Prefabricated computer-based simulations usually offer a user-friendly interface. This allows inexperienced users fast access to the simulation because they do not have to possess specific knowledge about simulation techniques. Thus, giving simulation models an easy-to-use interface increases the acceptance of the simulation tool and draws attention to it. Learners are not only able to examine the results of their decisions but also the causes of these results using powerful system dynamics diagramming techniques. This adds transparency to the former black-boxes, producing so-called transparent-box business simulators. This article reports on an experiment evaluating the relevance and effects of structural transparency. This experimental design also can be used to examine other types of business simulators. Hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of transparency were tested. Results show the necessity for further research and collaboration.
Ashby, W. R.
(1958). An introduction to cybernetics. New York: Chapman & Hall.
2.
Bakken, B.
, Gould, J., & Kim, D. (1994). Experimentation in learning organizations: A management flight simulator approach. In J.D.W. Morecroft & J. D. Sterman (Eds.), Modeling for learning organizations(pp. 243-266). Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
3.
Cook, T. D.
, & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Houghton Mifflin.
4.
Cronbach, L. J.
(1990). Essentials of psychological testing(5th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
5.
Davidsen, P. I.
(1996). Educational features of the system dynamics approach to modeling and simulation. Journal of Structural Learning, 12(4), 269-290.
6.
Davidsen, P. I.
, & Spector, J. M. (1997). Cognitive complexity in system dynamics based learning environments. In Y. Barlas, V. G. Diker, & S. Polat (Eds.), 15th International System Dynamics Conference: Systems approach to learning and education into the 21st century(pp. 757-760). Istanbul, Turkey: Bogazici University Press.
7.
de Geus, A. P.
(1988). Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review, 66(2), 70-74.
8.
Diehl, E. W.
(1992). Participatory simulation software for managers: The design philosophy behind microworld creator. European Journal of Operational Research, 59(1), 210-215.
9.
Dörner, D.
(1992). Die Logik des Mißlingens [The logic of failure]. Reinbek bei Hamburg, Germany: Rowohlt.
10.
Doyle, J. K.
, & Ford, D. N. (1997). Mental models concepts for system dynamics research. In Y. Barlas, V. G. Diker, & S. Polat (Eds.), 15th International System Dynamics Conference: Systems approach to learning and education into the 21st century(pp. 323-326). Istanbul, Turkey: Bogazici University Press.
11.
Forrester, J. W.
(1994). System dynamics, systems thinking and soft OR. System Dynamics Review, 10(2/3), 245-256.
12.
Funke, J.
(1985). Steuerung dynamischer Systeme durch den Aufbau und Anwendung subjektiver Kausalmodelle [Controlling of dynamic systems by building and using subjective causal models]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 193(4), 443-465.
13.
Funke, J.
(1993). Microworlds based on linear equation systems: Anewapproach to complex problem solving and experimental results. In G. Strube & K. F. Wender (Eds.), The cognitive psychology of knowledge(pp. 313-330). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
14.
Gagné, R. M.
(1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction(4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Rinehart and Winston.
15.
Goodman, M.
(1994). Using microworlds to promote inquiry. In P. M. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, & B. J. Smith (Eds.), The fifth discipline fieldbook(pp. 534-536). New York: Doubleday.
16.
Graham, A. K.
, Morecroft, J.D.W., Senge, P.M., & Sterman, J.D. (1994). Model-supported case studies for management education. In J.D.W. Morecroft & J. D. Sterman (Eds.), Modeling for learning organizations(pp. 219-241). Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
17.
Größler, A.
(1997). As time goes by: Self-proceeding management simulations. InY. Barlas, V. G. Diker,& S. Polat (Eds.), 15th International System Dynamics Conference: Systems approach to learning and education into the 21st century(pp. 371-374). Istanbul, Turkey: Bogazici University Press.
18.
Größler, A.
(1998a). Design and implementation of transparency in business simulators(Working Paper No. 9806). Mannheim, Germany: Mannheim University, Faculty of Business Administration.
19.
Größler, A.
(1998b). Structural transparency as an element of business simulators. In System Dynamics Society (Ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society(p. 39-39). Quebec City, Canada: System Dynamics Society.
20.
Hogg, R. V.
,& Craig, A. T. (1965). Introduction to mathematical statistics(2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
21.
Isaacs, W.
,& Senge, P. M. (1994). Overcoming limits to learning in computer-based learning environments. In J.D.W. Morecroft & J. D. Sterman (Eds.), Modeling for learning organizations(pp. 267-287). Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
22.
Kluwe, R. H.
(1993). Knowledge and performance in complex problem solving. In G. Strube & K. F. Wender (Eds.), The cognitive psychology of knowledge(pp. 401-423). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
23.
Kreutzer, W. B.
(1994). A buyer’s guide to off-shelf microworlds. In P. M. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, & B. J. Smith (Eds.), The fifth discipline fieldbook(pp. 536-542). New York: Doubleday.
24.
Lane, D. C.
(1995). On a resurgence of management simulations and games. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46, 604-625.
25.
Langley, P. A.
(1995). Building cognitive feedback into a microworld learning environment: Results from a pilot experiment. In T. Shimado & K. Saeed (Eds.), System dynamics ’95(pp. 628-637). Cambridge, MA: System Dynamics Society.
Machuca, J.A.D.
(1990). A new generation of business models/games for management education. In G. E. Lasker & R. R. Hough (Eds.), Advances in support systems research(pp. 478-482). Windsor, Canada: International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics.
28.
Machuca, J.A.D.
(1991). When creating and using games, are we neglecting the essential of system dynamics? In K. Saeed, D. Andersen, & J. Machuca (Eds.), System dynamics ’91(pp. 329-335). Bangkok, Thailand: System Dynamics Society.
29.
Machuca, J.A.D.
(1992). Are we losing one of the best features of system dynamics?System Dynamics Review, 8(2), 175-177.
30.
Machuca, J.A.D.
, & Carrillo, M.A.D. (1996). Transparent-box business simulators versus black-box business simulators: An initial empirical comparative study. InG. P. Richardson& J. D. Sterman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1996 International System Dynamics Conference(pp. 329-332). Cambridge, MA: System Dynamics Society.
31.
Machuca, J.A.D.
, Ruiz, J. C., Domingo, M. A., & González, M. M. (1998). Our 10 years of work on transparent-box business simulation. In System Dynamics Society (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1998 International System Dynamics Conference(p. 5-5). Quebec City, Canada: System Dynamics Society.
32.
Maier, F. H.
, & Größler, A. (1998). A taxonomy for computer simulations to support learning about socio-economic systems. In System Dynamics Society (Ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society(pp. 57-58). Quebec City, Canada: System Dynamics Society.
33.
Milling, P. M.
(1991). Strategische Planungs-und Kontrollsysteme zur Unterstützung betrieblicher Lernprozesse [Strategic planning and control systems for the support of organizational learning processes]. In P. M. Milling (Ed.), Systemmanagement und Managementsysteme [Management of systems and management systems] (pp. 11-31). Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humbolt.
34.
Milling, P. M.
(1996). Simulationen in der Produktion [Simulation in production control]. InW. Kern, H. -H. Schröder, & J. Weber (Eds.), Handwörterbuch der Produktionswirtschaft [Handbook of production management](pp. 1840-1852). Stuttgart, Germany: Schaffer-Poeschel.
35.
Milling, P. M.
, & Maier, F. H. (1997). On the effectiveness of corporate gaming environments and management simulators. In Y. Barlas, V. G. Diker, & S. Polat (Eds.), 15th International System Dynamics Conference: Systems approach to learning and education into the 21st century(pp. 335-339). Istanbul, Turkey: System Dynamics Society.
36.
Morecroft, J.D.W.
(1994). Executive knowledge, models, and learning. In J.D.W. Morecroft & J. D. Sterman (Eds.), Modeling for learning organizations(pp. 3-28). Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
37.
Moser, K.
(1993). Planung und Durchführung organisationspsychologischer Untersuchungen [Planning and implementation of examinations in organizational psychology]. In H. Schuler (Ed.), Lehrbuch Organisationspsychologie[Psychology in organizations] (pp. 71-105). Bern et al., Switzerland: Hans Huber.
38.
Niegemann, H. M.
, & Hofer, M. (1997). Ein Modell selbstkontrollierten Lernens und über die Schwierigkeiten, selbstkontrolliertes Lernen hervorzubringen [A model for self-controlled learning and on the difficulties to produce self-controlled learning]. In H. Gruber & A. Renkl (Eds.), Wege zum Können: Determinanten des Kompetenzerwerbs [Ways to know-how: Determinants of acquiring competences] (pp. 263-280). Bern et al., Switzerland: Hans Huber.
39.
Paich, M.
,& Sterman, J. D. (1993). Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental markets. Management Science, 39(12), 1439-1458.
40.
Pidd, M.
(1993). Computer simulation in management science(3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
41.
Putz-Osterloh, W.
(1993). Unterschiede im Erwerb und in der Reichweite des Wissens bei der Steuerung eines dynamischen Systems [Differences in acquisition and range of knowledge in controlling a dynamic system]. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 40(3), 386-410.
42.
Richardson, G. P.
, & Pugh, A. L. (1983). Introduction to system dynamics modeling with dynamo. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
43.
Ringelband, O. J.
, Misiak, C.,& Kluwe, R. H. (1990). Mental models and strategies in the control of a complex system. In D. Ackermann& M. J. Tauber (Eds.), Mental models and human-computer interaction 1(pp. 151-164). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
44.
Scheele, B.
, & Groeben, N. (1984). Die Heidelberger Struktur-Lege-Technik (SLT)[The Heidelberg structure-technique]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
45.
Senge, P. M.
, & Sterman, J. D. (1992). Systems thinking and organizational learning: Acting locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future. European Journal of Operations Research, 59, 137-150.
46.
Spector, J. M.
,& Davidsen, P. I. (1997). Constructing effective interactive learning environments using system dynamics methods and tools: Interim report, EIST Publication and Reports, No. 1. Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen.
47.
Sterman, J. D.
(1994). Learning in and about complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 10(2/3), 291-330.
48.
Süß, H.-M.
(1996). Intelligenz, Wissen und Problemlösen [Intelligence, knowledge, and problem solving]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
49.
Süß, H.-M.
, Beauducel, A., Kersting, M., & Oberauer, K. (1992). Wissen und Problemlösen [Knowledge and problem solving]. Paper presented at the 38th Congress of the German Psychology Society, Trier, Germany.
50.
Wittmann, W., Süß, H.-M., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., Conrad, W., Wagener, D., & Oberauer, K. (1996). Determinanten komplexen Problemlösens[Determinants of complex problem solving]. Report on the project “Problemlösungskapazität als Funktion von Intelligenz, Wissen und Persönlichkeit” [Problem-solving capacity as a function of intelligence, knowledge, and personality]. Unpublished manuscript.
51.
Zimbardo, P. G.
(1992). Psychology(5th ed.). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
