Education
At the other end of the spectrum of learning environments, group work and its variations may be seen as the basic form of experiential learning. Group work,
although similar to what was called ‘seatwork’ in the opposite paradigm, differs from it because, at some point in the transition from seatwork to group work, what happens within the group is more important than the activity itself.
Although the concept of group work may apparently be simple, Reynolds (1994) stated that there are many differing ideas about groups. He mentions that ideas about group work range “from the popular to the obscure” (p. 44). Moreover, there are many
ways of using groups in learning. Reynolds lists, for example, role plays, discussion groups, action learning, ‘experiential learning activities’, ‘T groups and study groups’, and ‘games and simulations’. Another way of using groups is in ‘case studies’, the most used method in management education outside the traditional lecture format (Burgoyne and Mumford, 2001). From within these forms, I am particularly interested here in ‘role plays’ and ‘games and simulations’, because they are closely connected with the PFN model.
The point that I want to stress in these two forms of group work is its characteristic which requires participants to ‘act out’; that is, the participants take on roles that they normally would not perform. This characteristic is present both in role plays and simulations and is one of the main features of the PFN model as described in Chapter Two.
Role Plays, for instance, when applied to the world of work, may be used to help people recognise what kind of understanding and skills they are expected to demonstrate in the workplace, and to make them perceive situations from another person’s point of view (Reynolds, 1994). Simulations, likewise, are also imitations of situations in which participants are expected to act with ‘professional intentions’ (Jones, 1989). In both, the concept of role is central.
Both role plays and simulations “provide participation, involvement and the
opportunity for action learning” (Turner, 1992: 35). Ments (1983) adds that role plays are an “excellent way of developing interpersonal and communication skills” (p. 37) and a positive and safe environment for dealing with attitudes and feelings, especially
if the debriefing time is properly conducted. Another advantage pointed out by Ments is that students may act in a situation that is closely related to reality, and may repeat the enactment as many times as needed to acquire the required skill. This can be highly motivating, provided the role play is well designed and conducted.
Similarly, simulations1 or business games are considered here as activities for the purpose of learning. In a broad sense, Taylor and Walford (1972) characterise simulation according to three aspects: a) the role players’ acts and the decisions they make are based on the setting in which they find themselves; b) the decisions generate consequences; and c) the role players act again based on their reflections on the relationship between their decisions and those consequences.
In a simulation, a model of what is being simulated is essential. Kibbee et al. (1961),
for example, define a management game as “a dynamic training exercise utilising a model of a business situation” (p. 3). Otherwise, Jones (1989) defines simulation as “a non-taught event in which the participants have sufficient information to enable them to behave with professional intent according to their roles” (p. 12) and differentiates simulation from games. In games, he states, it is necessary to have clear rules to prevent cheating. By contrast, “in simulation participants can go on strike or cheat or lie or steal and remain with the event, providing they are behaving with professional intent” (Jones, 1989: 14) and consider the future consequences of their acts.
1 Simulation, business games and management games are considered different concepts in the training and education literature. In this text these terms are treated interchangeably.
Kibbee et al. (1961) consider that games and simulations have two factors that
differentiate them from, for example, the case-study approach: a) the objective
feedback; and b) a new use of the time dimension. The objective feedback refers to the performance reports that are generated by the input decisions taken by the
participants. In simulations and games, contrary to case-studies, there are real competitors: the other teams. Therefore students react to actual events, and subsequently the performance reports they receive reflect these actual events, not hypothesised situations as in case-studies.
A new use of time dimensions refers to things like “the severe time limitations to simulate the stress encountered in a real managerial situation” and the consideration both of the “present and [of] the future simultaneously. With no other teaching technique has it been possible to demonstrate so vividly the effects of sequential decision making in a business environment” (Kibbee et al., 1961: 42).
Despite their success, management games and simulations have also been criticised. Mintzberg (2004), for instance, argues that management games and simulations “only compound the problems created in other courses, by giving the impression that managing is far more orderly and analytical than it really is” (p. 44).
In summary, the fact is that in management education there is a plethora of initiatives to convey the subject. It seems that management education is, as Goodyear (2000) suggests, an instance of a complex knowledge field which needs “constellations of different kinds/types of knowledge” (p.10) in order to be approached sensibly.
Having examined the theories on learning environments in general, and on certain specific forms of learning environment in management education, I will now turn to see how students perceive and orientate themselves in respect to these environments.