Stuck in the GeM Jam: An Action Research on How Practical Training Outcomes Are Related to Training Intentions

Introduction

Undergoing training simultaneously during their undergraduate academic years is a great opportunity for students to manifest their theoretically-learnt knowledge in a practical environment. Research (Collins, 2002; Ko, 2008) has already proven that training helps students to close the gap between academically-acquired knowledge and hands-on experiences. This is why more and more university degree programs have begun to consider collaborating with several partner hotels to provide practical training opportunities for students to close this breach. The same can be said for Taylor’s University School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts; who offers various training sessions, internships and niche hospitality programs as well.

One of their exceptional training program, which is known as the GeM (Future General Manager) Program, handpicks outstanding students and provides them a special platform by giving them practical education throughout their two-year training. The program is carried out in cooperation between the university and selected partner hotels; with the aim to train these future General Managers (GMs) from an early-on stage. Only students with remarkable potentials were selected to join the GeM Program and underwent these special training sessions to meet the key points of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). After these student trainees successfully finished all their trainings, they have the opportunity to join the hotels as junior managers and possibly become GMs in the near future (Taylor’s University, 2015).

However, the reality of their training experiences is far from perfect. The guidelines are normally set in place in the initial stage but the execution of these guidelines and the promise of a brighter future is the primary question of this research paper. For this research, four GeM Program student trainees reflected on their experiences in their two-year training period. Their reflections are based on the concept of an action research, whereby these student trainees reflect on the the initial training guidelines they received and compare it with their real-life training experiences.

The action research approach was chosen because there seldom is an opportunity where research can be done on-the-spot (Bradbury-Huang, 2010; McTaggart, 1994; Somekh & Zeichner, 2009). Normally, researchers go into the field, trying to find participants for interviews or questionnaires. After that, they collect the data and design a fictive outcome. On the other hand, in action research, data is collected on-the-spot from the researchers / participants through a reflection process; followed by an analysis to prepare them for the next action, which is amending the issues that they have highlighted (Bradbury-Huang, 2010).

In this research, four undergraduate hospitality student trainees underwent their GeM Program training sessions in several hotels in the Klang Valley, Malaysia. They reflected, analyzed and concluded their training experiences; comparing it with the training agreement between the university and their partner hotels.