This article focuses on the research and scholarship dealing with the assessment of the experiential approach in both its computer-based and human-based forms. It covers two forms of assessment. First it covers explicit attempts to assess the validity of experiential learning, and second it focuses on measuring the effectiveness of the experiential approach. The authors classify the literature on both validity and measurement into critiques and prescriptions for ideal research on one hand and empirical research studies on the other. The empirical research reviewed supports the notion that experiential learning is effective. However, the studies showing these results reflect a long-standing trend of not meeting the highest of research design and measurement standards. Thus, the authors believe any conclusion about the effectiveness of these teaching approaches must be tentative.
Anderson, P. H., Cannon, H., Malik, D., & Thavikulwat, P. (1998). Games as instruments of assessment: A framework for evaluation. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 25, 31-37.
2.
Anderson, P. H., & Lawton, L. (1992a). The relationship between financial performance and other measures of learning on a simulation exercise. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 326-340.
3.
Anderson, P. H., & Lawton, L. (1992b). A survey of methods used for evaluating student performance on business simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 490-498.
4.
Anderson, P. H., & Lawton, L. (1997). Demonstrating the learning effectiveness of simulations: Where we are and wherewe need to go. Developments in Business Simulation& Experiential Exercises, 24, 68-73.
5.
Babb, E. M., Leslie, M. A., & Van Slyke, M. D. (1966). The potential of business gaming methods in research. Journal of Business, 39, 465-472.
6.
Beaumie, K., Williams, R., & Dattilo, J. (2002). Student perceptions of interactive learning modules. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 453-473.
7.
Berlyne, D. E. (1967). Arousal and reinforcement, In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 1-110). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
8.
Blake, C. G. (1990). The effects of instructional strategies on the learning of organizational behavior by a large university class. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 17, 59-64.
9.
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., First, E. D., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
10.
Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1991). Assessing individuality in learning: The learning skills profile. Educational Psychology, 11, 279-295.
11.
Brodbeck, F. C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2000). Effects of individual versus mixed individual and group experience in rule induction on group member learning and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 621-648.
12.
Burke, M. J., & Day, R. R. (1986). Acumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 232-245.
13.
Burns, A. C. (1986). The creation and operation of a data-base system forABSEL research. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 13, 102-105.
14.
Burns, A. C., Gentry, J. W., & Wolfe, J. (1990). A cornucopia of considerations in evaluating the effectiveness of experiential pedagogies. In J. W. Gentry (Ed.), A guide to business gaming and experiential learning(pp. 253-278). East Brunswick, NJ/London: Nichols/GP.
15.
Burns, A. C., Rubin, R. S., & Bojack, J. (1990). Computer-aided exercises vs. workbook exercises as learning facilitator in the principles of marketing course. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 17, 29-33.
16.
Butler, R. J., Markulus, P. M., & Strang, D. R. (1985). Learning theory and research design: HowhasABSEL fared?Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 12, 86-90.
17.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching(pp. 171-246). Chicago: Rand McNally.
18.
Cannon, H. M., & Burns, A. C. (1999). A framework for assessing the competencies reflected in simulation performance. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 26, 40-44.
19.
Cannon, H. M., & Smith, J. A. (2004). TheABSELClassicos initiative. Simulation& Gaming, 35, 294-307.
20.
Carvalho, G. F. (1991). Evaluating computerized business simulations for objective learning validity. Simulation & Gaming, 22, 328-348.
21.
Comer, L. B., & Nichols, J. A. F. (1996). Simulation as an aid to learning: How does participation influence the process?Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 23, 8-14.
22.
Cooke, E. F. (1986). The dilemma in evaluating classroom innovations. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 13, 110-114.
23.
Dedeke, A. (1999). Design, integration, and student evaluation of response papers in an introductory management course. Journal for Education of Business, 77, 211-214.
24.
Dickenson, J., & Faria, A. J. (1997). The random-strategy criterion for validity of simulation game participation. Simulation & Gaming, 28, 263-276.
25.
Dickenson, J. R., Whitely, T. R., & Faria, A. J. (1990). An empirical investigation of the internal validity of a marketing simulation game. Developments in Business Simulation& Experiential Exercises, 17, 47-52.
26.
Faria, A. J. (2001). The changing nature of business simulation/gaming research. Simulation& Gaming, 32, 97-110.
27.
Faria, A. J., & Dickenson, J. (1987). LAPTOP: Aprinciples of marketing simulation. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 14, 53-56.
28.
Faria, A. J., & Nulsen, R. O. (1978). Anewresearch focus: An analysis of the simulation game user. Exploring Experiential Learning: Simulations and Experiential Exercises, 5, 25-31.
29.
Faria, A. J., & Whiteley, T. R. (1990). An empirical evaluation of the pedagogical value of playing a simulation game in a principles of marketing course. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 17, 53-57.
30.
Feinstein, A. H. (2001). An assessment of the effectiveness of the simulation as an instructional system for food service. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 25, 421-443.
31.
Feinstein, A. H., & Cannon, H. M. (2001). Fidelity, verifiability, and validity of simulation: Constructs for evaluation. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 28, 57-62.
32.
Feinstein, A. H., & Cannon, H. M. (2002). Constructs of simulation evaluation. Simulation & Gaming, 32, 425-440.
33.
Frazer, J. R. (1986). Simulation—Indoctrination or learning. Developments in Business Simulation& Experiential Exercises, 13, 108-109.
34.
Fritzsche, D. J. (1986). Funding for a research consortium on simulation and experiential learning. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 13, 106-107.
35.
Gentry, J. W., Commuri, S. F., Burns, A. C., & Dickenson, J. R. (1998). The second component to experiential learning: Alook back at howABSELhas handled the conceptual and operational definitions of learning. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 25, 62-68.
36.
Gentry, M., Iceton, J., & Milne, D. (2001). Managing challenging behavior in the community: Methods and results of interactive staff training. Health & Social Care in the Community, 9, 143-150.
37.
Glass, J. S., & Benshoff, J. M. (2002). Facilitating group cohesion among adolescents through challenge course experiences. Journal of Experiential Education, 25, 268-277.
38.
Gold, S. C., & Pray, T. F. (1986, March). “Correct” algorithms for “correct” learning. Paper presented at the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Reno, NV.
39.
Goosen, K. R. (1986). An analysis of ABSEL conference papers (1974-1985). Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 13, 97-101.
40.
Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (1999). Perceptions of learning in TE simulations. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 26, 170-175.
41.
Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2002). The validity investigation of a test assessing total enterprise simulation learning. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 29, 247-251.
42.
Gosen, J., Washbush, J., Patz, A. L., Scott, T. W., Wolfe, J., & Cotter, R. V. (1999). Atest bank for measuring total enterprise simulation learning. Developments in Business Simulation& Experiential Exercises, 25, 82-92.
43.
Gosen, J., Washbush, J., & Scott, T. W. (2000). Initial data on a test bank assessing total enterprise simulation learning. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 26, 166-171.
44.
Gosenpud, J. (1986). Personality variables on group cohesion, team participation and total learning. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 13, 115-118.
45.
Gosenpud, J. (1990). Evaluation of experiential learning. In J. Gentry (Ed.), Guide to business simulation and experiential learning(pp. 279-300). New Brunswick, NJ/London: Nichols/GP.
46.
Graf, L. A., & Kellogg, C. E. (1986). Justifications for and problems in developing and using computerized experiential activities. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 13, 119-121.
47.
Gray, C. F. (1972). Performance as a criterion variable in measuring business gaming success: An experiment with a multiple objective performance model. Paper presented at the Southwestern American Institute of Decision Sciences.
48.
Henshaw, R. C., & Jackson, J. R. (1984). THE EXECUTIVE GAME. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
49.
Herbert, E. P., & Landin, D. (1996). Practice schedule effects on the performance and learning of low-and high-skilled students: An applied study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 52-58.
50.
Hergert, M., & Hergert, R. (1990). Factors affecting student perceptions of learning in a business policy game. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 17, 92-96.
51.
Herz, B., & Merz, W. (1998). Experiential learning and the effectiveness of economic simulation games. Simulation & Gaming, 29, 238-250.
52.
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (2002). Classroom research and cargo cults. Policy Review. Retrieved January 6, 2003, from http://www.policyreview.org/OCT02?hirsh_print.html
53.
James, P. (2000). The influence of a period of environment oriented work on students’ perception of their learning style. Environmental Education Research, 6, 157-165.
54.
Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1990). The role of management games and simulations in education and research. Journal of Management, 16, 307-336.
55.
Keys, J. B. (1986, March). A proposal for cooperation between ABSEL and Georgia Southern’s Center for Advancement of Business Simulation and Experiential Learning. Paper presented at the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Reno, NV.
56.
Kline, D. S. (1986). Management competency models and the Life-Long Learning Project: What role for ABSEL. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 13, 122-125.
57.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook II: The affective domain. New York: David McKay.
58.
Leonard, T. L., & Leonard, N. J. (1995). Graduates’ views on the use of computer simulation games versus cases as pedagogical tools. Developments in Business Simulation& Experiential Exercises, 22, 83-87.
59.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
60.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
61.
Manoque, M., Brown, G. A., Nattress, B. R., & Fox, K. (1999). Improving student learning in root canal treatment using self-assessment. International Endodontic Journal, 32, 397-405.
62.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
63.
McHaney, R., White, D., & Heilman, G. E. (2002). Simulation project success and failure: Survey findings. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 49-66.
64.
McKenney, J. L., & Dill, W. R. (1966). Influences on learning in simulation games. American Behavioral Scientist, 10, 28-32.
65.
Nichols, J. D., & Steffy, B. E. (1999). The evaluation of success in an alternative learning programme: Motivational impact vs. completion rate. Educational Review, 51, 207-219.
66.
Norris, D. R. (1986). External validity of business games. Developments in Business Simulation& Experiential Exercises, 13, 126-129.
67.
Peach, E. B., & Platt, R. G. (2000). Total enterprise simulation and optimizing the decision set: Assessing student learning across decision periods. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 27, 242-245.
68.
Premi, J., & Shannon, S. I. (1993). Randomized controlled trial of a combined video-workbook, Educational Program for CME. Education in the Information Age, 10(October Suppl.), S13-S15.
69.
Premi, J., & Shannon, S. I. (2001). Randomized controlled trial of an educational program for individualized learning. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 17, 245-249.
70.
Raia, A. P. (1966). Astudy of the educational value of management games. Journal of Business, 39, 339-352.
71.
Rocha, C. J. (2000). Evaluating experiential teaching methods in a policy practice course: The case for service learning to increase political participation. Journal of Work Education, 36, 53-63.
72.
Schreier, J. (1981). Research questions for cases. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 8, 71-71.
73.
Scott, T. W., Strickland, A. J., Hofmeister, D. L., & Thompson, M. D. (1992). MICROMATIC: A management simulation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
74.
Smith, C. A., Strand, S. E., & Bunting, C. J. (2002). The influence of challenge course participation on moral and ethical reasoning. Journal of Experiential Education, 25, 278-280.
75.
Specht, L. B., & Sandlin, P. K. (1991). Acomparison of the effects of experiential learning activities and traditional lecture classes. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 17, 214-214.
76.
Thorngate, W., & Carroll, B. (1987). Why the best person rarely wins. Simulation& Games, 18, 299-320.
77.
Tompson, G. H., & Dass, P. (2000). Improving students’ self-efficacy. Simulation & Gaming, 31, 22-41.
78.
Vance, S. C., & Gray, C. F. (1967). Use of a performance evaluation model for research in business gaming. Academy of Management Journal, 10, 27-37.
79.
Washbush, J., & Gosen, J. (2001). Learning in total enterprise simulations. Simulation& Gaming, 32, 281-296.
80.
Washbush, J. B., & Gosenpud, J. (1991). Student attitudes about policy course simulations. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 18, 105-110.
81.
Wellington, W. J., & Faria, A. J. (1991). An investigation of the relationship between simulation play, performance level and recency of play on exam scores. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 18, 111-115.
82.
Wellington, W. J., & Faria, A. J. (1992). An investigation of the relationship between team cohesion, player attitude, performance attitude on player performance. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 19, 184-189.
83.
Wellington, W. J., & Faria, A. J. (2001). Aninvestigation of the awareness attained in a simple business simulation game. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 28, 239-249.
84.
Wheatley, W. J., Hornaday, R. W., & Hunt, T. G. (1988). Developing strategic management goal setting skills. Simulation & Games, 19, 173-185.
85.
White, C. S., & Von Riesen, R. D. (1992). Computer management and some correlates of students’ satisfaction. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 19, 225-252.
86.
Whiteley, T. R., & Faria, A. J. (1989). A study of the relationship between student final exam performance and simulation game participation. Simulation & Games, 20, 44-64.
87.
Wolfe, J. (1976). Correlates and measures of the external validity of computer-based business policy decision making environments. Developments in Business Simulation& Experiential Exercises, 7, 411-438.
88.
Wolfe, J. (1986). The ABSEL research consortium: Preliminary steps and position papers. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 13, 96-96.
89.
Wolfe, J. (1990). The evaluation of computer-based simulation games. In J. Gentry (Ed.), Guide to business simulation and experiential learning(pp. 279-300). New Brunswick, NJ/London: Nichols/GP.
90.
Wolfe, J. (1997). The effectiveness of business games in strategic management course work. Simulation & Gaming, 38, 360-376.
91.
Wolfe, J., & Crookall, D. (1998). Developing a scientific knowledge of simulation/gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 29, 7-19.
92.
Wolfe, J., & Guth, G. (1975). The case approach vs. gaming in the teaching of business policy: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Business, 48, 349-364.
93.
Wolfe, J., & Luethge, D. J. (2003). The impact of involvement on performance in business simulations: An examination of Goosen’s “know little” decision making thesis. Journal of Education for Business, 69-74.
94.
Wolfe, J., & Roberts, C. R. (1986). The external validity of a business management game: Afive-year longitudinal study. Simulation & Games, 17, 45-59.
95.
Wolfe, J., & Roberts, C. R. (1993). Afurther study of the external validity of business games: Five-year peer group indicators. Simulation & Gaming, 24, 21-33.
96.
Wolfe, J., & Rogé, J. (1997). Computerized general management games: The effectiveness of business games in strategic management course work. Simulation & Gaming, 28, 423-441.
97.
Zalatan, K. A., & Mayer, D. F. (1999). Developing a learning culture: Assessing changes in student performance and perception. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 26, 45-51.
