Advertisement

Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 67, Issue 6, pp 1507–1527 | Cite as

Computer-supported collaboration: simulation-based training using LEGO®

  • Claudine Bonneau
  • Simon BourdeauEmail author
Development Article

Abstract

Learning the effects of proximity and distance in collaborative work and understanding the challenges and possibilities of information technology use in distributed teams can be challenging for students. This paper describes a LEGO® simulation-based training program and shows how the use of LEGO bricks and a videoconferencing platform can help students experience computer-supported collaboration firsthand. Students who participated in simulation-based training sessions adopted different work coordination and information sharing strategies. The working patterns observed during three different simulation-based training sessions were analyzed based on the literature on collaborative work. Findings show that using LEGO bricks to recreate “real-life” situations allows students to immediately immerse themselves in the challenges faced by “virtual workers” and more easily and fully understand and integrate theoretical concepts related to collaborative work and computer-supported collaboration.

Keywords

Collaboration Distributed team Communication technology Simulation-based training LEGO® 

Notes

References

  1. Ackermann, E., Gauntlett, D., & Weckstrom, C. (2009). Defining systematic creativity. Billund: LEGO Learning Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., …Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (abridged ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning & Education,1(2), 206–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacharach, S., & Cook, R. T. (2017). Introduction: Play well, philosophize well! In R. T. Cook & S. Bacharach (Eds.), Lego ®and philosophy: Constructing reality brick by brick (pp. 1–3). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, P., & Martin, P. (2013). Play, playfulness, creativity and innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, B. S., Kanar, A. M., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2008). Current issues and future directions in simulation-based training in North America. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,19(8), 1416–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boughzala, I., & De Vreede, G.-J. (2015). Evaluating team collaboration quality: The development and field application of a collaboration maturity model. Journal of Management Information Systems,32(3), 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bravo, C. (2005). A collaborative simulation tool to support the learning of house automation. Simulation,81(12), 815–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, S., & Vaughan, C. (2010). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul. New York: Avery Trade.Google Scholar
  10. Bull Schaefer, R. A., & Erskine, L. (2012). Virtual team meetings: Reflections on a class exercise exploring technology choice. Journal of Management Education,36(6), 777–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1991). Toward an integration of training theory and technique. Human Factors,33(3), 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition,13(1991), 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clem, J. M., Mennicke, A. M., & Beasley, C. (2014). Development and validation of the experiential learning survey. Journal of Social Work Education,50(3), 490–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conklin, T. A. (2013). Making it personal: The importance of student experience in creating autonomy-supportive classrooms for millennial learners. Journal of Management Education,37(4), 499–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (2014). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 35–54). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science,32(5), 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Guinea, A., & Markus, L. (2009). Why break the habit of a lifetime? Rethinking the roles of intention, habit, and emotion in continuing information technology use. MIS Quarterly,33(3), 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dekkers, J., & Donatti, S. (1981). The integration of research studies on the use of simulation as an instructional strategy. Journal of Educational Research,74, 424–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research,9(3), 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donovan, K. M., & Fluegge-Woolf, E. R. (2015). Under construction: An experiential exercise illustrating elements of work design. Journal of Management Education,39(2), 276–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teamwork on the fly. Harvard Business Review,90(4), 72–79.Google Scholar
  22. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,1(1), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Festinger, L., Back, K. W., & Schachter, S. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freeman, L. A. (2003). Simulation and role playing with LEGO® blocks. Journal of Information Systems Education,14(2), 137–144.Google Scholar
  25. Fussell, S. R., Kraut, R. E., & Siegel, J. (2000). Coordination of communication: Effects of shared visual context on collaborative work. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.Google Scholar
  26. Gauntlett, D. (2014). The LEGO System as a tool for thinking, creativity, and changing the world. In M. J. P. Wolf (Ed.), LEGO studies: Examining the building blocks of a transmedial phenomenon. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Grienitz, V., Kristiansen, P., & Schulte, H. (2013). Vision statement development with LEGO ®SERIOUS PLAY. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2013 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference.Google Scholar
  28. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Collaboration and control: Crisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground Line control rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),1(1), 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1994). Activité distribuée et organisation de l’interaction. Sociologie du travail,36, 523–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heath, C., Svensson, M. S., Hindmarsh, J., Luff, P., & Vom Lehn, D. (2002). Configuring awareness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),11(3–4), 317–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hung, W. (2013). Team-based complex problem solving: A collective cognition perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development,61(3), 365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Iqbal, R., & James, A. (2005). Towards the development of CSCW: An ethnographic approach. In S. Fincher, P. Markopoulos, D. Moore, & R. Ruddle (Eds.), People and computers XVIII — Design for life (pp. 19–34). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., … Järvenoja, H. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johns, T., & Gratton, L. (2013). The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Business Review,91(1), 66–73.Google Scholar
  35. Kisfalvi, V., & Oliver, D. (2015). Creating and maintaining a safe space in experiential learning. Journal of Management Education,39(6), 713–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson FT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education,4(2), 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations: Review update. In N. Schmitt & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 412–469). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Kozlowski, S. W., & Salas, E. (1997). A organizational systems approach for the implementation and transfer of training. In J. K. Ford, S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, & M. Teachout (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 247–287). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  41. Kristiansen, P., & Rasmussen, R. (2014). Building a better business using the Lego Serious Play method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. Mainemelis, C., & Dionysiou, D. (2015). Play, flow and timelessness. In C. E. Shalley, M. A. Hitt, & J. Zhou (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 121–140). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Maloney, M. M., Bresman, H., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., & Beaver, G. R. (2016). Contextualization and context theorizing in teams research: A look back and a path forward. The Academy of Management Annals,10(1), 891–942.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1161964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin, B. O., Kolomitro, K., & Lam, T. C. (2014). Training methods: A review and analysis. Human Resource Development Review,13(1), 11–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCreery, J. K. (2003). Assessing the value of a project management simulation training exercise. International Journal of Project Management,21(4), 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Moreau, C. P., & Engeset, M. G. (2016). The downstream consequences of problem-solving mindsets: How playing with LEGO influences creativity. Journal of Marketing Research,53(1), 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Navarro, C. (2001). Partage de l’information en situation de coopération à distance et nouvelles technologies de la communication: bilan de recherches récentes (Vol. 64). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  50. Primus, D. J., & Sonnenburg, S. (2018). Flow experience in design thinking and practical synergies with LEGO SERIOUS PLAY. Creativity Research Journal,30(1), 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ramiller, N. C., & Wagner, E. L. (2011). Communication challenges in requirements definition: A classroom simulation. Journal of Information Systems Education,22(4), 307–317.Google Scholar
  52. Resnick, M., & Silverman, B. (2005). Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. Paper presented at the 2005 conference on interaction design and children.Google Scholar
  53. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development,44(2), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roos, J., Victor, B., & Statler, M. (2004). Playing seriously with strategy. Long Range Planning,37, 549–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Held, J. D., & Weissmuller, J. J. (2009a). Performance measurement in simulation-based training: A review and best practices. Simulation & Gaming,40(3), 328–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,13(2), 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Salas, E., Wildman, J. L., & Piccolo, R. F. (2009b). Using simulation-based training to enhance management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education,8(4), 559–573.Google Scholar
  58. Sauvé, L., Renaud, L., Kaufman, D., & Jean-Simon, M. (2007). Distinguishing between games and simulations: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,10(3), 247–256.Google Scholar
  59. Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. J. (1992). Taking CSCW seriously: Supporting articulation work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),1(1–2), 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (2013). Constructing CSCW: The first quarter century. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),22(4–6), 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2009). How to manage virtual teams. MIT Sloan Management Review,50(4), 63–68.Google Scholar
  62. Statler, M., Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. D. (2011). Serious play as a practice of paradox. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,47(2), 236–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,2(4), 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sullivan, F. R. (2011). Serious and playful inquiry: Epistemological aspects of collaborative creativity. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,14(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
  65. Taras, V., Caprar, D. V., Rottig, D., Sarala, R. M., Zakaria, N., Zhao, F., et al. (2013). A global classroom? Evaluating the effectiveness of global virtual collaboration as a teaching tool in management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education,12(3), 414–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thomas, D. M., & Bostrom, R. P. (2010). Vital signs for virtual teams: An empirically developed trigger model for technology adaptation interventions. MIS Quarterly,34(1), 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  68. Tiwari, S. R., Nafees, L., & Krishnan, O. (2014). Simulation as a pedagogical tool: Measurement of impact on perceived effective learning. The International Journal of Management Education,12, 260–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development,56(2), 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development,53(4), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yang, X., Tong, Y., & Teo, H. H. (2015). Fostering fast-response spontaneous virtual team: Effects of member skill awareness and shared governance on team cohesion and outcomes. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,16(11), 919–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.École des Sciences de la Gestions, ESG-UQAMMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations