“It Does Not Do to Dwell on Teaching Notes and Forget to Live” 1 : Instructor Perspectives on Integrating and Adapting Existing Experiential Exercises in Large Classes

Abstract

The vast majority of articles describing new experiential exercises are presented from the perspective of the creator(s) of the activity. It is notable, however, that less research has focused on understanding the experiences of instructors who later adopt these exercises in their classrooms. We contribute to the literature on experiential learning in large classes by placing our focus squarely on the user—examining the perceptions, motivations, reflections, and experiences of instructors who integrate existing experiential exercises in large groups. Using a qualitative methodology, we interviewed 12 instructors of a large, multisection undergraduate course at a large Canadian university, in which a common experiential exercise is run across all sections. Two main themes emerged. The first captures the importance of making an exercise one’s own and reflects the variety of strategies that instructors use when preparing to adopt an existing exercise—including active strategies through which the instructors become codesigners of the activity itself. The second reflects different perceptions, ranging from enthusiasm to skepticism, with respect to the value of using experiential exercises. Both themes point to the importance of, as well as strategies designed to enhance, instructor perceptions of self-efficacy in relation to running existing experiential exercises in one’s courses.

Keywords

experiential exercises large classes instructor’s perspective qualitative design teaching self-efficacy

Engaging large audiences in active learning is a challenge for anyone who has ever taught to classes with more than 50 students. Lecturing from the stage tends to become less interactive as class size increases. Indeed, recent research has documented several ways in which large lecture classes can negatively affect student learning—noting, for example, that students may feel anonymous among the crowd (Isbell & Cote, 2009), experience a low level of motivation (Mulryan-Kyne, 2010), and that superficial learning may result (Exeter et al., 2010).

As one alternative to the lecture-style format, many instructors aiming to increase the level of interaction with and among students in their courses are integrating experiential activities into their classrooms. As one form of active learning, experiential learning may be defined as “the process whereby knowledge is created though the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 2015, p. 49). Kolb’s learning cycle (e.g., Kolb, 2015) argues that experiential activities should ideally be structured in such a way as to tap into four essential and interrelated skills—ensuring that participants begin with a concrete experience in which they do something to become actively engaged with the topic at hand, incorporating mechanisms to encourage reflective observation about the experience and the articulation of takeaways that go beyond the experience via abstract conceptualization, and having participants mobilize, or actively experiment, with the knowledge gleaned through the activity.

Notably, the increasing use of experiential learning in the classroom has led to the development of a host of engaging exercises and simulations aimed at helping students develop, stretch, and practice a variety of skills and abilities. While such exercises are often created in the context of smaller classes, they are sometimes—albeit to a lesser extent—crafted and adapted for larger audiences as well. While Lund Dean and Wright (2017, p. 653) note that no consensus has yet emerged on the definition of a large class, they suggest that that it would reflect one in which “the number of students in the class limits the extent to which students can be physically or vocally active.”

Quite understandably, the vast majority of articles describing new experiential exercises are presented from the perspective of the creator(s) of the activity—overviewing the theoretical backdrop(s) and underlying factors that motivated its conception, outlining the processes to run and debrief it, and drawing on their experiences to offer expert suggestions for maximizing its impact. In sharing their insights and innovations with others, these creators make an invaluable contribution to the literature and the community. Indeed, the importance accorded to the presentation of new teaching innovations is evidenced by the space allocated to such articles in many management education journals—Schmidt-Wilk and Fukami (2010), for example, observe that “the largest component of [the Journal of Management Education] consists of articles describing innovative teaching strategies in management education,” of which experiential exercises would be one example.

It is notable, however, that while we often examine perceptions and learning outcomes of students who participate in these activities, less research has focused on understanding the experiences of the instructors who later adopt the exercises in their classrooms (see Lund Dean & Wright, 2017, for an exception in which the authors discuss their experiences translating activities, including experiential exercises, to a large class format). This is quite surprising, given the frequency with which many instructors tend to incorporate experiential exercises created by others in their courses. Indeed, the degree to which activities are used by others is one method through which authors may assess the impact of their work (Schmidt-Wilk, 2019). Furthermore, the process of adopting and adapting experiential exercises—especially in the context of a large class—can bring about its own set of challenges. Some activities, for example, initially designed for smaller groups may require additional planning and coordination when later translated to larger classes (Lund Dean & Wright, 2017). Relatedly, it can simply take several experiences running an exercise to gain a solid grasp on how to best present materials and animate an activity in line with one’s class and teaching style. Given this, greater insight into the experiences, motivations, and reflections of instructors who integrate existing exercises (i.e., activities developed by others) into their classrooms is of critical importance. In learning more about how instructors feel when running such exercises, we both gain a stronger perspective of how experiential learning is adopted by instructors and further explore ways in which creators and distributors (such as management education journals) can support the diffusion and use of new exercises.

We therefore contribute to the literature on experiential learning in large classes by placing our focus squarely on the user—examining the perceptions, motivations, reflections, and experiences of instructors who adopt exercises that they may not have had a hand in creating. Using a qualitative research design, we conducted semistructured interviews with a sample of 12 instructors who had taught one or more sections of a highly coordinated, multisection core undergraduate course at a large Canadian university—focusing on their experiences with respect to the integration of a common experiential exercise, titled The Game of Structures. This provided us with a particularly rich context through which to explore the perceptions of instructors who adopt existing experiential activities in large classes on two levels—first, in relation to their use of the exercise within their own classes and second, in relation to the dynamics of a coordinated course, where members of a teaching team run the same activity with their students across a large number of sections.

Two main themes emerged. First, we found that instructors used a number of resources at their disposition when preparing to run the exercise. In particular, several interviewees emphasized the importance of active strategies—including strategies centered on the adaptation and extension of the exercise—in order to make it their own, thus becoming codesigners of the activity. Second, we found that perspectives pertaining to the value of the focal exercise differed, in particular when preparing to use it for the first time, with perceptions related to the activity ranging from enthusiasm to skepticism. Interestingly, both themes point to the importance of, as well as strategies designed to enhance, instructor perceptions of self-efficacy in relation to running existing experiential exercises in one’s courses. Building on this, we draw the concept of self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1986) within both the literature review and discussion sections of the paper.

Organization of the Paper

Given our research question, we begin with a brief overview of the key considerations and challenges identified in the literature related to the development and use of experiential activities. Next, as instructor perceptions of self-efficacy may affect how they react to, adopt, and adapt experiential exercises in their classes, we integrate the concept of self-efficacy, as presented in social cognitive theory (e.g., Bandura, 1986), and overview research that has examined factors which may influence teaching self-efficacy in higher education. A discussion of the methodology, findings, and implications of the present research follows.

Literature Review

Considerations and Challenges Related to the Development and Integration of Experiential Learning in the Classroom

The literatures related to the design of experiential activities, as well as the use and integration of both active and/or experiential learning more broadly, suggest that a myriad of considerations should be taken into account when creating and incorporating experiential exercises in the classroom. From the importance of reflecting on relevant ethical issues and the well-being of students (e.g., Bradford, 2018; Lund Dean & Wright, 2017), to aspects that facilitate the creation of a “safe space” that encourages student participation, as well as both student and instructor reflexivity (Kisfalvi & Oliver, 2015), to the impact of the very choice of the physical materials to be used in the activity (such as clay, paint, etc.) on participants’ experience and emotional engagement in it (S. S. Taylor & Statler, 2014)—the process of designing and running experiential activities in the classroom is undeniably complex.

While less research has focused on the experiences of instructors who adopt existing activities into their courses, Lund Dean and Wright (2017) provide a compelling account of the process by which they integrated (and adapted, as needed) a series of active/engaged pedagogical strategies, including experiential exercises, into their large courses. They grouped their key takeaways into several categories, offering concrete suggestions based on their experience. The first centers on “pre-class planning,” highlighting the many ways in which instructors may have to plan differently for activities used in a large- versus small-class format (e.g., by keeping the structure of the activity simple enough to allow students to hone-in on the key takeaways and being mindful of potential constraints posed by the costs of the different materials required for the activity). The second, labeled “in-class facilitation,” identified specific considerations that the authors found to be highly useful, such as presenting instructions and questions via text (rather than relying on the oral communication of instructions), recognizing and taking into account the potential effects of the noise generated by large groups, allocating more time for students to organize themselves for the activities, organizing students into smaller groups to debrief and selecting useful strategies to allow interested students to share in the plenaries, and being prepared to adjust activities as needed in the face of unexpected twists. The third, “assignments, assessment, and feedback,” encompasses several key takeaways related to preparing and communicating assignments and feedback. Finally, they note that some “student training and renorming” may be required to get students on-board and comfortable with the format and that considerations related the “institutional context” may also be applicable (Lund Dean & Wright, 2017, pp. 659-663).

Though such accounts show that active learning strategies—which include experiential exercises—can be developed for, as well as translated to, large class formats, recent research suggests that class size may nonetheless be one factor that can influence the degree to which instructors elect to integrate experiential learning into the classroom. Wurdinger and Allison (2017), for example, found class size to be among the considerations that participants identified as hindering their use of experiential learning, noting that “the dominant obstacles to using experiential approaches were classroom structure, class size is too large, not enough time, difficult to cover all the curriculum, and faculty resistance” (p. 15).

In addition to class size, the literature suggests other factors that instructors may take into account when deciding whether to integrate experiential activities in their classrooms. As one example, experiential learning can provoke emotions for participants (e.g., Kisfalvi & Oliver, 2015; Lund Dean et al., 2019; V. F. Taylor, 2018). Some instructors, as notes V. F. Taylor (2018), may be apprehensive about whether they have the skills required to effectively manage these potential emotions, which may in turn affect the degree to which they are inclined to use experiential learning in their courses. Moreover, despite the good intentions of instructors, experiential exercises can sometimes run off-course, for a variety of reasons (e.g., Edelson et al., 2019; V. F. Taylor, 2018).

Social Cognitive Theory: The Influence of Perceptions of Self-Efficacy

Clearly, effectively integrating experiential exercises in the classroom can therefore be challenging, for a number of reasons, for both novice and experienced users alike. An additional layer of complexity may emerge when using an exercise created by someone else—especially during one’s first experiences with the activity—as one works out how to best present it, in relation with one’s class and one’s teaching style.

Given this, we draw on the concept of self-efficacy, defined as “people’s judgements of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391), as the theoretical framework through which we organize and discuss our findings. As Bandura argued, our perceptions of self-efficacy with respect to a given task—in this case, the adoption of existing experiential exercises—can be influenced by number of factors, including relevant past and present experiences, the observation of others (where vicarious learning is an important component of social cognitive theory in and of itself), various forms of social persuasion and influence, as well as our psychological states (Bandura, 1986). Notably, the degree to which we feel efficacious at a particular task can then affect a host of key outcomes, such as the behaviors and activities that we choose to engage in, the degree to which we will persist at working toward these behaviors or activities, our expectations related to the outcomes of our actions and efforts, as well as our reactions and emotions—both more generally, as well as “in taxing situations” in particular (Bandura, 1986, pp. 392-294).

Indeed, several papers have integrated social cognitive theory, and self-efficacy more specifically, when examining factors that may influence the development of the broader construct of teaching self-efficacy at the university-level (e.g., Hemmings, 2015; Morris & Usher, 2011). Hemmings (2015), for example, investigated factors that impacted the teaching self-efficacy of a sample of participants described as early (i.e., within the first 5 years) in their teaching careers. He found that respondents described how career experiences, support from others at work (derived from various sources, including informal conversations with colleagues and mentoring—though the latter was qualified as both helpful and unhelpful by different respondents), “feedback and self-reflection” (composed of both feedback from students and peers), and different professional learning opportunities influenced their perceptions. As a second example, Morris and Usher (2011) conducted a qualitative study of 12 professors renowned for their teaching (having won at least two teaching awards) at research-focused institutions and found that while participants discussed the impact of all four factors identified in social cognitive theory on their perceptions of teaching self-efficacy (namely, experience, observation, social influence, and psychological states), mastery experiences and various forms of social persuasion were described as having been most influential. Importantly, they found that factors were often interrelated, thus mutually influencing each other. Early teaching experiences were identified as being particularly important for the development of participants’ perceptions of self-efficacy (Morris & Usher, 2011).

Building on the above, as well as its theoretical relevance for our research question, we therefore draw on self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1986) as we elaborate on our findings related to the experiences of instructors who adopt existing experiential exercises in their classrooms.

Method

Research Context

Data were collected at a large Canadian business school. Students enrolled in the 3-year 90-credit bachelor program are required to take a number of core courses (given, with but one exception, during their first and second years of the program), in addition to courses related to their specializations. While class size can vary among courses in this program, classes tend to be largest (topping out at 70 students) in the first- and second-year core courses. Consequently, for the purpose of this article, we define large classes as those in which anywhere from 55 to 70 students are registered.

Among the core courses taken by students in their first year of the program is an introductory course on management. Over 12 weekly 3-hour meetings, students are introduced to a host of management-related topics, presented using a variety of pedagogical techniques—including, but not limited to, lectures, case studies, and experiential exercises. Given the large number of sections offered each year (approximately 22 sections, for a total of about 1,300 students per year), which are taught by a number of instructors, the course is highly coordinated, with the same reading material, cases, and activities offered in all sections. One of the experiential exercises incorporated into the course is The Game of Structures, which served as the common reference point for our study.

The Game of Structures

Run in the ninth meeting of the semester, The Game of Structures (Agogué & Grégoire, 2016) is an experiential exercise designed to help students learn about different types of organizational structures and the effects that characteristics of structures may have on the relationships among members. While the number of players and set up of the game can vary, it is typically run with one to three groups of 15 participants (the players in the game), with the remaining students assuming the role of active observers.

Players are first selected and seated according to a given organizational structure. Each player is then handed an envelope containing several items, including instructions for the activity. These instructions overview the game, present the rules, and inform players that their group will need to complete a specific task. However, depending on the variation of the exercise selected by the instructor, the specifics of the group’s mission may be communicated to all members or provided to but a subset of members through the instructions. Players also receive a number of cards, which represent the resources to exchange during the exercise. While players were originally given regular playing cards, a set of custom cards (Agogué et al., 2019) have since been created that represent actual “resources” to exchange. Indeed, these cards are at the heart of the game—to successfully complete their collective task, one or more players will need to end up holding a certain combination of cards. Instructors who choose to communicate the specifics of the group’s mission to but a subset of players are therefore adding a layer of complexity and ambiguity to the experience. Finally, players also receive a pencil and message pad—the only items that they will have at their disposal for communication with other members. Thus, without any additional verbal or nonverbal communication, players must work toward completing the group’s mission by exchanging resources and written messages. Importantly, players may only exchange cards and information in accordance with the hierarchical structure in which they were placed. These constraints serve to illustrate the manner in which different organizational structures can impact members—influencing, for example, how they communicate, coordinate, and allocate resources amongst themselves.

As it was created for the introductory course described above, the exercise can accommodate large classes in several ways. For example, students not assigned as players can be designated as active observers, tasked with observing specific elements of the game (in which case, the teaching notes provide examples of observation sheets). Alternatively, to allow more students to participate as players, two or more groups may work on separate games—in succession or in tandem—with active observers, as needed. Admittedly, the latter requires additional coordination and assumes that an appropriate space for simultaneous games is available, which may not always be the case.

Instructors benefit from several resources, including detailed teaching notes and a series of videos created to illustrate the game in action. Prior to running it for the first time, instructors will often meet with either the creator or other experienced users to obtain advice and/or observe the exercise in other sections before using it themselves.

As a result, The Game of Structures has been used extensively since its creation in 2014, both in the course for which it was developed (where it has been run approximately 80 times by 18 different instructors), as well as in other courses or training contexts. Given this, the course and exercise provide a rich context through which to explore our research question—namely, the experiences, motivations, and reflections of instructors who adopt existing experiential exercises in large classes.

Procedure and Sample

Data were collected through semistructured interviews with a number of instructors who had taught the focal introductory management course in the years since The Game of Structures was integrated into the course syllabus. Using a purposeful sampling strategy, we recruited participants with a wide range of experience in the course, to ensure that both highly experienced and newer instructors were included and that the breadth of roles occupied by instructors who teach the course—including professors, full-time lecturers, part-time instructors, and doctoral students—were represented. To this end, we individually emailed thirteen instructors, inviting them to participate in our study.

At the outset of each interview, participants reviewed the consent form and indicated whether they gave us permission to note their role and record the discussion (all participants provided their permission for both points). These discussions were supported by an interview guide, which we successfully pilot tested with our first interviewee (sample questions include the following: Did you develop the activity? If not, how did you adopt it? How do you feel before a class meeting in which you will run an experiential exercise? How do you feel during the class? How do you feel after the class?). This semistructured format provided us with a framework through which to explore key topics, along with the flexibility to reformulate questions and follow-up on additional points as they were raised.

With the exception of the first interview, in which we jointly pilot tested our interview guide, each author conducted a subset of the interviews separately. All interviews were conducted in French² and later transcribed by a Research Assistant. The meetings ranged from 25 to 53 minutes in length and were generally held in different offices around the university (with the exception of one interview conducted via Skype).

Sample

Twelve instructors were available for an interview during the data collection phase (10 men, 2 women). In line with our purposeful sampling strategy, our sample is quite diverse in terms of both roles and teaching experience. Participants included three professors, three full-time lecturers, four part-time instructors, and two doctoral students. Interviewees also reported a wide range of teaching experience (M = 12.9 years, SD = 9.9 years)—notably, while some respondents described a significant amount of experience (six interviewees, for example, reported over 10 years of experience), others noted that they had taught their first courses in the 2018-2019 academic year.

On average, respondents had taught the course 19.8 times (SD = 26.0) and run The Game of Structures within their sections on 4.6 occasions (SD = 3.8). Seven interviewees also noted that they had also used the exercise in other courses and/or in other training contexts.

Data Analysis Strategy

The data were analyzed in several stages, using an inductive approach. First, we coded the data using open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) in order to allow us to identify the key themes that emerged across the interviews. An Excel spreadsheet was created in which we recorded the full list of first-order codes generated at this step of the analysis, with a column dedicated to each participant. In total, 285 first-order codes were generated, loosely grouped within the spreadsheet by the general topic to which the code applied (e.g., first-order codes pertaining to using experiential exercises in large classes were grouped under the header “Using in a large class”). Importantly, the analysis was not constrained to these initial groupings—rather, they served as a method for organizing the large number of codes created in this first step. Interviews in which a given code was assigned were indicated with a “1” within the spreadsheet.

To strengthen the validity of our approach, each interview was first coded by one member of the research team and then reviewed by another member.³ The authors discussed the coding and results at several points during both the data collection and analysis phases, to determine key themes and synthesize the findings.

Next, in relation to our research question, we grouped several first-order codes into more structured meta-categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), enabling us to identify the two main themes that emerged from our research. We present each theme in turn below, supported by illustrative citations.

Given that we were interested in exploring the experiences of instructors adopting existing exercises in the context of large classes, we also asked participants to elaborate on any advantages or disadvantages of running The Game of Structures with large groups. Interestingly, we found that interviewees presented an overall nuanced perspective—describing both obstacles and the potential associated with using experiential activities in large classes. As these findings are more descriptive in nature and focus specifically on the context in which the data were collected, we present them as a supplementary analysis (rather than a main finding) to close the section.

Findings

Two main themes emerged in relation to our research question. The first suggests that instructors use a wide variety of strategies when preparing to integrate an existing experiential exercise into their classrooms. Labeled when instructors become codesigners, this theme implies that to make an exercise one’s own, instructors often adapt it in order to find different ways to run and debrief it in their sections. This highlights the importance of proposing and nurturing various active learning strategies, as well as strategies aimed to help instructors take on a codesigner role, that may not be part of the more traditional toolkit of materials provided in articles introducing new exercises. The second reflects the value of experiential exercises from the instructor’s perspective and centers on the different perceptions expressed by instructors with respect the adoption of the Game of Structures (as well as experiential exercises more generally) within their courses. This finding underscores the many factors that can influence the degree to which instructors are comfortable running and adopting such exercises and suggests that coordinators of large cohorts of students need to develop strategies to mitigate barriers of diffusion of experiential exercises.

When Instructors Become Codesigners

Instructors described a variety of strategies and resources that they used in order to prepare to run the exercise in their sections. As could be expected, a number of participants noted that they had drawn on resources either created for the activity itself or made available through the course—in particular when preparing to first use the exercise—including reading the teaching notes (n = 8), observing the videos (n = 4), speaking with the author or other instructors familiar with the exercise (n = 6), and observing another instructor animating the activity (n = 3). Two instructors also described running the exercise in their sections with a teaching assistant, allowing them to focus on elements with which they were more comfortable as they became more familiar with the activity.

Beyond solely dedicating time and effort to understand the exercise and plan how to use it their sections, our findings suggest that instructors often took a very active and entrepreneurial role in its development—in essence, codesigning the activity via their modifications, in order to both adapt it to their sections and maximize its impact more generally. Indeed, half of the interviewees discussed strategies that went beyond using the aforementioned resources, emphasizing a variety of ways in which they endeavored to make the exercise their own (n = 6). For these participants, the transformation and extension of the activity appears to have been a key mechanism through which they adopted it, by testing it in new classes, testing new structures, changing elements within the debriefing session, and contributing to the development of key resources later used by others (among other means). Although the instructors had not originated the exercise, they took on the role of active creators when preparing to use it—changing it in order to maximize its effectiveness, in line with their classes and preferences, as illustrated in the quotes below. In other words, they became codesigners of the exercise by reinventing it, reframing it, and challenging it.

Sometimes I will experiment ( . . . ) I said to one team “OK, you can’t speak, but you can exchange messages via text.” For the other team, I said “close your cell phones, your computers, you cannot use any technology in the game, but you are allowed to discuss, as long as we don’t hear you very much.” So that created dynamics where the students jumped into the activity rather easily, as they enjoyed doing it. There is also an element of fun in what we do. (Participant E, part-time instructor)

For debriefing, in order for everyone to actively participate, I use online questionnaires in class to get their answers, and with today’s tools, we are able to segment their results. So we can show the overall results and then the results for each hierarchical level. And I think like that, the debriefing is pretty spectacular. (Participant G, professor)

Relatedly, several participants highlighted a number of strategies that can be especially useful when helping instructors adopt existing activities. In particular, three interviewees noted the importance of experiencing the exercise from the inside—immersing oneself in the activity as a participant to see it from the students’ perspective. This suggestion builds on the experience of one respondent in our sample, who described the impact of participating in the game as a player alongside students in a different section of the course, before running the activity for the first time. Recognizing the significance of this experience, the two other interviewees also invoked the usefulness of participating as a player when first preparing to run the exercise. In essence, this suggests that to really get an exercise, you have to experience it, as reflected in the citations below:

I helped someone else [another instructor] experience the activity for the first time by placing the person in it as a student for the first time. Having the person in the group, to see it from the student’s perspective. I didn’t experience it like that, but I think that it’s amazing. You do it, you participate like the others, and you see what is happening. I think this is the best way. If someone asked me what they should do, I would tell them is “come and sit with the others.” (Participant G, professor)

Before reading [the teaching notes], experience the exercise as a participant. (Participant D, professor)

Though less frequently cited, other strategies proposed by respondents included the integration of audiovisual materials (such as videos, allowing future users to see the exercise in action, thus making the material come alive; n = 2) and the development of creative/brainstorming spaces that allow users to share their experiences and build on the ideas of others when integrating an exercise into one’s course (n = 1). Notably, however, these suggestions reflect less active ways of helping instructors adopt the exercise, as compared with codesigning it.

Overall, our first theme suggests that it may be especially useful for creators of new exercises to build specific mechanisms into the construction of their activities that encourage and facilitate that others assume the role of codesigners when adopting it. Such strategies appear to complement the more traditional forms of presenting the instructions for running experiential exercises (e.g., teaching notes).

The Value of Experiential Exercises From the Instructor’s Perspective: From Skepticism to a Game-Changing Experience

Exploring the perceptions, emotions, and motivations of instructors who adopt (and adapt!) experiential exercises in their classrooms—and, in the case of coordinated courses, may not have chosen to integrate the activity into their sections—contributes to our understanding of the disparity of instructor reactions with regard to the use of experiential activities and facilitates the identification of potential obstacles that may need to be overcome when pitching new exercises to others, or, as in the present context, when introducing them into a coordinated curriculum.

While the instructors in our sample had different levels of appreciation of the exercise, all recognized the large amount of preparation that such activities require, as well as the potential change in classroom dynamic that can accompany their introduction. Given the different perspectives that emerged, we structure our findings according to three levels (low, medium, and high) of appreciation.

First, two instructors expressed low appreciation of the exercise. One of the interviewees had decided not to run the Game of Structures, despite the fact that it was a mandatory part of the curriculum. When asked why, the interviewee expressed that as a doctoral student, the exercise appeared to require a lot of time and preparation for an unknown result. The respondent had not seen The Game of Structures in action and interpreted the experience shared by a colleague as an indicator that the activity may not go well:

[A colleague who had run the exercise] told me ‘with one group, it didn’t go that well’ and then he immediately moved on. So the impression that I had from this activity was that it looked a little complicated. ( . . . ) I see it as an investment. ( . . . ) So do I want to put in the investment for an output that I do not know? (Participant L, doctoral student)

The participant was not alone in expressing a negative sentiment toward the exercise—another interviewee also mentioned a certain skepticism after trying The Game of Structures and eventually replaced it with a different exercise that the respondent felt more comfortable using and perceived as more fun oriented:

The problem is when the game does not work well ( . . . ). This is the worst-case scenario: during the debrief, you can talk about it as much as you want, but it’s almost 20 minutes lost, in terms of perception for students. And if that was the lesson, we could do something different to illustrate it. Maybe this has created a kind of discomfort for me and so I chose to eliminate that element, and focus to maximize the chances that students will have fun playing a (different) game. (Participant K, full-time lecturer)

In both cases, class management, the uncertainty of the outcome, and the potential emotional reactions and/or frustrations of students were aspects mentioned to support these opinions. The reasons underlying the discomfort discussed by the two respondents did not seem to be related to teaching experience (as the level of experience of the interviewees was quite different), but rather to teaching preferences and comfort with newness. In other words, the emotional weight associated with running the exercise, exacerbated by the lack of experience with the exercise, seemed to impede the willingness to use it to its full potential. This would be in line with Bandura’s arguments that one’s experiences (which, in the present case, may include practice and preparation of the activity, among other strategies), observation (such as the opportunity to observe others run the exercise), verbal persuasion (such as the feedback received from colleagues and others regarding the activity), and psychological states (such as apprehension or confidence) can all influence our perceptions of self-efficacy with respect to its integration in the classroom.

Second, some interviewees displayed enthusiasm toward the Game of Structures—mostly due to the positive reactions of students—while still verbalizing some concerns (n = 5). These concerns focused predominantly on the uncertainty of the outcome of the game and on lack of control during the exercise, as illustrated in the following excerpts:

There are these elements, these variables that I cannot control. There are already many things that I do not control when I teach in a normal way, but [with the experiential] it is even more the case. And I always ask myself, ‘Will the students get on board, will the students like this? And those who are not doing the activity, but observing the exercise, are they really going to watch or will they be on Facebook instead? (Participant J, part-time instructor)

The risk is to be overwhelmed, to no longer control the class, because during a usual lecture everyone is sitting in front of their computers. There is no movement. During the Game of Structures, we ask them to move, we occupy the room in a different way. ( . . . ) If we cannot control it, it can go wrong, it can create a cacophony. (Participant F, part-time instructor)

Among these moderate partisans of the exercise, three respondents described how one’s appreciation of the exercise is not frozen in time and can evolve:

My relationship with the game changed over time. It grew on me. And I think it made the students change as well and now they talk more about their emotions, their feelings. I really find it cool. (Participant B, part-time instructor)

Yet, overall, it seems that the emotional burden to handle the reactions (and often frustrations!) of students can influence the perceived pedagogical benefits of the activity.

Finally, the remainder of our sample displayed great enthusiasm toward the exercise and appeared to express that it can be a game-changing experience in class (n = 5). Notably, respondents stressed the change of pace that the exercise can bring to class, its ability to make abstract concepts more tangible, and the potential change to the instructor’s role (shifting from knowledge holder to colearning facilitator) as key positive elements of the exercise. They felt that the exercise provided something useful for the students as well as for themselves—interestingly, we again see how instructor perceptions of the exercise can sometimes be tied to the emotions experienced as they run it:

I feel energized [after a session using the Game]. Because I’m happy with what I did. Because I am generous; yes, I think this game, it brings me to be generous with the students. You know, it brings me to . . . I review the concepts, I review the theories, and I go back to who they are. I am here to help the students grow. (Participant A, full-time lecturer)

That’s the fun part for me with an experiential exercise—all of a sudden you lose control of your class. But it’s not everyone who is comfortable with that. ( . . . ) Someone who is less comfortable with class management may be much more afraid to throw him or herself into something new. (Participant C, full-time lecturer)

Overall, these findings suggest that experiential exercises are not a one-size-fits-all teaching approach. Instructors, whether novice or experienced, may find little value in investing the time, effort, and cognitive resources (as well as tackling the emotional burden often present) in understanding and preparing an exercise. Though such perceptions can evolve over time, the uncertainty inherent in some exercises (for example, with respect to outcomes in the focal exercise) and hesitations related to the lack of control during the activity may emerge as barriers to the diffusion of pedagogical innovations.

Supplementary Analysis: The Challenges and Potential of Large Classes

Given our interest in understanding the perspectives and experiences of instructors adopting existing experiential exercises in the context of large classes, we also asked participants to elaborate on any advantages and disadvantages related to running The Game of Structures with large groups. We found that instructors presented a nuanced view, often describing both challenges and strengths. Indeed, perspectives related to the ideal class size differed among respondents—while some stated that it would better to run the exercise in smaller classes (n = 2), so as to have a higher percentage of the class actively involved, others either noted that it was either better to run the exercise with a larger group or that larger classes were not problematic (combined n = 4). Consider the following citations:

No, no, it would have been much easier if they [class size] were 30. (Participant H, doctoral student)

It’s useful to have observers. I’ve run the exercise with only 13 people, it works a lot less well. It destabilizes the structure. And as there aren’t any observers, you don’t have people who are able to say “well, look at your . . . what happened was …,” and to point out a dimension that [worked less well]. So I think I’d rather have observers. (Participant C, full-time lecturer)

Respondents underscored several advantages or strengths of running the exercise with larger classes. Among those identified most often, several participants described how larger classes allow you to run the activity with multiple groups and/or incorporate different structures (combined n = 7), as reflected in the following excerpts:

The other advantage, when we have multiple groups, is that you can have them simultaneously test different structures and see the different results depending on the structures. (Participant G, professor)

It was really interesting to see the differences between the two teams. (Participant I, Professor)

However, challenges were also highlighted. Among those most cited, a number of interviewees identified the importance of ensuring that all observers are engaged when running experiential exercises, both in general and with respect to the activity at hand, noting the potential risk that some observers may not be (combined n = 7). For example, some respondents stated as follows:

The role of observing is particular. Is it as satisfying as playing? No, most definitely. (Participant C, full-time lecturer)

I like experiential exercises because I think people learn better when they live the thing and experiment, not when they are observers. (Participant G, professor)

Consistent with literature that suggests that the design of a room can facilitate engagement in active learning activities (e.g., Rands & Gansemer-Topf, 2017), some instructors also discussed both general and specific issues with respect to managing the class, space, or time. Respondents described, for example, considerations related to the physical space in which the exercise would be conducted (including aspects related to the room, such as its size and whether the furniture was fixed; n = 4), managing time (n = 1), and noting that it can be harder more generally to manage an activity a larger group (n = 2).⁴

Thus, in line with the extant literature, our findings suggest that large groups have the potential to present several obstacles when running experiential exercises. However, key strengths of large groups were also identified, reflecting the benefits that can also be pulled when running such activities (and in this case, The Game of Structures) with large classes as well.

Discussion

The majority of articles introducing new experiential exercises are presented from the perspective of the designer(s) of the activities. While a focus on their perspective is undeniably valuable, the paucity of research on the perceptions and experiences of instructors who later adopt the exercises—in particular in the context of large classes—is notable. This is particularly important given the multitude of considerations, as outlined in the literature reviewed above, that designers and users of experiential exercises must take into account as they integrate such activities into their classrooms. We therefore contribute to the literature on experiential learning in large classes by switching viewpoints to examine the experiences and reflections of the instructors who adopt existing exercises with large groups.

Indeed, our findings provide key insights into the different strategies used by instructors to adopt, and most importantly adapt, such exercises in order to make them their own. We found that instructors generally made use of a variety of the available tools—by reading the teaching notes, watching videos illustrating how the activity can be animated and debriefed, running the activity with a teaching assistant during the first experiences, as well as speaking with or observing the creator and/or other experienced users to learn about the exercise. The latter suggests that mentoring opportunities can be particularly appreciated by instructors when preparing to use an existing exercise for the first time. While this is undoubtedly facilitated by the fact that the creator teaches at the university where the study was conducted, both the designers of new exercises and the journals that publish them may wish to make use of tools to create virtual mentoring opportunities (e.g., by developing webinars) through which creators and instructors interesting in adopting new activities can discuss.

Building on our earlier discussion of self-efficacy, this suggests that providing instructors with a wide range of resources can help foster perceptions of self-efficacy—for both adopting and codesigning existing exercises. As such, providing instructors with resources that touch on one or more of the factors influencing self-efficacy (namely, experience, vicarious learning, social influence, and psychological states; Bandura, 1986) in order to support adopting the exercise or modifying it to make it one’s own, would allow instructors to draw on the resources that they feel to be most adapted to their needs and preferences.

Interestingly, many participants described actively cultivating opportunities to modify the exercise—in essence, codesigning it in order to shape it to their teaching preferences and the class in which it is used. This suggests that it may be particularly important to build active “codesign”-centered strategies into new experiential exercises to facilitate their adoption and diffusion.

Finally, our results also touched on several factors that can affect the degree to which instructors are comfortable integrating experiential exercises in their classrooms (i.e., the value of the experiential exercises from the instructor’s perspective). This suggests that a number of factors can facilitate or serve as barriers to the adoption of such activities. With respect to the context of large, coordinated courses in which members of a teaching team are running the same activity across sections, this finding reinforces the importance of integrating a host of resources aimed at helping team members develop their perceptions of self-efficacy in relation to the experiential exercise at hand.

In the sections that follow, we elaborate on several practical implications from our research.

Providing Instructors With Levers to Adopt and Adapt Experiential Exercises

Our results suggest that creators of experiential exercises may wish to incorporate active strategies that go outside of the traditional toolkit provided with new instructional innovations (such as teaching notes) in an effort to provide concrete levers to help other instructors become codesigners of the activity. This may be especially useful in the context of large classes. Indeed, when running such exercises with large groups, most of the instructor’s work is devoted to giving and repeating instructions, facilitating the exercise, managing the class, and observing participants so as to gather material for the debriefing. As such, a lot is happening at once, in but a few minutes. This can leave little room for self-reflection related to the ways in which the material and exercise could be adapted to fit with the given context (i.e., students, disciplines, course curriculum, etc.).

One possible avenue that emerged from our results points to the importance of finding ways to enable faculty and instructors to actually participate in the activity. In line with conferences and other meetings that encourage the simulation of activities with participants (such as the Experiential Learning Association at the Eastern Academy of Management conference, as well as the Management and Organizational Behavior Teaching Society’s annual conference), we advocate for conference boards to dedicate more tracks to pedagogical presentations that systematically focus on running the activities. Instructors may also take inspiration from articles describing participative training workshops and their usefulness (e.g., Paige et al., 2015).

We also encourage the creation of videos in which instructors model how to animate an experiential exercise, which may help prospective users envision how to run the activity and allow them to observe student reactions. Such video abstracts could be included as online supplementary material when publishing new experiential exercises. Indeed, the inclusion of additional active learning strategies for instructors would seem to fit perfectly with the posture of experiential learning in itself.

Our findings also underscore the importance of participating and contributing to the evolution of activities as a key way to adopt experiential exercises. This represents a particularly interesting takeaway from the research and would suggest that publications presenting new activities might benefit from going beyond a detailed “Variations” section to provide concrete ways in which prospective users can twist the exercise. One suggestion would be to add a “Customization” section to such articles, where creators can highlight potential areas of improvement and specifications of the exercise itself.

Implications for Coordinated Courses

Practical implications may also be drawn for faculty in charge of highly coordinated courses. Indeed, the perspectives expressed by participants with respect to their experiences (and in particular, their early experiences) with the exercise suggest that the integration of experiential activities into coordinated courses can bring about its own set of challenges. Given the importance placed by interviewees on using active and creative strategies to put their own stamp on the exercise itself, coordinators of multisection courses who plan to integrate common experiential activities may therefore want to consider providing instructors with a variety of resources to help them codesign the exercise—actively participating in its extension and evolution—to help them run it in line with their teaching preferences. In so doing, coordinators may increase instructors’ perceptions of self-efficacy by encouraging them to practice the activity, engaging in verbal and social persuasion (via social support, encouragement of creativity), developing enthusiasm, and lowering their anxiety as they prepare to run the activity.

Notably, Lund Dean et al. (2019) advocate for the development of communities of practice within business schools, in order to help instructors to develop the skills required to effectively use experiential learning within their courses, as well as encourage the creation of shared norms related to its use more generally. Drawing on Lund Dean et al.’s (2019) insight, course coordinators might consider developing such communities of practice, so as to create an environment that facilitates the development of the skills needed to run the shared experiential activities, as well as to help develop individual and collective capacities to codesign experiential exercises. This is particularly relevant, as such codesigning activity requires innovative capabilities, which have been shown to result from creating a community of practice in other contexts (e.g., Wenger, 2010).

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

Strengths of the present research include the diverse sample of instructors interviewed, ensuring that the breadth of roles and teaching experience of instructors who teach the course in question were well-represented. Moreover, our focus on instructors teaching different sections of the same coordinated course, therefore using the same activities (including The Game of Structures), allowed us to minimize the influence of potentially confounding contextual differences on our findings.

That said, while our key findings and recommendations are framed in a noncourse specific manner, the restriction of our sample to instructors of the same course means that our findings may not be generalizable to all contexts. This, combined with our small sample size, suggests that extending this research to other types of courses and institutions would be useful to assess the generalizability of our themes. Moreover, it is possible that the fact that one of the authors is also the originator of the activity, as well as coordinator of the course in which we examined its use, may have influenced the responses. While we actively took steps to minimize any potential discomfort that some participants (in particular, the part-time instructors) may have felt when discussing the activity, the possibility of potential bias across all respondents remains.

Conclusion

Addressing an important gap in the literature on experiential learning in large classes, our study focused on the experiences and reflections of instructors who adopt existing experiential exercises in the context of large classes. Our findings suggest that instructors running such activities benefit from having a variety of resources at their disposal when first preparing to run the exercise—in particular, resources tapping into active strategies that facilitate being able to adapt it and transform them into codesigners. Given that instructors may have different initial perceptions of the exercise at the outset, as well as the potential challenges inherent in running experiential exercises in large classes, such resources and strategies have the potential to increase perceptions of self-efficacy—both with respect to a given exercise, as well as experiential activities more generally.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Anais Scussel for her crucial help with the transcription and verification of the coding of the data for this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article is an output from the research program “Mesure d’une approche de la pédagogie expérientielle sur l’apprentissage de concepts théoriques du management,” financed by HEC Montréal and was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec—Societé et Culture (FRQSC; Grant # 205466).

ORCID iDs

Marine Agogué

Melanie A. Robinson

Notes

References

Agogué

Grégoire

(2016). Le jeu des structures [The game of structures]. Centre de cas, HEC Montréal.

Agogué

Sardais

Grégoire

(2019). Le jeu des structures, Jeu de base et extensions [The game of structures, basic game and extension]. Editions JFD.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.

Bradford

D. L.

(2018). Ethical issues in experiential learning. Journal of Management Education, 43(1), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562918807500

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. In Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed., pp. 65-86). Sage.

Edelson

S. A.

K. D.

Nelson

Stark

Stratton

M. T.

van Esch

(2019). From the shadow of overconfidence into the light of humility: Reflections on experiential learning activities gone awry. Journal of Management Education, 43(2), 200-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562918812169

Exeter

D. J.

Ameratunga

Ratima

Morton

Dickson

Hsu

Jackson

(2010). Student engagement in very large classes: The teachers’ perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 761-775. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903545058

Hemmings

B. C.

(2015). Strengthening the teaching self-efficacy of early career academics. Issues in Educational Research, 25(1), 1-17. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fcdd/8daf3c96cb85bfde351f3ffee990eac337b0.pdf

Isbell

L. M.

Cote

N. G.

(2009). Connecting with struggling students to improve performance in large classes. Teaching of Psychology, 36(3), 185-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280902959960

10.

Kisfalvi

Oliver

(2015). Creating and maintaining a safe space in experiential learning. Journal of Management Education, 39(6), 713-740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562915574724

11.

Kolb

D. A.

(2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

12.

Lund Dean

Wright

. (2017). Embedding engaged learning in high enrollment lecture-based classes. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 74(4), 651-668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0070-4

13.

Lund Dean

Wright

Forray

J. M

. (2019). Experiential pedagogy and the moral duty of business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2018.0335

14.

Morris

D. B.

Usher

E. L.

(2011). Developing teaching self-efficacy in research institutions: A study of award-winning professors. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(3), 232-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.005

15.

Mulryan-Kyne

(2010). Teaching large classes at college and university level: Challenges and opportunities. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 175-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003620001

16.

Paige

J. T.

Arora

Fernandez

Seymour

(2015). Debriefing 101: Training faculty to promote learning in simulation-based training. American Journal of Surgery, 209(1), 126-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.05.034

17.

Rands

M. L.

Gansemer-Topf

A. M.

(2017). The room itself is active: How classroom design impacts student engagement. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1), 26-33. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1152568.pdf

18.

Rowling

J. K.

(2000). Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Raincoat Books.

19.

Schmidt-Wilk

(2019). Does my MTR have “impact”? Management Teaching Review, 4(2), 92-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298119841767

20.

Schmidt-Wilk

Fukami

(2010). Relevance with rigor: Stories from the Journal of Management Education. In Wankel

DeFillippi

(Eds.) Being and becoming a management education scholar (pp. 135-155). Information Age Publishing.

21.

Taylor

S. S.

Statler

(2014). Material matters: Increasing emotional engagement in learning. Journal of Management Education, 38(4), 586-607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562913489976

22.

Taylor

V. F.

(2018). Afraid of the deep: Reflections and analysis of a role-play exercise gone wrong. Journal of Management Education, 42(6). 772-782. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562918802875

23.

Wenger

(2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept. In Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179-198). Springer.

24.

Wurdinger

Allison

(2017). Faculty perceptions and use of experiential learning in higher education. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(1), 15-26. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/188130/