Proposals for project-based learning, flipped classrooms or industry projects often arrive with enthusiasm and little detail. The research is clear that design and execution decide the outcome: high-impact practices deliver when they are done well (Kuh, 2008), and flipped designs work better when class time is protected and preparation is checked (van Alten et al., 2019). These questions help leaders judge whether a proposal is ready for a pilot.
About the problem
- Which specific gap in learning, capability or employability will this address?
- How do we know the gap exists: student results, employer feedback, graduate outcomes?
- Who is already affected by it, and do they support this approach?
About the design
- Which programme, courses and student cohort are included in the first phase?
- How will students be assessed, and how does that map to programme learning outcomes?
- What will change in the classroom each week, not only in the course description?
About faculty
- Which faculty will lead it, and what training and coaching will they receive?
- What time allowance and recognition do they have? Lack of training, time and incentives are the most cited barriers to teaching change (Brownell & Tanner, 2012).
- Who will they turn to when a session does not go as planned?
About partners
- If industry is involved, who owns the relationship and the project agreements?
- How will projects be scoped so they are fair to assess and useful to the partner?
About evidence and scale
- What will we measure, from when, and who will review it?
- What result would lead us to expand it, adapt it or stop it?
- If it works, what would it take to run it in three more programmes?
A proposal that answers most of these clearly is ready for a pilot. One that cannot is not a failure: the unanswered questions show exactly where to start.
Warning signs in a proposal
- No named problem. The proposal describes a method but not the learning or employability gap it addresses.
- Assessment unchanged. New activities are added, but grades still depend entirely on a final examination.
- One-person dependency. Everything relies on a single faculty member or a single employer contact.
- No baseline. There is no record of current results to compare against.
- Success undefined. No one can say what result would justify expanding the initiative.
A simple scoring approach for review panels
Panels reviewing several proposals can score each of the five question areas on a three-point scale: clearly answered, partly answered or not yet answered. A proposal that is clearly answered in at least three areas, including evidence and scale, is usually ready for a pilot. Proposals with gaps can be returned with specific questions rather than a simple rejection, which keeps enthusiastic faculty engaged and improves the next submission.
Linking proposals to quality assurance
Experiential learning proposals should connect to programme learning outcomes from the start. Constructive alignment, where outcomes, teaching activities and assessment are designed together (Biggs, 1996), makes it straightforward to show reviewers and accreditation bodies how a new initiative contributes to the outcomes a programme already promises.
Frequently asked questions
What is experiential learning in higher education?
Experiential learning is learning through doing and reflecting on that experience, including project-based learning, industry projects, internships, simulations and service learning. It builds on Kolb’s model of learning as a cycle of experience, reflection, conceptualisation and experimentation.
How should universities evaluate a proposal for experiential learning?
By checking that it names a specific problem, has a clear design and assessment plan mapped to learning outcomes, provides faculty training and time, has a named owner for any industry partnerships, and defines in advance how success will be measured.
Who should approve an experiential learning initiative?
Usually the relevant Dean or academic board, with input from quality assurance or IQAC teams and, where industry is involved, the partnerships or careers office.
References
- Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
- van Alten, D. C. D., Phielix, C., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2019). Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2019.05.003
- Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339-346. doi:10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163
- Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-364.
- Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.