International Review of Economics Education 32 (2019) 100169

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Review of Economics Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/iree

Is assessing learning outcomes a trade-off in experiential learning?

T
Integrating field visit with managerial economics course
⁎
Subramania Raju Rajasulochanaa, , S. Senthil Ganeshb
a
Area of Finance and Strategy, T A Pai Management Institute, P. B. no 9, Manipal, 576104, Karnataka, India
b
Area of Human Resource Management, T A Pai Management Institute, P. B. no 9, Manipal, 576104, Karnataka, India

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

JEL Classifications: We investigated the effectiveness of field visit as an experiential learning method by assessing
D21 course learning outcomes among postgraduate management students in managerial economics
D244 course. The study documents the planning and organisation of the field visit to an industry within
A29 the framework of Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Method as well as the assessment of
learning from an industrial field visit against the specified course learning outcomes. While the
Keywords:
perception survey showed that majority of the students valued learning from the field visit, we
Field visit
found huge variations in students’ performance in final exam in terms of course learning out-
Experimential learning
Individual assessment comes. Assurance of learning analysis in the context of cognitive domain of Bloom’s taxonomy
Course learning outcomes showed that industrial field visit is more suitable for evaluating lower order learning in terms of
Bloom’s taxonomy knowledge and comprehension. We discuss the results in detail towards integrating experiential
learning through field visits and future implementation of field visits in managerial economics
course for better learning outcomes.

1. Introduction

Managerial Economics serves as a valuable tool for analysing business situations. Managers do find concepts from micro-
economics - such as present value, learning curves, sunk cost, opportunity cost, economies of scale and scope, and marginal cost- to be
useful in their careers (Maital, 1992). Huge losses are incurred each year since several managers fail to apply fundamental tools and
techniques of managerial economics, such as taking decisions related to price and output, optimizing the production process and
input mix, choosing product quality, evaluating horizontal and vertical merger decisions, or while designing optimal internal and
external incentives (Michael R. Baye, 2010. p.2). This is probably because management students perceive the subject to be theo-
retical, highly abstract, rigorous and difficult to approach with a steep learning curve. Such perceptions act as barriers and sig-
nificantly undermine student motivation and learning (Swann, 2002).
In the context of management education, the traditional lecture method is often supplemented with experiential learning ap-
proaches to teach the principles of economics. Sole reliance on the lecture method does not serve purpose for aspiring managers who
look for applications of economic principles. Besides, the lecture method being based on a didactic model, gives limited time for
processing information; it disregards the diversity of ability and prior experience among students (Sloman and Mitchell, 2016).
Experiential learning- authentic, first-hand, and sensory-based learning - consists of grasping an experience and then transforming it
into an application or result through experiential activities which enable students to explore, touch, listen to, watch, move things,
dissemble, and reassemble (Kolb, 1984). The model of experiential learning method (ELM) by Kolb (1984) describes two dialectically

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rajasulochana@tapmi.edu.in (S.R. Rajasulochana), ssganesh@tapmi.edu.in (S. Senthil Ganesh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2019.100169
Received 15 February 2019; Received in revised form 7 May 2019; Accepted 13 August 2019
Available online 14 August 2019
1477-3880/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.R. Rajasulochana and S. Senthil Ganesh International Review of Economics Education 32 (2019) 100169

Fig. 1. Experiential Learning Cycle.

Source: Kolb, 1984

related modes of grasping experience—Concrete Experience (CE) and Abstract Conceptualization (AC) and two dialectically related
modes of transforming experience—Reflective Observation (RO) and Active Experimentation (AE). Experiential learning occurs in an
idealized learning cycle or spiral where the learner “touches all the bases”—experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting—in a
recursive process that is responsive to the learning situation and what is being learned. Immediate or concrete experiences are the
basis for observations and reflections (See Fig. 1). Experiential education first immerses learners in an experience and then en-
courages reflection about the experience to develop new skills, new attitudes, or new ways of thinking (Lewis and Williams, 1994,
p.5).
Experiential learning approach as a way of increasing student involvement, motivation, and learning is increasingly resorted in
the economics classroom (Carlson and Velenchik, 2006). It involves a range of learning activities that serve as a vital ingredient – for
developing knowledge, exam preparation and stimulating curiosity- in the university context (Hawtrey, 2007). There are two kinds of
experiential learning methods: classroom-based learning and field-based experiences. The former include case studies, problem-based
learning, group projects, data analysis, group activities, current news discussions, presentations, games and simulations are employed
to expose students to real economic environment, business examples and managerial problems within the classroom settings (https://
www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk). The later comprise field visits, internships, practicums, cooperative education, and service learning
(Lewis and Williams, 1994, p.7).

2. Field visit as an experiential learning method

Field visits help to deepen the understanding of the wider world through enhanced affective response (Hope, 2009). By con-
necting classroom and ground realities, field visits enable effective engagement of students as the knowledge and concepts become
more real (Barnett and Coate, 2005). Field visits promote active learning beyond books through the process of critical thinking,
reflection and action (Jakubowski, 2003). Field visits can be distinguished into two types: formal and informal. The former consists of
planned, well-orchestrated experiences where students follow a documented format while the latter are less structured and offer
students some control and choice concerning their activities or environment (Behrendt and Franklin, 2014). Each student observes
the phenomenon under study in a realistic setting, attaches personally relevant meaning to the experience, which in turn allows the
student to play with concepts or activities often not possible in the classroom. Thus, the course content becomes relevant as students
assimilate and accommodate new understanding and cognition.
Impact of field visits on knowledge gain and learning in higher education has been well acknowledged. Field visits improve the
cognitive complexity, intrapersonal/interpersonal relationship and practical competence among students (Barnett and Coate, 2005).
Field visits offer productive opportunities for praxis in disciplines (Lesley Procter, 2012). Several studies have examined the sig-
nificance of field visits as a pedagogical approach across disciplines, such as - Sociology (Jakubowski, 2003); Geography (Krakowka,
2012; Krahenbuhl, 2014); Environmental education (Leatherbury, 2011); Engineering, Science and Technology (Kisiel, 2006; Mas-
turah Markom et al. 2011) and Biosciences (Ramachandiran and Dhanapal, 2016). These studies report, planned field visits help
students to relate their theoretical knowledge to practical aspects of the studied courses.

2.1. Field visits in management-related subjects

Field visits in management education are undertaken extensively, some of the documented studies are in the areas of accounting,
marketing and business ethics. Chmielewski-Raimondo et al. (2016) have documented the effective use of field visits in an Inter-
national Accounting Study Program for undergraduate students who visited host organizations to learn from presentations by senior
executives and representatives of business, the accounting profession, regulators, academics, and standard setters. They also in-
troduced field visits to postgraduate students in a Business Practicum subject where students learned through consulting-type

2
S.R. Rajasulochana and S. Senthil Ganesh International Review of Economics Education 32 (2019) 100169

assignment for a host organization. The researchers have used Kolb’s (1984) ELM framework to illustrate the learning of students
from field visits. Dellaportas and Hassall (2013) introduced prison visits for final year students of Accounting Degree program where
students meet and interact with imprisoned professional accountants to learn about the nature of conflicts faced by professional
accountants, factors influencing the fraudulent practices and strategies that could be used to deal with professional conflicts in their
careers. In the same vein, Castleberry (2007) elaborates their experiences of taking students to a federal prison camp to meet the
white-collar criminals and the impact of the same on their attitude towards business ethics. Similarly, Jones and Ottaway (2001) have
addressed the dilemma of designing a meaningful business ethics course through field visits and employed qualitative methods to
evaluate students' reactions as well as comments from the corporate ethics officers who host the visits. They have measured students’
reactions to the site visits through a pre-test and post-test survey. Van Doren and Corrigan (2008) shared their experiences of
introducing field visits in both undergraduate and graduate marketing courses and discussed the differences in students' perceptions
and benefits to the business school including stronger relationship with the local organization.

2.2. Field visits and learning outcomes

Despite the above discussed benefits, industrial field visit in the context of management education, as a pedagogy technique
largely remains undervalued. This is perhaps because industrial visit is often undertaken as an educational excursion or co-curricular
activity in higher education with no specific learning outcome attached. Schoepp (2017) observed that there is very little known
about the quality of learning outcomes within courses even though the importance of learning outcomes has been well established in
higher education. A recent study by Ramachandiran and Dhanapal (2016) has used report writing as an assessment tool to evaluate
learning that take place through field visits. There are also concerns whether the learning outcomes of an industrial visit is worth the
time and money spent on organising it, and whether it is a superficial activity or provides bona fide learning experiences. Increas-
ingly, various stakeholders, especially quality assurance agency guidelines, demand for more transparency, increased reliability, and
more accountability in the assessment process in higher education (Hornby and Laing, 2003). Scoring guide and assessment rubrics
are recommended to rebuild readers’ evaluative frameworks so they can agree more consistently and more quickly (Broad, 2003).
However, such assessments are rarely undertaken and reported with regards to field visits. Research on the effectiveness of industrial
field trips and its assessment is limited. A frequently used resource to assess learning outcomes in the educational settings is the
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Skills - a classification of the different learning objectives that educators set for students (Bloom
et al., 1956). Most studies in the existing literature have studied students’ perceptions on field trips’ impact on their learning out-
comes but have overlooked assessment of students’ subject matter learning from industrial field visits. Thus, this paper aims to fill this
gap, by assessing learning outcomes from industrial field visit using Blooms’ taxonomy.

2.3. Aims of the study

The present study aims to investigate the effectiveness of field visits as an experiential learning method. Two-fold objectives of the
paper are: first, to describe how industry field visit was planned and integrated in managerial economics course in accordance with
the experiential learning method; and second, to demonstrate how group projects and final paper examination were used as as-
sessment tools to evaluate the learning from the industrial field visit.

2.4. Research questions

1) How do students perceive industrial field visit as an experiential learning method in managerial economics course?
2) Does industrial field visit influence students’ performance on application of managerial economics concepts and principles to meet
the course learning outcome (CLO)?
3) What is the effectiveness of students’ performance in the final exam in answering higher order questions from Blooms’ taxonomy
based on the learning from the industrial field visit?

3. Method

3.1. Sample

This study was conducted among 32 students of Post Graduate Diploma in Management in Human Resources (PGDM-HR).
Industrial visit is one of program level goals aimed to provide students with the opportunity to gain practical industry experience
while taking on the role of HR manager. An industrial field visit was organised as part of the Managerial Economics course, after
introducing the students to the core microeconomic concepts and principles of demand and supply, elasticity, production function,
cost function, theory of firm and market structures and macroeconomic trends in national income, balance of payments, exchange
rate, fiscal and monetary policies.

3.2. Objective of the industry field visit

The Course Learning Outcome (CLO) of the field visit was to expose the management students to the applications of basic
microeconomic concepts and principles in an industry setting. Specifically, the industry field visit was meant for students to reflect on

3
S.R. Rajasulochana and S. Senthil Ganesh International Review of Economics Education 32 (2019) 100169

Fig. 2. Key Stages in Industrial Field Visit and Assessment.

how economic principles guide production activities and rational business decisions related to pricing, output and employment.

3.3. Choice of the industry

Kollam, the world’s cashew processing capital, is located in the state of Kerala, India. The city has seen the massive closure of 700
cashew processing units over the last three years due to 9.36% increase in import duty in 2016 by Government of India, increase in
the price of raw cashews in international markets, due to 35% wage increase for cashew workers by Government of Kerala and due to
competition from fully mechanized units from Vietnam (Sudhish, 2018). Thus, we were curious to know as how cashew processing
units in the State of Karnataka, India, were sustaining themselves in the face of various macroeconomic changes and global com-
petition in the industry. Accordingly, we chose Amith Cashews Private. Ltd., a cashew processing and exporting unit, located in the
Udupi region in the State of Karnataka, India. The unit was founded by Mr Amith, in 2009 out of a leased plant with just 30 workers.
In 2010, Mr Amith established his own Greenfield, Modern and Mechanized factory with an initial investment of INR 10 million.
Currently, over 200 personnel are employed in the factory in 2018, over 90% of them being women. The factory is located amidst
three labour colonies in the rural area of Udupi District. Their cashew products are processed using modern technology coupled with
expert labour to inspect and grade the nuts. These are exported to the Gulf countries, USA, UK and all of Europe, apart from domestic
sales.

3.4. Planning, organisation and assessment of the industrial field visit

The industrial field visit was carefully planned, organised and assessed to meet the course learning outcomes of managerial
economics course. The whole exercise of engaging and orienting students towards the industrial visit spanned over six weeks. Fig. 2
shows the key stages in the planning, organisation and assessment of learning from the industrial field visit.

3.5. Stage 01 - exploratory field visit by faculty members

We undertook an exploratory field visit to Amith Cashews Private Ltd. to familiarise ourselves with the industry environment and
gauge the suitability of the unit in achieving the above-mentioned course learning outcomes of the field visit. We conducted semi-
structured interview with Mr Amith, the founder of the unit, to understand the motivation for the entrepreneur to start the business,
cost of doing business, sourcing and procurement, production methods, work organization, HR practices, marketing, sales, com-
pliance etc. The interview was followed by a guided tour around the factory to see the various units of cashew processing. This
exploratory field visit helped us to plan the field visit for students in alignment with the clearly identified learning outcomes of the
managerial economics course.

3.6. Stage 02 - pre-visit group projects

Two weeks prior to the visit, students were assigned group projects on the business and economic policy environment in the
chosen industry. Each group, comprised of 6–7 students, were asked to submit a 5-page write up with references on the specific
aspects of Cashew industries in India based on secondary research. The research topics focused on a) Role and significance of cashew
industry in the Indian economy; b) Analysis of trends in cashew exports; c) Factors affecting demand for cashew; d) Sources of cashew
supply and factors affecting supply; e) Government policies and regulations that affect cashew processing industries in India; and f)
Major issues facing cashew industry in India and in the global market. Since the chosen industry for field visit was an export-oriented
processing unit, the objective of the group project was to ensure students’ readiness for the industrial visit. Further, the submitted
group projects were shared among all the students in the common learning management system, to develop familiarity and motivate
students for deeper discussions and reflective deliberations on the chosen industry.

4
S.R. Rajasulochana and S. Senthil Ganesh International Review of Economics Education 32 (2019) 100169

3.7. Stage 03 - industrial field visit for experiential learning

After the permission was granted by the proprietor, the students were taken for visit on 24th September 2018 (Monday) in the
afternoon around 2 pm, accompanied by two course faculty members. During the industrial visit, the students were given an ob-
servation template to align what they see and experience in the field with the course objective of managerial economics (see Box 1).
The proprietor Mr Amith Pai took the students around the entire manufacturing plant and briefed them about the processes involved
from procurement of raw cashew nuts, its storage, boiling, de-shelling, drying, grading, packaging and shipment.

3.8. Stage 04 - post visit interaction with the entrepreneur

The discussion during the industrial visit was brief and the unit was buzzing with activity and noise for any deeper conversation to
take place. Hence, the industrial visit was immediately followed by an experience sharing session on the same day evening between
the proprietor Mr Amith and students in a classroom at T.A. Pai Management Institute (TAPMI), Manipal. During the post visit
interaction, students raised several queries related to the Small and Micro Unit’s business environment, its quality standards and
practices, human resource issues like compensation and leave benefits for women employees, as well as general environment con-
cerns. He addressed all questions related to the impact of economic environment such as prevailing exchange rate, Goods and
Services Tax (GST) and import duties on cashew businesses. He shared his own experience about obtaining license and permits for
setting up and operating the manufacturing unit to interested students having entrepreneurial interest in this sector. The post-
industrial visit interaction lasted for about two hours.

3.9. Stage 05 - group assessment of project and Viva

One week after the industrial visit, the students were assessed in groups for their written submission and viva was conducted.
Students were given feedback on their group work to reflect on their learning from secondary research and what they saw and
experienced in the field with the concepts and principles of managerial economics.

3.10. Stage 06 - individual assessment in the final exam

Expected course learning outcome from the industry field visit was application of managerial economics concepts and principles
in the context of Amith Cashews private limited company. This learning outcome was assessed using the final examination with
questions based on industry visit experience and interaction with the entrepreneur (Box 2).

4. Data sources

The study evaluates the effectiveness of industrial field visits on CLO and hence two types of data were used in the study.
Following prior studies, data related to students’ perception of the industrial field visit were captured with a 15-item Likert scale with
an online feedback questionnaire. The feedback questionnaire was collected anonymously soon after the final examination. Apart
from information on demographic, the questionnaire had 15 items related to student’s perception of four aspects of industrial field
visit, namely, organisation of the industry visit (Q1-Q3 items), pedagogical approach (Q4-Q8 items), alignment of course with
experiences from the industrial field visit (Q9-Q11 items) and experiences beyond the classroom (Q12-Q15 items). The second type of
data was related on students’ performance in the group project and viva and final examination questions were assessed through a
specified marking rubric in the Assurance of Learning (AOL) report. Being an AACSB1 -accredited business school, TAPMI mandates
preparation of AOL report on student performance on program goals and learning objectives associated with each course. The report
spells out assessment rubrics for grading each of the course learning objectives. Performance of 32 students on industry field visit
based questions has been reported in the AOL report on Managerial Economics course.

5. Results

Table 1 indicates an overwhelming affirmative response among higher percentage of students towards the organisation of the
industrial field visit (Q1 to Q3). Almost 90% of average students agreed that the industrial field visit was timely, well organised and
the site chosen met the course objectives. Likewise, industrial field visit as a pedagogy approach was well received by most students.
More than 85% students agreed that pre-reads, secondary website research, observation template and post visit interaction with the
entrepreneur were useful (Q4 to Q8). Similarly, almost 100% students perceived the course faculty encouraging and experiential
learning as fun. However, around 25% students were neutral with regards to relating field experiences with the principles and
concepts of managerial economics. But this concern seems to have been addressed by post visit interaction with the entrepreneur.
Almost 95% student perceived experiences from the industrial field visit relevant for their professional career and understanding
ethical issues and social context (Q12 to Q15).
Performance of different groups on the secondary research assignment is shown in Table 2. Group A1 that worked on the general

1
AACSB stands for Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

5
S.R. Rajasulochana and S. Senthil Ganesh International Review of Economics Education 32 (2019) 100169

Box 1
Observation Template for Field Visit

1. Study in detail the production process- from procurement till shipment.

2. What are the capital requirements? How much investments are required for entry?
3. What are the different types of cost incurred till Cashew reaches the market? E.g. fixed cost, operational cost, storage cost,
and transportation cost.
4. How is the capacity added in Amith industries? Large or small increments?
5. How much is the turn over sales per annum? What is the breakeven output/price?
6. Is cashew a commodity or can it be branded? Analyze the differentiation strategies used by Amith Cashew?
7. What is the profile of workers employed at Amith Cashew? Do you think the kind of workers employed at Amith Cashew
has an impact on wages, skills, productivity, attrition and retention?
8. Do you think the quality of final output is independent of the skill levels of workers at various units at Amith Cashew?
9. What is your assessment of skill levels of workers at various units, especially at Grading Unit, at Amith Cashew? How do
you think the workers have attained their skills? Based on your assessment, could you propose any systematic skill development
plan for workers of Amith Cashew?
10. Do you think Amith Cashew will be able to reduce its dependency on labour to increase the quantity and quality of
production in the near future? Assess labour intensive versus mechanization options available to the firm.

business and industry environment in the cashew industry performed better than other groups. Group B2 that worked on the specific
details of the supply side issues in Cashew industry scored the least among all the groups.
Table 3 shows the performance of students in the final exam of managerial economics as documented in the AOL report. Con-
siderable variations can be observed in students’ performance on different questions. Industrial field visit seems to be most suitable
technique for comprehension of basic principles and concepts assessed by question No 1 (demand and supply conditions) and
question 3 (Law of Diminishing Marginal Productivity of Labour); fairly suitable to assess prevailing business and economic en-
vironment assessed by question 2 (product differentiation strategy and impact of rupee depreciation) and limited value in facilitating
synthesis of information from different sources and drawing inference for business operations assessed by question 4 (Lerner’s
Monopoly Index and Market Power).

6. Discussion

As stated above, the key aim of the paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of industrial field visit through subject matter assessment
- applications of managerial economics concepts and principles- among post graduate management students. Industrial field visit was
undertaken as a supplementary activity to the classroom lecture method of teaching. Nabors et al. (2009) emphasized on the im-
portance of structured learning experience by preparing the students for the field trip, follow up, and assessment post the trip. Thus,
the field visit was organised carefully as a “directed” set of activities, tools, and interactions over six weeks to achieve the desired goal
of course learning outcome. Such an immersive experience was consistent with Kolb’s (1984) ELM framework - the course content
invariably grabbed the attention of learners, enabled exploration of the chosen industry, stimulated discussions and deliberations on
various aspects of the chosen industry, motivated learners to observe and reflect beyond the classroom teaching and textbooks.
Prior to the visit, a cooperative learning environment was created in the classroom set up through group projects – each group was
working concurrently on different aspects business and economic environment of the chosen industry. All these group projects were
shared through learning management system ensuring that the contents remain available to learners when they needed them. Group
viva was based on the learning from all the projects. Such an approach helps peer groups to develop and contribute to each other’s
knowledge gain on the subject through -positive interdependence, individual and group accountability, promotive interaction, interpersonal
and small group skills and group processing (Johnson et al., 1994).
Coughlin (2010) explained that field trips are live learnings as students actively learn from each other as well as from the
interaction with teachers. Lei (2010) found that field trips as experiential learning methods enable the students to experience the
course content and course concepts directly and thereby enable the faculty to build upon classroom content and solidify the learning.
Goh and Richie (2011) advocate institutions to include field trips as a learning strategy due the positive results. Berte and Jones
(2013) showed that by using a structured learning strategy process, field trips can effectively lead to reflective learning. This study
extends the limited existing literature on field visits or trips in higher education, going beyond recording students’ perception about
the effectiveness of such visits. Our study, consistent with previous studies in the domain, finds that students perceive industrial field
visit to have a positive impact on their learning of the subject matter. At the group assessment, we find that the group which worked
on general business and economic environment performed better than other groups who were working on more industry-specific
aspects and required in-depth comprehension of the industry. Further, student’s performance was assessed at the individual level on
applied managerial economics questions based on the industry visited. Considerable variations were found across different questions
in the final exam on managerial economics, suggesting that industrial field visits may not be a suitable pedagogy technique for
answering higher order questions (related to application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation) in Bloom’s taxonomy.
For instance, majority of students exceeded expectations on question 3 related to Law of Diminishing Marginal Productivity of
Labour. As per the assessment rubric, the student can compute correctly the average and marginal product of labour relating to the
law of diminishing returns to scale, demarcating clearly the phases of production and is able to explain negative marginal

6
S.R. Rajasulochana and S. Senthil Ganesh International Review of Economics Education 32 (2019) 100169

Box 2
Questions in the End Term paper. Each question carried 10 Marks. Model answer expected for each question is mentioned with
marking scheme.

productivity among labour with 4 or 5 points observed in the industry settings. Model answer for question is given in Box No 2, while
the sample answer by a student which exceeded expectation is shown in Fig. 3a.
In contrast, most students did not meet expectations in question No 4 related to Lerner’s Monopoly Index and Market Power. As
per the assessment rubric, the student is unable to compute the elasticity of demand and Marginal cost accurately with the given
information and makes partially correct comment on the market power enjoyed by Amith Cashews. Model answer is given in Box No
2 while the sample answer by a student who does not meet expectation is shown in Fig. 3b. For this question exceeding expectation as
per the assessment rubric is when the student can compute the elasticity of demand and Marginal cost accurately and accurately
comment on the market power enjoyed by Amith Cashews by relating to relatively high elastic demand.
These variations in students’ performance thus suggest that the pedagogy of industrial field visit is more suitable for lower order

7
S.R. Rajasulochana and S. Senthil Ganesh International Review of Economics Education 32 (2019) 100169

Table 1
Perception among Students about the industrial field visit (in percentage, N = 32).
Item No Item Description 5 - Strongly 4 - Agree 3 – Neutral 2-Disagree 1- Strongly
Agree Disagree

Q1 The visit was timely. 65.63 28.13 6.25 0 0

Q2 The visit was well organized. 87.5 12.5 0 0 0
Q3 The location selected was appropriate to meet the stated objectives. 78.13 18.75 3.13 0 0
Q4 Aims and objectives of the visit was explained at the beginning. 87.5 6.25 6.25 0 0
Q5 Pre-reads given were relevant. 53.13 34.38 9.38 0 3.13
Q6 Websites recommended for secondary research were useful. 50 34.38 15.63 0 0
Q7 Observation template was valuable in relating to concepts/principles 62.5 31.25 6.25 0 0
of managerial economics during the visit.
Q8 I could relate with most concepts/principles of managerial economics 34.38 40.63 25 0 0
during the visit.
Q9 Post Visit Interaction with the Entrepreneur cleared all my doubts. 93.75 6.25 0 0 0
Q10 The faculty encouraged student participation during the visit. 87.5 12.5 0 0 0
Q11 Learning concepts/principles of managerial economics through field 78.13 21.88 0 0 0
visit was fun.
Q12 Increased knowledge on social responsibility and ethical issues in 68.75 28.13 3.13 0 0
context.
Q13 Provided ideas of future employment/career. 68.75 28.13 3.13 0 0
Q14 Enabled to understand related professional practice. 59.38 37.5 3.13 0 0
Q15 Field visit context enriched my learning experience. 78.13 21.88 0 0 0

Table 2
Performance on Group Project components.
Groups Written Report (15%) Group Viva (15%) Overall Project Weightage (30%)

A1 10.5 12 22.5
A2 9 9 18
B1 10.5 10.5 21
B2 9 7.5 16.5
C1 7.5 12 19.5
C2 9 10.5 19.5

Table 3
Assurance of Learning from Industrial Field Visit.
Source: Assurance of Learning Report on Managerial Economics-HR for the year 2018.
Q No CLO No. Linked PLG Exceed Expectation Meet Expectation Does not meet Expectation

No. of students % No. of students % No. of students %

1 CLO1 PLG 1 19 59.37% 10 31.25% 3 9.37%

2 CLO1 PLG 1 12 37.50% 14 43.75% 6 18.75%
3 CLO1 PLG 1 24 75% 7 21.87% 1 3.13%
4 CLO1 PLG 1 7 21.87% 6 18.75% 19 59.37%

PLG stands for Programme Learning Goals. PLG1 relates to Application of Fundamentals. Student is expected to demonstrate application of func-
tional / conceptual knowledge to business situations.
CLO stands for Course Learning Outcome CLO 1 relates to Application of managerial economic principles and concepts in formulating rational
business decisions on pricing, output and employment.

simple learning in Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain (1956) such as knowledge and comprehension. For higher order complex
and specific learning related to application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation, industrial field visit is of limited pedagogy value.
Perhaps, a judicious combination of industrial visit with other classroom-based experiential methods like case studies and numerical
assignments may be suitable towards encouraging higher order complex learning.

7. Conclusion

Engaging students and motivating them to learn is one of the persistent challenges in higher education. Researchers have ad-
vocated field trips as an experiential learning method to increase the engagement of students by creating opportunities for them to
experience how they could apply course concepts to real world (Bobbitt et al., 2000; Karns, 2005). However, emerging research
studies have highlighted faculty concerns regarding logistics, large class sizes, time constraints and reluctance to leave the room as
reasons for underutilization of experiential learning methods in higher education (Levin and Peterson, 2016; Wurdinger and Allison,

8
S.R. Rajasulochana and S. Senthil Ganesh International Review of Economics Education 32 (2019) 100169

Fig. 3. (a) Sample Answer. (b) Sample Answer.

2017). Thus, this research study explains as how to use field trips in a managerial economics course to provide an engaging and
motivating experience for students, while also keeping the structure and process relatively easy to implement.
Our efforts towards planning and organisation of industrial field visit for PGDM-HR students helped us to identify some of the
strengths and weaknesses associated with this experiential learning approach. Key strengths of the pedagogy of planned industrial
field visits are: i) Shift from theoretically-based approach towards more empirical acquisition of knowledge through industrial field
visit and talks, and ii) Widening the awareness of industrial practices and exposure to actual working conditions. These issues might
not be covered in the classroom lectures.

9
S.R. Rajasulochana and S. Senthil Ganesh International Review of Economics Education 32 (2019) 100169

We attempted to integrate industrial field visit in the managerial economics course with gradual orientation of students towards
the industrial field visit with pre-reads and secondary online research, aligning field observations to the course objective and group
report writing exercise. The pre-reads and secondary online research on the business and economic policy environment in the chosen
industry set the expectations for the field trip (Goh and Richie, 2011). We created the observation template for the field visit and
shared the same with the students before the field visit to guide their observations during the field visit (Connolly et al., 2006).
Students were familiarized with the organization before the field visit by the instructor and also through post field visit interaction
with the entrepreneur. Sharing the field trip experience with the classmates, the instructor and the entrepreneur helped to understand
the overall processes and materials involved in the production, existing as well as new technologies and efficiency issues and the need
for automation, the ethical and social responsibility of the industry, challenges in a specific industry, valuable professional tips, etc.
(Goh and Richie, 2011).
Group projects and asking students question on the group project to illustrate the concepts and principles of managerial eco-
nomics enabled the reflective experience for students (Asselin and Cullen, 2011). Further, it demonstrated how learning from the visit
can be evaluated through subject matter assessment at an individual level in the end-term exam which is integral aspect of post
experience evaluation (Chan and Browne, 2011). The study design, clearly defined learning outcomes, planning and organisation of
the visit, strengths, weaknesses and best practices etc. are hoped to be useful for educators of managerial economics to connect their
curriculum beyond classrooms. Our future research will involve students from two or more batches to make the result more concrete
and relevant. A structured approach would be taken to measure students’ perceptions before the field-visit, immediately after the
field-visit and after the assessment. Moreover, learning outcome associated with field trip as an experiential learning method would
be compared to other experiential learning methods such as simulations and traditional learning methods such as lecture and case
method.

References

Asselin, M.E., Cullen, H.A., 2011. Through reflection. Nursing 41 (4), 44–46.
Barnett, R., Coate, K., 2005. Framing Curriculum” Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. SRHE and Open University Press, Maidenhead Chapter 2.
Berte, E., Jones, K., 2013. The field trip as an experiential teaching strategy to promote reflective learning. Journal of the Academy of Business Education 14.
Behrendt, M., Franklin, T., 2014. A review of research on school field trips and their value in education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 9 (3),
235–245.
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R., 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive
Domain. David McKay Company, New York.
Bobbitt, L.M., Inks, S.A., Kemp, K.J., Mayo, D.T., 2000. Integrating marketing courses to enhance team-based experiential learning. J. Mark. Educ. 22 (1), 15–24.
Broad, B., 2003. What We Really Value: Beyond Rubrics in Teaching and Assessing Writing. Book 140. All USU Press Publications. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/usupress_
pubs/140.
Carlson, J.A., Velenchik, A.D., 2006. Using the case method in the economics classroom. WE Becker, SR Becker and MW Watts, Teaching Economics: More Alternatives to Chalk
and Talk. Cheltenham. Edward Elgar, UK, pp. 59–74.
Castleberry, S.B., 2007. Prison field trips: Can white-collar criminals positively affect the ethical and legal behavior of marketing and MBA students? J. Mark. Educ. 29 (1), 5–17.
Chan, E.C., Browne, E.R., 2011. Incorporating an educational field trip into the teaching of pharmaceutical R&D for pharmacy students: a case study. Pharm. Educ. 11 (1), 91–94.
Chmielewski-Raimondo, D.A., McKeown, W., Brooks, A., 2016. The field as our classroom: applications in a business-related setting. J. Account. Educ. 34, 41–58.
Connolly, R., Groome, M., Sheppard, K., Stroud, N., 2006. Tips from the field: advice from museum experts on making the most of field trips. Sci. Teach. 73 (1), 42–45.
Coughlin, P.K., 2010. Making field trips count: collaborating for meaningful experiences. Soc. Stud. 101 (5), 200–210.
Dellaportas, S., Hassall, T., 2013. Experiential learning in accounting education: a prison visit. Br. Account. Rev. 45 (1), 24–36.
Goh, E., Richie, B., 2011. Using the theory of planned behavior to understand student attitudes and constraints toward attending field trips. J. Teach. Travel. Tour. 2, 179–194.
Hawtrey, K., 2007. Using experiential learning techniques. J. Econ. Educ. 38 (2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.38.2.143-152.
Hope, M., 2009. The Importance of Direct Experience: A Philosophical Defence of Fieldwork in Human Geography. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 33 (2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03098260802276698.
Hornby, W., Laing, D., 2003. Assessment Survey Report No 1: Efficiency and Effectiveness in Assessment. Retrieved from. . https://www4.rgu.ac.uk/files/EFFICIENCY%20AND
%20EFFECTIVENESS%20IN%20ASSESSMENT.pdf.
Jakubowski, L.M., 2003. Beyond book learning: cultivating the pedagogy of experience through field trips. J. Exp. Educ. 26 (1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/
105382590302600105.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E.J., 1994. The Nuts and Bolts of Cooperative Learning. Interaction Book Company, eMinnesota Minnesota.
Jones, G.E., Ottaway, R.N., 2001. The effectiveness of corporate ethics on-site visits for teaching business ethics. Teach. Bus. Ethics 5 (2), 141–156.
Kisiel, J., 2006. Making field trips work. Sci. Teach. 73 (I), 46–48.
Kolb, D.A., 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience As the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Krahenbuhl, K., 2014. Collaborative field trips: an opportunity to connect practice with pedagogy. Geogr. Teach. 11 (1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338341.2013.
854264.
Krakowka, A.R., 2012. Field trips as valuable learning experiences in geography courses. J. Geog. 111 (6), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2012.707674.
Leatherbury, M.C., 2011. Connecting Field Trip and Classroom Learning: Evaluating the Utility of a Museum-based Framework in an Environmental Education Context,” MSc
Thesis Submitted to the College of Natural Resources. University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, Wisconsin.
Lei, S.A., 2010. Field trips in biology and ecology courses: revisiting benefits and drawbacks. Journal of Instructional Psychology 37, 42–48.
Lesley Procter, 2012. What is it about field trips? praxis, pedagogy and presence in virtual environments. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 55, 980–989.
Levin, M.A., Peterson, L.T., 2016. A sales representative is made: an innovative sales course. Mark. Educ. Rev. 26 (1), 39–44.
Lewis, L.H., Williams, C.J., 1994. In: Jackson, L., Caffarella, R.S. (Eds.), Experiential Learning: A New Approach. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 5–16.
Maital, S., 1992. What Do Economists Know That Managers of Technology Find Useful? J. Econ. Educ. 23 (2), 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.1992.10844750.
Baye, M.R., 2010. Managerial Economics and Business Strategy, 7th edition. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York ISBN-13: 978-0-07-337596-0.
Nabors, M.L., Edwards, L.C., Murray, R.K., 2009. Making the case for field trips: What research tells us and what site coordinators have to say. Education 129 (4) 2009.
Ramachandiran, M., Dhanapal, S., 2016. Evaluation of the effectiveness of Field trips in the teaching and learning of biosciences. In: Tang, S., Logonnathan, L. (Eds.), Assessment
for Learning Within and Beyond the Classroom. Springer, Singapore.
Schoepp, Kevin., 2017. The state of course learning outcomes at leading universities. Stud. High. Educ. 1–13.
Sloman, J., Mitchell, C., 2016. Lectures. The Handbook for Economics Lecturers. Available online https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/handbook/printable/lectures_v5.pdf
accessed on 2nd November 2018. .
Sudhish, N., 2018. Kollam’s cashew crunch. Hindu 28 (April) 2018. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/kollams-cashew-crunch/article23701507.ece.
Swann, P., 2002. Teaching economics to MBA students. Economics Network Aug. www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/advice/mba.
Van Doren, D., Corrigan, H.B., 2008. Designing a marketing course with field site visits. J. Mark. Educ. 30 (3), 189–206.
Wurdinger, S., Allison, P., 2017. Faculty perceptions and use of experiential learning in higher education. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society 13 (1), 27–38.

10