Developing “employagility”: the 3Es case for live-client learning

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review live-client learning activities in higher education, highlighting a lack of multi-stakeholder evaluation of “learning by doing” pedagogies in current literature. It extends existing discussion of employability outcomes, dominated by findings from larger organisations, towards arguably, a more meaningful concept: “employagility”; whereby graduates engage in “agile” life-long skills development, through exposure to learning within small- to medium-sized enterprise (SME), enhancing potential to contribute to local and wider economies. Design/methodology/approach – Findings from in-depth, semi-structured interviews and reflective learning journals, captured from triangulated perspectives, presented as the “3Es”: employers, educators and engagers (in this case, undergraduate marketing students). Findings – Students identified involvement in “real” live-client projects, applying knowledge learned in the classroom to solve a business problem, enabled them to develop skills demanded by employers. Clients noted how student work exceeded expectations, providing tangible outputs and innovative ideas for their business, even through limited periods of interaction. Educators explained how relatively simple changes to curricula and extra-curricular activities can enable the development of SME-relevant “agile” graduates. Originality/value – With SMEs at the forefront of government programmes to lead economic recovery, it is imperative higher education institutions recognise the need for development of appropriately “agile” graduates. This paper contributes a new 3Es model illustrating mutual benefits of collaboration, proposing a “competence-employagility” continuum.

Live-Problem Project v. Client-Based Project: Which Is Most Effective for Perceived Learning of MBA-Level Marketing Concepts?

“…Problem-based learning also includes projects that involve client firms -for example, building marketing plans for start-up firms (Kennedy, Lawton & Walker, 2001) or solving problems for client firms (Bove & Davies, 2009). Proponents of client-based, problem-based learning argue that such projects align with students' desire for challenging, enjoyable and real-world learning opportunities (Karns, 2005); provide the practice and real-world feedback that enhance skill development and retention (Culpin & Scott, 2012); enhance the soft skills of communication and client engagement (Bove & Davies, 2009); improve work readiness (Fletcher-Brown, et. al., 2015); and bolster professional identity (Ewing & Ewing, 2017).…”

“…CCPs involve firms in defining current or potential business problems for students to work on and in providing feedback to students as they work (Fletcher-Brown, Knibbs & Middleton, 2015). That is, the clients define problems, provide resources (data, introductions, fees), remain involved throughout the process, and expect an evidence-based solution to emerge as the students work through the problem in real time (Bove & Davies, 2009).…”

“…These include historical case studies, simulations, company challenges (such as live case studies), live problems (e.g., live data but no client), client-consulting projects, and internships (Karns, 2005). There are a number of articles that argue that students learn more analyzing historical case studies than they do through lectures (Barnes, Christensen & Hansen, 1994), and several more that suggest that various kinds of live, problem-based learning opportunities (live-problem projects, client-consulting projects, class-based businesses, internships) provide even richer learning opportunities than do historical case studies (Karns, 2005;Fletcher-Brown, Knibbs & Middleton, 2015). There are, however, few studies that have attempted to determine the conditions under which various types of live, problem-based learning options might be most effective.…”

Are employability and entrepreneurial measures for higher education relevant? Introducing AGILE reflection

“…We have explored the idea that current HE definitions and measures of employability do not account for the longer term value of a HE experience (Woodall, Hiller and Resnick, 2014) and examined the extent to which employability measures need to include more explicitly entrepreneurial outcomes (Kakouris, 2015). For example, the 'EmployaGility' concept (Fletcher-Brown et al, 2015) draws out critical components from established employability models (Yorke and Knight 2004;Dacre Pool and Sewell 2007, amongst others) and highlights the role of HEI stakeholders in preparing students for variable labour market circumstances (Faggio and Silva, 2014). This suggests that through a facilitated process of engagement with a range of HEI stakeholders, students can be supported to cultivate appropriate attitudinal dispositions (Moore and Moreton, 2017).…”

“…Given that a rising number of graduates are exploring a range of roles, firms, sectors and self-employment modes (Faggio and Silva, 2014), why are HE outcomes still predominantly measured by one-off metrics such as the ‘Destination of Leavers from Higher Education’ (DLHE)? This survey currently records what graduates are doing just 6 months after exiting from UK courses (HESA, 2016) – which, this article will contend, does not provide an effective indication of the lifelong value of HE (Fletcher-Brown et al, 2015; Holmes, 2013a). Relatedly, employability scholars claim that measuring the level and type of exit employment of a graduate is too rudimentary a measure (Helyer and Lee, 2014).…”