878

33.

Marsick

O’Neil

(1999). The many faces of action learning. Management Learning, 30(2), 159-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507699302004

34.

McMurray

Dutton

McQuaid

Richard

(2016). Employer demands from business graduates. Education + Training, 58(1), 112-132. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2014-0017a

35.

Mintzberg

(2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. Berrett-Koehler.

36.

Mukesh

Pillai

Mamman

(2019). Action-embedded pedagogy in entrepreneurship education: An experimental enquiry. Studies in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1599848

37.

Navarro

(2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U.S. business schools: A study in failure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 108-123. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2008.31413868

38.

Nicol

Thomson

Breslin

(2013). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518

39.

Paglis

(2012). A review of managerial skills training in the classroom. Journal of Management Education, 37(4), 472-498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912436516

40.

Park

Kang

Taryn

Cho

(2013). Why are we using action learning and in what contexts? Action Learning: Research and Practice, 10(1), 4-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2012.744299

41.

Pedler

Burgoyne

Brook

(2005). What has action learning learned to become? Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2(1), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767330500041251

42.

Rae

(2009). Connecting entrepreneurial and action learning in student-initiated new business ventures: The case of SPEED. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 6(3), 289-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767330903301799

43.

Raelin

(1997). Individual and situational precursors of successful action learning. Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 368-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299702100308

44.

Raelin

(2009). The practice turn-away: Forty years of spoon-feeding in management education. Management Learning, 40(4), 401-410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609335850

45.

Raelin

(2016). Work-based (not classroom) learning as the apt preparation for the practice of management. Management Teaching Review, 1(1), 43-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298115617736

46.

Raelin

Coghlan

(2006). Developing managers as learners and researchers: Using action learning and action research. Journal of Management Education, 30(5), 670-689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905285912

47.

Revans

(2011). ABC of action learning (Rev. Ed.). Gower.

48.

Ruane

(2016). Action learning in postgraduate executive management education: An account of practice. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 13(3), 272-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2016.1220175

49.

Rubin

Dierdorff

(2009). How Relevant Is the MBA? Assessing the Alignment of Required Curricula and Required Managerial Competencies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(2), 208-224. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.41788843

50.

Sánchez

Ruiz

(2008). Competence-based learning. University of Deusto.

51.

Schön

(1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass.

52.

Scott

(2017). An integrative framework for problem-based learning and action learning: Promoting evidence-based design and evaluation in leadership development. Human Resource Development Review, 16(1), 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317693090

53.

Smith

(2005). Problem-based learning: Can it improve managerial thinking? Journal of Management Education, 28(2), 357-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562904269642

54.

Tan

Van der Molen

H. T.

Schmidt

H. G.

(2016). To what extent does problem-based learning contribute to students’ professional identity development? Teaching and Teacher Education, 54(2016), 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.009

55.

Van de Velden

(2013). Measuring competences in higher education: What next? In Blömeke

Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia

Kuhn

Fege

(Eds.) Modeling and measuring competencies in higher education (pp. 207-216). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-867-4_15

56.

Yeadon-Lee

Worsdale

(2012). An analysis of the use of action learning on an MBA programme. International Journal of Management Education, 3(10), 178-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2012.07.001

57.

Yeo

Gold

(2011) The inseparability of action and learning: Unravelling Revans’ action learning theory for human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 14(5), 511-526. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.604956