The educational value of microworlds has been accepted as an article of faith. This research note defines microworlds as simulators based on system dynamics models of particular business systems. Subsequently, it explores how business students perceive microworld simulation. This research draws on data obtained from courses in undergraduate business programs as well as a postexperience MBA program. The data suggest that the learning benefits perceived by students are substantial. Moreover, mature students are more likely to benefit from microworlds than less mature ones.
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
Crookall, D., Oxford, R. L., & Saunders, D. (1987). Towards a reconceptualization of simulation: From representation to reality. Simulation/Games for Learning, 17(3), 147-171.
3.
Gentry, J. W. (1980). Group size and attitudes toward simulation experience. Simulation & Games, 11, 451-460.
4.
Goosen, K. R., Jensen, R., & Wells, R. (2001). Purpose and learning benefits of simulations: A design and development perspective. Simulation & Gaming, 32, 21-39.
5.
Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1990). The role of management games and simulations in education and research. Journal of Management, 16, 307-336.
6.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2000). Learning as acquisition and learning as interaction. Simulation & Gaming, 31(3), 380-406.
7.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2003). Gaming & simulation: Principles of a science of design. Simulation & Gaming, 34(4), 569-591.
8.
Maani, K. E., & Cavana, R. Y. (2000). Systems thinking and modelling: Understanding change and complexity. Auckland, New Zealand: Prentice Hall.
9.
Maier, F. H., & Grössler, A. (2000). What are we talking about? A taxonomy of computer simulations to support learning. System Dynamics Review, 16, 135-148.
10.
Marsick, V. J., & O’Neil, J. (1999). The many faces of action learning. Management Learning, 30, 159-176.
11.
Morecroft, J. D. W., Larsen, E. R., Lomi, A., & Ginsberg, A. (1995). The dynamics of resource sharing: A metaphorical model. System Dynamics Review, 11, 289-309.
12.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
13.
Romme, A. G. L. (2003a). Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science, 14, 558-573.
14.
Romme, A. G. L. (2003b). Learning outcomes of microworlds for management education. Management Learning, 34, 51-61.
15.
Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vennix, J. A. M., & Van Mullekom, T. (2002). Group model building effectiveness: A review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review, 18, 5-45.
16.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
17.
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1996). The fifth discipline fieldbook. London: Nicholas Brealey.
18.
Thompson, J. P. (1999). Consulting approaches with system dynamics: Three case studies. System Dynamics Review, 15, 71-95.
19.
Vennix, J. A. M. (1996). Group model building. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
20.
Watson, W. E., Johnson, L., & Merrit, D. (1998). Team orientation, self orientation, and diversity in task groups: Their connection to team performance over time. Group & Organization Management, 23(2), 161-188.
21.
Wolfe, J., & Chacko, T. I. (1983). Team size effects on business game performance and decision-making behaviors. Decision Sciences, 14, 121-133.
22.
Wolfe, J., & Crookall, D. (1998). Developing a scientific knowledge of simulation and gaming. Simulation& Gaming, 29, 7-19.
