INSTITUTIONAL USERS OF EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING PACKAGES: A PRELIMINARY VIEW FROM PUBLISHERS’ ADOPTION LISTS Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 10, 1983 24 INSTITUTIONAL USERS OF EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING PACKAGES: A PRELIMINARY VIEW FROM PUBLISHERS’ ADOPTION LISTS William D. Biggs, Beaver College Steven P. Gulkus, Beaver College Linda S. Morgandale, Beaver College 1 ABSTRACT This paper reports upon data drawn from publishers’ adoption lists for experiential learning packages. United States educational institution users were Identified and data are presented for user characteristics such as type of user, institutional support, and institutional average number of students for each of the experiential learning packages. Analysis of the data reveals that adopters tend to be 4-year rather than 2-year institutions and public rather than private. Some limitations of the study are presented along with suggestions for further research. INTRODUCTION In recent years business educators have become increasingly interested in having students ‘experience’ what they are learning. Such interest is readily apparent by the activities and proceedings of groups such as the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning (ABSEL), the Organizational Behavior Teaching Society (OBTS), and the North American Simulation and GAMING Association (NASAGA). The interest is also apparent through journals, such as Journal of Experiential Learning/Simulation (JELS), Exchange, and Simulation and Games, which are geared to publish experiential learning articles as well as other broader journals, such as the Academy of Management Journal and Academy of Management Review, which have recently published articles dealing with experiential learning. The increased interest is also reflected by the increased availability of experiential learning textbook or packages (6) Despite the increased interest and materials available there has been no research undertaken to identify who is using such packages. The purpose of this paper is to shed Rome light onto the question of who is using experiential learning packages by examining publishers’ adoption lists for a selected set of packages. METHODOLOGY During the summer of 1980, 18 publishers who collectively were known to publish 27 business oriented experiential learning packages were requested by letter to provide their adoption lists to the senior author. All of the packages for which data was requested were management oriented packages designed to be used in courses in principles of management, organizational behavior, personnel/human resources administration, or organization theory. Information was received from 8 publishers for 13 of the packages. The packages for which the adoption lists were requested and those for which information was received are indicated in the Appendix. The adoption lists generally did not indicate the names of specific individuals but rather the institutions at which there were adopters. 1 We are indebted to Gayle Assetto for assistance with this study. For each of the experiential learning packages the total number of 4-year and 2-year educational institutions in the United States using the package was de- terminated. For each of the packages characteristics of the institutional adopters, such as type (2-year or 4- year educational institution), institutional support (private or public), and number of students was determined. These items were determined through subprograms CROSSTABS and BREAKDOWN of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (8). These sub- programs were used to generate frequencies and means where appropriate. RESULTS Summary data for each of the experiential learning packages are presented in Table 1. The packages are identified by a letter and not by name because some of the publishers requested that the information be kept ‘somewhat confidential.” While information was received concerning 13 packages only 10 are reported in Table 1 for three reasons. First, one package was out of print, and, therefore, no adoption list was available. Second, one package was new and had no adopters. Third, one package was inadvertently not tabulated when the results were compiled for this study and there was not time to go back and include the data. The omitted package had approximately 80 adopters on the list. A review of Table 1 reveals some interesting information. Merely counting the number of adopters of each experiential learning package and summing reveals a total of 661 United States 4-year and 2-year institutional adoptions. When institutions which appear on more than one list are taken into account, there are still 485 different institutional adopters represented. Thug, it is apparent that there are many institutions in the United States using these packages. For type of user Table I reveals that the majority of the 485 Institutions on the lists are 4-year (84.1%), rather than 2-year (15.9%) institutions. In face for each package there are more 4-year than 2-year institutions. One could hypothesize that the vast majority of users should be 4-year rather than 2-year institutions based upon the nature of the experiential learning packages covered and the courses for which they are designed. As noted previously the packages included in our survey are basically designed for courses in principles of management (C, E, F), personnel/human resources administration (A, D, H), organization behavior (B, J), and organization theory (G, I). Of these courses principles of management is the one most frequently offered at 2-year institutions with personnel/human resources administration second. Courses in organization behavior and organization theory are not generally offered at 2-year institutions. In addition, the experiential learning packages frequently are designed for advanced courses and take a more theoretical orientation and assume a broader Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 10, 1983 25 TABLE I CHARACTERISTICS OF USERS BY EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING PACKAGE EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING PACKAGE Letter Designation A B C D E F G H I j Row Totals Row Total Excluding Overlaps Functional Emphasisa PERS OB HOT PERS MGI MGT OT PERS OT OB User Characteristics b Total No. of Users 239 109 87 80 48 41 36 13 7 1 661 485 Type of User 4-year Institution 215 101 65 71 36 3S 35 12 7 1 581 408 2-year Institution 24 8 22 9 12 3 1 1 0 0 80 77 Institutional Support Public 154 64 63 59 28 24 26 6 4 0 428 296 Private 85 45 24 21 20 17 10 7 3 1 233 189 Number of Studentsc Mean for all users 11175 9041 8878 12422 8527 11981 16096 9259 16707 1802 10804 Mean for 4-year Institutions 11768 9357 8397 12717 9049 12630 16535 9215 16707 1802 11232 --- Mean for 2-year Institutions 5921 5087 10300 10121 6963 3762 740 9785 --- --- 7573 --- Mean for Public Institutions 14148 11863 10981 15240 12470 17061 19542 16466 20016 --- 13939 --- Mean for Private Institutions 5660 5089 3358 4105 3006 4809 7137 3080 12295 1802 4937 --- a PERS = personnel/human resources; OB a organizational behavior; MGT principles of management; OT organizational theory. b Peterson’s Annual Guide to Undergraduate Study 1980 (5) and The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1980 (11) were used to identify whether institutions were 2-year or 4-year, private or public, and institutional size. c The number of institutions used to calculate the means are not the same as for type of user and institutional support because institutional size was not available for some of the institutions. background than would typically be found in 2-year institutions. Analysis of the data in Table 1 reveals that in fact the highest percent of adoptions for 2- year institutions is for the principles of management oriented packages (21.0%) followed by personnel/human resources (10.2%), organizational behavior (7.3%), and organization theory (2.3%). For source of institutional support Table 1 reveals that the majority of the institutions are public (61.0%) rather than private (39.0%). For only one package (H) is the number of 2-year institutions greater than the number of 4-year institutions. Table 1 also reveals that the average number of students in 4-year institutions is greater than for 2-year institutions for eight of the ten packages. Likewise, the average number of students in the public institutions is greater than in the private for all ten of the packages. DISCUSSION By analyzing publishers’ adoption lists we have identified frequency of institutional use for ten experiential learning packages. Further by looking at characteristics of the users we have seen that the majority of users are 4-year rather than 2-year and public rather than private institutions. Three limitations of this study which indicate that we are understating the extent to which institutions use experiential learning packages should be noted. First, by focusing only on publishers’ adoption lists experiential learning packages developed at institutions but not published are neglected. Yet such experiential learning exercises are frequently published in journals (1,2,3) and proceedings (7,10), and therefore are available for use. Second, the experiential learning packages included in this study represent only management oriented packages when in fact there are packages available for other functional areas as well. Thus, the packages included represent only a small sample of those available. Horn and Cleaves (4) list hundreds of experiential learning packages for various functional areas. In addition, the reader will recall that we requested information for 27 packages but received replies regarding only 13. Finally, the reader should be aware that we did not survey all publishers, and, therefore, may have missed some of the larger institutional adoptions. For example, Pfeiffer and Jones (9) have now published numerous annual volumes containing experiential learning exercises. This paper has documented that there are many institutional users of experiential learning packages. More research is needed, however, to more precisely identify characteristics of institutional users which might influence design and promotion of these packages. For example, questions such as the following need to be Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 10, 1983 26 answered: Are the adopters institutions which have large classes (200 or more students) or are we typically dealing with small classes? Are the packages the major part of the course or merely a supplement? APPENDIX *Beatty, Richard W. and Craig Schneier, Personnel Administration: An Experiential/Skill Building Approach (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1977) *Bracey, Hyler J. and Aubrey Sanford, Basic Management: An Experiential-Based Approach (Plano TX: Business Publications, Inc., 1981, revised edition). *Certo, Samuel C. and Lee A. Graf, Experiencing Modern Management (Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Co., Publishers, 1980). Domm, Donald R., Roger N. Blakeney, Michael T. Matteson, and Roger Scofield, The Individual and the Organization (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1973). *Dutton, Richard E., The Behavior Laboratory (Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing, Co., Inc., 1975) *Finch, Frederic E., Halsey R. Jones, and Joseph A. Litterer, Managing for Organizational Effectiveness (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1976). Glueck, William F., Lawrence R. Jauch, and Sally A. Coltrin, The Managerial Experience (Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press, 1980, 2nd edition). Herbert, Theodore T. and Peter Lorenzi, Experiential Organization Behavior (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1981). Joyce, Robert D. Encounters in Organizational Behavior: Problem Situations (New York, NY: Pergamon Press, 1972). *Kast, F. E., and J. Rosenzweig, Experiential Exercises and Cases in Management (New York, NY: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1976). *Klatt, Lawrence A. and Thomas F. Urban, KUBSIM: A Simulation in Collective Bargaining (Columbus, OH: Grid, Inc., 1981). Kolb, David A., Irwin M. Rubin, and James M. McIntyre, Organizational Psychology: An Experiential Approach (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979). *Knudsen, Harry R., Cecil H. Bell, and Roberth T. Woodworth, Management: And Experiential Approach (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979). *Lau, James B., Behavior in Organizations: An Experiential Approach (Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 1979, revised edition). *Miles, Robert H. and W. Alan Randolph, The Organization Game (Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing, 1979). *Morris, William C. and Marshall Sashkin, Organization Behavior in Action (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1976). Rausch, Erwin, Collective Bargaining (Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1968). Reddin, W. J. and R. Stuart-Kotze, Effective Situational Diagnosis (Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada: W.J. Reddin, 1974). Schreier, James W., RAISE IL A Personnel Simulation (Milwaukee, WI: Lakeshore Group LTD, 1976). Selection (Warren, NJ: Education Research, 1973). Vaughan, James A. and Samuel D. Deep, Program of Exercises for Management and Organizational Behavior (Beverly Hills, CA; Glencoe Press, 1975). *Veiga, John F. and John Yanouzas, The Dynamics of Organization Theory: Gaining a Macro Perspective (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1979). *Whatley, Arthur A. and Nelson Lane Kelley, Personnel Management in Action (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1977). Zif, Jay Jehiel and Robert E. Otlewshi, Contract Negotiations (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 1970) Zif, Jay Jehiel, Arthur H. Walker, and William T. Archery, Managing the Worker (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1970). Zif, Jay Jehiel, Arthur H. Walker, and Eliezer Orbach, The Personnel Department (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1970). Zif, Jay Jehiel, Arthur H. Walker, Eliezer Orbach, and Howard Schwartz, Reorganization (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1970). *Experiential learning packages for which replies were received. REFERENCES (1) Biggs, William D. and Craig M. McAllister, ‘The Warm-Cold Variable as an Experiential Exercise, Journal of Experiential Learning and Simulation, September, 1980, pp. 173-182. (2) Biggs, William D. and Wilford C. Miles, "An Experiential Exercise in Which Task Interdependencies and Noise Levels are Varied," Journal of Experiential Learning and Simulation, March, 1980, pp. 55-64. (3) Certo, Samuel C. and Lee A. Graf, "Integrating Schools of Management Thought: A Principles of Management Experiential Exercise,” Journal of Experiential Learning and Simulation, January, 1979, pp. 45-52. (4) Horn, Robert E. and Anne Cleaves, The Guide to Simulations/Games for Education and Training (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980). (5) Hunter, Joan (ed.), Peterson’s Annual Guide to Undergraduate Study 1980 (Princeton, NJ: Peter- son’s Guide, 1980 edition). (6) Kelley, Lane and Jeffrey Easton, ‘Problems in Evaluation of Experiential Learning in Management Education,” in William D. Biggs and David J. Fritzsche (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 1981, pp. 137-141. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 10, 1983 27 (7) McAfee, R. Bruce, ‘Giving Praise Exercise,” in David J. Fritzsche and Lee A. Graf (eds.), The Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 1982, pp. 247-249. (8) Morrison, N. K., SPSS-1l: The SPSS Batch System for the DEC PDP-11 (New York, NY: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1982). (9) Pfeiffer, 3. William and John E. Jones, A Handbook of Structured Experiences for Human Relations Training (La Jolla, CA: University Associates). (10) Ruble, Thomas L. and Richard A. Cosier, “An Exercise in Conflict-Handling Behavior,” in Daniel C. Brenenstuhl and William D. Biggs (eds.), The Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 1980, pp. 199-202. (11) The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1980 (New York, NY: Newspaper Enterprises, Inc., 1980). Table of Contents Volume 10, 1983 Is the Computerized Business Simulation Relevant? Business Professionals Play a Student Game A Methodology For Assessing the Internal Validity of Business Simulations A Longitudinal Study of the External Validity of a Business Management Game Policy Analysis and Decision: A corporate Relocation Simulation Exercise Effective Listening: An Exercise in Managerial Communication The Symbol Exercise: An Initial Group Activity Concept Based Simulations Institutional Users of Experiential Learning Packages: A Preliminary View from Publishers' Adoption Lists How to Use Business Games in the Business Policy Course: The Students' Perspective Professors' Ratings of Business Policy Learning Methods Moot Trial: An Exercise in Trial Procedure and Evidence The Advertising Agency Game: An Experiential learning Exercise The Use of Videotaped Cases in Teaching Information Acquisition and Decision-Making Skills Experiencing Information Processing Strategies as a Means to Explore Decision Making Importance Ratings and Operations Data as Predictors of Business Game Performance Determinants of Performance in Computer Simulations Predicting Business Game Performance form Perceptions of Manager Information and actions Business Consulting: A Practicum for Undergraduate Internship as a Contingency Based Experiential Learning Program for More Effective Organizational Socialization: A Conceptual Framework MANSYM III Decision Support System Demonstration Learning the Concept of market Value Through Simulation Conflict Management for Economic Developers Development of Data Analysis Units Designed to Enhance Reasoning and Knowledge Transfer in the College Level Course BOSS: A Behavioral-Quantitative, Computer-Supported Game Entrepreneurial Potential: An Experiential Exercise in Self Analysis and Group Assessment Development of Strategists: Simulated Cases BANKRUPT: A Deceptively Simple Business Strategy Game Simulating Market and Firm Level Demand - A Robust Demand System COMPSIM A Computer Center Management Simulation Hiving Model: Assessing Management Skill Awareness The Johari Window, A Reconceptualization Role-Playing Based on Video-Tape Scenarios: An Application of Modeling to Building Supervisory Skills How to Internationalize Your Curriculum A Computerized Model of Human Behavior in a Total-Firm Management Simulation the Worksheet Approach for Simulation Game Strategy Analysis Teaching Competitive Bidding Using a DSS Generator Do We Learn from Experience? The Use of Theory Power for Increased Research Momentum in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises Research Report on Programmatic Research on Perceived Learning Barriers with Simulation and Experiential learning An Empirical Examination of Conflict - and Nonconflict - Oriented Problem-Solving Technologies Management Curriculum: 1982 Humor as a Management Tool: Use in Formal Game Presentations Student Behavioral Change Through Teacher behavioral Change