Implementation of on-campus work-integrated learning activities in Vietnamese universities: ‘don’t rely on lecturers’

ABSTRACT This article explores the rationale behind the ineffectiveness of on-campus Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) activities in three Vietnamese universities. An exploratory sequential mixed-methods approach that included six in-depth interviews with lecturers and 461 responses to a student survey was employed to investigate challenges facing lecturers in implementing on-campus WIL activities and student perspectives on on-campus WIL practices. Findings revealed six obstacles associated with university stakeholders facing lecturers when organising and implementing on-campus WIL activities. Survey responses underscored student preferences in experiential and project-based learning and highlighted the importance of industry engagement to on-campus WIL effectiveness. This article calls for more awareness among university department leaders, lecturers and students about the values of on-campus WIL and suggests that further work in the areas of relevant policy and practice is required for university initiatives relating to on-campus WIL to happen.


Introduction
Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) has been implemented traditionally in practice-based disciplines like medicine, nursing, education and law but expanded universally across many disciplines (Rowe and Zegwaard 2017).This learning strategy has offered undeniable advantages in enhancing student employability thanks to the link between academic theory and workplace experiences (Patrick et al. 2008).WIL activities could be organised at the workplace; however, a more accessible and less resource-consuming option is on-campus WIL (Jackson 2017).Oncampus or non-placement WIL activities, such as industry guest speakers, simulation, industry projects and lab work, allow students to be immersed in authentic learning, get familiar with the workplace context and relate professional practices to academic theory (Jackson 2017;Fleming and Haigh 2018).
In Vietnamese universities, WIL has been implemented unprofessionally and failed to provide students with meaningful learning experiences (Khuong 2016).On-campus WIL activities are optional and often organised personally by lecturers without any consideration and arrangement with university departments or firms (Khuong 2016).Utilising personal relationships, lecturers may invite industry representatives to participate in professional workshops, practical subjects and specialised seminars in order to make these activities more interesting (Pham and Tran 2013;Nguyen 2022).Previous research (Nguyen 2022) indicates that the value of on-campus WIL and the involvement of industry representatives in these activities have been underestimated by lecturers and local universities.Although some research has been carried out on WIL in Vietnam, very little attention has been paid to on-campus WIL activities.
This study addresses this literature deficit by exploring the rationale behind the ineffectiveness of on-campus WIL activities in three Vietnamese universities.Specifically, it aims to investigate challenges facing lecturers in implementing on-campus WIL activities and student perspectives on oncampus WIL practices.This article carries policy and practical implications for WIL stakeholders in Vietnam and other countries in designing and implementing WIL activities in classroom settings.While the majority of WIL studies rely on a single dataset, the complex mixed-methods design employed in this study enhances the reliability and validity of findings that are vital for working towards solutions to improve student employability through WIL.

Work-integrated learning
WIL is 'an umbrella term for a range of approaches and strategies that integrate theory with the practice of work within a purposefully designed curriculum' (Patrick et al. 2008, iv).Generally, WIL activities can be classified into on-campus and off-campus activities.A large and growing body of the literature has investigated off-campus WIL activities including placements and internships (Nguyen and Dakich 2022;Bilsland, Carter, and Wood 2019).However, it does not mean that knowledge and skills gained from the workplace are more important than what students learnt from universities (Fleming and Haigh 2018).Instead, students are suggested to integrate academic knowledge into the workplace environment, make sense of professional practices and relate these to theory when returning to university (Fleming and Haigh 2018;Coll et al. 2009).
It is widely accepted that students are the central focus of higher education (Gannon and Maher 2012).It is also true in WIL, as Gibson and Busby (2009) emphasise, that any policies, activities or practices in WIL should be 'fully considered, fit for purpose, contemporary, and student-centred' (478).Together with student, university and industry are key WIL stakeholders (Patrick et al. 2008).Ideally, the interconnected relationships between student, university and industry would produce mutual support and benefits (Patrick et al. 2008).Previous studies (Rowe and Zegwaard 2017;Jackson 2017) suggest student advantages gained from WIL including professional advancement and identity formation, understandings about the industry and ethical practices, career clarity and pathway, development of social interaction and personal skills and enhancement of confidence and independence.For work supervisors, WIL offers opportunities to learn pedagogical knowledge and strengthen supervision skills (Mather, McKay, and Allen 2015).It is also evident that lecturers benefit from university-industry cooperation in WIL.The ambition of individual lecturers in participating in the partnership is driven by the intention of securing funding and gaining industry support for research activities (D'Este and Perkmann 2011), as well as providing students with practical experience (Ankrah et al. 2013).

On-campus WIL
This section discusses four popular types of on-campus WIL including industry guest speakers, simulation, industry project and laboratory work.

Industry guest speakers
Industry representatives are often involved in on-campus activities as guest speakers to talk and discuss with students about professional practices and real-life examples (Riebe et al. 2013;Nguyen 2011).As a bridge between higher education and labour market, guest speakers bring real world into the classroom, emphasise employability skills and behaviours required to work effectively in the workplace and provide students with valuable information about industry and career options (Riebe et al. 2013;Jablon-Roberts and McCracken 2022).The effectiveness of this on-campus WIL activity relies much on the development of guest speaker programmes and the selection of industry representatives who can present and interact well with students (Riebe et al. 2013).

Simulation
Simulation is a recommended pedagogic tool as students recognise their own mistakes and learn how to fill the gap between theory and application (Poon, 2014).As Avramenko (2012) stated, simulation simplifies real world and provides risk-free environment that supports students' development of employability skills, such as critical thinking, negotiation skills, time management and independent learning.This on-campus WIL activity also creates opportunities for authentic teambased learning that encourages knowledge and experience exchange and cooperation among students (Lohmann et al. 2019).Factors such as face-to-face formative feedback, team-to-tutor issuebased discussion and reflective practice should be taken into consideration to increase the effectiveness of this activity (Avramenko 2012).

Industry projects
In this activity, students can autonomously work as team members to solve real-world industry problems (Jackson 2017).Industry project is a preferred option as students report that their knowledge, as well as skills, and behaviours necessary for successful teamwork, are developed and strengthened (Creasey 2013;Mutereko and Wedekind 2016).Students also exercise their autonomy and agency while communicating and working with real industry partners in defining problems, confirming objectives and proposing solutions (Hayes and Cejnar 2020).As Hayes and Cejnar (2020) assessed, industry projects are a possible alternative to WIL placements that can be a burden for both students and host companies.

Laboratory work
Lab work has been integrated into the university science curriculum since the 19 th century (Finne, Gammelgaard, and Christiansen 2022).The primary purpose of this activity is to support students' development of conceptual understanding (Lunetta, Hofstein, and Clough 2007).According to Finne, Gammelgaard, and Christiansen (2022), the value of lab work lies in the embodied handson experience that provides students with theoretical knowledge and understanding formed from narrative or causal structures.Either in traditional or computer-supported environments, dialogue with and feedback from teachers are vital to student scaffolding of learning in the lab setting (Finne, Gammelgaard, and Christiansen 2022;Furberg 2016).However, this WIL on-campus activity could be labour intensive and expensive compared to classroom teaching due to required staff, space, equipment, materials and chemicals (Bretz 2019).

On-campus WIL and challenges to WIL in Vietnamese universities
There are few studies that investigate on-campus WIL in Vietnamese universities.Industry guest speakers are the only on-campus WIL activity reported in the literature.Via alumni networks, industry representatives are invited to teach some practical subjects that need real-life knowledge and experience (Nguyen 2022;Khuong 2016).In such circumstances, industry experts are responsible for preparing teaching resources based on the unit outlines provided by lecturers, which do not incorporate a holistic view of the whole training programme (Khuong 2016).On rare occasions, guest speakers are engaged in professional workshops organised by departments, which allow students to further discuss career and professional issues (Pham and Tran 2013).The engagement of industry representatives in the role of guest speakers aims to make the lectures more practical and interesting, while their contribution to student employability and job readiness has not been acknowledged by lecturers and universities (Nguyen 2022).
Generally, both on-and off-campus WIL activities have been assessed ineffective (Khuong 2016).Challenges to WIL implementation in Vietnamese universities are found associated with government, university, industry, students, labour market and society (Nguyen, Dakich, and Grieshaber 2022;Khuong 2016;Tran 2018).In a recent study, Nguyen, Dakich, and Grieshaber (2022) identify inhibitors to the industry involvement in WIL, such as loose university-industry cooperation, industry representatives' time constraints and heavy workload, WIL staff shortages and problematic understandings of Vietnamese people and students about higher education and employment.
Challenges also lie in impractical curricula, exam-oriented learning styles, teacher-centred teaching methods and theory-driven assessment (Tran 2013b(Tran , 2018)).That could be the reason many students passively engage in internship work tasks and fail to utilise WIL activities to enhance their employability (Tran and Nguyen 2018).The literature calls for initiatives from government and universities to strengthen university-industry partnership and innovate teaching and learning practices towards meeting labour market demands (Nguyen, Dakich, and Grieshaber 2022;Khuong 2016;Nguyen 2022).Although some research has been carried out on WIL in Vietnamese universities, no studies have been found that explained the ineffectiveness of on-campus WIL.The present study will address this research gap.

Methodology
This article explores the rationale behind the ineffectiveness of on-campus WIL activities in three Vietnamese universities.This paper was drawn from a PhD study into WIL in Vietnam that employed an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design (Creswell 2015).Specifically, a qualitative phase commenced the design to explore on-campus WIL practices from lecturer perspectives because little is known about these activities in Vietnamese universities (Creswell and Clark 2017).Findings from the qualitative exploration provided inputs for an online survey in the quantitative phase to generalise student perspectives on on-campus WIL practices.This paper addressed the research question: 'What is the rationale behind the ineffectiveness of on-campus WIL in Vietnamese universities?'While analysis of qualitative dataset answered the first sub-research question: 'What challenges facing lecturers in implementing on-campus WIL activities?', results from the quantitative dataset solved the second sub-research question: 'What are student perspectives on on-campus WIL practices?'

Research sites and participants
Data were collected from three Vietnamese universities in the north of Vietnam.Three training disciplines were selected: engineering (University A), agriculture (University B) and tourismhospitality (University C).The qualitative phase included six in-depth interviews with lecturers and the quantitative phase consisted of an online survey that yielded 461 student responses.In this study, the guidelines on National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research were strictly followed (The Australian Research Council and Universities Australia, 2018).Ethics approval (No.E17/ 005) was gained before the data collection process, which occurred from March to November 2017.The researcher endeavoured to ensure the study was ethically conducted throughout the process.

The qualitative phase
Six lecturers were selected purposefully to participate in this phase (Creswell and Clark 2017).At each university, two lecturers who had at least 2 years of experience implementing on-campus WIL activities were invited to engage in in-depth interviews (Marshall and Rossman 2006).These lecturer participants were asked to share their teaching strategies and challenges they faced in preparing and conducting on-campus WIL activities.Interview sessions were conducted face-to-face and audio recorded.After transcribing the interviews, each transcript was analysed following a deductive thematic approach (Creswell and Creswell 2017).Text segments indicating challenges were identified and grouped into themes relating to lecturers, students and industry representatives.NVivo version 11 was used to support the data analysis process.

The quantitative phase
After the interview data were analysed, the questionnaire development was commenced.The questionnaire contained items asking about (i) the role of students, lecturers and industry representatives in implementing on-campus WIL activities and (ii) student preferences in teaching methods.These were developed from themes identified from the interview quotes and codes (nodes).Two types of questions: response-choice and Likert-type questions were employed in the survey (Sue and Ritter 2016).Response-choice questions collected student demographic information.Likert-type questions allowed students to rate their preferences in on-campus WIL practices using a 5-point scale, with 1 denoting 'not important at all' and 5 denoting 'extremely important'.
Qualtrics software was used to create an online survey with was reviewed by a quantitative expert, piloted by 10 researchers and tested by 30 Vietnamese students.From this review and testing process, the structure, instructions and the selection of wording were fine-tuned.The Cronbach's alpha for the 5-point scale was 0.97, indicating the dataset's high level of internal consistency.An online survey was selected because a large number of students were invited to respond coming from the three universities that are located in different provinces in the north of Vietnam.That made other kinds of survey such as telephones or face-to-face less effective.Official invitations were sent to all students from the first to fourth (final) year at the three universities in November 2017.The first and second follow-up invitations were sent 1 and 2 weeks after the official round to increase the response rate (Sue and Ritter 2016).
SPSS version 25 was used to analyse the survey data.Descriptive statistical analysis including frequency distribution and summary statistics was utilised to describe student responses to each survey question (Sue and Ritter 2016).Inferential analysis that consisted of two non-parametric tests: the Mann-Whitney (U) tests (when the independent variable had two groups: gender) and Kruskal-Wallis (H) tests (when the independent variable had more than two groups, such as field of study) were conducted to identify significant differences between two or more groups of respondents (Sue and Ritter 2016;Allen, Bennett, and Heritage 2014).These tests were followed by pairwise comparisons with the aim of judging the preferable order between groups of students (Cribbie and Keselman 2003;Allen, Bennett, and Heritage 2014).

Findings
This section presents findings from six in-depth interviews with lecturers about challenges facing them in implementing on-campus WIL activities, followed by results from 461 responses to an online survey about student perspectives on on-campus WIL practices.

Qualitative findings
According to the interviewees, on-campus WIL activities in the three participating universities included career showcases, industry guest speakers and lab work (agriculture and engineering disciplines).All on-campus WIL activities were optional and relied on the arrangement of lecturers, except the career showcase activity which was organised by university departments.
The following six challenges facing lecturers in implementing on-campus WIL activities were identified: • The theory-driven, exam-oriented teaching and learning approach • Lecturers' academic-focused background and career • A lack of awareness of graduate employability among students • The inactive participation of students in on-campus WIL activities • Large class sizes • Inadequate facilities for lab work There was a strong consensus among all participating lecturers about the impact of theory-driven, exam-oriented teaching and learning approaches on the implementation of on-campus WIL activities in Vietnamese universities.It appears that the focus of both lecturers and students was theory lectures and exams, as shared by Participant 2: 'We know we need to help students build job skills and orient their future career.However, we prioritise to guide and support them to fulfil the compulsory components of the curriculum at the university first'.This was confirmed by one lecturer in another university: 'Students just concentrate on how to overcome assignments and knowledge tests' (Participant 5).Despite acknowledging the importance of job readiness and skills development to graduate employment, participating lecturers admitted that they did not feel the urgent need to implement on-campus WIL activities.The rationale behind this could lie in the lecturer's academicfocused background and career, as Participant 4 commented: 'Almost all lecturers in our department do not have industry experiences.We have been recruited based on academic excellence.We do not know what industry employers really need, and we just focus on teaching mission'.
Another challenge was a lack of awareness of graduate employability among students.According to the participating lecturers, students should take the responsibility to be employable and be initiative in skills development, rather than waiting for WIL activities from lecturers.An engineering interviewee stated: 'Many students show little awareness that graduate employability is important to secure a job.They even do not clearly acknowledge that they are responsible for their own job readiness' (Participant 6).This view was echoed by another participant who highlighted: 'The requirements of the employers are becoming tougher.Students have to aware and self-prepare from the first year.Don't rely on lecturers' (Participant 1).
Unsurprisingly, a lack of awareness of graduate employability among students was a possible cause of their inactive participation in on-campus WIL activities.The limited engagement of students was described by Participant 5: 'many students are still shy, over-reserved, or even absent from WIL activities.They inhibit their skills development'.That was reported by three participants as a factor demotivating lecturer efforts in organising on-campus WIL activities.One interviewee emphasised: 'Students show their little activeness and enthusiasm in equipping and polishing their job-related skills.We had many difficulties in organising WIL at the campus, especially when students are not supportive and actively involved in the class's activities' (Participant 4).According to another participating lecturer, students may be distracted by other external factors: 'Students are possibly distracted by many elements.Some types of entertainment are harmless, but some are not.The emergence of online games and social flatforms, for example, could waste their time and money' (Participant 3).
In interviews, concerns regarding class size were widespread.Large-sized classes of up to 50 or 60 students seemed common in Vietnamese universities, as confirmed by one interviewee: At my department, lecture is the most common teaching mode for big classes of approximately 60 students.In these classes, lecturers focus on tutoring and explaining theories for the students.Meanwhile, students usually listen, take note, and ask lecturers if they have any questions.(Participant 2) Large classes negatively affected teaching and learning practices and inhibited lecturers' intention to implement on-campus WIL activities.Commenting on this, a participating lecturer stated: 'Students should involve in group activities or discussion in the class.I want to organise simulation or industry projects, but huge classes are the reason why I cannot do so' (Participant 6).
Moreover, participating engineering and agriculture lecturers also reported another challenge that was inadequate lab work facilities.As shared by interviewees, this activity required not only rooms but also other facilities such as computers and software for engineering students or chemicals, microscopes and test tube kits for agriculture students.An engineering lecturer took an example: 'Because the university department cannot provide enough computers to practice, we have to divide the class into several small groups.Usually, we encourage the students to bring their own laptops' (Participant 5).Agriculture students even faced with a more pessimistic scenario, as Participant 2 revealed: 'I only teach theory classes because the university department cannot provide required equipment for the lab activities'.
In summary, results of the deductive thematic analysis revealed six challenges facing lecturers in implementing on-campus WIL activities.These obstacles resulted in lecturers' preference in teachercentred teaching methods such as lecture and inquiry-based learning over on-campus WIL activities.To validate these findings, an online survey in the quantitative phase was conducted to generalise students' perspectives on the role of key on-campus WIL stakeholders (industry representatives, lecturers and students) and their preferences in teaching methods.Survey results will be presented and discussed in the next section.

Demographic information
Table 1 presents demographic information of 461 students participated in the quantitative phase.The majority of the respondents were Engineering students (61.4%).A slightly greater representation of third-year students (29.50%) was recorded among the population.Approximately two-thirds of the responses (66.4%) came from male students, and most of the respondents (69.0%) already experienced WIL activities.

Industry representatives, lecturers and students in on-campus WIL
Table 2 shows the student responses to the importance of industry representatives, lecturers and students to the implementation and effectiveness of on-campus WIL activities.On a 5-point scale, the mean values indicated that all the three stakeholders were assessed very important, but industry representatives held the most important position (M = 4.22, SD = 0.79), followed by lecturers (M = 4.19, SD = 0.76) and students (M = 4.14, SD = 0.89).
Results of the Kruskal-Wallis (H) tests and pairwise comparison showed the influence of the students' demographic characteristics (year of study and WIL experiences) on their responses to the role of key stakeholders in the implementation of on-campus WIL activities.In terms of year of study, second-year students expressed stronger agreement with the importance of lecturers to oncampus WIL than the rest of the students, especially compared to students from the last 2 years (H = 13.889,df = 3, N = 461, p = .003)(See Appendix A).Regarding WIL experiences, it appears that students who stated 'Do not know' about WIL disagreed with student responsibility in on-campus WIL at a higher degree than the rest of the participating students (see Appendix B).

Student preferred teaching methods
The survey also identified teaching methods that the participating students preferred.A 5-point Likert-type scale question was provided in the survey for the respondents to rank the importance of teaching methods including lecture, inquiry-based learning, directed discussion, project-based learning and experiential learning.
As Table 3 presents, lecture, inquiry-based learning and directed discussion had the lowest mean values at 3.72, 3.62 and 3.62, respectively.It seems that the students had a slight preference for teaching methods that were usually applied by lecturers.Experiential learning (M = 3.96, SD = 0.89) and project-based learning (M = 3.92, SD = 0.89) were identified as the first and second choices of the students.
Results of the Kruskal-Wallis (H) tests and pairwise comparison showed that there were significant associations between the students' demographic characteristics (field of study and WIL experiences) and their responses to the importance of teaching methods.Regarding the field of study, Tourism-Hospitality respondents expressed much lower interest in lectures and directed discussions than Engineering and Agriculture students (see Appendix C).The association between the students' WIL experiences and their responses to the importance of project-based learning was significant (p = .023).This method was valued the least by the group (see Appendix D).

Discussion
This article investigated the rationale behind the ineffectiveness of on-campus WIL activities in Vietnamese universities.Different from the majority of WIL studies which rely on a single dataset, this research employed a complex mixed-methods design with the aim of producing more valid and reliable findings and offering more meaningful implications.
Deductive thematic analysis of six in-depth interviews with lecturers revealed six challenges facing them when organising and implementing on-campus WIL activities.All identified barriers stemmed from university stakeholders: two from students, two from university departments and two associated with lecturers themselves.Confirming the findings of Tran (2013b) and Tran (2018), results of the qualitative phase reaffirmed that the fundamentals of Vietnamese higher education, including outdated teaching and learning methods, inadequate teaching infrastructure and student passivity in enhancing employability have not facilitated skills development.While barriers to WIL placements (or off-campus WIL) have been found relating to work supervisors (Nguyen 2022), what is worth noting from this study is that no challenges originated from industry representatives in implementing on-campus WIL activities.This finding signalled opportunities and potential benefits that industry representatives could bring to students in WIL activities organised on the campus where industry guests' engagement could be minimally impacted by their workplace priorities.
The results of the student survey revealed that the decisive role of the three key WIL stakeholders (see Patrick et al. 2008) -students, university and industry -was widely perceived by Vietnamese students.Unsurprisingly, students assessed their role in on-campus WIL less important than others (lecturers and industry representatives).This finding supported the work of other studies (Tran 2013b;Nguyen, Dakich, and Grieshaber 2022) which highlighted a lack of awareness among Vietnamese students of their responsibility for skills development and employability improvement.The highest level of agreement on the importance of industry representatives indicated that industry participation was crucial in the entire process of not only WIL placements (Nguyen and Dakich 2022) but also non-placement WIL activities.Survey responses also underscored student preferences in experiential and project-based learning that allow them to be exposed to real-life examples and real-world experiences (Wenger 2010;Jackson 2017).This outcome seems contrary to that in the qualitative phase that informed the inactive participation of students in on-campus WIL activities observed by interviewed lecturers.
Taken together, results from both qualitative and quantitative datasets suggested that the effectiveness of on-campus WIL is not the sole responsibility of lecturers.It relies on the involvement and cooperation of other university and industry stakeholders.The following sections discuss and propose the role of university stakeholders including students, lecturers and universities who directly control the quality of on-campus WIL.

Students: raising employability awareness and initiatives
Consistent with the findings of Nguyen and Hall (2017), this research confirmed the influence of Confucian heritage culture, which is dominant in Asian countries including Vietnam, on higher education teaching and learning practices.In Asian cultures, teachers have a high social status and are considered 'the fount of knowledge' (Holliday 1994, 59), as well as 'a moral guide for students' (Nguyen and Hall 2017, 246).Such beliefs result in the 'teacher talking most of the time and students talking notes most of the time' practice (Tran 2013b, 639) -that possibly explains qualitative findings of this study about lecturers' tendency towards employing teacher-centred teaching methods and students' inactiveness in oncampus WIL activities.
However, in line with Tran (2013a)'s findings, this paper argued that student quietness, shyness and respective behaviour in class should not be interpreted as passiveness, or preference in passive learning.Results of this study also reinforced that students did not prefer teacher-centred teaching methods such as lecture and inquiry-based learning as much as experiential and project-based approaches which were represented by on-campus WIL activities.The implementation and effectiveness of on-campus WIL seem to be reliant on the successful transition from teacher-to studentcenteredness which requires time, effort, guidance and favourable environment to occur (Tran and Tran 2020;Tran 2013a).
More importantly, findings from this study called for student awareness of and incentive to enhance their employability and job readiness.It appears that Vietnamese students incline to shift the responsibility for enhancing employability to lecturers and universities (Tran 2013b).Moreover, parental involvement in student career directions and students' problematic understandings that employment is secured by academic degrees and personal network also attribute to the ineffectiveness of WIL in general (Nguyen, Dakich, and Grieshaber 2022).These echo the importance of opportunities and activities that enable industry guest speakers to engage and share about employer requirements and professional experiences.

Lecturers: catering student learning needs
This study corroborated findings from previous work (Pham 2010;Harman and Bich 2010) that highlighted the lecturer inclination for adopting traditional teacher-centred teaching methods rather than considering student learning needs.As aforementioned, this study suggested that students preferred experiential and project-based learning and highly valued the engagement of industry representatives in on-campus WIL activities.Results from the inferential analysis of survey data also indicated the influence of student demographic background on responses to the importance of on-campus WIL stakeholders and preferred teaching methods.
It is worth noting that students' field of study and WIL experiences impacted their choices of oncampus teaching methods.In terms of field of study, tourism-hospitality respondents expressed much lower interest in lecture and directed discussion than engineering and agriculture students.It could be understandable as tourism-hospitality students may deal with practical tasks more often than their engineering and agriculture peers.Regarding WIL experiences, project-based learning was less important to students who had not undertaken any WIL activities than to the rest of students.These students may not realise the value of industry projects that allow them to work as a team to solve real-world industry problems (Jackson 2017).
Regarding student responses to the role of key on-campus WIL stakeholders, results emerging from the Kruskal-Wallis tests showed that second-year students expressed stronger agreement with the importance of lecturers in WIL than the rest of the students.It appears that in the second year, students were familiar with the arrangement of the lecturers for on-campus WIL activities.This result suggested that students in the last years were more mature, more independent in learning and tended to rely less on lecturers than students in the first 2 years.Results from the inferential analysis also revealed that students who stated 'Do not know' about WIL disagreed with the students' importance to on-campus WIL activities at a higher degree than the rest of the participating students.Students who knew about WIL probably realised the benefit they could gain from WIL; thus, they might find it more reasonable to accept responsibility for their own learning experiences in on-campus WIL than those who did not know.

Universities: developing industry partnerships and education infrastructure
Findings clearly emphasised the need for universities and their departments to bear responsibility and lead initiatives on establishing industry partnership and providing adequate teaching and learning facilities.In fact, limited university-industry cooperation and poor learning infrastructure are prolonged issues of Vietnamese universities that have been reported for some time (Fatseas 2010;Le 2014).The historic top-down government control of universities and industries (Nguyen, Dakich, and Grieshaber 2022) has been identified as a root cause of the shift of responsibility for every educational matter including WIL onto the higher management level: students blame lecturers, lecturers blame universities and universities blame the MOET.
Such centralised and bureaucratic governance also indicates the excessive workload of lecturers at the bottom level of the top-down task allocation mechanism (Nguyen, Dakich, and Grieshaber 2022).Lecturers at Vietnamese universities are often heavily committed to teaching regular and nonregular programmes, let alone research and other tasks (Van Dao 2015).Regarding WIL, lecturers are accountable for not only inviting industry representatives to participate in WIL activities but also establishing the university-industry partnerships based on their personal relationships (Nguyen, Dakich, and Grieshaber 2022).The role of university leaders in the implementation and effectiveness of WIL activities, especially those organised at the campus, is questionable.Although claiming academic issues and learning activities within the campus boundaries are the university priority (Tran et al. 2014), it appears that leaders in public universities just merely place responsibility for oncampus WIL implementation on lecturers rather than directly contributing to the effectiveness of these activities.

Limitations
This study was methodologically limited because the qualitative and quantitative data relied on the participants' self-reports.During in-depth interviews and student survey, participants recalled their practices, experiences, feelings and attitudes when participating in on-campus WIL activities that are not verified (Gemming et al. 2014).In the quantitative phase, engineering respondents far outnumbered those from other disciplines.The same pattern was seen between students of different genders as 66.4% of students were male.These inequalities may constrain the interpretation and comparison of student perspectives on on-campus WIL practices by field of study and gender.

Implications for practice and future research
This research emphasised the importance of student-centred approach in teaching and management to the effectiveness of on-campus WIL in Vietnamese universities.As such, students need to be fully informed of their responsibility for employability and job readiness and lecturers should consider student preferences in experiential and project-based approaches in designing learning activities.This research also suggested the initiatives and actions of universities and their departments in creating favourable WIL environment for lecturers and students, including the development of industry partnerships and education infrastructure.
This research included only three Vietnamese universities in the north of Vietnam.Further research with the inclusion of universities located in other regions would provide a broader generalisation.Comparative research of on-campus WIL practices in public, non-public and foreign universities would be another fruitful area for future work, especially when research on students' employability and WIL has been increasingly important in Vietnam.Moreover, the addition of observational research methods is likely to produce reliable data sets for future research.

Conclusion
This study explored that the ineffectiveness of on-campus WIL activities in Vietnamese universities stemmed from six challenges including theory-driven, exam-oriented teaching and learning approach; lecturers' academic-focused background and career; a lack of awareness of graduate employability among students; inactive participation of students in on-campus WIL activities; large class sizes; and inadequate facilities for lab work.Findings confirmed that students did not prefer teacher-centred teaching methods conventionally used by lecturers as much as experiential and project-based learning.This study also indicated the importance of industry participation to the oncampus WIL effectiveness from student perspectives.For on-campus WIL to succeed, the task ahead is to raise the awareness among university stakeholders including university department leaders, lecturers and students about the benefits of on-campus WIL activities to student employability and training quality.More importantly, a broader range of activities including simulation and industry projects should be implemented in Vietnamese universities to give students greater exposure to real-life examples and industry issues right at the campus.

Table 2 .
Role of industry representatives, lecturers and students.
M = mean, SD = standard deviation

Table 3 .
Student preferences in teaching methods.