Wiki contents


2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Smartsims Support Centre

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

As we come back to uni from our mid semester break, we begin to enter the final stages of this semester and the competition and stress of MikesBikes is really heating up. The problem at the forefront of my mind this week is my teams very low SHV for MikesBikes and how everything we're trying doesn't seem to work. From the start of this assignment, my team and I agreed that we were always going to go for a long term strategy and plan for the future. We knew that this would mean that our financials etc. would suffer in the early weeks but we hoped that at least by now our SHV would've risen significantly more than it has. Currently it sits at just over $10 dollars and we have just over $1 million in cash. We have suffered a few set backs with failed designs and other things of the sort and we have tried many different things to increase this value, to no avail. These failed design projects are one reason for the problem but surely it must be more than just that?.Perhaps a contributing factor is that our team doesn't meet up enough?. We have two regular meetings every week where we discuss results from the previous week and decide where we should head. It never seems like we're rushing and we always have plenty of time so maybe its not that we're not meeting up enough, maybe its that our analysis of our decisions are not in depth enough?. Another possible reason is that some of our members may be what Argyris Term as 'single-loop' learners where they're so used to succeeding that the occurrence of failure drives them to put the blame on others and brush away any criticism. They do not look for solutions and possible reasons for the failure, they only look to blame everyone but themselves (1991). I do not believe this is the case with members our group as we do actively try to find the roots of problems and there is never blame put on other members. I can only imagine that the inclusion of an individual like this would be very harmful to the groups dynamics. 

We have already discussed this problem in our latest meeting and we believe that if we see no improvement of our SHV after this roll-over, we will endeavour to make it to the class sessions where we can seek out some advice from our lecturer on where we are possibly going wrong and how we can solve it. Of course we don't expect him to give us all the answers, but merely a helping a hand to aid us in raising this shareholder value. The table that shows what grades ranges of SHVs get was also brought to our attention this week and we were shocked to find out we're currently sitting on a D. Obviously none of us want this so we're really hoping for some good news at 5:01 on Thursday evening. 


Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learnReflections, 4(2), 4--15


  1. It is not too clear what your problem is. Is it a failure of group decision making? Is it a lack of understanding of the simulation? I can't really tell. 

    What at is the root cause of the setbacks you have encounters?  The failed development projects don't sound big enough to have set you back much?

    You seemed to have "wedged" in single and double loop learning. I'm not sure why as it doesn't seem to have helped/been useful.  

    One of the reasons the leaning journals are due after the rollover is to give you time to incorporate the results in your LJ (if appropriate).

    I have a sense of you following Daudelin's model, and you would get further with it if you were clearer on th specific problem you were facing. 

  2. Hi Cameron, I really enjoyed your reading this week. I can see Peter has commented above but I perceive your journal to read differently which is okay I think, as we are all allowed our own opinion. I think you have clearly identified the problem when you said

    "The problem at the forefront of my mind this week is my teams very low SHV for MikesBikes"

    I think you have analyzed why the problem has come to be, over the past few weeks your shareholder value hasn't been as high as you would've liked, and you have had difficulty increasing it, despite the "smart" people in group. So I think you have analyzed and related the reading material of teaching smart people how to learn into your journal by saying that perhaps your team members were single loop learners prior to this week, but with time they have transformed into double loop learners. 

    I think you have clearly exhibited that your possibly subconsciously tested these theories and will no doubt aim to be a consistent double loop learner in the coming weeks and into the future. I will look forward to your next journal as I do believe your application was great and reached the highest level of Bloom's Taxonomy (smile)

  3. Hi Cameron,

    You have written an effective and interesting reflection. You have made good engagement with the reading throughout and effectively managed to link these to your own experiences with the simulation this week. I think that it is quite good that you have been able to summarise the key aspect of the reading and then link them to your own experiences and critically engage with how they were experienced in your own group work. 

    The layout of your journal for this week has shows good structure whilst following Daudelin's and Blooms model. Well done on a good journal and all the best.

    Good luck on the upcoming weeks and for the assessment!