The Role of Learning versus Performance Orientations When Reacting To Negative Outcomes in Simulation Games Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006 THE ROLE OF LEARNING VERSUS PERFORMANCE ORIENTATIONS WHEN REACTING TO NEGATIVE OUTCOMES IN SIMULATION GAMES James W. Gentry University of Nebraska-Lincoln jgentry@unl.edu John R. Dickinson University of Windsor MExperiences@aol.com Alvin C. Burns Louisiana State University Alburns@lsu.edu Lee McGinnis Washburn University Lee.mcginnis@washburn.edu JuYoung Park Soongsil University jpark@ssu.ac.kr ABSTRACT We study student reactions to negative outcomes from simulation games in order to investigate whether “trial and error” learning is in fact a positive learning experience. Drawing on Dweck’s (1990) body of work, we expect that students with learning orientations will react very favorably to negative outcomes, but that students with performance orientations will not. The possibility of learned helplessness resulting from game play is a dismal outcome for students with performance orientations. Instructors need to monitor game performance and provide differential levels of consulting help to students with varying learning orientations. INTRODUCTION Experiential learning is often described in terms of “trial and error.” “Error” implies failure and the essence of experiential learning is the presumption that individuals will change their behaviors (or cognitions) in similar situations in the future. But adjusting behavior does not always result in superior performance; for example, some people’s reactions to failure may result in reduced desire to put oneself in similar circumstances again. The term “learned helplessness” is not uncommon in the ABSEL literature, yet there has been relatively little work done to investigate how students react to negative feedback. To frame research designed to investigate student reactions to negative feedback, we will draw upon the work of Dweck (1990), who has developed a research stream investigating the differences between those with learning orientations (which have the aim to increase competence) and those with performance orientations (which aim to gain favorable judgments of competence and to avoid unfavorable ones). Dweck’s body of work has been discussed in ABSEL (Gentry and Burns 1997; Gentry et al. 2001, 2002; Kwong and Thavikulwat 1988), but only in passing. As a quick summary, Dweck’s work has found that learning-oriented students exhibit strong mastery orientations regardless of their confidence in their present ability, and failure does not keep them from the pursuit of knowledge. They do not perceive that intelligence is a fixed quantity; in fact, their continued growth proves otherwise. Performance-oriented students react very differently to failure, especially if they have little confidence in their 79 mailto:jgentry@unl.edu mailto:MExperiences@aol.com mailto:Alburns@lsu.edu mailto:Lee.mcginnis@washburn.edu mailto:jpark@ssu.ac.kr Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006 abilities (in which case learned helplessness is a likely outcome). Those with performance orientations and high self-confidence may be mastery-oriented, but failure is not handled in the “trial and error” fashion implicitly assumed by most work on experiential learning. LEARNING AND PERFORMANCE ORIENTATIONS Research on motivational goals in an achievement context has identified two different types of underlying goals. One is learning goals, in which people are concerned with increasing their competence. When people are learning oriented, their aim is to increase their competence by learning or mastering a new task (Dweck 1990). Learning goals are also self-referential, focusing on the development of skill and competence relative to the task and one’s past performance (Harackiewicz and Elliot 1993). The other goal is performance-oriented, in which people are concerned with gaining favorable judgments of their competence and to avoid unfavorable ones (Diener and Dweck 1978, 1980). Performance goals are concerned mainly with normatively- based standards and promote the demonstration of ability to others (Harackiewicz and Elliot 1993). It has been argued that these orientations determine whether learning will occur. For example, a learning goal is likely to foster long-term use of learning strategies and a belief that success is related to one’s effort. A large body of research (Ames and Archer 1988; Elliott and Dweck 1988; Graham and Golan 1991; Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle 1988; Nolen 1988; Nolen and Haladyna 1990; Stipek and Kowlaski 1989) suggests that the use of effortful and effective learning strategies is associated with goals that emphasize the importance of learning and mastery. Performance-oriented goals foster the use of superficial or ineffective learning strategies. It appears that learning orientations should enhance academic achievement because more effective learning strategies associated with learning goals would increase performance. In fact, Meece and Holt (1993) reported that students who are more learning- oriented showed the most positive achievement profile (relatively high semester grades, test scores, and teacher- rated effort and achievement expectations). Performance-oriented students may not exert effort to change their study habits if they receive negative feedback because they may tend to attribute failure to the lack of their own ability. In contrast, learning-oriented students may exert effort to improve their study habits even when they encounter negative outcomes and the failure is attributed to their own fault. Learning-oriented people are less likely to stop learning when they obtain either satisfactory or unsatisfactory outcomes. Their actions are less influenced by the outcome of the previous actions. Perhaps the primary concern of learning-oriented people may be the learning process itself. They are more interested in the process of improving themselves than in the immediate outcomes of a certain action (Dweck 1990). In contrast, performance- oriented people are likely to behave according to immediate outcomes. If they perform poorly, they would exhibit a pattern of helpless behaviors. If they perform well, they would show mastery-oriented behaviors (Dweck 1990). That is, the outcome appears to be the primary concern for performance-oriented people. Performance-oriented people are interested in the demonstration of ability relative to others, whereas learning- oriented people tend to be self-referenced, focusing on the development of skill and competence relative to the task and their own past performance (Harackiewicz and Elliot 1993). Learning-oriented people track their past performance and keep working on the improvement of their performance. Learning-oriented individuals tend to view unsolved problems as challenges to be mastered through effort. Toward that end, they engage in extensive solution-oriented self-instruction and self-monitoring (Dweck and Leggett 1988). For those with learning orientations, inconsistent feedback may foster intrinsic motivation based on curiosity. Diener and Dweck (1978, 1980) found that 80% of learning- oriented children maintained or improved their problem- solving strategies after failure. Research also indicates that managers who have the ability to learn from experience, not only have learning orientations, but engage in critical reflection, are open to other points of view, feedback, and criticism and take a proactive stance toward problems and opportunities (see Bigelow, 1998). Performance-oriented people focus only on their present performance relative to others, which is more likely to be inconsistent than performance relative to one’s past performance. Meece et al. (1988) found that performance- oriented people tend to be ego-oriented, and are guided to protect their egos. Elliott and Dweck (1988) found that children who focused on performance goals rejected the chance to learn something new if it involved a risk of making errors. Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar (1994) extended this notion by suggesting that those with performance orientations will be reluctant to experiment with new approaches because of a fear that experimentation will result in poor outcomes and, subsequently, in negative evaluations of their abilities and performance. For those with performance orientations, experiencing failure cues low- ability judgments and poses a threat to self-esteem (Dweck and Leggett 1988). Thus, individuals may adopt a more defensive, self-protective posture, devaluing the task and developing disdain toward it (Berglas and Jones 1978; Tesser and Campbell 1983). Dweck and Leggett (1988) have argued that both situational and dispositional variables play important roles in producing behavior. Dweck (1990) also notes that a person may operate in both systems of learning and performance goals since both goals can be manipulated experimentally (that is, situationally induced). Dweck et al. (1978) and Elliott and Dweck (1988) experimentally induced goals and behavior patterns by manipulating situational variables, but Dweck (Bandura and Dweck 1985; Dweck and Leggett 1988) has also predicted goal choice 80 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006 GOALS AND BEHAVIOR PAT Goal Orientation A PERFORMANCE L (Goal is to gain positive (N judgments/ avoid negative o judgments of competence) H (P o LEARNING H (Goal is to increase competence) (N fe c Source: Dweck and Leggett (1988, p. 259) and behavior patterns by measuring existing disposit variables. Henderson and Dweck (1990) tracked children d the transition to junior high school. At the beginning o seventh grade, children’s theories of intelligence and confidence were measured. Children’s grades achievement test scores from the sixth grade were obt from their school records. Children with lea orientations tended to match or exceed their projected g point. Overall, those who had been achievers in sixth g remained so, and many of those who had been relatively achievers became high achievers. Of particular intere that many learning-oriented children with low confid who had not done especially well in the past were earning many of the highest grades. In contrast, performance-oriented children who been low achievers in the past remained so, and man those who had been high achievers in sixth grade were among the lowest achievers. High-confidence perform oriented children showed the most pronounced declin any group. Dweck (1990) argues that the challenge confusion are most threatening to performance-ori people who believe intelligence is fixed and have accustomed to thinking of themselves as having it. The Dweck model is summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1 TERNS IN ACHIEVEMENT SITUATIONS Perceived Present bility Behavior Pattern OW HELPLESS egative feedback (Avoid challenge; n one’s competence) low persistence) IGH MASTERY-ORIENTED ositive feedback (Seek challenge; n one’s competence) high persistence) IGH OR LOW MASTERY-ORIENTED egative or positive (Seek challenge that fosters edback on one’s learning; high persistence) ompetence) GOAL ORIENTATIONS AND SIMULATION GAMING ional uring f the their and ained rning rade rade low st is ence now The previous discussion is relatively free of context, but hopefully the reader has noted some possible interfaces with simulation gaming. Most gaming experiences offer students the opportunity to face negative feedback, especially given the bias toward depressed early starting conditions. In fact, Ralph Day, at the first ABSEL Conference, noted that one true advantage of simulation gaming in a pedagogical sense is that it is the only approach that makes students live with their decisions. A student can do a poor job on one case, and then start over fresh on the next one. A very poor simulation decision leaves the student facing an extremely different (and more difficult) set of conditions. The positive implication of this case, and then start over fresh on the next one. A very poor simulation decision leaves the student facing an extremely different (and more difficult) set of conditions. The positive implication of this observation is that students need to get down and dirty and overcome the negative conditions, and that in doing so they encounter a tremendous learning experience. This is no doubt a likely scenario for those students with learning orientations; however, that well may not be case for those with performance orientations. Anyone who administered a game has encountered very frustrated students who do in fact give up; learned helplessness is a reality in this context. had y of now ance- e of and ented been 81 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006 Learning Ori There really ar marketing. It is important experience. An important p continually im Learning how fundamental im It is worth spe marketing app I am always le marketing. Sometimes I p something new Learning a com Making mistak The Henders earlier indicate th prior academic pe from challenging to junior high. Th they had excelle well in handling students with pe filtered out of undergraduate e encountered man their performance Given the timing (at the transition general knowledg is likely that the may yield a perfo to-experiment env Thus, we ma Proposition 1: S exhibit more orientations. Proposition 2: will exhibit m negative outc orientation su Proposition 3: orientations TABLE 2: LEARNING AND PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION SCALE ITEMS entation Performance Orientation e a lot of new things to learn about I evaluate myself using my professors’ criteria. for me to learn from each classroom art of being a good student is proving your skills. to be a better marketer is of portance to me. nding a great deal of time learning new roaches arning something new about ut a great deal of effort into learning . plicated concept is very satisfying. es is just part of the learning process. It is very important to me that my professors see me as a good student. I very much want my fellow students to consider me to be a good student. I always try to communicate my accomplishments to my professors. I feel very good when I know I have outperformed other students in my class. I spend a lot of time thinking about how my performance compares with other students. on and Dweck (1990) findings discussed at those with learning orientations but poor rformances were able to handle and grow experiences associated with the transition ose with performance orientations, even if nt prior academic records, fared far less those challenges. One might infer that rformance orientations would have been the system by the time they reach ducation. However, all of us have y students who evaluate themselves on s and downplay issues of personal growth. of many first-time simulation experiences from large lecture classes focusing on e to smaller, focused business courses), it skills learned in a lecture/test environment rmance orientation unsuited for the need- ironment found in simulation games. ke the following propositions: tudents with learning orientations will learning than students with performance (main effect of the orientations) Those students with learning orientations ore learning for positive outcomes versus omes. (effect of the outcome for learning bjects) Those students with performance will exhibit more learning for positive outcomes versus negative outcomes. (effect of the outcome for performance orientation subjects) Proposition 4: Students with learning outcomes who experience negative outcomes will exhibit more learning than students with performance outcomes who experience positive outcomes. (interaction of learning orientation and outcome) The fourth proposition is the key new one as far as we are concerned, but the others predict the overall pattern of results that we expect. DATA COLLECTION Data were gathered from 34 Master’s of Business Administration enrolled in a first-year introductory marketing course. By design of the MBA program, none of the students had a business undergraduate degree. The simulation competition used the well-known Marketing Management Experience (MME, Dickinson 2002). In the MME students are assigned to manage the marketing function of a simulation company, in the MME case a company marketing digital cameras. As is typical, companies are grouped into industries, with a company competing only against other companies in its same industry. Individual students managed their own company, students having been assigned to companies and industries at random. The competition, then, comprised six industries of four companies each and two industries of five 82 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006 companies each. The competition lasted nine periods plus an initial trial period. Students were evaluated on the basis of cumulative earnings. Dweck, Carol S. and J. Bempechat (1983), “Children’s Theories of Intelligence,” in Learning and Motivation in the Classroom, S. Paris, G. Olsen, and H. Stevenson (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 239-256. The constructs of learning orientation and performance orientation were measured using multi-item scales adapted from Ames and Archer (1998), nine items for learning orientation and six items for performance orientation (see Table 2). Each Likert-type item was measured on a seven- point Strongly Agree (1) to Strongly Disagree (7) scale. This self-report survey was conducted in class prior to any introduction of the simulation competition. Dweck, Carol S., W. Davidson, S. Nelson, and B. Enna (1978), “Sex Differences in Learned Helplessness: II. The Contingencies of Evaluative Feedback in the Classroom and III. An Experimental Analysis,” Developmental Psychology, 4, 268-273. Dweck, Carol S. and E. L. Leggett (1988), “A Social- Cognitive Approach to Personality and Motivation,” Psychological Review, 95, 256-273. While the data have been collected, the analyses have not been performed as yet.. We will include the results in our presentation.. Dweck, Carol S. and N. D. Reppucci (1973), “Learned Helplessness and Reinforcement Responsibility in Children,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 109-116. REFERENCES Elliott, Elaine S. and Carol S. Dweck (1988), “Goals: An Approach to Motivation and Achievement,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12. Ames, Carole and Jennifer Archer (1988), “Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students’ Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (3), 260-267. Gentry, James W. and Alvin C. Burns (1997), “Thoughts about the Measurement of Learning: The Case for Guided Learning and Associated Measurement Issues,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 23, 241-246. Bandura, Mary M. and Carol S. Dweck (1985), “The Relationship of Conceptions of Intelligence and Achievement Goals to Achievement-related Cognition, Affect and Behavior,” Working Paper, Harvard University, cited in Dweck 1990. Gentry, James W., Alvin C. Burns, John R. Dickinson, Sanjay Putrevu, Seungwoo Chun, Yu Hongyan, Laura Williams, Thomas Bare, and Ruth Ann Gentry (2002), “Managing the Curiosity Gap Does Matter: What Do We Need to Do About It?” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 29, 67-73. Berglas, Steven and Edward E. Jones (1978), “Drug Choices as a Self-Handicapping Strategy in Response to Non- contingent Success,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405-417. Bigelow, John D. (2004), “An Online Situation for Problem-Based Learning in a Junior-Level Management Course,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 31, 120-124. Dickinson, John R. (2002), The Marketing Management Experience, Windsor, Ontario: Management Experiences. Gentry, James W., Alvin C. Burns, Sanjay Putrevu, Yu Hongyan, Laura Williams, Thomas Bare, and Ruth Ann Gentry (2001), “Motivating Students: An Initial Attempt to Operationalize the Curiosity Gap Model,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 28, 69-75. Graham, Sandra and Shari Golan (1991), “Motivational Influences on Cognition: Task Involvement, Ego Involvement, and Depth of Information Processing,” Journal of Educationall Psychology, 83, 187-196. Diener, Carol I. and Carol S. Dweck (1978), “An Analysis of Learned Helplessness: Continuous Changes in Performance, Strategy, and Achievement Cognitions Following Failure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451-462. Harackiewicz, Judith M. and Andrew J. Elliot (1993), “Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (5), 904-915. Diener, Carol I. and Carol S. Dweck (1980), “An Analysis of Learned Helplessness: II. The Processing of Success,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 940-952. Henderson, V. and Carol S. Dweck (1990), “Adolecscence and Achievement,” in At the Threshold: The Developing Adolescent, Shirley Feldman and Glen R. Elliott (Eds.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dweck, Carol S. (1975), “The Role of Expectations and Attributions in the Alleviation of Learned Helplessness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674-685. Kwong, K. Ken and Precha Thavikulwat (1988), “Simulating Material Requirements Planning on Lotus 1-2-3,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 15, 84-86. Dweck, Carol S. (1990), “Self-Theories and Goals: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development,” in Perspectives on Motivation: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Richard Dienstbier (Ed.), Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 38, 199-235. Meece, Judith L., P.C. Blumenfeld, and R. Hoyle (1988), “Students’ Goal Orientations and Cognitive Engagement in Classroom Activities,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523. 83 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 33, 2006 84 Meece, Judith L. and Kathleen Holt (1993), “A Pattern Analysis of Student Achievement Goals,” Journal of Educationall Psychology, 85 (4), 582-590. Nolen, Susan Bobbitt (1988), “Reasons for Studying: Motivational Orientations and Study Strategies,” Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269-287. Nolen, Susan Bobbitt and T. M. Haladyna (1990), “Motivation and Studying in High School Science,” Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 27, 115-126. Stipek, Deborah J. and Patricia S. Kowlaski (1989), “Learned Helplessness in Task Orienting versus Performance-Orienting Testing Conditions,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 384-391. Sujan, Harish, Barton A. Weitz, and Kirmalya Kumar (1994), “Learning Orientation, Working Smart, and Effective Selling,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), 39- 52. Tesser, A. and J. Campbell (1983), “Self-definition and Self-evaluation Motivation,” in Social Psychological Perspectives on the Self, J. Suls and A. Greenwald (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 2, 123-149. Table of Contents Volume 33, 2006 Learning Assurance Using Business Simulations Applications To Executive Management Education Team Teaching In An Integrated Business Course Using Critical Problem Based Learning Factors In An Integrated Undergraduate Business Curriculum: A Business Course Success Personality Type And Strategic Planning Business Games As Strategic Management Laboratories The Relationship Between Students' Success On A Simulation Exercise And Their Perception Of Its Effectiveness As A PBL Problem Forecasting Accuracy And Learning: The Key To Measuring Simulation Performance The Business Strategy Game: A Performance Review Of The New Online Edition Using The Socratic Method And Bloom's Taxonomy Of The Cognitive Domain To Enhance Online Discussion, Critical Thinking, And Student Learning Using Negotiation Exercises To Promote Critical Thinking Skills Effective Leadership Experiences For Management Majors In A Futures Class The Role Of Learning Versus Performance Orientations When Reacting To Negative Outcomes In Simulation Games Is Pay Inversion Ethical? A Three-Part Exercise Simulations And Experiential Exercises - Do They Result In Learning? Have We Figured It Out Yet? Examining Program Management In Business Simulations: Student And Faculty Views Validating Business Simulations: Do Simulations Exhibit Natural Market Structures? Characterizing Business Games Used In Distance Education Utilizing Games In A Graduate Level Instructional Game Course Employment Interview Preparation: Assessing The Writing-To-Learn Approach Simulations - Bridging From Thwarted Innovation To Disruptive Technology Creating An Authentic Cultural Lens Using Case Dialogue Learning By Fire: Reflections Of A First Time Online Instructor An International Internship With A Service-Learning Focus Learner Participation In The Online Learning Experience: Help Or Hindrance? Any Given Sunday: Intervention In Pursuit Of Simulation Team Parity Beginning With The End: Creating An Experiential Exercise From Assessment Criteria Simulating Life Cycles: Life Span As The Measure Of Performance In Business Gaming Simulations It's Puzzling: Communications, Competition, And Cooperation Balanced Scorecard Implementation For Strategy Management: Variation Of Manager Opinion In Real And Simulated Companies Cases And Business Games: The Perfect Match! Three-Attribute Interrelationships For Industry-Level Demand Equations Using A Web-Based Module To Teach Information Literacy Decision Support System For Demand Forecasting In Business Games The Invalidity Of Profit=F(Market Share) PIMS Validation Of Marketing Games Online Market Test Laboratory With The MINSIM* Program The Gas Mileage Game - A Policy Simulation Delivered Cost And Differentiation Applied To Threshold 3rd Ed. The Effect Of Team-Leadership Modes On Team Performance: A Preliminary Study The Design And Use Of A Macroeconomics Simulation Using Maple Software: A Pilot Study The Instructor's Toolbox: A Meaning-Centered Framework For The Social Construction Of Experiential Learning Incorporating Strategic Product-Mix Decisions Into Simulation Games: Modeling The 'Profitable-Product Death Spiral' Group Composition And Groupthink In A Business Game A Direct Approach To Teaching Business Ethics A Decision Support System For Planning Sales, Production, And Plant Addition With Manager: A Computer Simulation Polish - American Entrepreneurial Business Cooperation Workshop Utilizing The Income/Outcome Simulation Student Leader Training Exercise Student Preference To Mode Of Learning In Hong Kong Experiential Learning For Technology-Based And Management Programme In Hong Kong: A China Study Tour A Price Game With Product Differentiation In The Classroom Discrete Event Modeling In A New Transportation Simulation Supply-Side Modeling In A Total Enterprise Simulation The Quality Game Towards A Massive Multiplayer Online Business Simulation Making The Connection: Improving Virtual Team Performance Through Behavioral Assessment Profiling And Behavioral Cues Individual Learning Producing A Learning Organization: 'Playing Dice With Polar Bears' Narratology and Ludology: Competing Paradigms or Complementary Theories in Simulation Framework For Evaluating Internet Research Using Children's Games To Illustrate Strategy Concepts: Is Less Better?