Guiding a Better Experiential Learning Journey by Making It HIP Again
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The definition of experiential education (EE) has both pedagogical and practical implications for higher education institutions. While there is increasing pressure to justify and quantify these experiences, we remain faced with the challenge of ensuring a demonstration of breadth does not distract from the importance of meaningful depth in and for student learning. This paper presents a potential reframing of conversations about experiential education, emphasizing the role of high impact practices (HIPs) in defining EE as more than an experience. The value, purpose, and challenges of integrating reflection into these experiences is highlighted through the lens of the defining characteristics of HIPs, supporting the development of meaningful, engaging opportunities for deeper learning.
 
 La définition de l’enseignement fondé sur l’expérience (EE) est importante à la fois pour l’aspect pédagogique et pour l’aspect pratique de l’enseignement supérieur. Même si de plus en plus de voix réclament une clarification et une quantification de ce type d’expérience, la difficulté demeure la même : en démontrant l’étendue de l’expérience, il faut se garder de négliger la profondeur de l’apprentissage, qui est importante et chargée de sens. Dans notre article, nous proposons une avenue possible pour déplacer la conversation au sujet de l’enseignement fondé sur l’expérience en mettant l’accent sur le rôle des pratiques à incidence élevée dans l’EE conçu comme une notion dépassant celle d’expérience. Pour comprendre quelle valeur, quel but et quelles difficultés émergent de l’intégration de la réflexion à l’expérience, nous observons les choses à partir des traits caractéristiques des pratiques à incidence élevée de manière à rassembler les conditions pour un apprentissage en profondeur motivant et enrichissant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".