Applying Multiple Economic Concepts in the Series of Team-building, On-line Discussions

Imitating Real-life Simulations

Sylwia E Starnawska, MBA, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Business Administration

School for Graduate Studies

SUNY - Empire State College

Learning Objectives

• Applying economics concepts

• Team-building

• Understanding current economic situation

• Including a historical perspective

• Conducting research

• Documenting properly

• Developing critical thinking and problem solving skills

• Comparing alternatives

• Sharing personal experience

Learning Activity Description

• Five comprehensive on-line discussion forums (DF) • Coherent set of DFs• Complemented my MBA Theories of Economics course• Week-long each• Increasing difficulty while progressing through the course • Integrating more challenging course learning outcomes into the complex projects• Students were required to make connections to concepts, to the real data, and to the

current events• Discussions were an essential component of the student team work• DF had to document and satisfy the accreditation requirements of supplementing the

in-class student-instructor contact hours• DF tested and refined in my courses, during teaching each term in the period of 2010-

2013. • These discussions were organized to align with the required textbook for the course by

Mankiw, N.G., Principles of Economics. South-Western Cengage

DF Design Model

• On-line activity

• Independent learner-centered approach

• Application of the significant learning experiences framework covering:• fundamental knowledge

• application

• integration

• human dimension

• caring

• learning how to learn, Fink (2003)

• Monitoring and facilitation of these discussions provided an extensive research material for assessing the effectiveness of this activity in achieving learning goals of the course

DF Structure

• Academic rigor enforced by specific discussions outlines

• Addressing components to be recognized and covered by students

• Reflecting required vital contents by merits

• Collaboration and consistency of the recommendation was ensured in each discussion by the required executive one-page memo

• Students had to finalize their discussion with a joint statement in a posted memo, in order to achieve consensus

• Students had to reference arguments and counterarguments brought in during the whole discussion

• Reference to the supporting research findings was required as well

DF 1. Thinking Like an EconomistKey objective: designing framework for business decision-making

with the opportunity cost and the marginal cost consideration

Setting: You are a team of co-owners of a commercial space of 50,000 sq. ft. in the building in Buffalo Down Town, NY. You have to come to a common decision like economists what to do with it now. Some of you run own private single-owned businesses and might find this space useful for your own purpose. So far, you have invested $20,000.00 in the renovation of the building. You have to motivate your decision based on the principles of economics.

Outline: Consider and discuss in the DF among the team, the issues in your decision making process, such as: • assumptions• trade-offs, values and incentives• rational choice• marginal changes• sunk costs• opportunity cost• factors of production• market forces: demand and supply, market

equilibrium • possible externalities• economic variables that can influence your choice• business cycle• please apply economic models.

Instruction: Have in mind current market conditions. Use formal language and correct terminology in your posts. As there might be differences in your opinions please post as your final joint work a memo presenting the summary of your consensus way of thinking adopted, and the decision agreed upon. Refer to the examples in the textbook; some extra research would be helpful. You can adopt a real or a mock example if want to work with more details.

DF 2. OPEC Summit

Key objective: exemplifying the limitations of the power of oligopoly

due to short-term and long-term elastisities

Setting: Imagine you are all members of the OPEC, and you are motivated by an increase of your revenue from the sale of crude oil. You have to compromise on current decision on possible output decrease as to stimulate the world price of gas. Please consider the historical relation of the reaction of the gas price at the pump to the world price of the crude oil per barrel. Please resort to the cases in the textbook in Chapter 5 p. 105, and Chapter 6 p.116, but most of all to the research on the following issues in the summer of 2008 in the US, and the political debate on the energy crisis, environmental protection and renewable sources of energy.

Outline: Include in the discussion the following issues, as the basis for your common decision to be made:• demand patterns for crude oil in the World• the price elasticity of demand for gas in the US• the factors influencing the price elasticity of demand for

gas in the US, and possible changes in this respect (behavioral patterns)

• the impact of price changes (on different price levels) on the revenue of crude oil exporters

• the income elasticity of demand for gas • the price elasticity of supply of gas• the effect on the market outcome, on the market

equilibrium, and on the efficiency of the market• the effect on the international trade, state policies, and

on the economy.

Instruction: As usually, please complete the decision with a memo summarizing the points of agreement reached to follow by you unanimously, and with the compliance in the forthcoming months.

DF 3. The Firm Key objective: discovering zero economic profit in a small-business operating in the perfect competition of market structure

Setting: Now as a team, you will face a new challenge –business venture structured on the theory of the firm. You are opening a restaurant in Buffalo, NY. As to simplify the scope of your consideration, we narrow down the problem with several assumptions. You will be serving just a meal in the evening. You also consider a stable level of sales at the full capacity reached, just ignore the slow period of market entry. Make your assessment only per one-month period. Make sure that the targeted level of operations is feasible.

Outline: Please analyze, based on the demand and supply model, the following issues:• number of meals sold and prices charged,• price elasticity of demand and how to address it in your

business• total revenue• possible challenges• fixed costs and variable costs and marginal cost• cost of inputs• total cost and unit cost (average total cost)• diminishing marginal product • economies and diseconomies of scale• total profit and profit per unit.

Instruction: As the final outcome, please prepare a one-page executive summary for the business plan with assumptions and the goal set, based on the market conditions examined by you. Please make sure that all parts fit in well and make a comprehensive picture with the compromise on the final concept of the business model adopted.

DF 4. The Council of Economic Advisers

Key objective: designing rational polices to stimulate the economic growth

Setting: Your objective is to stimulate the economic growth in the country in the long-run. Imagine your position as the members of the Economic Council for the President. You are asked to prepare the stance on the key macroeconomic policies facilitating growth. Please prepare the guidelines considering following issues, while recognizing conflicting goals.

Instruction: Finalize your discussion with a one-page memo summarizing your compromise.

Outline: Please consider and recognize:• considered measures of economic growth• quality of life and the richest American in the history• stimulating consumption of households• increase of investments• government spending• export• income stimulation and inflation control• labor productivity increase and its determinants (R&D,

innovation, unemployment rate)• technological change• human capital• natural resources • population increase (social policy and family-oriented

policy, education)• free-trade policy and foreign investments.

DF 5. The FED Meeting Key objective: fulfilling conflicting dual mandate of monetary policy, as part of the mix of economic policies

Setting: You are in the most powerful position this time, as the members of the Federal Reserve Board. Please consider current economic situation with the problems of the financial sector faced, and other economic problems encountered. Have in mind the objectives of the Fed. Please discuss following problems and provide stipulations for monetary policy in just few months ahead to follow, with the requirements of the coordinated other government policies (outside of your mandate). Discuss the basic implications of money supply targets, such as inflation and other costs, unemployment rate, growth, interest rates.

Outline: Please address in particular: Monetary Policy:• open-market operations• reserve requirements• federal funds rate• discount rateFiscal policy:• budget deficit• public debt burden• trade deficit• redistribution of wealth• tax stimulus• social benefits• supply shocks• demand shocks.

Instruction: Finalize your discussion with the unified statement of the directions you have adopted. Just after the meeting the memo will be released for the public.

Benefits of the Presented 5 DFs

• Utilizing the on-line discussion for team-building purposes and for students’ collaboration in effective research, data collection, and different viewpoints presentation, and supporting their arguments

• Incorporating multiple economic concepts in life-imitating simulations

• Creating effective learner-centered on-line discussions with the application of the significant learning experiences theoretical framework

• Enhancing the team-collaborative environment in the student-centered community style

• Enhancing deep understanding of complex theoretical models used in economics via application of real-life team challenges

• Applying teaching of economics into real situations, with possible ex-post verification of recommendations

• Engaging students into on-line discussion

• Aligning teaching strategy (objectives and outcomes) with technology in (on-line) course design

Assessment Criteria in Monitoring of the Effectiveness of this Activity (Series of Discussions)

in Achieving Learning Outcomes of the Course.• Understanding and applying theoretical concepts

• Providing relevant examples

• Drawing correct conclusions

• Identifying problems

• Communicating effectively and purposefully in the situation of interdependence

• Fostering team-building process in a motivated knowledge-exchanging environment

• Enhancing participation, collaboration, and information sharing in the community setting

• Conducting effective research

• Collecting reliable data

• Presenting different viewpoints in a proper manner

• Supporting own arguments in a convincing way

• Selecting and recommending jointly the course of actions satisfying participants

Rationale for the Comparative Study (5 DFs versus Wiki) Literature shows disappointing outcomes of teamwork in the computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), Heath (1998), Kreijns, Kirschner, andJochems (2003), Zumbach, Riemann, and Schoenemann (2005), because socialinteractions are not automatic even in the permitting environment, and requireeffort

PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED DUE TO:

• Low motivation

• Low involvement in learning

• Small knowledge gains

• Low participation rates

• Low levels of communication and collaboration (both in terms of quantity and quality of contributions)

• Little satisfaction with the group learning situation

Literature on Use of Discussions in the Courses• Asynchronous discussions in course-related materials improved student comprehension of

course material, Roach (2014)

• There is an increasing interest in the use of discussion forums as an indicator of student performance. The results obtained (in an IT course) indicated the suitability of performing both a final prediction at the end of the course, and an early prediction before the end of the course, Romero, López, Luna, & Ventura (2013)

• A discussion-based online course facilitated teachers' transformative learning, Lee & Brett (2015)

• Discussion forum used in an executive MBA OBHR course via an asynchronous, web-based course delivery medium successfully captured and went beyond the advantages of the regular classroom discussion, when coupled with the creation of on-line student-centered learning community, Brower (2003)

• A word of caution: …“Discussions designed as threaded discussions are integral to most on-line courses, and have been found to facilitate active learning among students. But, research indicates that threaded discussions sometimes digress into chat that is not in line with the intended purpose, thus causing the discussions to lose their focus”, therefore a two-stage model was recommended by Dollisso & Koundinya (2011)

Explanations by Activity System, and Classroom Community Scale Model (CCS) in Wiki

• Dimensions of an Activity System, Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2008)

• Community: the organization or context in which the activity occurs• Rules: the behavioral norms and conventions for the activity for the subjects• Outcomes: the results of the activity, which may be intended or not • Division of labor: the goal specific organizational processes used by the final dimension• Context: the contextual nature of the activity in relation to the rules and division of labor occurring in the

activity.

• Classroom Community Scale (CCS) model, developed by Rovai (2001a, b) and tested by tested (survey method on 5-member groups) by Johnson and Sims (2013), confirmed Wiki success, similarly to the results of Ruth & Houghton (2009) and Su & Beaumont (2010), in supporting the following:• Classroom Community Scale

• Sense of Connectedness• Sense of Learning

• Only if the following Course Design requirements are met, Rovai (2002) in alignment of Community Factors with Instructional Strategy• Community Factors• Instructional Strategy

Advantages and Benefits of Utilizing the On-line Discussions versus deficiencies of Wiki Team Projects

(Comparison and Contrast) • I ran Wiki Team Projects with students multiple times during courses in the

period of 2013-2015

• The model of ‘BIG FIVE’ was adopted for Wiki outcomes assessment as compared to DFs, as expanded by Salas, Sims, and Burke (2005), and tested by Kay, Maisonneuve, Yacef, and Reimann (2006)

• Desired and praised benefits of Wiki were not fully achieved: quality of teamwork (problem solving ability, healthy competition, mutual support, cohesion, developing relationships, sharing unique qualities and increasing satisfaction), effectiveness and efficiency of teamwork

• Problem of avoiding: hostility, "social loafing“ in team assignments

But…, there are contradictions (disturbances) in Wiki

Contractions reported by Johnson and Sims (2013), also noted by Barab, Evans, & Baek (2003), and Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares (2008) included:

• Familiarity with the technology (smoothed with scaffolding entry)

• Choice of Wiki (lack of discussion)

• Simultaneous editing (the timing of interactions)

• Cohesion and trust (needs team building in smaller groups)

• Classroom Community and Design Strategy Design – Scale of the course and recommended focus on alignment of strategy, outcomes and technology, Sims (2008)

• Collaborative writing was not carried out as expected, Hadjerrouit (2013)

• Quality of feedback from peers varied, Hadjerrouit (2013)

Research Results in ‘BIG FIVE’ ModelBehavioral Markers Series of 5 DFs Team project in Wiki

BIG FIVE COMPONENTS OF TEAMWORK (competencies for improved performance)

1. Team Leadership Facilitate team problem solving. Provide performance expectations and acceptable interaction patterns. Synchronize and combine individual team member contributions

Rotation of the role of the leader, supported and followed

Proclaimed, constrained and questioned

2. Mutual performance monitoring

Identifying mistakes and lapses in other team members’ actions.

Open to discussion and supported, continuous scanning

Mostly editorial or missed coherence, closing gaps

3. Backup behavior Recognition of workload distribution problem in the team. Shifting work to underutilized team members.

Automatic Sporadic

4. Adaptability Identify cues of change, assign meaning to it, and develop a new plan to deal with it.

Enforced and recognized Hardly spotted

5. Team orientation Increased task involvement, information sharing, strategizing, and goal setting.

Created over time Work division, conflicting

COORDINATING MECHANISM (for realizing full potential)

Shared mental models Students’ background Considered and contributing Random and clashing

Mutual trust Feedback from students Willing to share Limited and questioned

Closed-loop communication Follow up discussion Enforced and frequent Casual and only final

References• Barab, S. A., Evans, M., & Baek, E. (2003). Activity theory as a lens for charactering the participatory unit. In Jonassen, D. (Ed.).

Handbook on research on communications and educational technology (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 199-214.

• Brower, H. H. (2003). On Emulating Classroom Discussion in a Distance-Delivered OBHR Course: Creating an On-Line Learning Community. Academy Of Management Learning & Education, 2(1), pp. 22-36. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2003.9324013

• Dollisso, A., & Koundinya, V. (2011). A model for using threaded discussions in on-line agricultural education courses. NACTAJournal, (3), p. 71.

• Johnson, L. M., Sims, R. (2013). A Case of Wikis and Contradictions: Activity Systems, Classroom Community, and Instructional Design for Collaborative Online Learning. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, Volume 3 Issue 1., pp. 19-31. http://www.jaidpub.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Johnson-Sims-MAY2013.pdf

• Fink, L.D. (2003). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), pp. 335-353.

• Hadjerrouit, S. S. (2013). A Framework for Assessing the Pedagogical Effectiveness of Wiki-Based Collaborative Writing: Results and Implications. Interdisciplinary Journal Of E-Learning & Learning Objects, Volume 9, pp. 929-49.

• Lee, K., & Brett, C. (2015). Dialogic understanding of teachers' online transformative learning: A qualitative case study of teacher discussions in a graduate-level online course. Teaching And Teacher Education, Volume 46, pp. 72-83. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.11.001

• Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), pp. 442-457. Retrieved from http:// www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/murphy.pdf

• Salas, E., Sims, D.E., Burke, C.S. (2005). Is there a "Big Five" in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), p. 555-599.

• Sims, R. (2008). Rethinking (e)learning: A manifesto for connected generations. Distance Education, 29 (2), pp. 153-164. doi: 10.1080/01587910802154954

References – cont.• Heath, E. F. (1998). Two cheers and a pint of worry: An on-line course in political and social philosophy. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 2, pp. 15-33.

• Roach, T. (2014). The Benefits of Asynchronous Discussion in a Hybrid Course: Evidence from a Large Enrolment Economics Course. Journal of Economics & Economic Education Research, 15(2), pp. 13-23.

• Romero, C., López, M., Luna, J., & Ventura, S. (2013). Predicting students' final performance from participation in on-line discussion forums. Computers & Education, Volume 68, pp. 458-472. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.009

• Rovai, A.P. (2001a). Building classroom community at a distance: a case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), pp. 33-48. Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology Journals.

• Rovai, A. P. (2001b). Classroom community at a distance: A comparative analysis of two ALN-based university programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(2), pp. 105-118. Retrieved from Science Direct.

• Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building a sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), pp. 1-16. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier

• Ruth, A., & Houghton, L. (2009). The wiki way of learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), pp. 135-152.

• Su, F., & Beaumont, C. (2010). Evaluating the use of a wiki for collaborative learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(4), pp. 417- 431.

• Zumbach, J., Reimann, P., Schoenemann, J. (2005). Effects of resource distribution and feedback on computer-mediated collaboration in dyads. Towards sustainable and scalable educational innovations informed by the learning sciences. IOS Press: Amsterdam.

• Kay, J., Maisonneuve, N., Yacef, K., & Reimann, P. (2006). The Big Five and Visualisations of Team Work Activity. Technical Report 581. University of Sidney.

• http://www.alkahera-alyoum.com/viewvideo/14374/speakswiki/teamwork-wiki-article

Appendix : Glossary for ‘BIG FIVE’ MODELCOMPETENCIES

• Team Leadership: ability to direct and coordinate other team members’ activities, assess team performance, assign tasks, develop team knowledge and skills, motivate team members, plan and organize, and establish a positive atmosphere.

• Mutual performance monitoring: ability to develop common understandings of the team environment and apply appropriate task strategies to accurately monitor teammate performance.

• Backup behavior: ability to anticipate other team members’ needs through accurate knowledge about their responsibilities. Includes the ability to shift workload among members to achieve balance during high periods of workload or pressure.

• Adaptability: ability to adjust strategies based on information gathered from the environment through the use of backup behavior and reallocation of intra-team resources. Altering a course of action or team repertoire in response to changing conditions (internal or external).

• Team orientation: propensity to take others’ behavior into account during group interaction and belief in importance of team goal over individual members’ goals.

MECHANISMS

• Shared mental models: an organizing knowledge structure of the relationships among the tasks the team is engaged in and how the team members will interact.

• Mutual trust: the shared belief that team members will perform their roles and protect the interests of their teammates.

• Closed-loop communication: the exchange of information between a sender and a receiver irrespective of the medium.