Обмен знаниями между группами: игровой подход к обучению

Введение. Было доказано, что игровые бизнес-симуляторы, которые широко используются в преподавании в последние годы, помогают студентам развивать командную работу и навыки решения проблем.

Цель исследования – оценить, как сплоченность команды и отношение к обмену знаниями связаны с намерениями создавать организационный климат и обмениваться знаниями.

Методология, методы и методики. Используя игровую среду обучения, авторы изучили отношения и намерения студентов, касающиеся обмена знаниями. В рамках исследования анкеты были направлены 202 студентам бизнес-колледжей в Хошимине, Вьетнам. Оценка методом бутстрепа использовалась для проверки всех гипотез с использованием модели структурных уравнений (SEM).

Результаты. Результаты исследования показали, что: 1) организационный климат положительно повлиял на сплоченность команды, а также на отношение к обмену знаниями, позитивно воздействующее на намерения обмениваться знаниями; 2) организационный климат был положительно связан с отношением к обмену знаниями и намерениями обмениваться знаниями; 3) сплоченность команды была положительно связана с отношением к обмену знаниями и намерениями обмениваться знаниями; 4) существует значительная связь между организационным климатом и намерениями обмениваться знаниями через посредничество сплоченности команды и отношения к обмену знаниями.

Научная новизна. Исследование помогает изучить взаимосвязи между четырьмя переменными, которые были упомянуты выше.

Практическая значимость. Результаты исследования показывают, что преподаватели должны устанавливать стандарты оценивания и побуждать учащихся выражать свое мнение. Кроме того, крайне важно создать хорошую атмосферу и повысить сплоченность в классе, для того чтобы формировать положительное отношение к обмену знаниями и намерения студентов использовать эти навыки.

1. Yi J. A measure of knowledge sharing behavior: Scale development and validation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2009; 7 (1): 65–81.

2. Donate M. J., et al. Total quality management and high-performance work systems for social capital development: Effects on company innovation capabilities. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2020; 21 (1): 87–114.

3. Shujahat M., et al. Translating the impact of knowledge management processes into knowledge-based innovation: The neglected and mediating role of knowledge-worker productivity. Journal of Business Research. 2019; 94: 442–450.

4. Iqbal A., et al. From knowledge management to organizational performance: Modelling the mediating role of innovation and intellectual capital in higher education. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2018; 32 (19). DOI: 10.1108/JEIM-04-2018-0083

5. Mahdi O. R., Nassar I. A., Almsafir M. K. Knowledge management processes and sustainable competitive advantage: An empirical examination in private universities. Journal of Business Research. 2019; 94: 320–334.

6. Witherspoon C. L., et al. Antecedents of organizational knowledge sharing: A meta-analysis and critique. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2013; 17 (2). DOI: 10.1108/13673271311315204

7. Crossan M. M., Lane H. W., White R. E. An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review. 1999; 24 (3): 522–537.

8. Ipe M. Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review. 2003; 2 (4): 337–359.

9. Nonaka I., et al. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Vol. 105. OUP USA; 1995. 284 p.

10. Fishbein M., Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975. 480 p.

11. Bock G. W., Kim Y. G. Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ). 2002; 15 (2): 14–21.

12. Bock G. W., et al. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly. 2005; 29 (01): 87–111.

13. Cabrera E. F., Cabrera A. Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2005; 16 (5): 720–735.

14. Gosen J., Washbush J. A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation & Gaming. 2004; 35 (2): 270–293.

15. Tao Y.-H., Cheng C.-J., Sun S.-Y. Alignment of teacher and student perceptions on the continued use of business simulation games. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2012; 15 (3): 177–189.

16. Schwabe G., Göth C. Mobile learning with a mobile game: Design and motivational effects. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2005; 21 (3): 204–216.

17. Faria A. J., et al. Developments in business gaming: A review of the past 40 years. Simulation & Gaming. 2009; 40 (4): 464–487.

18. Loon M., Evans J., Kerridge C. Learning with a strategic management simulation game: A case study. The International Journal of Management Education. 2015; 13 (3): 227–236.

19. Randel J. M., et al. The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming. 1992; 23 (3): 261–276.

20. Papastergiou M. Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education. 2009; 52 (1): 1–12.

21. Borrajo F., et al. SIMBA: A simulator for business education and research. Decision Support Systems. 2010; 48 (3): 498–506.

22. Fitó-Bertran À., Hernández-Lara A. B., Serradell-López E. Comparing student competences in a face-to-face and online business game. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014; 30: 452–459.

23. Kiili K., et al. Flow framework for analyzing the quality of educational games. Entertainment Computing. 2014; 5 (4): 367–377.

24. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action. Albert Bandura Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1986. 617 p.

25. Berberoglu A. Impact of organizational climate on organizational commitment and perceived organizational performance: Empirical evidence from public hospitals. BMC Health Services Research. 2018; 18 (1): 1–9.

26. Luo X., Xie S. A study on leadership behaviors of coach, team climate, and team cohesion – an example of football players. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics. 2018; 21 (2): 351–359.

27. Xue Y., Bradley J., Liang H. Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2011; 15 (2). DOI: 10.1108/13673271111119709

28. Chen S.-S., Chuang Y.-W., Chen P.-Y. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of KMS quality, KMS self-efficacy, and organizational climate. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2012; 31: 106–118.

29. Black J., et al. Self-efficacy and emotional intelligence: Influencing team cohesion to enhance team performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal. 2018; 25 (4). DOI: 10.1108/TPM-01-2018-0005

30. Stevens M., Rees T., Polman R. Social identification, exercise participation, and positive exercise experiences: Evidence from parkrun. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2019; 37 (2): 221–228.

31. Inkpen A. C., Tsang E.W. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review. 2005; 30 (1): 146–165.

32. Toh S. M., Srinivas E. S. Perceptions of task cohesiveness and organizational support increase trust and information sharing between host country nationals and expatriate coworkers in Oman. Journal of World Business. 2012; 47 (4): 696–705.

33. Chow W. S., Chan L. S. Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management. 2008; 45 (7): 458–465.

34. Zacharias T., Rahawarin M. A., Yusriadi Y. Cultural reconstruction and organization environment for employee performance. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies. 2021; 8 (2): 296–315.

35. Kao C.-C. Development of team cohesion and sustained collaboration skills with the sport education model. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (8): 2348.

36. Ruan Z., Liu W. Coach authentic leadership connected with performance satisfaction and psychological well-being of team: The mediating role of team cohesion and psychological capital. Revista de Psicología del Deporte (Journal of Sport Psychology). 2021; 30 (1): 189–203.

37. Grossman R., et al. The team cohesion-performance relationship: A meta-analysis exploring measurement approaches and the changing team landscape. Organizational Psychology Review. 2021; 12 (3): 20413866211041157.

38. Carron A. V., Bray S. R., Eys M. A. Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2002; 20 (2): 119–126.

39. Sancaktar C., Küçükaltan E. Organizational culture, team cohesion and team performance in Dragon Festival. Anatolia: Turizm Arastirmalari Dergisi. 2020; 31 (2): 138–148.

40. Anand A., Centobelli P., Cerchione R. Why should I share knowledge with others? A review-based framework on events leading to knowledge hiding. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2020; 33 (2): 379–399.

41. Ghobadi S., D’Ambra J. Knowledge sharing in cross-functional teams: A coopetitive model. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2012; 16 (2): 285–301.

42. Zhou S., Siu F., Wang M. Effects of social tie content on knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2010; 14 (3): 449–463.

43. García-Calvo T., et al. Perceived coach-created and peer-created motivational climates and their associations with team cohesion and athlete satisfaction: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2014; 32 (18): 1738–1750.

44. Wang S., Noe R. A. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review. 2010; 20 (2): 115–131.

45. Dobbins G. H., Zaccaro S. J. The effects of group cohesion and leader behavior on subordinate satisfaction. Group & Organization Studies. 1986; 11 (3): 203–219.

46. Williams L. J., McGonagle A. K. Four research designs and a comprehensive analysis strategy for investigating common method variance with self-report measures using latent variables. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2016; 31 (3): 339–359.

47. Podsakoff P. M., et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88 (5): 879–903.

48. Mossholder K. W., et al. Relationships between bases of power and work reactions: The mediational role of procedural justice. Journal of Management. 1998; 24 (4): 533–552.

49. Bagozzi R. P., Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1988; 16 (1): 74–94.

50. Fletcher T. D. Methods and approaches to assessing distal mediation. In: 66th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management [Internet]. Atlanta, GA; 2006 [cited 2023 Mar 23]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252951744_Methods_and_Approaches_to_Assessing_Distal_Mediation

51. Preacher K. J., Hayes A. F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods. 2008; 40 (3): 879–891.

52. Zhao X., Lynch Jr J. G., Chen Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research. 2010; 37 (2): 197–206.

53. Gourlay S. Knowledge management and HRD. Human Resource Development International. 2001; 4 (1): 27–46.

54. Blankenship S. S., Ruona W. E. Exploring knowledge sharing in social structures: Potential contributions to an overall knowledge management strategy. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2009; 11 (3): 290–306.