managing the socio-emotional realities of work life. In response, this study critiques overly structural WBL

models and introduces the WBL Scaffolded Resilience Management (WSREM) framework, a multi-semester

intervention beginning in the first semester. Each term, the WBL coordinator visits classrooms to share real-

world narratives and set expectations for future placements. Students are briefed on the mental and physical

readiness required to navigate a one-year WBL experience. Initial implementation of the framework revealed

high dropout intentions where nine students in the first year and six in the second. However, in the third year,

approach, grounded in progressive advising, expectation setting, and peer-to-peer storytelling, equips students

with the resilience and behavioural awareness needed to face, rather than escape, workplace challenges. This

project is developed based on a case study conducted at the Faculty Teknologi dan Kejuruteraan Industri dan

Learning (WBL) as a central pillar of technical higher education curricula. The Malaysian Technical

University Network (MTUN) has embraced this mandate by introducing intensive WBL programmes,

including a full-year industrial placement. WBL is a mode of study in which students undertake a one-year

industrial training placement, during which they are not only engaged in full-time professional work but also

complete industry-based academic courses. Consequently, students attend classes within the industrial setting

itself, effectively blending academic learning with authentic workplace experience ((Rohanai, 2024; Yusoff,

2024). WBL bridges the gap between theory and practice by integrating structured academic programmes with

real-world industrial environments, enabling students to apply theoretical knowledge while developing

essential professional competencies (Rienties, 2023). In this model, students are expected to demonstrate not

only technical proficiency but also resilience, adaptability, and socio-emotional competence to thrive in

first phase, Industry Engagement, involves securing committed host companies. The second phase, Student

Placement, focuses on matching students with industry partners and managing logistics. The third phase,

Material Development, is dedicated to designing workplace-aligned assignments and assessment rubrics during

the immersion period. The final phase, Execution and Assessment, requires students to work full-time during

the day while completing academic assignments outside of work hours, with final assessments conducted

remotely through submitted reports. This integrated approach enables real-time development of learning

materials, facilitates smooth student placements, and ensures that assessments are both practical and

Table 1: The development of WBL Model

workplace challenges (Buchan et. al 2022; Brenner & Dymond, 2023). Without this critical skill, students risk

disengagement, limited personal growth, and difficulties succeeding in demanding professional settings.

This challenge becomes most visible when students begin their industrial placements. The shift from a

structured academic classroom to the dynamic reality of a workplace can be jarring, often leading to

discomfort, resistance, and profound self-doubt. Students who are used to predictable, supportive learning

environments often struggle to meet the fast-paced, results-driven expectations of industry. This expectation-

reality gap can manifest as dissatisfaction, disengagement, and even formal requests to change industrial

placements that directly compromise the goals of Work-Based Learning programs (Hodges & Eames 2021;

Winchester et. al, 2023).

Allowing this situation to continue risks several negative consequences. Students might display inconsistent

This study offers an insider perspective, with the researcher involved in all stages of the Work-Based Learning

(WBL) programme, from curriculum design and industry sourcing to student supervision and problem solving.

As a lecturer and coordinator, the researcher’s dual role enabled direct data access and deeper insight into

institutional and student dynamics. This position added valuable context but also potential bias. To manage

this, the researcher maintained consistent record, while triangulation with peers, mentors, and industry

supervisors strengthened objectivity and transparency. This role revealed key gaps between research ethics,

policy, and practice, grounding interpretations in evidence over opinion. A mixed-method case-based design

was used. Data came from observation logs, intervention records, reflective journals, and feedback from

industry mentors and academic coordinators. Qualitative data were analyzed for recurring behavioral and

averaging a 36% change rate.

institutional preparation with industry expectations. Self-reported reasons varied. The most common was being

assigned unrelated tasks, reported by 28% of Cohort 1 and 13% of Cohort 2 (average 20%), indicating a

mismatch between academic training and job roles. Safety concerns were noted by 14% and 8%, while

conflicts with staff appeared in only 4% and 3%.

Triangulated data from academic mentors, industry supervisors, and students revealed deeper causes. The main

issue was difficulty accepting feedback, affecting 23% of Cohort 1 and 8% of Cohort 2 (average 16%),

showing a gap in emotional maturity and resilience. Misunderstandings of task scope appeared in 19% and 8%

(average 14%), suggesting the need for clearer role communication. Personal issues, such as transport

Note. Data reflect formal placement change requests during the second and third months of Work-Based

Learning (WBL) placements for Cohorts 1 and 2 prior to the introduction of the WSREM framework.

select placements and begin supervised projects. A recurring challenge is the sudden shift to workplace

Findings from Cohorts 1 and 2 (Table 2) highlight a minor disconnect between academic expectations and

industrial realities. Students enter the workforce with theory-based mindsets and expect tasks to match their

academic learning. In practice, companies prioritise productivity, and students are often rotated across

departments or assigned training unrelated to coursework. This mismatch can lead to frustration and

perceptions of irrelevance. To address this, the WSREM framework adopts a holistic approach focused on

psychological and professional readiness, not logistics alone. It assumes readiness must be developed

progressively through scaffolded interventions that strengthen resilience, adaptability, and professional identity

(Jackson, 2020). Table 4 summarises its implementation and reflection components.

WSREM, while Cohort 3 (n = 28) received full pre-placement preparation. In Cohorts 1 and 2, placement

change requests during the second and third months reached 42% and 30%. After WSREM implementation,

the rate dropped sharply to 7%, showing greater commitment and adaptability among students who underwent

scaffolded preparation. These students managed workplace challenges more effectively and remained in their

placements longer. The top self-reported issue was “unrelated tasks,” recorded at 28% and 13% in Cohorts 1

and 2, but reduced to 10% in Cohort 3. Safety concerns also declined from 14% to 3%, while conflicts with

staff stayed low at 4%, 3%, and 3%.

Tripartite reviews involving advisors, students, and industry supervisors revealed that early cohorts struggled