The subject of organizational behavior lends itself to a variety of teaching methods. In addition to the traditional lecture, discussion, and case analysis methods, experiential methods can be used to demonstrate various behavioral phenomena. This paper describes one type of experiential method, which is called grounded learning experiences (GLEs), using other experiential and nonexperiential methods as points of reference. The paper describes grounded learning experiences in terms of their task characteristics, first-order learning outcomes, and meta-learning outcomes. Some additional considerations for implementing GLEs are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkinGib (1979), On Getting Back to Learning. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 4 (2), 22–25.
2.
ArgyrisChris (1982), Reasoning, Learning, and Action: Individual and Organizational.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
ArgyrisChris, and DonaldA. Schon (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
4.
Behrman JackN., and RichardI. Levin (1984), Are Business Schools Doing Their Job? Harvard Business Review, 62 (1), 140–147.
5.
BloomBenjamin S. (Ed.) (1956), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive and Affective Domains.New York: David McKay.
6.
BowenDonald D. (1980), Experiential and Traditional Teaching of OB: A Dubious Distinction. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 8 (3), 7–12.
7.
CohenRobert A. (1976), Beyond Simulation: Treating the Classroom as an Organization. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 2 (1), 13–19.
8.
Green StevenG., and Thomas D. Taber (1978), Structuring Experiential Learning Through Experimentation. The Academy of Management Review, 3 (4), 889–895.
9.
Hall DouglasT., Donald D. Bowen, Roy J. Lewicki, and Francine S. Hall (1982), Experiences in Management and Organizational Behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
10.
Hall DouglasT., and Cynthia V. Fukami (1979), Organizational Design and Adult Learning. In StawB. M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 1 (pp. 125–168). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
11.
KahnRobert L. (1982), Work and Health, New York: Wiley.
12.
KaplanAbraham (1964), The Conduct of Inquiry.San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.
13.
LundbergCraig C. (1980), On Teaching Organization Development: Some Core Instructional Issues.Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 5 (2), 21–24.
14.
Lundberg CraigC., and Kurt K. Motamedi (1978), Toward Extending the Teaching of Organization Behavior. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 3 (1), 14–20.
15.
LuptonTom (1983), Functions and Organizations of University Business Schools. In KilmannR. H.ThomasK. W.SlevinD. P.NathR. and JerrellS. L. (Eds.), Producing Useful Knowledge for Organizations (pp. 582–599). New York: Praeger.
16.
Mezoff RobertM., Alan R. Cohen, and David L. Bradford (1979), A Dialogue on “Treating the Classroom as an Organization.” Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 4 (1), 25–36.
17.
MorganGareth, and RafaelRamirez (1983), Action Learning: A Holographic Metaphor for Guiding Social Change. Human Relations, 37, 1–28.
18.
MorganGareth, Peter JFrost, and Louis RPondy (1983), Organizational Symbolism. In PondyL. R.FrostP. J.MorganG. and DandridgeT. C. (Eds.), Organizational Symbolism.Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
19.
PiagetJean (1973), To Understand is to Invent.New York: Grossman.
20.
TallandGeorge A. (1968), Disorders of Memory and Learning.Baltimore: Penguin Books.
21.
TecceJoseph J. (1965), Relationship of Anxiety (Drive) and Response Competition in Problem Solving. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 70, 456–467.
22.
SuzukiDaisetz T. (1959), Zen and Japanese Culture.New York: Pantheon.
23.
WeathersbyRita, JeanM. Bartunek, and JudithR. Gordon (1982), Teaching for “Complicated Understanding.” Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 7 (4), 7–16.
24.
ZajoncRobert B. (1980), Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need no Inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.
