Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
z5062918
Executive summary
This report discusses the value of the Everest simulation as a learning tool, as
well as my personal learning experience. The problems encountered by the team
have been compared and contrasted to relevant theory. The effect of personality on
learning and communication both individually and within the team was also
evaluated, primarily using the MBIT and Big Five models. It was found that the
issue imbalance of participation was related to the personality trait of extroversion vs.
introversion. Team conflict was found to have a positive impact on team coordination and performance, and was strongly linked to the personality traits of
opposing individuals. Different methods of communication, computer mediated
discussion vs. face-to-face interaction, were compared and their effect on team
performance was discussed. It was found that face-to-face interaction was the more
effective of mode of communication, as reflected in the improvement of simulation
results. The primary reasons for this were enhanced information exchange,
individual contribution and team co-ordination. This report concludes that educational
simulations are a valuable learning tool for students to apply theoretical knowledge
to real-life situations.
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.
2. Section One: Issues encountered during Everest
3. Section Two: Analysis of Everest experience..............
3.1 Personality and learning....
3.2 Communication...
4. Section Three: Recommendations for learning
5. Conclusion.
6. Bibliography...
7. Appendix A: Results of the first simulation...
8. Appendix B: Results of the second simulation....
9. Appendix C: Team Contract
3
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
15
15
16
Introduction
Simulations are becoming an increasingly popular method to assess students ability
to apply theoretical knowledge and concepts to real-life context. This report
examines the value of simulations as a learning tool, with particular reference to the
2
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
Harvard Everest Simulation. This simulation involved virtually climbing Mt. Everest in
groups and was carried out over two sessions. This report will identify issues
resulting from interactions within the team, and analyse them using the relevant
theory. The effect of personality on learning and communication will also be
explored. Different methods of communication and how they impact on team
performance will be evaluated. My personal learning experience will be discussed,
with specific reference to management frameworks and theories.
commitment
to
the
exercise
and
experiencing
sense
of
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
teams effectiveness and was reflected in the poor result in the first simulation (See
Appendix A). Ineffective communication between the group members compounded
all the issues encountered, and most likely resulted from the flaws associated with
the virtual messaging system within the simulation. These flaws include information
overload (Dawson-Shepard, 1997) and a slow reply time to messages sent, which
reduced the need for an immediate response (Kirkman et al., 2002).
The issues discussed above resulted primarily from an imbalance of
participation (i.e. some members participating more than others), team conflict, and
ineffective communication. Thus it can be argued that the groups poor performance
in the first climb does not detract from the value of the simulation as a learning tool,
rather reflects the preparedness, organisation and attitude of the team (Hofstede, de
Caluwe, & Peters, 2010). Reflecting on previous experiences is one of the key
features of experiential learning theory (Kolb & Kolb, 2005), and the Everest
simulation provided this opportunity for the team after the first climb. A more detailed
exploration of relevant theory however is required to explain why the issues arose in
the first place.
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
to be judgemental
Sensing vs. intuitive
Openness
A large body of research in the last decade has found the MBTI to be one of the best
indicators for many aspects of education including group presentation styles,
learning preferences, assessment methods, and group work (Brown & DeCoster,
1991). However, personality trait theory is limited by the fact that individuals can
display different behaviour in different circumstances, making fixed frameworks such
as MBTI and The Big Five problematic (Morgan, 2007).
Personality traits may have a positive or negative impact on educational
processes depending on the specific trait and on what is being learnt (ChamorroPremuzic & Furnham, 2005). Personality may also influence learning indirectly
through attitudes and motivation which create particular conceptions of learning, or
preferred ways to learn. Thus certain personality traits can be associated with
particular learning styles (Morgan, 2007). For example, deep learning, which reflects
intrinsic motivation and often results in strong academic performance, has been
related to personality traits such as openness, conscientiousness, and emotional
stability (Diseth, 2003). Personality can also influence how a student behaves in an
educational context (Brown & DeCoster, 1991), as seen in the Everest simulation.
One of the issues identified in the simulation was lack of participation by some
team members, and a dominance by others, which can be explained by considering
the MBTI personality trait of extroversion vs. introversion. Extroverts are generally
spontaneous, talkative and actively participate in group settings (Matthews, Deary &
Whiteman, 2003), meaning they prefer to learn through social interaction (Morgan,
2007). Thus it can be inferred that individuals considered to be extroverted gained
more from the second Everest simulation than the first. One downside however is
that extraversion may be a distraction for the learning of other students due to the
impulsive and outgoing nature of the individual (Matthews et al., 2003), and prevent
others from voicing their ideas and opinions. The MBTI model thus is able to explain,
particularly in the first simulation, the imbalance in participation and contribution by
group members. As a result, the Everest Team Contract was modified to include the
statement that everyones ideas must be heard before making decisions. This meant
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
that all individuals, regardless of personality trait, were able to contribute equally to
group discussion in the second simulation, resulting in a significant improvement in
team performance (See Appendix B).
Opposing personality traits may also be able to explain conflict between team
members. For example, when solving the oxygen challenge in the second
simulation, one individual felt the oxygen should be allocated equally and another
argued a mathematical approach was needed to calculated the correct amount. This
difference in opinion can be attributed to a difference in the MBTI personality trait of
feeling vs. thinking. Contrary to popular belief, conflict does not always result in poor
team performance (Behfar et al., 2008), as it reduces the likelihood of the team
succumbing to groupthink1. Indeed, the presence of team conflict in the second
Everest simulation brought different strategies to light which were used to
successfully solve the problems encountered by the team.
Communication
Before the first simulation, communication was established via the social
networking platform Facebook, which provided the first opportunity for the team to
get to know each other. This method of communication was outlined in the team
contract, and proved effective for completing simple tasks such as organising
meeting times, and the team was able to connect without suffering from time-space
constraints as traditional teams do (Saonee, Manju, Suprateek & Kierkeby, 2011).
Communicating through Facebook also provided a store of information of previous
messages, which team members could refer to when needed.
Despite the relative success of Facebook as a platform for computer mediated
discussion, the messaging system on the Harvard website was an ineffective method
of communication during the first simulation. The main reason for this was
information overload, which created a communication barrier and made it difficult for
members to read and respond to all messages (Dawson-Shepard, 1997). This issue
was further compounded when certain individuals failed to remain calm and
spammed the chat with meaningless messages, creating noise in the communication
process and causing confusion among team members (Klimova & Semradova,
2012). Consequently, information needed to complete the individual challenges was
1 A phenomenon where the desire for harmony results in irrational decision-making
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
mediated
discussion
to
face-to-face
interaction,
which
allowed
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
Conclusion
Overall, this report has discussed the value of the Everest simulation as a
learning tool, as well as my personal learning experience. The problems
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
encountered by the team have been compared and contrasted to relevant theory.
The effect of personality on learning and communication both individually and within
the team was also evaluated, primarily using the MBIT and Big Five models. It was
found that the issue imbalance of participation was related to the personality trait of
extroversion vs. introversion. Team conflict was found to have a positive impact on
team co-ordination and performance, and was strongly linked to the personality traits
of opposing individuals. Different methods of communication, computer mediated
discussion vs. face-to-face interaction, were compared and their effect on team
performance was discussed. It was found that face-to-face interaction was the more
effective of mode of communication, as reflected in the improvement in results of the
simulation. The primary reasons for this were enhanced information exchange,
individual contribution and team co-ordination. Ultimately, educational simulations
are an effective tool for students to apply theoretical knowledge and concepts to reallife context.
Bibliography
Atherton, J. S. (2010) Learning and Teaching: Experiential Learning, retrieved 15
February 2012.
9
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
Alge, B, Wiethoff, C & Klein, H (2003). 'When does the medium matter? Knowledgebuilding experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams', Organizational
behavior and human decision processes, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 26--37.
Barrick, M., Stewart, G., Neubert, M., Mount, M., (1998) Relating member ability and
personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol 83, no. 3, pp. 377-39
Behfar, K, Peterson, R, Mannix, E & Trochim, W (2008). 'The critical role of conflict
resolution in teams: a close look at the links between conflict type, conflict
management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, vol. 93,
no. 1, pp. 170.
10
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
Chin, J., Dukes, R. & Gamson, W. (2009). Assessment in Simulation and Gaming: A
Review of the Last 40 Years, Simulation and Gaming, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 553-568.
Dawson-Shepherd,
(1997).
Communication
in
organisations
operating
Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R., & Pisano, G. (2001) Speeding up team learning.
Harvard business review, vol. 79, no. 9, pp. 125-134.
Freitas, Sara I. (2006). Using Games and Simulations for Supporting Learning.
Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 343358.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, selfesteem, and stereotypes. Psychological review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 4.
Gredler, M.E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of
a research paradigm. In D.H. Jonassen (ed.), Handbook of research for educational
communications and technology, pp. 521539, New York: Macmillan.
11
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
Hofstede, G.J., de Caluwe, L. & Peters, V. (2010). Why simulation games workin
search of the active substance: A synthesis, Simulation and Gaming, vol. 41, no. 6,
pp. 824843.
John, O. P. (1990). The Big Five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the
natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford.
Keys, B. & Wolfe, J. (1990). The Role of Management Games and Simulations in
Education and Research, Journal of Management, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 307-336.
Kolb, A. & Kolb, D. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing
Experiential Learning in Higher Education, Academy of Management Learning and
Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 193212.
Latham, G (2004). 'The motivational benefits of goal-setting', The Academy of
Management Executive, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 126-129.
12
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
Matthews, G., Deary, I., & Whiteman, M. (2003). Personality Traits (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
Myers, I. B., & McCauley, M. H. (1985). A guide to the development of the MyersBriggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Saonee, S., Manju, A., Suprateek, S. & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The Role of
Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams: A Social Network Perspective,
Journal for Management Information Systems, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 273-309.
Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2007). Exploring traditional and virtual team members'
"best practices". A social cognitive theory perspective. Small Group Research, vol.
38, no. 1, pp. 60-97.
13
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
Williams, H. M., Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. (2007). Perceived dissimilarity and
perspective taking within work teams. Group & Organization Management, vol. 32,
no. 5, pp. 569-597.
14
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
15
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
Role
Shaira Rahman
Leader
Daniel Thornton
Marathoner
Jamieson Raabe
Photographer
Oscar Higson-Spence
Observer
Bryan Ye
Medic
Seok Ho Kim
Environmentalist
Contact
Team Procedures
1. 1. Day, time, and location of team members for Everest 2:
Wednesday Morning 7:30am, 16/09/15
1. 2. Preferred method of communication before and during Everest 2 (i.e., e-mail, mobile,
chat function, face-to-face in a specified location).
2.
A. A.
Facebook messenger
A. B.
16
Oscar Higson-Spence
z5062918
Facebook messenger
Team Participation
1. 1.
Civil discussion. If it cant be resolved, team leader makes the ultimate decision.
1. 2.
Strategies for encouraging/including ideas and debate from all team members :
1. 3.
Clear communication, step by step process - no rushing anything, careful analysis of each step of everest
and each individuals goals.
17
Oscar Higson-Spence
1. 4.
z5062918
Team leader has the final say, but we try to make decisions democratically.
Personal Accountability
1. 1.
2. Everyone attends, arrives sharply at 7:30am on the third floor of the law building, ready
for Everest 2.
1. 2.
18