View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teaching Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) in a Supply Chain Context: A Paper Football In-Class Activity

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teaching Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) in a Supply Chain Context: A Paper Football In-Class Activity
Language: English
Authors: Brau, Rebekah Inez (ORCID 0000-0002-4519-0042), Gardner, John W., Webb, G. Scott, McDonald, Jason K.
Source: Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. Jan 2019 17(1):6-32.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Supply and Demand, Class Activities, Educational Games, Experiential Learning, Problem Solving, Problem Based Learning, Simulation, Learner Engagement, Instructional Effectiveness
DOI: 10.1111/dsji.12171
ISSN: 1540-4595
Abstract: We develop a single-class period learning game for the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) improvement cycle. The experiential activity walks teams through the PDSA problem-solving process as they create paper American footballs and improve their performance using each step of the cycle. The game is one of the first to focus on PDSA. Key benefits include increased student attention, engagement, and learning. Empirical tests show that participant pre- and post-test scores regarding their understanding of each phase of PDSA improved 21.2% after completing the game. Additionally, the treatment group performed 16.6% higher than the control group. In participant perception questions, 85% of participants felt the game was more effective than lecture or reading, 93% felt the game was fun, 95% felt the game improved their understanding of PDSA, and 98% felt the game was engaging.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1204743
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHQ_maiGOyPFg2QXafzIh8WAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGnBzvxttz3d2mqw7gIBEICBm7_uJvt3VWIUOKPI9rgmJqZprzLoffkhalpi5ATfNI2k-gLIdeOvdGTxEQyejRTf5f6AYqI-m7WFAO5Ef8WphDxkorulj9-_pT547fIb8HULRNZnFjWF8uDvNLX3bcqP5b4K6_v_S1L0jsvqG3qRXLJzNGTOqOKdFZn8Y-v8Hg-LdV1f9bcDFNv_VlKlUWmXo7DKfIdq6LJ1MDDo
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0134467392;q1n01jan.19;2019Feb06.04:48;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0134467392-1">Teaching Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act (PDSA) in a Supply Chain Context: A Paper Football In‐Class Activity </title> <p>We develop a single‐class period learning game for the Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act (PDSA) improvement cycle. The experiential activity walks teams through the PDSA problem‐solving process as they create paper American footballs and improve their performance using each step of the cycle. The game is one of the first to focus on PDSA. Key benefits include increased student attention, engagement, and learning. Empirical tests show that participant pre‐ and post‐test scores regarding their understanding of each phase of PDSA improved 21.2% after completing the game. Additionally, the treatment group performed 16.6% higher than the control group. In participant perception questions, 85% of participants felt the game was more effective than lecture or reading, 93% felt the game was fun, 95% felt the game improved their understanding of PDSA, and 98% felt the game was engaging.</p> <p>Keywords: Content Areas; Experimental Learning; Games and Simulations; Pedagogical Approaches; and Supply Chain Management</p> <p>The purpose of this article is to present the design and development of an experiential learning activity for the Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act (PDSA) improvement cycle within supply chain and operations management contexts. The PDSA cycle is a systematic process founded on scientific methods for ongoing learning and continual improvement. It follows a cycle of planning goals and success measures (Plan), implementing the planned actions (Do), studying and analyzing the results for success or additional improvement (Study), and enacting changes and adjustments (Act). Applications of PDSA range from simple single improvements, to complex large‐scale developments. PDSA is a core component of Total Quality Management, Six Sigma, and Lean Management quality programs that are used by thousands of companies globally (Andersson, Eriksson, & Torstensson, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]; https://<ulink href="http://www.isixsigma.com/industries/industry-lists/">www.isixsigma.com/industries/industry-lists/</ulink>). However, the literature lacks experiential learning activities for PDSA, despite its importance and broad applications.</p> <p>The intent of our learning activity is to help participants gain hands‐on experience in working through each phase of the PDSA improvement cycle during one 30‐ to 45‐minute session in which teams create paper footballs, score points by "kicking" the footballs through goal posts, and improve their performance using the PDSA problem‐solving process. The paper footballs in this activity are triangular, similar in shape to the prolate spheroid American football or a rugby ball. This hands‐on activity has the potential to increase student understanding over reading textbooks or lectures (Fawcett, Ritchie, Wallin, & Webb, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref2">20</reflink>]; Gumus & Love, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref3">24</reflink>]; Harnowo, Calhoun, & Monteiro, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref4">24</reflink>]). Studying PDSA through experiential learning is consistent with the supply chain management (SCM) educational literature, which has been encouraging greater incorporation of game‐based learning (e.g., Althouse & Hedges, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]; Cyrs, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref6">12</reflink>]). Game‐based learning employs experiential activities as an alternative or complementary approach to instruction and has been found to increase participant motivation, engagement, concentration, connection between theory and practice, and learning outcomes (Heineke, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref7">25</reflink>]; Plass, Homer, & Kinzer, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref8">51</reflink>]; Schiefele, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref9">57</reflink>]; Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & Gee, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref10">58</reflink>]; Wright & Gilmore, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref11">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>The remainder of this article is outlined as follows. The next section explains the PDSA cycle and related literature and then briefly reviews game‐based learning. We then present a detailed discussion of the game and provide instructional materials that can be photocopied and handed out to students. The following section describes the actual implementation and evaluation of the game in an introductory quality management supply chain class. The final section concludes with potential extensions.</p> <hd id="AN0134467392-2">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0134467392-3">PDSA in SCM</hd> <p>The PDSA improvement cycle has evolved over time and is grounded in the scientific method. We point interested readers to helpful documentations of its evolution written by Moen and Norman ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref12">42</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref13">43</reflink>]), which we summarize briefly here. Walter A. Shewhart – a statistician focused on quality control – introduced a three‐step process for mass production based on specification, production, and inspection. Shewhart originally depicted these steps in a linear manner but later revised the process into a cyclical model intended to mirror the scientific method for acquiring knowledge in which the three steps "correspond respectively to hypothesizing, carrying out an experiment and testing the hypothesis" (Shewhart, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref14">59</reflink>], p. 45). This approach later became known as the "Shewhart Cycle" and was heavily influenced by scientific thinking promoted by Galileo, planned knowledge generation promoted by Sir Francis Bacon, and pragmatic thinking promoted by Clarence Lewis (Moen & Norman, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref15">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>W. Edwards Deming edited some of Shewhart's lectures on the cycle and later presented his own adaptations to Japanese scientists and engineers in 1950 (Deming, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref16">14</reflink>]). Deming's adapted cycle or "wheel" included four processes: Design, Production, Sales, and Research. It is believed by some that Japanese executives then reframed Deming's wheel as Plan, Do, Check, Act, respectively (or PDCA) (Moen & Norman, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref17">43</reflink>]). Kaoru Ishikawa later refined the Planning phase to include goal and target setting with plans for how to reach them (Ishikawa, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref18">29</reflink>]). Ishikawa also emphasized training during implementation in the Do phase and ongoing updates to standards during control in the Check and Act phases. In the 1980s Deming sought to clearly distinguish his cycle from the PDCA cycle. He later named his cycle the PDSA cycle or "Shewhart cycle for learning and improvement" in 1993. PDSA replaces "check" with "study" as Deming felt that the meaning of "check" may cause people to hold back from taking appropriate action for managing quality. Deming's Study phase emphasizes analysis that compares data from implementation to that originally predicted in the Plan phase. Further, Deming argued that the PDSA cycle is a <emph>management plan</emph> for designing, making, selling, and testing high‐quality products, whereas he felt the PDCA cycle was for use at a local level by those striving to overcome errors or faults (Moen & Norman, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref19">43</reflink>]). While Deming sought to make clear distinctions between PDSA and PDCA, both are used abundantly in practice. Despite some important differences, both the PDCA and PDSA cycles are built upon scientific methods for knowledge acquisition and continual improvement.</p> <p>PDSA underlies the Six Sigma and Lean improvement cycles. In Six Sigma, the DMAIC process (Define‐Measure‐Analyze‐Improve‐Control) follows the PDSA cycle of planning goals (Define) and measuring progress (Measure) during implementation, studying results and predictions through careful analysis (Analyze), and enacting needed changes (Improve) and controls (Control) to ensure ongoing improvement. Some consider PDSA to be a subset of DMAIC (Andersson et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>]). Others show how PDSA can be used within individual steps of DMAIC, such as within the Improve step, where one is to identify, test, and implement a solution (Dubickis & Gaile‐Sarkane, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>]). Similarly, the PDSA cycle is foundational in Toyota's "A3" applications for leading and communicating the living improvement cycle, with significant emphasis placed on the Plan phase.</p> <p>The four phases of PDSA have been employed within the context of SCM for strategic planning (Martensen & Dahlgaard, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref22">37</reflink>]), supply chain system control (Beamon & Ware, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref23">7</reflink>]), process improvement (DeToro & Tenner, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref24">15</reflink>]), green purchasing (Hwang, Wen, & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref25">28</reflink>]), quality management (Kuei & Madu, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref26">33</reflink>]), local problem resolution (Pearson, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref27">48</reflink>]), managerial innovation (Martensen & Dahlgaard, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref28">36</reflink>]), and service delivery (Gapp & Fisher, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>]). What is lacking is an instructional tool for helping participants experience and quickly grasp the PDSA improvement cycle.</p> <p>In this activity, we focus on PDSA rather than PDCA, consistent with Deming's emphasis on management planning, developing new knowledge, and refining theory as results are compared with <emph>theoretical predictions</emph> made during the Plan phase. However, the PDSA activity presented in this article could be modified for use with the PDCA cycle as desired by focusing the Check phase on comparing the actual results directly to the planned results, rather than <emph>theoretical predictions</emph> as is emphasized in the Study phase. We now briefly review each phase.</p> <p>The <bold>Plan</bold> phase of PDSA involves choosing the focus area, determining the current baseline of practice and performance, and planning what steps will be taken for improvement. The process of determining and documenting a baseline helps individuals and organizations understand current processes and establishes a reference point for later comparison. The objectives for making improvements should be clearly understood in this phase, and action plans for reaching desired targets should be set relative to the baseline (Björklund & Gustafsson, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref30">8</reflink>]). Plans should focus on how changes will take place, including what should occur, who will perform specific efforts, and when and where the efforts will take place.</p> <p>In the <bold>Do</bold> phase, the new improvement initiative is implemented and pertinent data regarding the changes are collected to facilitate future analysis in comparison to the baseline. Other desired data may be measured as implementation progresses.</p> <p>During the <bold>Study</bold> phase, the implemented changes are analyzed and evaluated to determine whether they lead to theoretical predictions of improvement. Data collected in the Do phase are now analyzed, including comparisons to the original baselines prepared during the Plan phase. Key results and learning can be documented and summarized to facilitate clear understanding. Deming argued that the concept of "study" makes this distinction from the concept of "check," which generally focuses on comparing results to the plan rather than emphasizing theory refinement for deeper learning and application as done in the Study approach.</p> <p>In the <bold>Act</bold> phase, individuals and organizations determine what changes should be enacted to further accomplish the objectives of the current and future improvement cycles. If the results of the Study phase demonstrate clear improvements, new standard processes may be enacted to ensure ongoing benefit and to maintain the desired changes. If the analysis during the Study phase does not show the desired improvements, additional changes may be identified for future improvement cycles, which would then be baselined and planned as the PDSA cycle is repeated.</p> <p>The entire cycle is intended to be repeated for ongoing improvements in desired performance. Additionally, "feedback loops during the different phases and at different organizational levels are inherent features of the PDSA cycle connected to learning and understanding the chosen approach in different ways and, perhaps, to reconsidering the concept built on earlier experiences" (Björklund & Gustafsson, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>], p. 197). The application of cyclical feedback loops can occur in game‐based learning.</p> <hd id="AN0134467392-4">Game‐Based Experiential Learning</hd> <p>Game‐based learning uses experiential activities to meet defined learning outcomes (Plass, Homer, & Kinzer, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref32">51</reflink>]; Shaffer et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref33">58</reflink>]). Game‐based approaches have been employed for teaching and learning various SCM topics (e.g., Gumus & Love, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref34">22</reflink>]; Webb, Thomas & Liao‐Troth, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref35">65</reflink>]; Wu & Choi, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref36">68</reflink>]). "Among many available strategies, gaming has been proven to be a tool that effectively enhances teaching and learning" (Chang, Peng, & Chao, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref37">11</reflink>], p. 321). Numerous learning benefits of game‐based approaches are summarized in Table 1.</p> <p>Examples of benefits from game‐based learning</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Learning Benefit</th><th align="center">Literature Support</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Address different learning needs through alternative teaching methods</td><td>Martocchio and Webster (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">38</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>2. Increase participant motivation and learning outcomes</td><td>Azriel, Erthal, and Star (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">6</xref>); Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">50</xref>); Schiefele (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">57</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>3. Increase participant engagement in the learning process for increased learning</td><td>Heineke (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">25</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>4. Lead to greater participant involvement, concentration, activation, and enjoyment for increased achievement and comprehension</td><td>Schiefele (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">57</xref>); Quinn (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">53</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>5. Improve learning environment through participant self‐regulated learning and autonomy</td><td>Tuckman (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">64</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>6. Enhance connections between theory and practice</td><td>Wright and Gilmore (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">67</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>7. Facilitate competitive interactions which can increase learning when participants react to their natural competitive natures</td><td>Mayer, Mautone, and Prothero (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">40</xref>); Rieber (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr56">56</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>8. Enable cooperation and increased learning</td><td>O'Donnell, Dansereau, and, Hall (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44">44</xref>); O'Donnell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr45">45</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>9. Combine competition and cooperation for further learning</td><td>Wiegmann (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66">66</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Game‐based learning has been successfully applied in various fields including marketing (Daly, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref38">13</reflink>]; Hamer, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref39">23</reflink>]), information systems (Massey, Brown, & Johnston, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref40">39</reflink>]), international business (Paul & Mukhopadhyay, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref41">47</reflink>]), business administration (Elgood, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref42">17</reflink>]), engineering (Hsiung, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]; Prince, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref44">52</reflink>]), computer science (Martocchio & Webster, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref45">38</reflink>]; Papastergiou, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref46">46</reflink>]), mathematics (Carr, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref47">10</reflink>]), space science (Liu, Horton, Kang, Kimmons, & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref48">34</reflink>]), and physics (Eseryel, Law, Ifenthaler, Ge, & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref49">19</reflink>]; Squire, Barnett, Grant, & Higginbotham, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref50">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>The supply chain pedagogical literature offers numerous games and experiential learning tools to teach various elements of SCM as summarized in Table 2 (extended from Hill and Baker, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref51">26</reflink>], with five additional citations on supply chain learning games). In addition to articles on Six Sigma by Ellis, Goldsby, Bailey, and Oh ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>]) and Swanson ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref53">63</reflink>]), other examples that include Six Sigma teaching activities are Rasis, Gitlow, & Popovich ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref54">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref55">55</reflink>]), Box ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref56">9</reflink>]), Zuckweiler ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref57">69</reflink>]), and Miller, Hill, & Miller ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref58">41</reflink>]). However, there does not appear to be an established game for PDSA. The current article addresses this need.</p> <p>Active learning exercises in supply chain management</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Article</th><th align="center">Topics</th><th align="center">Game</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hill and Baker (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">26</xref>)</td><td>Product design</td><td>Desktop cradle for cell phone</td></tr><tr><td>Miller et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">41</xref>)</td><td>Lean Six Sigma SCM</td><td>Problem‐based learning case‐project</td></tr><tr><td>Harnowo et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">24</xref>)</td><td>Supply chain integration</td><td>Game cards for supplier‐manufacturer‐customers</td></tr><tr><td>Althouse and Hedges (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2</xref>)</td><td>Managerial process</td><td>Lego bricks for Plan Before You Play (PBP)</td></tr><tr><td>Webb et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">65</xref>)</td><td>SCOR Modeling</td><td>MegaBloks to build two supply chains</td></tr><tr><td>Ellis et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">18</xref>)</td><td>Lean Six Sigma, SCM</td><td>Paper airplanes</td></tr><tr><td>Snider and Eliasson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">61</xref>)</td><td>Forecasting</td><td>Forecasting charts</td></tr><tr><td>Ashenbaum (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">4</xref>)</td><td>Process selection</td><td>Greeting cards</td></tr><tr><td>Johnson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">30</xref>)</td><td>Statistical process control</td><td>Paper helicopters</td></tr><tr><td>Kolenko (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">31</xref>)</td><td>Production planning</td><td>Flashlights</td></tr><tr><td>Zuckweiler (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr69">69</xref>)</td><td>Six Sigma projects</td><td>Integrative real project</td></tr><tr><td>Piercy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">49</xref>)</td><td>Production planning</td><td>Greeting cards</td></tr><tr><td>Ashenbaum (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3">3</xref>)</td><td>JIT manufacturing</td><td>Toy blocks into fictional assembly</td></tr><tr><td>Snider and Eliasson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">60</xref>)</td><td>Push versus pull manufacturing</td><td>To blocks into Vancouver Olympics symbol</td></tr><tr><td>Swanson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">63</xref>)</td><td>Lean Six Sigma, SCM</td><td>Lunch</td></tr><tr><td>Box (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">9</xref>)</td><td>Six Sigma quality</td><td>Hands‐on team projects</td></tr><tr><td>Rasis, Gitlow, and Popovich (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">54</xref>a)</td><td>Six Sigma green belt case (part I)</td><td>Six Sigma Green Belt project: Define and measure phases</td></tr><tr><td>Rasis, Gitlow, and Popovich (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55">55</xref>)</td><td>Six Sigma green belt case (part II)</td><td>Six Sigma Green Belt project: Analyze, improve, and control phases</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Chang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>]) include four principles that are necessary in a game to keep the participants involved while engaging in game‐based learning: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>) Challenges: The contents of the game need to be challenging in order to arouse participants' curiosity; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>) Competition: Individual participants or groups need to compete with each other so that participants' motivation remains high; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>) Cooperation: The design of the game should help participants to develop a sense of "work as a team and win as a team"; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>) Authentic tasks: The game should incorporate authentic, real‐world cases instead of textbook‐like materials (p. 322).</p> <p>Based on Chang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref64">11</reflink>]) and techniques found in effective games in the literature, a game focused directly on the PDSA cycle should be engaging to participants, innovative in its design, competitive, cooperative, inclusive of all participants, motivating, safe to learn from failure, self‐regulating, and linked to theory and practice. The design of our game is consistent with these parameters found in the literature, providing strong support for the use of game‐based learning for the PDSA cycle. Furthermore, the cyclical nature of PDSA is conducive to iterative learning cycles that game‐based learning helps facilitate.</p> <hd id="AN0134467392-5">OVERVIEW OF GAME</hd> <p>This section describes the PDSA game that is designed as a 30‐ to 45‐minute experiential learning activity for group‐based settings. The physical goal of the game – detailed in the instructor slides in Appendix – is for teams to make as many points as possible by "kicking" paper footballs between vertical upright posts that are drawn on the board. A "kicker" from each team will "kick" (traditionally by flicking the football with their finger) a standard paper football 10 times to create a baseline score. Teams then use the PDSA cycle to make improvements to the football and/or approach. Finally, teams "kick" their improved footballs 10 times for a final score.</p> <p>The primary learning outcome of this project is a working knowledge of the application of PDSA. Figure 1, based on Moen and Norman ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref65">42</reflink>]), illustrates the PDSA cycle and learning points within each phase. In the Plan phase, participants learn two skills: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>) observe, define, and record problem(s) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref67">2</reflink>) plan to carry out the cycle (who, what, when, where). In the Do phase, participants experience two related skills: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>) implement the changes determined in the Plan phase and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>) collect data for future analysis. In the Study phase, participants develop three skills: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>) complete data analysis, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>) compare data to predictions, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>) summarize what was learned. Finally, participants address two strategic questions during the Act phase: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>) What changes are to be made? and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>) Is another cycle needed? Additional cycles are then performed as needed.</p> <p>GRAPH: PDSA cycle. This figure illustrates the PDSA cycle.</p> <p>The game design proceeds through the four phases of the PDSA cycle as described above. An expert in quality control would apply the PDSA cycle as a natural step in the quality management process. The goal of the project is to expose the participants to the PDSA cycle with a hands‐on activity in an effort to help them move from novice to expert in their understanding and application. Having completed the PDSA football game, the participants who achieve expertise in PDSA will have the ability to apply the PDSA cycle not only in SCM problems, but also in any facet of their lives that may need improvement. The expert can employ the phases of Plan, Do, Study, and Act in nearly any decision process they wish to improve.</p> <p>Our instructional design strives for an imaginative, effective, and efficient learning approach to apply technical concepts and scientific principles found in PDSA. Our application follows the four principles promoted by Chang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref75">11</reflink>]) as discussed previously. In game‐based learning, participants are graded based on their participation in, as well as their understanding and application of the defined learning outcomes. The use of game‐based learning for PDSA provides an opportunity for participants to actively experience the improvement cycle, whether that be prior to entering the real‐world or while they are seeking to improve their current real‐world applications.</p> <p>The learning outcome for the PDSA game‐based activity is that participants will demonstrate increased understanding and application of each phase of the PDSA cycle. The next section outlines step‐by‐step directions for instructors.</p> <hd id="AN0134467392-6">Step‐By‐Step Directions for Instructors</hd> <p>Instructors can prepare for and execute the game using the brief instructions in Table 3. More detailed instructions are provided following the table.</p> <p>Steps to Plan and execute the PDSA game</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Step</th><th align="center">Instruction</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Collect materials</td><td>Gather all materials as listed in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="dsji12171-tbl-0004">4</xref>.</td></tr><tr><td>Prepare the activity</td><td>Create an initial football for each team, draw the goalpost on a whiteboard, and determine the location from which kicks will be made.</td></tr><tr><td>Create teams</td><td>Separate students into teams of three to four.</td></tr><tr><td>Testing phase (5 minute)</td><td>Teams perform 10 kicks. After each kick they mark the location of the hit on the whiteboard and record the results on the handout provided in Figure <xref ref-type="figure" rid="dsji12171-fig-0005">5</xref>.</td></tr><tr><td>The PDSA cycle</td><td>Introduce students to the PDSA cycle (through a method preferred by the instructor).</td></tr><tr><td>Plan (5 minute)</td><td>Teams discuss the problem(s) that caused their football to perform poorly.</td></tr><tr><td>Do (5 minute)</td><td>Teams use anything in the room or on the internet they can find to the problem. Instructors should not suggest ideas to students, but give permission for whatever ideas they create.</td></tr><tr><td>Study (10 minute)</td><td>Teams perform 10 new kicks and record the results on the handout provided in Figure <xref ref-type="figure" rid="dsji12171-fig-0005">5</xref>. They create a new plan to improve their football again.</td></tr><tr><td>Act (10 minute)</td><td>Teams exchange their instructions with each other and follow the directions as provided to create a new football. Each team performs 10 kicks, and gives feedback on its performance to the team that created the instructions they used.</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion</td><td>The instructor concludes the activity by explaining this represents one cycle of PDSA; in practice the cycle is repeated until desired results are achieved. The instructor also distributes rewards to the winning team(s).</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0134467392-7">Instructor preparation</hd> <p>The first step to prepare for the game is to collect the needed materials listed in Table 4.</p> <p>Materials list</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Item</th><th>Quantity</th><th>Notes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sheets of different colored paper</td><td>2 per group</td><td>All paper same thickness</td></tr><tr><td>American Flag folded paper football</td><td>1 per group</td><td>The teacher prepares an initial football for each group. Each football should be as similar as possible. The teacher should follow the YouTube in the slides to create the footballs.</td></tr><tr><td>Dry‐erase markers</td><td>1 color per colored paper</td><td>Markers will be shared between teams.</td></tr><tr><td>Dry‐erase eraser</td><td>1 eraser</td><td>The same eraser can be used for all teams.</td></tr><tr><td>Tape</td><td>5‐10 feet depending on class size</td><td>Masking tape would be best. If no tape, some other barrier such as a chair or table.</td></tr><tr><td>Participant handout</td><td>1 per group</td><td>For recording data and PDSA cycle</td></tr><tr><td>Reward</td><td>1 to 3</td><td>In big class, award 1st through 3rd place. If smaller class, just 1st place. Can be candy or healthier alternative</td></tr><tr><td>Whiteboard</td><td>1</td><td>If not already in classroom, a whiteboard is needed to draw field goal and mark "kick" locations</td></tr><tr><td>Measuring stick</td><td>1</td><td>To draw each goalpost the same dimensions</td></tr><tr><td>Evaluation handouts</td><td>1 per participant</td><td>Handed out before and after game</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Next, the instructor or an assistant can pre‐fold one paper football (American style) for each team prior to the start of class to facilitate more time spent on actual PDSA applications. Instructions for making the footballs can be found at https://<ulink href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4hd1jigqLs">www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4hd1jigqLs</ulink> or <ulink href="http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Paper-Football">http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Paper-Football</ulink>. As a reminder, the paper footballs in this activity are triangular, similar in shape to the prolate spheroid American football, or a rugby ball. Third, American football goalposts (see Figure 2) should be prepared – one per team – on the boards in the classroom. Goalposts should have each line segment approximately 18 inches wide and 18 inches tall. If white boards or chalk boards are not available in the room, instructors could use and mark large poster pads that are at least 18 inches tall and 18 inches wide.</p> <p>GRAPH: Illustration of goalpost vertical uprights and target for football and Red Team initial kicks.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q1N/01jan19/dsji12171-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="dsji12171-fig-0002.jpg" title="image_n/dsji12171-fig-0002.png" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Next, place tapelines (or some other indicators) on the floor approximately 10 feet away from the goalposts for each team. Separate the participants into teams of equal size with three to five individuals per team (depending on class size, team sizes can be adjusted). Give participants time to decide the roles for each team member, which can include the following: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>) A "kicker" who kicks the footballs, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>) A "referee" who marks "X" on the board where each of the kicks hits the board, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>) A "scorekeeper" who records the points on the handout. Optional roles, if needed, for team members four and five include: (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref79">4</reflink>) A "timekeeper" who keeps team members on track with a stopwatch (e.g., on their cell phone) and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref80">5</reflink>) A "manufacturer" who works with the paper to create the football. Assign each team a color, then distribute matching paper, markers, and a standard paper American football to each corresponding team. After setup, the room should look something like the diagram in Figure 3. Also distribute the diagram of PDSA (Figure 4) and the participant design handouts (Figure 5).</p> <p>GRAPH: Diagram of the initial room setup.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q1N/01jan19/dsji12171-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="dsji12171-fig-0003.jpg" title="image_n/dsji12171-fig-0003.png" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0134467392-10">Testing phase (5 minute)</hd> <p>Hand out the pre‐made standard paper American footballs. Explain that teams will create a baseline score by standing behind the tapeline and launching their paper football at the goalpost on the whiteboard 10 times. The objective is for the football to hit the whiteboard as close to the center of the vertical uprights as possible. Draw a target dot at the center of each goalpost to help participants aim. A direct hit would appear as shown in Figure 2 above (the red X indicates that the Red Team kicked).</p> <p>For the baseline test, participants stand behind the tapeline and attempt to make a field goal 10 times. Each team marks an X on the whiteboard in their color according to where each paper football hits. A field goal is counted if the paper football strikes the whiteboard inside the vertical uprights (hitting a bar does not count). Teams score three points for each field goal with a total possible score of 30 (10 attempts × three points each). Points are recorded by each team on the handout. After the baseline test, each team should have recorded the data (number of points) on their handout (Task 1 in Figure 5). After the initial 10 "kicks," the data may look something like Figure 2, in which the Red Team would have scored 3 × 3 = 9 points (i.e., three football "kicks" are inside the uprights).</p> <p>Once participants have completed the testing phase, introduce them to the PDSA improvement cycle. To do this, the instructor can use Figure 1, a textbook reading if assigned prior to class, or any other chosen method by the instructor. The following instructions explain how to proceed through each phase of PDSA.</p> <hd id="AN0134467392-11">Plan (5 minute)</hd> <p>Teams define and record problems observed in the initial tests and make a plan for improvement. For example, the Red Team might conclude: "Our football is not consistent enough" or "Our football goes to the left too often." The instructor can encourage everyone to participate in the group discussion to define problems. The instructor may choose to encourage teams to focus on one main problem during an individual improvement cycle, enabling teams to discover the incremental improvement of each individual change. Teams plan here how to fix the problem(s).</p> <hd id="AN0134467392-12">Do (5 minute)</hd> <p>Teams then implement their planned solutions. They work together as a team to modify the design or to make a new design that they think will solve the problem. The instructor encourages all to participate. The instructor should remind participants to be as creative as they can. Participants may be allowed to use anything in the room, including the Internet, but instructors should not announce this openly but should rather wait until participants ask and then grant permission on a group‐by‐group basis to avoid disrupting or changing other teams' thought processes.</p> <hd id="AN0134467392-13">Study (10 minute)</hd> <p>Teams "kick" the new football 10 more times, marking results with a different color X (or different symbol) where the football strikes the board. They record the data, or points scored from launching their revised football, on their handout (Task 4 on Figure 5) as they did in the pre‐trials with three points for each field goal. The second iteration of testing represents the Study phase as participants consider how their improved design and approach affects accuracy. Teams observe the difference between the initial baseline set of "kicks" and this set of "kicks" and discuss what changes or adjustments might be needed.</p> <hd id="AN0134467392-14">Act (10 minute)</hd> <p>Teams detail on the handout (Task 5 of Figure 5) the exact process they feel will improve the football as if building a new football and/or process from scratch. Enough detail should be recorded for someone else to replicate the construction exactly. Making an instruction list can be encouraged by the instructor so the next team has a specific guide of instructions to follow.</p> <p>Instead of teams enacting their own changes for a second PDSA cycle, they exchange their handouts with another team. The instructor directs teams to create the football per the instructions they received from the other team. Each team then "kicks" the new football (the one based on the other team's instructions) 10 times, records the data (Task 6 on Figure 5), and gives feedback to the team who provided the design instructions. The instructor explains that this is just one cycle of the PDSA method. In practice, participants would repeat the cycle until they have achieved the desired level of quality (i.e., the number of made field goals). As time permits, instructors may choose to do additional cycles and could provide additional copies of Figure 5.</p> <hd id="AN0134467392-15">Classroom Product and Handouts</hd> <p>The final product consists of a training slideshow (Appendix), a PDSA cycle handout (Figure 4), and a revised participant handout (task list) with the questions to structure actions (Figure 5).</p> <p>GRAPH: PDSA diagram participant handout. Photocopy and hand out to participants.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q1N/01jan19/dsji12171-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="dsji12171-fig-0004.jpg" title="image_n/dsji12171-fig-0004.png" /> </p> <p></p> <p>GRAPH: Team handout. Photocopy and hand out.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q1N/01jan19/dsji12171-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="dsji12171-fig-0005.jpg" title="image_n/dsji12171-fig-0005.png" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0134467392-18">IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION</hd> <p>Prior to implementation in the classroom to evaluate the game effectiveness, we conducted two beta‐tests. The first beta‐test was with a single group, and the second beta‐test was with four groups. Modifications were made to the game based on feedback from the beta‐tests. The finalized game was implemented in an undergraduate Quality Management supply chain course during the second class period of the semester. Leading the activity early in a semester or instruction period enables participants to use PDSA throughout the remainder of the semester or learning periods. The control group consisted of 39 participants who took the post‐assessment following some brief discussion by the instructor walking through the PDSA cycle using two PowerPoint slides, repeating instruction on the cycle twice. This brief walkthrough was similar to what may be given in a typical operations or supply chain introduction of PDSA. The experiment treatment group consisted of 40 participants in a separate section of the same course as the control group. The treatment group received the same brief instruction as the control group, followed by the full football PDSA activity. Following the activity, the treatment group was given the post‐assessment. Neither group was allowed to use notes or handouts during the post‐assessment.</p> <p>There were similar themes between the beta tests and the course implementation. For example, the two high‐scoring teams changed their football designs and approach during the Do phase by <emph>crumpling</emph> their paper into a round ball and then <emph>throwing</emph> it like a baseball or a dart rather than flicking it; several teams made the same changes in the beta tests. Another team in the course created and threw paper airplanes, as performed by two beta groups. A fourth team also crumbled the paper into a ball but decided to flick it instead of throw it. Similar to what the beta group discovered, the flicking method did not work as well as the throwing method. Virtually every team felt the original football was too heavy and started the improvement cycle with that observation. Face validity was established through the similar methods that were employed by both the beta test groups and the implementation teams.</p> <p>The participant pre‐ and post‐questions are adapted from Webb et al. ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref81">65</reflink>]), Althouse and Hedges ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>]), and Harnowo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref83">24</reflink>]). As reported in Table 5, the evaluation indicated that questions Q2, Q3, and Q4 all showed improvements after participation in the activity. Specifically, Q2 improved 50% (12.5% to 62.5%), Q3 improved 22.5% (52.5% to 75.0%), and Q4 improved 12.5% (72.5% to 85.0%). Q1 was unchanged between the pre‐test and post‐test at 80%.</p> <p>PDSA activity pre‐test and post‐test results</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th align="center">Post‐Test (<italic>n</italic> = 40)</th><th align="center">Pre‐Test (<italic>n</italic> = 40)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Q1: Which of the following is a correct description of applying the Plan phase of PDSA?</td><td align="char" char=".">80.0%</td><td align="char" char=".">80.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Q2: Which of the following is a correct description of applying the Do phase of PDSA?</td><td align="char" char=".">62.5%</td><td align="char" char=".">12.5%*</td></tr><tr><td>Q3: Which of the following is a correct description of applying the Study phase of PDSA?</td><td align="char" char=".">75.0%</td><td align="char" char=".">52.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Q4: Which of the following is a correct description of applying the Act phase of PDSA?</td><td align="char" char=".">85.0%</td><td align="char" char=".">72.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Aggregate Test Score</td><td align="char" char=".">75.6%</td><td align="char" char=".">54.4%</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Tests for Difference in Aggregate Test Scores</italic></td></tr><tr><td><italic>F</italic>‐test for difference in variances</td><td /><td align="char" char=".">1.39</td></tr><tr><td><italic>p</italic>‐Value for difference in variances</td><td /><td align="char" char=".">.1550</td></tr><tr><td><italic>t</italic>‐Stat for difference in means</td><td /><td align="char" char=".">3.78</td></tr><tr><td><italic>p</italic>‐Value for difference in means</td><td /><td align="char" char=".">.0003</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1217150001 Indicates statistical significance beyond the.05 level.</p> <p>To test the improvement statistically, the aggregate score of the pre‐ and post‐tests was computed as is typical of in‐class academic assessments such as quizzes and examinations. Table 5 reports a statistically significant difference between the pre‐ and post‐test means (<emph>t</emph> = 3.78, <emph>p</emph> =.0003) with an average 21.2% increase in assessment scoring (i.e., 75.6% to 54.4%). Note that prior to the activity, the class average was failing at 54.4%. After the activity, the class average was a passing score at 75.6%. Examining which questions had the largest impact, the difference in means <emph>p</emph>‐value for Q2 (.000) and Q3 (.037) are the two that carry statistical significance at the question level.</p> <p>The results for the experiment and control group comparison are reported in Table 6. Questions Q1, Q2, and Q3 showed the performance of the experiment group to be higher than that of the control group. The differences are 5.6% (80.0% ‐ 74.4%) for Q1, 47.1% (62.5% ‐ 15.4%) for Q2, and 21.2% for Q3 (75.0% ‐ 53.8%). Q4 showed that the control group outperformed the experiment group by 7.3% (92.3% ‐ 85.0%) on that particular question.</p> <p>PDSA activity experiment group and control group results</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th>Experiment Group (<italic>n</italic> = 40)</th><th>Control Group (<italic>n</italic> = 39)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Q1: Which of the following is a correct description of applying the Plan phase of PDSA?</td><td align="char" char=".">80.0%</td><td align="char" char=".">74.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Q2: Which of the following is a correct description of applying the Do phase of PDSA?</td><td align="char" char=".">62.5%</td><td align="char" char=".">15.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Q3: Which of the following is a correct description of applying the Study phase of PDSA?</td><td align="char" char=".">75.0%</td><td align="char" char=".">53.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Q4: Which of the following is a correct description of applying the Act phase of PDSA?</td><td align="char" char=".">85.0%</td><td align="char" char=".">92.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Aggregate Test Score</td><td align="char" char=".">75.6%</td><td align="char" char=".">59.0%</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Tests for Difference in Aggregate Test Scores</italic></td></tr><tr><td><italic>F</italic>‐test for difference in variances</td><td /><td align="char" char=".">1.21</td></tr><tr><td><italic>p</italic>‐Value for difference in variances</td><td /><td align="char" char=".">.2823</td></tr><tr><td><italic>t</italic>‐Stat for difference in means</td><td /><td align="char" char=".">3.11</td></tr><tr><td><italic>p</italic>‐Value for difference in means</td><td /><td align="char" char=".">.0027</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1217160001 Indicates statistical significance beyond the.05 level.</p> <p>To statistically test for a significant difference in the performance of the two groups, the aggregate test scores were computed for each group. The results from the course implementation demonstrated in Table 6 that there was a statistically significant difference between the average means of the experiment group and the control group (<emph>t</emph> = 3.11, <emph>p</emph> =.0027), with a positive margin of 16.6% (75.6% ‐ 59.0%). This significant difference suggests the activity taught the students how to understand the PDSA cycle, as measured by the mini‐case, significantly better than only the reading assignment and brief instruction of the control group. Examining which individual questions had the largest impact, the difference in means <emph>p</emph>‐value for Q2 (.000) and Q3 (.050) are the two that carry statistical significance at the question level.</p> <p>In both difference‐in‐means tests, variance was assumed equal. As indicated in Tables 5 and 6 the <emph>F</emph>‐tests in each pair failed to reject the null hypothesis of equal variances (<emph>p</emph> =.1550 and <emph>p</emph> =.2823, respectively). The difference‐in‐means tests provide strong evidence that the use of the in‐class activity significantly increased participants' ability to understand the PDSA cycle as measured by the mini‐case (Athanassiou, McNett, & Harvey, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref84">5</reflink>]; Lord & Baviskar, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref85">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to difference testing, Table 7 reports results from a post‐game survey of participants' perceptions and feelings toward the activity. Even if the activity hypothetically did not increase learning over traditional methods, it may add value if it helps engage participants in the class and if they feel like the game is a fun learning activity. Table 7 reports that 95% of the participants who did the activity agreed (either strongly or somewhat) that, "This game improved my understanding of key concepts regarding PDSA," with a 5‐point Likert score of 4.25. For the question asking if participants felt they, "...learned more from the game about PDSA than from traditional lecture/reading assignments," 85% agreed with a 4.18 Likert score. With a Likert score of 4.7, 98% of participants felt, "The game was an engaging classroom exercise," and 93% agreed that, "The game was fun," with a 4.68 Likert score.</p> <p>PDSA activity post‐game participant perception results</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th> (5‐Point Likert Scale with 5 Strongly Agree)</th><th>% Strongly or Somewhat Agreeing</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Q5: This game improved my understanding of key concepts regarding PDSA.</td><td>4.25</td><td>95%</td></tr><tr><td>Q6: I believe I learned more from the game about PDSA than from traditional lecture/reading assignments.</td><td>4.18</td><td>85%</td></tr><tr><td>Q7: The game was an engaging classroom exercise.</td><td>4.70</td><td>98%</td></tr><tr><td>Q8: The game was fun.</td><td>4.68</td><td>93%</td></tr><tr><td>Sample Size = 40</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The PDSA in‐class learning activity measured as a success based upon all three of the criteria for success: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>) There was an improvement in the scores between the pre‐ and post‐game questions Q1‐Q4 of 21.2% on average; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref87">2</reflink>) The participatory group outperformed the control group on Q1‐Q4 by 16.6% on average; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref88">3</reflink>) The majority of the participants who did the activity answered Q5‐Q8 positively with 95%, 85%, 98%, and 93%, respectively, agreeing with the statements in Q5‐Q8 of the survey.</p> <hd id="AN0134467392-19">Limitations and Conclusion</hd> <p>Although articles such as Athanassiou, McNett, and Harvey ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>]) and Kowalski, Weaver, and Henson ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref90">32</reflink>]) suggest that cases can measure higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy, a valid critique of the PDSA football game is that our pre‐ and post‐tests focused on items at the "recognition" level of Bloom's. We judged this a helpful first step to determine whether the game had enough merit to evaluate further; future testing can help establish whether the game also helps students achieve outcomes at higher levels of the taxonomy. For follow‐on research, other assessments might be developed to more clearly capture the "apply" and "analyze" levels of the taxonomy. Teams could use the PDSA cycle in a second problem‐solving setting where the researcher observes participants' ability to apply and analyze. For example, instead of improving a paper football design, teams could use clay to improve the design of a cup. Analysis of this type of activity would most likely be more qualitative in nature as it would involve researcher observation and interpretation but could add additional evidence that participants are performing at higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy.</p> <p>We also recognize a possible limitation of using the same questions for the pre‐ and post‐evaluations, which could induce a bias of foreknowledge, rather than demonstrating knowledge. Consistent with previous literature such as the three papers used to formulate our questions cited above, we interpret our data with the understanding of that possible bias. We do note that the treatment and control groups both received the same pre‐ and post‐ evaluations, and yet significant differences were found between them.</p> <p>To conclude, this article presents an effective and engaging experiential activity to help participants more fully understand and apply the PDSA cycle. The game can be used in any course or organization in which improvement cycles are being taught or implemented. The activity takes minimal preparation time and has been shown to significantly improve participant understanding and engagement in the PDSA improvement cycle.</p> <hd id="AN0134467392-20">Appendix</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0134467392-21">INSTRUCTOR'S INSTRUCTION SLIDE DECK</hd> <p>Slide 1</p> <p>Slide 2</p> <p>Slide 3</p> <p>Slide 4</p> <p>Slide 5</p> <p>Slide 6</p> <p>Slide 7</p> <p>Slide 8</p> <p>Slide 9</p> <p>Slide 10</p> <p>Slide 11</p> <p>Slide 12</p> <p>Slide 13</p> <p>Slide 14</p> <p>Slide 15</p> <ref id="AN0134467392-22"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Andersson, R., Eriksson, H., & Torstensson, H. (2006). Similarities and differences between TQM, six sigma and lean. The TQM magazine, 18, 282 – 296.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Althouse, N. R., & Hedges, P. L. (2015). Plan before you play: An activity for teaching the managerial process. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 13, 515 – 528.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref62" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ashenbaum, B. (2010). The twenty‐minute just‐in‐time exercise. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8, 269 – 274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref63" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ashenbaum, B. (2013). A prevalidation of the product‐process matrix. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 11, 313 – 322.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref80" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Athanassiou, N., McNett, J. M., & Harvey, C. (2003). Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom's taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management Education, 27, 533 – 555.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Azriel, J. A., Erthal, M. J., & Star, E. (2005). Answers, questions, and deceptions: What is the role of games in business education ? Journal of Education for Business, 81, 9 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref23" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beamon, B. M., & Ware, T. M. (1998). A process quality model for the analysis, improvement and control of supply chain systems. Logistics Information Management, 11, 105 – 113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref30" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Björklund, M., & Gustafsson, S. (2015). Toward sustainability with the coordinated freight distribution of municipal goods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 194 – 204.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref56" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Box, T. M. (2006). Six Sigma quality: Experiential learning. Sam Advanced Management Journal, 71, 20 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carr, J. (2012). Does math achievement h'APP'en when iPads and game‐based learning are incorporated into fifth‐grade mathematics instruction? Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11, 269 – 286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang, Y. C., Peng, H. Y., & Chao, H. C. (2010). Examining the effects of learning motivation and of course design in an instructional simulation game. Interactive Learning Environments, 18, 319 – 339.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cyrs, T. E. (1994). Essential skills for college teaching: An instructional systems approach. Las Cruces, NM : New Mexico State University Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daly, S. P. (2001) Student‐operated internet businesses: True experiential learning in entrepreneurship and retail management. Journal of Marketing Education, 23, 204 – 215.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deming, W. E. (1950). Elementary principles of the statistical control of quality: A series of lectures. Tokyo, Japan : Nippon Kagaku Gijutsu Remmei.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeToro, I. J. & Tenner, A. R. (1997). Process redesign: The implementation guide for managers. Boston, MA: Addison‐Wesley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dubickis, M., & Gaile‐Sarkane, E. (2017). Transfer of know‐how based on learning outcomes for development of open innovation. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/313896176%5fTransfer%5fof%5fknow-how%5fbased%5fon%5flearning%5foutcomes%5ffor%5fdevelopment%5fof%5fopen%5finnovation">www.researchgate.net/publication/313896176%5fTransfer%5fof%5fknow-how%5fbased%5fon%5flearning%5foutcomes%5ffor%5fdevelopment%5fof%5fopen%5finnovation</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elgood, C. (1997). Handbook of management games and simulation (6th ed.). Aldershot, England : Gower Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis, S. C., Goldsby, T. J., Bailey, A. M., & Oh, J.Y. (2014). Teaching Lean Six Sigma within a supply chain context: The airplane supply chain simulation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 12, 287 – 319.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., & Miller, R. (2014). An investigation of the interrelationships between motivation, engagement, and complex problem solving in game‐based learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17, 42 – 53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fawcett, S. E., Ritchie, J. B., Wallin, C., & Webb, S. C. (2009). The art of war: Managing the intricacies of supply chain power and trust. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7, 239 – 247.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gapp, R., & Fisher, R. (2007). Developing an intrapreneur‐led three‐phase model of innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 13, 330 – 348.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gumus, M., & Love, E. C. (2013). Supply chain sourcing game: A negotiation exercise. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 11, 3 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamer, L. O. (2000). The additive effects of semi structured classroom activities on student learning: An application of classroom‐based experiential learning techniques. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 25 – 34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harnowo, A. S., Calhoun, M. A., & Monteiro, H. L. (2016). Sink or swim: Learning by doing in a supply chain integration activity. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14, 7 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heineke, J. (1997). Enhancing learning using classroom games and exercises. Quality Management Journal, 4, 32 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, S., & Baker, E. (2016). An active learning exercise for product design from an operations perspective. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14, 273 – 284.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsiung, C. M. (2012). The effectiveness of cooperative learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 119 – 137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang, Y. D., Wen, Y. F., & Chen, M. C. (2010). A study on the relationship between the PDSA cycle of green purchasing and the performance of the SCOR model. Total Quality Management, 21, 1261 – 1278.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ishikawa, D. K. (1985). What is total quality control?: The Japanese way. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall Trade.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, D. J. (2011). Using paper helicopters to teach statistical process control. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9, 299 – 306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolenko, T. A. (2011). Flashlight assembly challenge: Introducing production operations to MBA students. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9, 75 – 79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kowalski, T. J., Weaver, R. A., & Henson, K. T. (1990). Case studies on teaching. Educational Leadership Faculty Publications. Paper 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuei, C. H., & Madu, C. N. (2003). Customer‐centric six sigma quality and reliability management. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20, 954 – 964.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, M., Horton, L., Kang, J., Kimmons, R., & Lee, J. (2013). Using a ludic simulation to make learning of middle school space science fun. International Journal of Gaming and Computer‐Mediated Simulations, 5, 66 – 86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lord, T., & Baviskar, S. (2007). Moving students from information recitation to information understanding‐Exploiting Bloom's Taxonomy in creating science questions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36, 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martensen, A., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (1999a). Strategy and planning for innovation management: A business excellence approach. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 16, 734 – 755.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martensen, A., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (1999b). Strategy and planning for innovation management: Supported by creative and learning organisations. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 16, 878 – 891.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martocchio, J. J., & Webster, J. (1992). Effect of feedback and cognitive playfulness on performance in microcomputer software training. Personnel Psychology, 45, 553 – 578.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Massey, A. P., Brown, S. A., & Johnston, J. D. (2005). It's all fun and games...until students learn. Journal of Information Systems Education 16, 9 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, R. E., Mautone, P., & Prothero, W. (2002). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 171 – 185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, K. E., Hill, C., & Miller, A. R. (2016). Bringing Lean Six Sigma to the supply chain classroom: A problem‐based learning case. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14, 382 – 411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moen, R., & Norman, C. (2006). Evolution of the PDCA cycle. Retrieved from http://www.uoc.cw/financesite/images/stories/NA01_Moen_Norman_fullpaper.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moen, R. & Norman, C. (2010). Circling back: Clearing up myths about the Deming cycle and seeing how it keeps evolving. Quality Process, 43, 22 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (1987). Cognitive, social/affective, and metacognitive outcomes of scripted cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 431 – 437.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., Rocklin, T. R., Hythecker, V. I., Lambiotte, J. G., Larson, C. O., & Young, M. D. (1985). Effects of elaboration frequency on cooperative learning. Journal of Education Psychological, 77, 572 – 580.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game‐based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52, 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paul, P., & Mukhopadhyay, K. (2004). Experiential learning in international business education. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 16, 7 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearson, T. A. (1999). Measurements and the knowledge revolution. Quality Progress, 32, 31 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piercy, N. (2010). Experiential learning: The case of the production game. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8, 275 – 280.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D.A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801 – 813.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game‐based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50, 258 – 283.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223 – 231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, C. N. (1996). Designing an instructional game: Reflections on quest for independence. Education and Information Technologies, 1, 251 – 269.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rasis, D., Gitlow, H. S., & Popovich, E. (2003a). Paper organizers international: A fictitious Six Sigma green belt case study I. Quality Engineering, 15, 127 – 145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rasis, D., Gitlow, H. S., & Popovich, E. (2003b). Paper organizers international: A fictitious Six Sigma green belt case study II. Quality Engineering, 15, 259 – 274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Education Technology Research and Development, 44, 43 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Education Psychologist, 26, 299 – 323.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 105 – 111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shewhart, W. A. (1939). Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Agriculture, reprinted by Dover.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snider, B. R., & Eliasson, J. B. (2009). Push versus pull and mass customization: A Lego inuksuk demonstration. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7, 411 – 416.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snider, B. R., & Eliasson, J. B. (2013). Beat the instructor: An introductory forecasting game. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 11, 147 – 157.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Squire, K., Barnett, M., Grant, J. M., & Higginbotham, T. (2004). Electromagnetism supercharged!: Learning physics with digital simulation games. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences. Santa Monica, CA : International Society of the Learning Sciences, 513 – 520.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson, L. (2008). The lean lunch. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6, 153 – 157.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tuckman, B. W. (1992). The effect of student planning and self‐competence on self‐motivated performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 119 – 127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webb, G. S., Thomas, S. P., & Liao‐Troth, S. (2014). Teaching supply chain management complexities: A SCOR model based classroom simulation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 12, 181 – 198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiegmann, D. A. (1992). Cooperative learning: Effects of role playing and ability on performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 109 – 116.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright, A., & Gilmore, A. (2012). Threshold concepts and conceptions: Student learning in introductory management courses. Journal of Management Education, 36, 614 – 635.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, Z., & Choi, T. (2013). Triadic relations in a game of pachisi. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 11, 305 – 312.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zuckweiler, K. M. (2011). Teaching Six Sigma to undergrads: A simplified real project approach. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9, 137 – 142.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Rebekah Inez Brau; John W. Gardner; G. Scott Webb and Jason K. McDonald</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Rebekah Inez Brau is a second‐year PhD student of supply chain management in the Department of Supply Chain Management, Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas,. She holds a BS in Business and an MS in Instructional Psychology and Technology, both from Brigham Young University. Her research interests include behavioral operations and supply chain management, supply chain forecasting, and the integration of humans and analytics in the workplace. This article is based on her masters' degree capstone project.</p> <p>John W. Gardner is an associate professor of supply chain management in the Department of Marketing & Global Supply Chain, Marriott School of Business, Brigham Young University,. He holds a BA in Music, an MBA, and an MA in International and Area Studies, all from BYU. He earned his PhD in Management Science from the Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University. His research interests include operational improvement through learning, innovation, and networks.</p> <p>G. Scott Webb is an associate teaching professor in the Department of Marketing & Global Supply Chain, Marriott School of Business, Brigham Young University,. He earned a BA in psychology from the College of Idaho, an MS in Logistics and Management from the US Air Force Institute of Technology, and a PhD in Logistics and Operations Management from the Broad College of Business at Michigan State University. His research interests include logistics management, experiential learning, and supply chain collaboration.</p> <p>Jason K. McDonald is an associate teaching professor in the Department of Instructional Psychology and Technology (IP&T), McKay School of Education, Brigham Young University,. He earned a BS in Sociology, an MS in IP&T, and a PhD in IP&T all from BYU. His research interests include reflective practice for designers, creativity in the instructional design process, and diffusion of innovations.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref90"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1204743
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teaching Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) in a Supply Chain Context: A Paper Football In-Class Activity
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brau%2C+Rebekah+Inez%22">Brau, Rebekah Inez</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4519-0042">0000-0002-4519-0042</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gardner%2C+John+W%2E%22">Gardner, John W.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Webb%2C+G%2E+Scott%22">Webb, G. Scott</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McDonald%2C+Jason+K%2E%22">McDonald, Jason K.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Decision+Sciences+Journal+of+Innovative+Education%22"><i>Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education</i></searchLink>. Jan 2019 17(1):6-32.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Supply+and+Demand%22">Supply and Demand</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Class+Activities%22">Class Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Games%22">Educational Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experiential+Learning%22">Experiential Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Based+Learning%22">Problem Based Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Simulation%22">Simulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/dsji.12171
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1540-4595
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: We develop a single-class period learning game for the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) improvement cycle. The experiential activity walks teams through the PDSA problem-solving process as they create paper American footballs and improve their performance using each step of the cycle. The game is one of the first to focus on PDSA. Key benefits include increased student attention, engagement, and learning. Empirical tests show that participant pre- and post-test scores regarding their understanding of each phase of PDSA improved 21.2% after completing the game. Additionally, the treatment group performed 16.6% higher than the control group. In participant perception questions, 85% of participants felt the game was more effective than lecture or reading, 93% felt the game was fun, 95% felt the game improved their understanding of PDSA, and 98% felt the game was engaging.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1204743
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1204743
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/dsji.12171
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 6
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Supply and Demand
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Class Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Games
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experiential Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Solving
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Based Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teaching Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) in a Supply Chain Context: A Paper Football In-Class Activity
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brau, Rebekah Inez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gardner, John W.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Webb, G. Scott
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McDonald, Jason K.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1540-4595
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 17
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1