Should College Instructors Change Their Teaching Styles to Meet the Millenial Student? Page 189 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 ABSTRACT Have you noticed a change in students lately? Today’s students, called the “millennials” are believed by many to have markedly different expectations about learning, grades, learning goals and professors than past genera- tions of students. The purpose of this paper is to provoke a discussion on what instructors perceive may be the differ- ence in learning styles and attitudes of the millennials to- ward simulation and experiential exercise use as opposed to past students. The paper discusses the characteristics of the so-called millennial students, their attitudes toward learning and their expectations about college instructors. The paper also discusses, if and how, college instructors have altered their use of simulations (SIMs) and experien- tial exercises (EEs) to accommodate to the different learn- ing styles of the millennials. The paper presents the results of a survey of instructors who use, and/or have used, SIMs and EEs as part of their pedagogy. It asks:(1) if the in- structors perceive that today’s college students have a different set of learning styles, as well as expectations of their professors than past students did; (2) if instructors have noticed a change in how the students approach simu- lations and/or experiential exercises and if so, have stu- dents’ expectations of their instructors changed in this re- gard; (3) if instructors have tried to alter their use of the EE and/or SIM to accommodate the perceived changes in students learning attitudes; and finally, (4) if the instruc- tors believe that they should alter their use of EEs and/or SIM pedagogy to accommodate today’s college learners. INTRODUCTION Two of the authors have been using a computerized simulation for several years in strategic management. The simulation is a ―typical‖ total enterprise simulation as de- scribed by Keys and Biggs (1990). In a similar fashion to most simulations, this one asks students (or teams of stu- dents) to make twenty-eight simulation-related decisions. However, before students make their decisions, they must enter three important non-simulation decisions; (1) their team number, (2) the current period number (round or pe- riod of play number) and (3) their industry number (if there are several classes playing the simulation, each class is assigned an industry number). In the past three years, we have noticed that more and more students are entering the wrong team numbers, the wrong industry numbers and/or the wrong period of play numbers. Despite our threats and remonstrations, students seem almost ‗indifferent‘ to this simple, minor, but important obligation. It has occurred to us that this behavior is a change from previous students who seldom made these kinds of errors—or, if they made them, they would be quite upset with themselves. Why is this the happening—has something changed? THE MILLENNIAL STUDENT ―Today‘s students are no longer the people our educa- tional system was designed to teach.‖ (Prensky, 2000) Many of articles have appeared in the popular press as well as in some academic-oriented journals about today‘s col- lege generation of students. They have been called the ―millennials;‖ the ―Y-Generation;‖ the ―Moofers;‖ (mobile out-of-office workers). Characterizations differ, but some common features include (Coates, 2007; Dobbins, 2005; and Oblinger & Hawkins, 2005): 1. A close relationship with parents, 2. Attachment to structure and shelter, 3. Attentive & respectful, 4. Used to being schedules and programmed 5. Team-oriented, SHOULD COLLEGE INSTRUCTORS CHANGE THEIR TEACHING STYLES TO MEET THE MILLENNIAL STUDENT? Peter M. Markulis SUNY Geneseo markulis@geneseo.edu Elizabeth Murff Eastern Washington University emurff@ewu.edu Daniel R. Strang SUNY Geneseo strang@geneseo.edu mailto:markulis@geneseo.edu mailto:emurff@ewu.edu mailto:strang@geneseo.edu Page 190 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 6. Accustomed to supervision, 7. Pressured to succeed, 8. Involved in many activities 9. Open and eager, 10. Demanding of themselves & others, 11. Stressed, 12. Multitasking, 13. Socially conscious, 14. Have a high need for speed, 15. Learns better by discovery, 16. Shifts attention easily from one thing to another and 17. Prefers learning through visuals. Although not as commonly mentioned or shared among commentators other characterizations include: (1) an over confidence in their own abilities, (2) an unrealistic expectations of life and the world; (3) a broad, but lack of- in-depth understanding of many subjects and issues. A further phenomenon is that of the ―helicoptering‖ parent (sometimes called ‗Velcro‘ parents). The helicop- tering parent is one who is constantly involved in the man- agement of their children‘s lives. "We estimate that 60% to 70% of parents are involved in some kind of helicoptering behavior," says Patricia Somers (2007), an associate pro- fessor of education at the University of Texas-Austin, whose analysis is based on more than 50 interviews with officials from ten four-year public universities across the USA. Somers says the helicopter parent is often thought of as coming from the middle and upper classes, but that's a misconception. Her interviews suggest they come from all socio-economic classes. Further, helicoptering does not stop with college graduation. In a Michigan State Univer- sity survey of employers, 26% said parents had actively promoted their son or daughter for a position, 31% said parents submitted a résumé on behalf of their offspring, and 41% said parents obtained company materials for their kids (Lancaster & Stillman, 2010). ACADEMIA’S RESPONSE Several articles offer advice on how universities and college instructors can (should?) adapt and accommodate teaching regimens to millennials. Ideas range from using more sophisticated technology to sharing learning with parents (Dede, 2004; Dobbins, 2005; and McGlynn, 2007). For example, Dede notes, ―Colleges and university execu- tives should consider asking themselves the following stra- tegic questions: 1. Do we know our students and their pref- erences, or do we assume we know? 2. How are we adapt- ing programs to students' needs. 3. What balance of physi- cal and virtual will best serve our student population? 4. Are our building and renovation plans based on outdated assumptions? 5. What is the proper balance between stu- dent and faculty perspectives?‖ While an article from the EDUCAUSE Review reports on a conference sponsored by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, EDUCAUSE, and Micro- soft, held in June 2004, where college administrators (Oblinger & Hawkins, 2005): …heard about what today's students, the "Net Genera- tion," expect from information technology, based on their lifetime experiences with computers: instant mes- saging, chat rooms, Googling, online games, virtual tours, and bulletin boards, for example. They heard about the multi-tasking Net Generation students who demand instant access to infinite amounts of informa- tion on an 24/7 basis. It soon became clear that current and future students expect state-of-the-art technology at home, in the classroom, and on campus. The article goes on to state ―The administrators re- turned to campus and established a task force to plan a campus-wide workshop to discuss the Net Generation learners and their preferred learning methods.‖ In fact, there is a website called FACULTY TEACHING TIPS primarily dedicated to this particular subject (Coates, 2007). With that in mind, the authors conducted a selected survey of instructors who use SIM and EE to determine if they perceived a change in students learning styles and expectations of instructors; (1) if instructors have altered their teaching styles to ac- commodate to the millennials (2) if instructors altered their use of EEs or SIM to ac- commodate to the millennials Finally, given the AACSB call for more ―responsible, accountable and professional leadership‖ in educating edu- cation in B-school students, it is interesting to consider the general academic response to the millennials, that is to ac- commodate to their needs and not vice versa. One might reason that such accommodation is antithetical to the AACSB‘s charge. Thus the survey asked (3) If instructors felt that they should accommodate to the millennials learning styles and expectations. METHODOLOGY & RESULTS Emails were sent to 325 members of the Organiza- tional Behavior Teaching Society (OBTS) and 546 current or past members of the Association for Business Simula- tions and Experiential Learning (ABSEL) members re- questing that they take an online survey implemented through SurveyMonkey. The survey consisted of 38 ques- tions , most using a 7-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). See APPENDIX A for a copy of the survey. There were 102 individuals who responded to some or all, of the survey. The response rate of 11.7% is typical for a survey of this nature and falls within generally accepted standards for response rates for surveys for which no incen- tives to respond are offered and no attempt is made to pur- Page 191 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 sue individuals who did not respond to the initial invitation to participate. In the survey, several taxonomic questions were posed to get a sense of the composition of the respondents. Some scales were collapsed during analysis due to small cell counts and post-coding was done for textual responses. APPENDIX B presents the major results from the sur- vey. As can be seen, Organizational Behavior (28%) and Strategic Management (18%) comprised the majority of the respondents, with other disciplines being split among the remaining respondents. A majority of the respondents were over 50 of age (63%), which means that the views of the millennials and subsequent teaching styles reported in this paper are mainly of this age cohort. This corresponds with the years teaching results which shows that a majority of the respondents have taught over 20 years. Finally, as one would expect given the target of the mailing, most respon- dents used a simulation, an experiential exercise or both. For each of the Likert-scaled questions that were posed the median response was determined and a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to test the hypotheses that the median equaled 4 or did not equal 4 (i.e. the neutral point on the Likert Scale). Means were not used as they are mathematically inappropriate for ordinal-scaled data, such as Likert scales . The following section presents the note- worthy results. The results were segregated to cover char- acteristics of students, expectations of students, changes in instruction or attitudes about instruction, and changes in process or expectations in the context of experiential exer- cises or simulations. For each survey question, the follow- ing information is provided: the section of the question- naire and question number is indicated, the median re- sponse for all respondents is provided, a descriptor that indicate where the values of the median would be on the Likert Scale (i.e., either disagree or agree), and the value of p for the test of median equal or not equal to 4 from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test is provided. Notable characteristics of current students: Survey question 1-3. Current college students are more con- cerned about grades than previous cohorts of students. Median =5 Agree p = .000 Survey question 4 -2. Current college students seem to be less interested in being involved with experiential exercises or simula- tions than previous cohorts of students. Median = 3 Disagree p = .002 Survey question 4-3. Current college students play experiential exercises and/or simulations less enthusiastically than previous cohorts of students. Median = 3 Disagree p = .026 What can be said about this? As shown from the above results, most of the respondents believe that millen- nials are more concerned with grades than were previous students, but perhaps more noteworthy is that a majority believe millennials have difficulty following simple in- structions. Notable expectations of students with respect to their professors: Survey question 1-5. Current college students expect professors to use more technology than previous cohorts of students. Median = 5 Agree p = .000 Survey question 1-6. Current college students expect professors to be more lenient in terms of grading than previous cohorts of college students. Median = 5 Agree p = .000 Survey question 1-8. Current college students expect professors to be less demanding than previous cohorts of college students. Median = 5 Agree p = .018 What can be said about this? The above re- sponses tell us that instructors believe that millennials ex- pect them to use more technology, be more lenient in grad- ing and be less demanding. This finding is similar to that from Milliron‘s research, which states ―Millennials were found to attach significantly more importance to a low class workload and significantly less importance to the develop- ment of analytical and computational skills,‖ (2008, 406). Notable changes in instruction or attitudes about in- struction: Survey question 2-1. I have altered my teaching methods or styles to meet what I believe are the different learning modalities of today's college students. Median = 5 Agree p = .000 Survey question 2-2. I believe that professors need to change their teaching methods or styles to meet the changing learning styles of today's college students. Median = 5 Agree p = .000 Survey question 2-3. I believe that most professors are less de- manding in their expectations of college students than in previous years. Median = 5 Agree p = .018 Survey question 2-5 Professors, in general, should retain the same standards that they have used for years in grading students' assign- ments even if the student expectations have changed. Median = 6 Agree p = .000 What can be said about this? Respondents say that they have changed their teaching methods to meet the learning styles of the millennials and agree that this should be done in general while saying that they have not altered their standards. This would coincide with them saying that they are still as demanding as they were in the past, despite the view they have about the millennials being more de- manding on them. In terms of simulations and experiential exercises, the respondents believe that the millennials are Page 192 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 just as interested as past students were in these types of pedagogies. It is interesting to view these findings in the light of Sax‘s finding, ―[That} grade inflation has resulted in the number of entering college freshman reporting A grade averages more than doubling in the past 40 years, while the number of C students has plummeted to about 5%.‖ Further, Rojstaczer notes, ―Rigorous evaluation of instructors appears to have yielded to less demanding stan- dards as a consistent pattern of rising grades is evidenced throughout U.S institutions of higher education over the past 35 years‖ (1999, 2003). Notable changes in process or expectations in the con- text of EE’s or simulations: Survey question 4-7. I am less strict with due date deadlines for current students than I have been in the past. Median = 3 Disagree p = .000 Survey question 4-8. I provide more guidance on substantive issues/topics for students than I have in the past. Median = 5 Agree p = .009 What can be said about this? What is most interesting here is that instructors say they have not altered the way in which they use simulations, experiential exercises or both, while at the same time saying (as noted above) that they have altered their teaching modes in general to accommo- date to the millennials different learning styles. The reason why this is so is hard to determine. It may well be simply a matter of perception. We did not ask how instructors changed their teaching styles, but this might be a topic to pursue in future research. Saying they are just as strict with deadlines, have not modified their use of simulations and/or experiential exercises, and have not experienced a diffi- culty with millennials completing simulations and/or expe- riential exercise tasks is an interesting finding, especially when one compares this to what instructors say, in general, about the millennials. Although respondents do say that they have to provide more guidance in SIM and/or EE pedagogies than they had to do in the past. APPENDIX C presents the Attitude Question Distributions. Since demographic information was simultaneously gathered in the survey, various cross-tabulations were per- formed to see if any of the patterns observed above were sensitive to the demographic profiles of the respondents. The analysis provided no noteworthy results, as seen in APPENDIX D. On several occasions is seemed the age of the respondents may have been a moderating factor in the intensity of the responses but their impact was at best mar- ginal. In the absence of more definitive results, these re- sults were not worthy of separate consideration CONCLUSIONS Clearly, the views instructors have of millennials are not particularly positive, especially when compared to pre- vious generations of students. According to this survey, instructors have tried to alter their use of technology and teaching styles to accommodate to the millennials. Inter- estingly, however, those same respondents have said that they have not altered how they use simulations, experiential exercises or both to accommodate to the millennials learn- ing styles, despite the fact that these same instructors say they have altered their teaching styles in general. This may be due to the fact that 63% of the respondents were over 50. Much has been written about the millennial students and how college instruction can, and should be, adapted to meet their different learning styles. Yet, as shown from this short survey, instructors, at least those who use simula- tions and/or experiential exercises, have some negative views about these students‘ learning styles (as compared to past students). Further, these same instructors believe that standards of rigor and grading have been compromised when it comes to teaching the millennials. We acknowl- edge that these views, as mentioned earlier, may be a func- tion of the survey respondent‘s age (63% are over 50). Furthermore, we understand that self-reporting has many limitations. Yet, as far as we know, no research has been conducted regarding the views instructors have of the mil- lennials in terms of their learning styles, their demands and expectations on instructors, etc. But a more important questions is: Why and whether instructors should change their teaching styles or standards of academic performance to accommodate to the millennials? The above literature review suggests that college instructors understand and accommodate to the new generation of learners, but as Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, notes, ―not only do many students enter college with weak skills, but they also graduate with weak skills. Noting national-survey evidence that indicates most bachelor degree graduates failed to measurably improve their cognitive skills during college…students can pass courses and even earn high grades without truly understanding the material or how to apply it to problems different from those covered in class,‖ (2006). We thus end with the crucial question: How much should we, the instructors, be accommodating? REFERENCES Bok, D. (2006). Our Underachieving Colleges. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press. Coates, J. (2007). Generation Y – The Millennial Genera- tion. Generational Learning Styles. Published by LERN Books, a division of Learning Resources Net- work (LERN). Retrieved from http:// honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/ guidebk/teachtip/GenY.htm Dede, C. (2004). Planning for Neomillennial Learning Styles: Implications for Investments in Technology and Faculty. In Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. (Eds.), Educating the Next Generation, chapter 15. Retrieved Page 193 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 from http: / /net .educause.edu/ir / l ibrary/pdf/ pub7101o.pdf Dobbins, K. (2005). Getting Ready for the Next Generation Learner, EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 40, no. 5 (September/October 2005): 8–9. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/ E D U C A U S E R e v i e w M a g a z i n e V o l u m e 4 0 / GettingReadyfortheNetGeneratio/158008 Jayson, S. (2007). ‗Helicopter‘ parents cross all age, social lines, USA Today, Retrieved from http:// www.usatoday.com/news/nat ion/2007 -04-03- helicopter-study_N.htm Keys, J. B. & Biggs, W. (1990). A Review of Business Games, In J. Wingender & W. Wheatley (Ed.), Guide to Business and Gaming, chap. 5, pp. 48-50. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, (11th edition.)) Lancaster, L. & Stillman, D. (2010). Rocking the Work- place: How the Millennial Generation is Shaking Up the Way You Do Business, posted by StrategyDriven on March 10, 2010. Retrieved from http:// www.strategydriven.com/2010/03/10/rocking-the- workplace-how-the-millennial-generation-is-shaking- up-the-way-you-do-business/ McGlynn, A. P. (2007). Who Are Today’s College Stu- dents? Widening the Circle of Success, Madison, WI, Atwood Publishing. Milliron, V. C. (2008). Exploring Millennial Student Val- ues and Societal Trends: Accounting Course Selection Preferences, Issues In Accounting Education, 23, 3, 405-419. Oblinger, D. G. & Hawkins, B. (2005). The Myth about Students, EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 40, no. 5 (September/October 2005): 12–13. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/ E D U C A U S E R e v i e w M a g a z i n e V o l u m e 4 0 / TheMythaboutStudents/158010 Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, On the Horizon (MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, Oc- tober 2001) Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20- 20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20- %20Part1.pdf Rojstaczer, S. (1999). Gone for Good: Tales of University Life After the Golden Age,. Oxford, UK.: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Sax, L. J. (2003). Our Coming Students: What are they like? About Campus, 8, 3, 15-20. Somers, P. (2007). Mom Needs an ―A‖: Hovering, hyper involved parents, the topic of landmark study, Feature Stories, University of Texas. Retrieved from http:// www.utexas.edu/features/2007/helicopter Sujansky, J. & Ferri-Reed, J. (2009). Keeping the Millenni- als: Why Companies are Losing Billions in Turnover to This Generation -- and What to Do About It. Re- trieved from http://books.google.com/books? id=CBMdS7jDUu0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Keepi ng+the+Millennials:+Why+Companies+are+Losing+B i l l ions+in+Turnover+to+This+Genera tion+ -- +and+What+to+Do+About+It&source=bl&ots=TwMI rEdb0z&sig=2UE_T_SSnGlNCAT49nO0cNrfEHA&h l=en&ei=SmbVTMunJMX4nwehn_3NCQ&sa=X&oi =book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCAQ6A EwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false Trip, G. (2010). Students, Welcome to College; Parents, Go Home, New York Times, Education, Aug. 22, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/ education/23college.html?_r=1&ref=trip_gabriel Page 194 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 APPENDIX A: SURVEY OF INSTRUCTORS (Survey as implemented in SurveyMonkey) 1. Perceptions of CURRENT college students: Please respond to each of the following statements using the 7-point Likert scale below based on your experience with CURRENT college students (1 = Strongly disagree, 4 = Neutral, 7 = Strongly agree). a. (sd1) Current college students are as committed to academic success as previous cohorts of students b. (sd2) Current college students work as hard academically as previous cohorts of students c. (sd3) Current college students are more concerned about grades than previous cohorts of students d. (sd4) Current college students have more difficulty following simple instructions or completing simple tasks than previous cohorts of students e. (sd5) Current college students expect professors to use more technology than previous cohorts of students f. (sd6) Current college students expect professors to be more lenient in terms of grading than previous cohorts of college students g. (sd7) Current college students expect professors to be more like "buddies" than teachers than previous cohorts of college students did h. (sd8) Current college students expect professors to be less demanding than previous cohorts of college stu- dents 2. Teaching methods and style: Please respond to the following statements using the 7-point Likert scale below (1 = Strongly disagree, 4 = Neutral, 7 = Strongly agree). a. (sd9) I have altered my teaching methods or styles to meet what I believe are the different learning modalities of today's college students b. (sd10) I believe that professors need to change their teaching methods or styles to meet the changing learning styles of today's college students c. (sd11) I believe that most professors are less demanding in their expectations of college students than in previ- ous years d. (sd12) I believe that I am less demanding than I have been in the past e. (sd13) Professors, in general, should retain the same standards that they have used for years in grading stu- dents' assignments even if the student expectations have changed 3. Use of simulations and experiential exercises: Which BEST describes your current use of simulations and/or experien- tial exercises with your students? a. regularly use simulations but not experiential exercises b. I regularly use experiential exercises but not simulations c. I regularly use both experiential exercises and simulations d. I used simulations or experiential exercises in the past, but do not use them now e. I have never used either experiential exercises or simulations 4. Experiential exercises and simulations: Please respond to the following statements using the 7-point Likert scale below (1 = Strongly disagree, 4 = Neutral, 7 = Strongly agree). a. (2sd1) I have experienced more difficulty getting current students to complete the tasks involved with my ex- periential exercises or simulations than I experienced with previous cohorts of students b. (2sd2) Current students seem to be less interested in being involved with experiential exercises or simulations than were previous cohorts of students c. (2sd3) Current students play experiential exercises and/or simulations less enthusiastically than previous co- horts of students d. (2sd4) In general, current students are less responsible, more lackadaisical, or more careless in performing required tasks of the play of experiential exercises or simulations than previous cohorts of students e. (2sd5) In general, I find that there is less student interest, either inside or outside of class, in the theories, prin- ciples and concepts behind simulations and/or experiential exercises than previous cohorts or students had f. (2sd6) I have found myself modifying my use of experiential exercises or simulations due to the behaviours of current students g. (2sd7) I am less strict with due date deadlines for current students than I have been in the past h. (2sd8) I provide more guidance on substantive issues/topics for students than I have in the past i. (2sd9) I provide more guidance on technical issues for students than I have in the past j. (2sd10) I spend more time correcting technical student input errors, despite having told the students that such errors are costly in term of their grades, than I would have in the past k. (2sd11) Somehow, I try to make the simulation/exercise more "exciting" for students than I have in the past l. (2sd12) I feel compelled to add more new technology to a simulation and/orexperiential exercise than I have Page 195 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 in the past 5. Demographics a. Which of the following BEST describes the number of years you have taught college classes? Less than 1 year, 1 to 7 years, 8 to 14 years, 15 to 21 years, More than 21 years b. For the classes you taught in the LAST academic year... i. How many sections? ii. What was the typical class size? iii. How many sections used experiential exercises or simulations? iv. What was the typical class size for sections involving experiential exercises or simulations? c. What is your age? Less than 20 years, 20 to 30 years, 31 to 40 years, 41 to 50 years, More than 50 years, I choose to not answer this question d. Please indicate your PRIMARY teaching area (choose 1): Accounting, Finance, Human Resources, Informa- tion Technology, International Business, Marketing, Organizational Behavior, Quantitative Methods, Strate- gic Management, I currently do not have a teaching responsibility, Other (please specify) e. Please indicate any SECONDARY teaching areas (choose all that apply): Accounting, Finance, Human Re- sources, Information Technology, International Business, Marketing, Organizational Behavior, Quantitative Methods, Strategic Management, I currently do not have a teaching responsibility, Other (please specify) f. Is your university or primary place of employment in the USA? Yes, No 6. School Demographics a. Which type of school are you at? Public, Private, Other (please specify) b. Roughly how large is your school? less than 2000 students, 2000-5000 students, 5001-10000 students, 10001- 20000 students, more than 20000 students 7. Done: This completes the survey. Thank you for your time. Page 196 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 Page 197 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 Appendix B: Demographic Tables SchoolType Count Percent * 10 9.80 ForProfit 1 0.98 Private 29 28.43 Public 62 60.78 N = 102 PrimaryTeachAreaRecode Count Percent (small cells collapsed for analysis purposes) * 12 11.76 – *, none, EL for others Human Resources 11 10.78 – HR Marketing 10 9.80 – mktg Org Behavior 29 28.43 – org dev, org behavior Other -- Nonquant 7 6.86 – comm, entre, gen mgmt, ind psych, mgmt, ops mgmt Other -- Quant 7 6.86 – acct, finc, econ, IT Quant Methods 8 7.84 – quant meth, bus model Strategy 18 17.65 – strat mgmt N= 102 SchoolSize Count Percent * 10 9.80 10001-20000 students 24 23.53 2000-5000 students 13 12.75 5001-10000 students 26 25.49 less than 2000 students 8 7.84 more than 20000 students 21 20.59 N= 102 AgeGroup Count Percent (small cells collapsed for analysis purposes) * 13 12.75 <=50 25 24.51 >50 64 62.75 N= 102 YearsTaught Count Percent * 10 9.80 1 to 7 years 6 5.88 15 to 21 years 19 18.63 8 to 14 years 20 19.61 More than 21 years 47 46.08 N= 102 ExpSimUse Count Percent * 3 2.94 both 40 39.22 experiential 37 36.27 simulations 12 11.76 past 7 6.86 never 3 2.94 N= 102 Page 198 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 Appendix C: Attitude Question Distributions Variable N N* Minimum Q1 Median Q3 Maximum sd1 101 1 1.000 3.000 4.000 6.000 7.000 sd2 101 1 1.000 2.000 3.000 5.000 7.000 sd3 101 1 1.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 sd4 102 0 1.000 3.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 sd5 101 1 1.000 5.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 sd6 101 1 1.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 sd7 101 1 1.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 7.000 sd8 101 1 1.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 sd9 99 3 1.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 sd10 99 3 1.000 5.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 sd11 99 3 1.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 sd12 99 3 1.000 2.000 3.000 5.000 7.000 sd13 99 3 1.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 7.000 2sd1 92 10 1.000 2.000 4.000 5.000 7.000 2sd2 92 10 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 7.000 2sd3 92 10 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 7.000 2sd4 92 10 1.000 2.000 4.000 5.000 7.000 2sd5 91 11 1.000 2.000 4.000 5.000 7.000 2sd6 90 12 1.000 2.000 4.000 5.000 7.000 2sd7 92 10 1.000 1.000 3.000 4.750 7.000 2sd8 90 12 1.000 4.000 5.000 5.000 7.000 2sd9 91 11 1.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 7.000 2sd10 89 13 1.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 7.000 2sd11 91 11 1.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 7.000 2sd12 91 11 1.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 7.000 Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test: Likert-scaled variables Ho: median = 4 vs. H1: median ¹ 4 * Median shifted above neutral towards agreement + Median shifted below neutral towards disagreement N for Wilcoxon Estimated N N* Test Statistic P Median sd1 101 1 84 2030.5 0.275 4.000 CommittedToSuccess sd2+ 101 1 88 1466.0 0.041 3.500 WorkHard sd3* 101 1 70 1938.0 0.000 4.500 ConcernAboutGrades sd4* 102 0 87 2496.5 0.014 4.500 NotFollowDirections sd5* 101 1 91 3732.0 0.000 5.500 ExpectMoreTech sd6* 101 1 84 3079.0 0.000 5.000 ExpectGradeLenency sd7 101 1 70 1104.0 0.419 4.000 ExpectBuddies sd8* 101 1 80 2374.5 0.000 5.000 ExpectLessDemanding sd9* 99 3 89 3047.0 0.000 5.000 SelfChangeMethds sd10* 99 3 92 3409.5 0.000 5.000 OthersChangeMethods sd11* 99 3 86 2851.5 0.000 5.000 OthersLessDemandng sd12+ 99 3 85 1283.0 0.017 3.500 SelfLessDemanding sd13* 99 3 90 3625.5 0.000 5.500 RetainStandards 2sd1+ 92 10 67 699.5 0.006 3.500 LessTaskCompletion 2sd2+ 92 10 75 552.0 0.000 3.000 LessStudentInvolvement 2sd3+ 92 10 76 657.0 0.000 3.000 LessStudentEnthusiasm 2sd4 92 10 77 1201.5 0.128 3.500 LessResponsibleStudents 2sd5 91 11 70 1244.5 0.993 4.000 LessStudentInterest 2sd6+ 90 12 71 813.0 0.008 3.500 ModifyingExpSim 2sd7+ 92 10 81 763.0 0.000 3.000 LooserDeadines 2sd8* 90 12 71 1734.0 0.009 4.500 SubstanceGuidance 2sd9 91 11 75 1544.0 0.531 4.000 TechGuidance 2sd10 89 13 65 987.0 0.579 4.000 CorrectingErrors 2sd11 91 11 71 1282.5 0.982 4.000 MoreExciting 2sd12 91 11 72 1268.5 0.801 4.000 AddNewTech Page 199 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 Appendix D: Attitude Questions by instructor age group, by teaching experience, and by recoded primary teaching area Mood Median Test: Likert-scaled variables (variables in question order) vs. age group Ho: all medians same vs. H1: at least one median differs Df = 2, group values reported as N<=, N>,Group Median, Q3-Q1 Ov. Chi-Square p Med. * <=50 >50 sd1 3.48 0.176 4 5,8,5,2.5 17,8,4,2 32,31,4,3 sd2 0.17 0.918 3 6,7,5,3 13,12,3,2.5 33,30,3,3 sd3 2.32 0.313 5 8,5,4,1 9,16,5,2 30,33,5,2 sd4 2.29 0.318 5 8,5,4,3 9,16,5,2 30,34,5,3 sd5 3.59 0.166 5 3,9,6,1.75 13,12,5,1.5 35,29,5,1 sd6 1.19 0.553 5 9,4,5,2 14,10,5,1.75 34,30,5,2 sd7 0.68 0.711 4 10,3,4,0.5 16,9,4,2 42,21,4,3 sd8 0.21 0.900 5 8,5,4,2 17,8,5,2 40,23,5,3 sd9 2.80 0.247 5 6,4,5,1.25 14,11,5,1 47,17,5,2.75 sd10 0.85 0.654 5 5,5,5.5,1.5 13,12,5,1 39,25,5,2 sd11 0.54 0.765 5 7,3,5,2.25 15,10,5,2 37,27,5,3 sd12 1.91 0.385 3 5,5,3.5,1.5 10,15,4,2 36,28,3,3 sd13 0.33 0.848 6 3,7,6,2.25 9,16,6,1 25,39,6,2 2sd1 1.39 0.499 4 3,3,3.5,2.5 12,12,3.5,2 23,39,4,3 2sd2 0.39 0.823 3 3,3,3.5,2.5 15,9,3,2 39,23,3,2 2sd3 2.23 0.328 3 2,4,5,3 16,8,3,2 36,26,3,3 2sd4 1.50 0.472 4 3,3,5,3.25 17,7,3,3 36,26,4,3 2sd5 0.24 0.885 4 4,3,4,2 15,9,4,1.75 34,26,4,4 2sd6 0.75 0.688 4 4,2,3.5,3.25 17,6,4,3 39,22,4,3 2sd7 2.47 0.291 3 2,4,5,3.5 16,8,2.5,3.75 40,22,3,3 2sd8 0.45 0.800 5 2,4,5.5,3 11,12,5,1 26,35,5,1.5 2sd9 0.03 0.987 4 3,3,4.5,2.75 12,11,4,3 33,29,4,2 2sd10 0.08 0.961 4 4,2,4,1.75 15,9,4, 36,23,4,2 2sd11 8.57 0.014 4 1,5,5.5,1.75 18,6,4,2.75 29,32,5,2 2sd12 11.73 0.003 4 1,5,5.5,2 20,4,4,1.75 31,30,4,2 Kruskal-Wallis Test: Likert-scaled variables (variables in question order) vs. teach exp Ho: all medians same vs. H1: at least one median differs Df = 4, group values reported as Z-score H p-value * 1-7 8-14 15-21 22+ sd1 2.82 0.589 57.3,0.72 58.7,0.66 48.2,-0.48 57.4,1.06 47.2,-1.19 sd2 1.24 0.872 57.5,0.74 54.0,0.26 49.5,-0.25 54.3,0.54 48.5,-0.79 sd3 7.51 0.111 50.1,-0.10 73.8,1.96 52.3,0.21 58.5,1.24 44.6,-2.01 sd4 3.55 0.471 49.0,-0.28 52.3,0.06 57.1,0.94 59.2,1.25 46.4,-1.59 sd5 9.27 0.055 69.1,1.94 63.0,1.03 38.9,-2.07 56.2,0.86 49.1,-0.62 sd6 6.30 0.178 42.5,-0.97 65.6,1.26 44.9,-1.00 61.9,1.81 49.0,-0.65 sd7 7.09 0.131 58.0,0.80 53.8,0.24 48.8,-0.36 64.2,2.17 44.7,-2.02 sd8 7.62 0.106 53.0,0.23 61.9,0.94 47.0,-0.69 64.8,2.28 45.2,-1.82 sd9 7.83 0.098 55.6,0.54 63.5,1.19 56.6,1.15 56.4,1.09 42.0,-2.63 sd10 4.63 0.327 51.4,0.14 61.0,0.97 54.6,0.81 56.1,1.03 44.0,-1.99 sd11 1.64 0.802 54.5,0.43 46.8,-0.29 45.6,-0.76 46.3,-0.63 53.1,1.02 sd12 5.42 0.247 55.9,0.56 32.0,-1.58 51.7,0.29 41.7,-1.41 54.1,1.35 sd13 5.92 0.205 54.9,0.47 39.0,-0.97 38.5,-2.00 53.6,0.61 54.1,1.35 2sd1 2.78 0.595 43.5,-0.20 41.0,-0.47 43.7,-0.52 40.5,-1.09 50.9,1.59 2sd2 2.62 0.623 54.7,0.54 36.1,-0.90 46.2,-0.05 40.8,-1.05 49.6,1.10 2sd3 4.48 0.345 53.5,0.46 34.8,-1.01 43.3,-0.59 39.6,-1.27 51.5,1.80 2sd4 2.04 0.729 50.3,0.25 35.6,-0.94 43.4,-0.56 44.0,-0.45 49.7,1.16 2sd5 1.32 0.857 43.9,-0.16 34.5,-1.00 44.6,-0.25 48.8,0.50 46.9,0.33 2sd6 1.94 0.746 57.0,0.78 34.8,-0.94 45.1,-0.07 42.5,-0.55 47.3,0.65 2sd7 3.73 0.444 72.5,1.71 37.1,-0.81 47.7,0.23 44.9,-0.28 45.9,-0.20 2sd8 5.50 0.240 57.0,0.78 50.0,0.40 39.9,-1.05 55.7,1.92 42.2,-1.17 2sd9 1.42 0.842 54.5,0.57 52.2,0.54 43.8,-0.41 49.9,0.72 44.0,-0.70 2sd10 3.49 0.479 50.0,0.34 57.9,1.15 41.7,-0.62 51.4,1.17 42.0,-1.09 2sd11 1.63 0.804 58.8,0.86 40.7,-0.46 43.7,-0.42 50.0,0.75 45.0,-0.36 2sd12 3.10 0.541 62.5,1.10 51.2,0.45 38.7,-1.36 48.5,0.46 46.4,0.13 Page 200 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 Kruskal-Wallis Test: Likert-scaled variables (variables in question order) vs. primary teaching area (recoded) Ho: all medians same vs. H1: at least one median differs Df = 7, group values reported as Average rank, Z-score H p-value * HR MKT OB OthNonQ OthQ QUANT STRAT sd1 8.22 0.313 59.1,1.02 34.9,-1.93 54.4,0.38 58.9,1.72 51.9,0.09 49.4,-0.15 44.9,-0.61 43.4,-1.17 sd2 10.83 0.146 58.0,0.89 42.3,-1.05 51.0,0.00 62.0,2.40 45.6,-0.51 30.5,-1.92 41.4,-0.97 48.1,-0.45 sd3 9.32 0.230 50.0,-0.13 30.3,-2.48 53.6,0.30 56.2,1.13 59.9,0.83 60.6,0.90 55.6,0.47 44.9,-0.94 sd4 12.68 0.080 44.3,-0.89 56.6,0.60 55.6,0.47 44.4,-1.52 62.9,1.05 82.1,2.83 41.8,-0.97 50.3,-0.20 sd5 9.53 0.217 72.8,2.61 45.3,-0.68 58.0,0.80 49.1,-0.41 40.9,-0.95 52.2,0.11 43.4,-0.77 47.1,-0.62 sd6 9.68 0.207 41.1,-1.25 60.7,1.17 32.8,-1.95 50.6,-0.08 50.3,-0.07 69.4,1.72 57.7,0.67 51.5,0.08 sd7 4.07 0.772 54.2,0.40 53.7,0.31 52.0,0.11 43.9,-1.55 52.3,0.12 63.9,1.21 58.3,0.73 49.6,-0.23 sd8 11.14 0.133 49.0,-0.25 57.6,0.80 38.3,-1.44 41.5,-2.06 60.1,0.85 67.7,1.56 65.5,1.46 54.3,0.51 sd9 1.94 0.963 49.6,-0.05 47.9,-0.26 53.1,0.37 49.6,-0.08 55.4,0.52 60.1,0.96 47.0,-0.31 45.7,-0.71 sd10 5.47 0.602 45.9,-0.45 47.5,-0.31 49.9,-0.01 51.2,0.27 53.2,0.31 49.7,-0.03 68.8,1.93 42.2,-1.27 sd11 4.34 0.740 49.8,-0.02 52.5,0.30 43.1,-0.80 48.2,-0.40 47.2,-0.27 62.2,1.17 63.2,1.35 45.8,-0.69 sd12 3.87 0.795 52.5,0.27 61.4,1.40 53.4,0.39 47.4,-0.59 42.8,-0.69 56.6,0.63 41.6,-0.87 48.1,-0.30 sd13 2.95 0.890 53.3,0.37 55.1,0.62 46.8,-0.38 44.3,-1.27 51.6,0.15 60.1,0.96 48.6,-0.14 52.3,0.38 2sd1 11.84 0.106 31.5,-1.29 48.4,0.23 56.8,1.29 41.0,-1.31 32.8,-1.30 69.7,2.39 50.8,0.47 46.1,-0.06 2sd2 11.54 0.117 40.4,-0.53 49.8,0.41 60.9,1.81 42.6,-0.93 31.3,-1.45 68.4,2.26 41.8,-0.52 43.1,-0.60 2sd3 10.18 0.179 47.6,0.09 55.6,1.14 57.8,1.41 41.7,-1.15 30.3,-1.54 64.6,1.86 42.0,-0.50 42.8,-0.65 2sd4 11.76 0.109 36.1,-0.90 56.6,1.27 53.4,0.87 38.9,-1.79 29.3,-1.64 62.1,1.61 41.9,-0.51 53.4,1.23 2sd5 5.93 0.548 30.6,-1.48 56.4,1.32 46.1,0.01 42.3,-0.88 49.2,0.30 58.3,1.28 45.4,-0.06 45.3,-0.11 2sd6 11.56 0.116 31.8,-1.21 57.6,1.56 57.7,1.57 42.0,-0.84 23.3,-2.15 50.1,0.49 41.4,-0.46 48.6,0.55 2sd7 11.75 0.109 45.0,-0.13 62.9,2.17 52.8,0.78 35.8,-2.55 43.2,-0.32 49.0,0.26 59.3,1.42 44.5,-0.35 2sd8 6.38 0.496 50.0,0.40 49.9,0.56 37.7,-1.00 38.4,-1.72 51.8,0.61 57.3,1.14 55.0,1.08 47.0,0.26 2sd9 11.00 0.139 53.7,0.67 35.0,-1.48 41.5,-0.57 38.5,-1.76 55.7,0.93 61.5,1.62 60.6,1.64 48.8,0.48 2sd10 8.03 0.330 37.1,-0.70 38.9,-0.74 42.0,-0.39 38.1,-1.70 51.6,0.65 60.2,1.62 53.6,0.99 51.3,1.08 2sd11 1.94 0.963 44.9,-0.10 42.2,-0.48 48.0,0.25 43.8,-0.54 41.8,-0.40 55.4,0.98 51.5,0.62 46.1,0.01 2sd12 11.70 0.111 62.2,1.41 55.5,1.21 48.0,0.26 34.3,-2.82 36.5,-0.91 48.4,0.25 54.1,0.91 52.3,1.09 Table of Contents Volume 38, 2011 Simulated Tabletop Exercise for Risk Management - Anti Bio-terrorism Scenario Simulated Tabletop Exercise From Business Games to Simulations - Simuworlds & Microworlds Demand Equation Redux: The Design and Functionality of the Gold/Pray Model in Computerized Business Simulations Managing Client-Based Learning: Insights from Successful Teaching Project Courses in Marketing Tracking Forecast Error Type, Frequency and Magnitude with the Forecast Error Package Responding to Facilitate Collaboration Simulating Sudden Change and the Value of Timely Information Managing Human Resources Simulation A Study on Collectivism and Group Decision-Making: An International Comparison of Japan, China, and Russia Using a Gaming Simulation The Use of Management Games in the Management Research Agenda Gaming On-Line: A Simulation Application Positioning and Performance in Simulated Networks Supply Chain Management: A Simulation Application Simulation as a Teaching Method in Strategic Management Distance Studies Entrepreneurship: A Game of Risk and Reward Phase II: The Start-Up Return to the Paradise Islands: From Confrontation to Cooperation Effect on Market Performance of Displaying Supply and Demand Curves in a Business Simulation Appreciating Complexity: The Chief of Staff of the Army Game Managing Organizations: Experiential MBA Course Teaches Alternatives to the Machine Model A Simulation Model for Analyzing the Night-Time Emergency Health Care System in Japan The Continuing Evoluation of Assessing Project Management as an Academic Learning Outcome (ALO) Should College Instructors Change Their Teaching Styles to Meet the Millenial Student? The Mouse Game and its Effects on Team Interdependence Learning from the Gulf Oil Spill to Prepare for a Brighter Future: A New Game Engaging Stake Holders in Triple Bottom Line Accounting & Strategic Planning Video Killed the Biblio Star: The Impact of Digital Media on Student Learning Outcomes Exploring Motivation: Using Emoticons to Map Student Motivation in a Business Game Exercise An Alternative to PC and Internet Based Simulations: The Internet Integrated Mode MiddleState University -- A Crisis in Education Complexity Avoidance, Narcissism and Experiential Learning Examining the Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor Dimensions in Management Skill Development Through Experiential Learning: Developing a Framework A Situational Leadership Exercise Based on the Biology of a Starfish JOGAI CEFET -- The Industrial Administration Undergraduate Game Would You Take a Marketing Man to a Quick Service Restaurant? Modeling Corporate Social Responsibility In A Food Service Menu-Management Simulation Use of a Simulation in a Large Class Environment for a Marketing Principles Class: A Qualitative Analysis of Whether Learning Objectives were Met A Team Based Information Literacy Exercise ABSEL Marketing Communications Plan An Interdisciplinary Study of the Impact of Playing a Marketing Simulation Game on Student Knowledge of Management Accounting/Finance Principles Analyzing Construction Planning of Interiro Finish Work of Apartment Building by Simulation Doing Murder One Again The Simple Business Game and Simulation Transfering the Knowledge of Middle Management to Novices Infectious Disease Simulation Model for Estimation of Spreading Understanding the Relative Influence of Several Factors in ERP Simulation Performance: An Exploration of Ecological Validity Tragedy of the Commons: An Exercise Using Clickers to Illustrate and Teach a Key Concept in Negotiations The Meaning of Firm Demand in Business Simulations If the Games Work, Why Aren't More Faculty Willing to Play? Those Who Do and Those That Don't: A Study of Engaged and Disengaged Business Game Players