Enhancing Simulation Learning With Team Mental Model Mapping

Learning Objectives

The primary learning objective of adding a mental model game to a simulation is to introduce self-directed student learning about the relationship between their decisions and the outcomes of the simulation. This objective helps meet the learning goals of the simulation, such as “increase understanding of the relationships among HRM [human resource management] practices and organizational outcomes” (Knowledge Companion, 2015, p. 2). In terms of Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956), this serves to move students from application to the higher cognitive processing levels of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In other words, whereas simulations encourage the application of abstract ideas to concrete situations, concept mapping encourages students to examine the reasons for poor or good results and create new strategies if needed. In terms of knowledge content, the goal is to enhance both conceptual knowledge, which is knowledge of the interrelationships among basic elements, and procedural knowledge, which is knowledge of how and when to do something (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).

A secondary objective of using the game is to help students become more aware of their learning by viewing how their mental models have increased in scope and complexity over time. This objective best fits with the self-knowledge subcategory of metacognitive knowledge within the Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) framework. In other words, concept mapping helps students obtain knowledge about their own cognition.

Adding a Mental Mapping Game to a Simulation

Ask Matt (Wallis & Wright, 2015) is a game that was developed both to help groups better understand what they know about their environment and to easily score them on how developed their group mental model is (see http://journals.tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/article/view/2899/2850). To date, it has mostly been used in organizations to help with problem understanding and solution generation. As play in the game unfolds, new insights and understandings emerge as individual differences in perception are identified and resolved. For example, a consultant used the game to help a management team develop a strategic plan. They used the game to describe the business context, including key performance indicators (KPIs). This process was completed in half the usual amount of time using the game (S. Wallis, personal communication, November 11, 2016).

I adapted the Ask Matt game for use in my HR class so that the focus of the game was on what was happening in the 10 quarters of the online simulation, HRSim by Knowledge Companion, LLC. The simulation, conducted over 9 weeks, asks students to imagine they work for the HR department of a consulting firm that makes decisions about HR practices and situational scenarios, such as compensation, training, and sexual harassment. Following each quarter, students receive both qualitative feedback in the form of corporate communications and quantitative feedback in the form of KPIs such as turnover. In organizations, the Ask Matt game is usually used one time per managerial problem being addressed, and the primary focus is on arriving at the best solution. In contrast, in the classroom, the game was repeated (played after Quarters 2 and 10) with the primary objective being to enhance learning. Improving performance on the simulation was an added benefit but not a key focus.

The student simulation teams are given the instructions and components of the Ask Matt Game (see Appendix A). Members of the group are given cards to write their concepts on and arrows to connect the concepts that are causally related (see Figure 1). Within the HR simulation, concepts usually reflect the decisions the group made each quarter, such as introducing cafeteria style benefits, or the results of those actions, such as increased retention. Arrows reflect the link between the decisions and results. Players take turns adding pieces to the game and gain points based on their plays. Players have to vote whether they agree on each arrow proposed, but not on each concept. When there is a tie vote on an arrow, a fog card is placed on it. A gold star is given if a player adds a second arrow leading to a concept. The game is flexible in that groups are allowed to rearrange their maps at any time to be more representational. For example, fog cards can be removed when there is later agreement on an arrow. Students are asked to score themselves in the game; the scoring of the game can be done by an individual, by a group, or by both. (The group score is increased as the group creates a map that is more complex and more interconnected.) To emphasize learning, not competition, I do not collect group score sheets. Instead, scoring during the game is used to help keep students interested and engaged while playing the game. (I sometimes will score teams later based on the pictures taken (see the appendixes), but this is not used for grading purposes.)

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Cards used in the game.

The game helps the groups “surface” their individual mental models and, since the group has to vote on all links, forces the group to create an agreed-on group mental model. The flexibility to rearrange maps is important to achieving this group mental model as well. The game can be played with or without the simulation manual, depending on instructional objectives. Having no manual places more responsibility on students to discover relationships, but having the manual at hand to help build the models may also serve to increase student learning.

In my class, the conceptual mapping game is normally played after students have completed a couple quarters of the simulation and then again at the end. This before-and-after technique can be used in any number of simulations or games in which there is a series of decisions. For example, the Organizational Change game (Lyles, Near, & Enz, 1992) is designed to take 2 hours, and students mark off weeks as they try different change methods. The Ask Matt game could be played either after a certain number of weeks or a certain degree of success (e.g., X members aware) and then again after the 2 years or after all members have adopted the change.

I tell teams they have 30 to 40 minutes to play the game and that they should tell me when they think they have their maps complete (see Figure 2 for one group’s map progression over this time period). When each team is finished, I take pictures of the resulting mental models that can be used to later assess aspects of the team model, such as complexity (Appendix C shows maps differing in complexity). I encourage groups to take their own photos to have a record of their team mental model, which may come in handy in completing the simulation or writing the final paper (see Appendix B for a more detailed guidelines for instructors).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Progression of one group’s maps (by 5-minute intervals following Quarter 10).

Subsequent Processing for Students and Instructors

Playing the game twice during the simulation encourages students to think more deeply about the relationships found in the simulation. Unlike in other exercises in which the instructor normally does the debriefing, in this case, the students are asked to use the exercise as a tool to help them come up with conclusions about what factors are important in HR management. Using a group game as a debriefing mechanism for simulation teams is consistent with research that indicates that the observed effectiveness of debriefs will be greater when the levels are aligned (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013). Their meta-analysis found debriefing to improve performance by about 25% across the board, and when the goal was to improve team effectiveness, team debriefs showed an average increase of 38%.

Students indicate the game provides a helpful visual of the simulation and also stimulates discussion. Following the first time the concept mapping game is played, students can use their game experiences to improve their simulation decisions. Students indicate it helps them “get on the same page” and can help them review their strategies. The second playing of the game helps students see their progress in understanding how the simulation ties together, and the maps can aid students in forming their conclusions for the final paper, for which students must identify the decisions that contributed significantly to the final result for each KPI (see specific student responses in Appendix D).

The instructor may wish to analyze the mental maps to ascertain the degree to which student groups are learning the simulation concepts. I measure students’ cognitive complexity given that cognitive complexity is important at both the individual and group levels (e.g., Amernic & Beechy, 1984). I use Wallis’s (2016) measures of both the breadth and depth of a mental model, called integrative propositional analysis (see Appendix E).

Conclusion

Student engagement in simulations does not always translate into learning, so I combine a mental mapping exercise with the simulation to encourage students to think more deeply. The concept mapping in the Ask Matt game serves as an instructional scaffold that helps students discover the key relationships between their decisions and the KPIs in the simulation. Therefore, I encourage instructors using simulations to adopt mental mapping games to enhance student learning. This method is transferable given that many business games ask students to make a series of decisions that result in outcomes, with the goal to have students discover the relationships. Replacing instructor-led debriefings with student mental map modeling increases learner-directed learning and encourages students to focus their attention on how well they are progressing along the path of discovery.