Business simulation as an instructional tool helps in developing integrative thinking and decision making skills. It is being taught to audiences who differ considerably in age, work experience (learner characteristics) and learning styles. The use of simulations is likely to grow further with advancements in internet technology and the fact that simulations are very amenable to remote modes of instruction.
Aim
This study aims to assess how learner characteristics and learning styles impact business simulation performance. It further assesses the combined effect of learner characteristics and learning styles on performance in business simulations, we specifically consider the manner in which learning styles moderate the impact of learner characteristics (age) on simulation performance.
Method
The study was conducted with 605 students of full time MBA and executive MBA programs with age group varying from 21 years to 53 years. They were taught using the same business simulation by CAPSIM. The learning styles were measured using Felder-Solomon’s instrument ‘Index of learning style’. Regression analysis was conducted with predictor variables of learner characteristics and learning styles and outcome variable of simulation performance. The moderating effect of specific learning styles on learner characteristics was identified.
Results
The findings indicate that age is a significant predictor of simulation performance (younger, tech savvy students do better). Also, the use of reflective learning style enables better performance in business simulations. Older students are able to draw on experience and benefit more from reflective learning, for business simulations which involve integration across functions.
Conclusion
The study enhances our conceptual understanding of the factors enabling performance in business simulations and provides specific direction on how instructors must adapt facilitation approaches for different age groups of participants. Reflection is important for learning with business simulations; hence, the reflective learning style should be encouraged particularly among older students.
AdoborH.DaneshfarA. (2006). Management simulations: Determining their effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 25(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710610645135
2.
AnD.CarrM. (2017). Learning styles theory fails to explain learning and achievement: Recommendations for alternative approaches. Personality and Individual Differences, 116(1), 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.050
3.
BaldwinL.SabryK. (2003). Learning styles for interactive learning systems. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/1470329032000128369
4.
BlackA. (2010). Generation Y: Who they are and how they learn. Educational Horizons, 88(2), 92–101.
5.
ChasteenL.SzotJ., and TeachR. (2018). Simulations for strategy courses: Difficulty vs. Realism, preliminary findings. In Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL Conference, March 2018,Seattle, WA.
6.
CoffieldF.MoseleyD.HallE.EcclestoneK. (2004). Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say to practice. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
7.
CrookallD. (2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation and Gaming, 41(6), 898–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110390784
8.
De VitaG. (2001). Learning styles, culture and inclusive instruction in the multicultural classroom: A business and management perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290110035437
9.
DedeC. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In Educating the Net Generation (Vol. 5, pp. 1–32). Educause.
10.
DesyJ. R.ReedD. A.WolanskyjA. P. (2017). Milestones and millennials: A perfect pairing—Competency-based medical education and the learning preferences of generation Y. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 92(2), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.10.026
11.
DickinsonB. J.DickinsonC. D. (2012). The effect of introducing coaching from an experienced business professional on performance in a computer simulation classroom exercise. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 8(2), 1-6.
12.
DorçaF. A.AraújoR. D.De CarvalhoV. C.ResendeD. T.CattelanR. G. (2016). An automatic and dynamic approach for personalized recommendation of learning objects considering students learning styles: An experimental analysis. Informatics in Education, 15(3), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2016.03
13.
DunnR. (1990). Bias over substance: A critical analysis of kavale and forness’ report on modality-based instruction. Exceptional Children, 56(4), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299005600409
14.
FariaA. J.HutchinsonD.WellingtonW. J.GoldS. (2009). Developments in business gaming: A review of the past 40 Years. Simulation and Gaming, 40(4), 464–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108327585
FelderR. M.SilvermanL. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education.
17.
FelderR. M.SpurlinJ. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103–112.
18.
GarberL. L.HyattE. M.BoyaÜ. Ö. (2017). Gender differences in learning preferences among participants of serious business games. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.02.001.
19.
GarnerI. (2000). Problems and inconsistencies with Kolb’s learning styles. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/713663745
20.
GattiL.UlrichM.SeeleP. (2019). Education for sustainable development through business simulation games: An exploratory study of sustainability gamification and its effects on students’ learning outcomes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, 667-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.130.
GoldenP. A.SmithJ. R. (1989). Simulation performance revisited: The fit between instructor style and learning style. In Developments in business simulation and experiential learning: Proceedings of the annual ABSEL conference, March1989, Orlando.
23.
GosenpudJ. (1982). Who gains and who does not from experiential learning. In Developments in business simulation and experiential learning: Proceedings of the annual ABSEL conference.
24.
GrafS.ViolaS. R.LeoT.Kinshuk (2007). In-depth analysis of the Felder-Silverman learning style dimensions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782498
25.
HawkT. F.ShahA. J. (2007). Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00125.x
26.
JainA.DuttaD. (2019). Millennials and gamification: Guerilla tactics for making learning fun. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 6(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/2322093718796303
27.
KhenissiM. A.EssalmiF.JemniM. (2013). Toward the personalization of learning games according to learning styles. international conference on electrical engineering and software applications, Hammamet, Tunisia, 21–23 March 2013, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/iceesa.2013.6578433
28.
KhenissiM. A.EssalmiF.JemniM.KinshukGrafS.ChenN.-S. (2016). Relationship between learning styles and genres of games. Computers & Education, 101(July), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.005
29.
KimK. J.BonkC. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education. Educause Quarterly, 29(4), 22–30.
KolbD. A. (1984). Experience as the source of learning and development. Experiential Learning.
32.
LynchR. D.MichaelT. A. (1989). Predicting individual decision making performance in a business simulation. In Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL Conference, March1989, Orlando.
33.
MargaryanA.LittlejohnA.VojtG. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004
34.
MartinM. (2007). The millennial student: A new generation of learners. Athletic Training Education Journal, 2(2), 42–46.
35.
PaliaA. P. (2019). Enhancing Experiential Learning via Phased Simulation Debriefing. In Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL Conference, pp. 222–257.
36.
Papadatou-PastouM.GritzaliM.BarrableA. (2018). The learning styles educational neuromyth: Lack of agreement between teachers’ judgments, self-assessment, and students’ intelligence. Frontiers in Education, 3, 105. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00105.
37.
PlatsidouM.MetallidouP. (2008). Validity and reliability issues of two learning style inventories in a Greek Sample: Kolb’s learning style inventory and felder & soloman’s index of learning. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 324–335.
RogmansT.AbazaW. (2019). The impact of international business strategy simulation games on student engagement. Simulation & Gaming, 50(3), 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119848138
40.
SalasE.WildmanJ. L.PiccoloR. F. (2009). Using simulation-based training to enhance management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(4), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2009.47785474
41.
SandmanT. E. (2014). A preliminary investigation into the adaptive learning styles of business students. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 12(1), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12020
42.
SchofieldC. P.HonoréS. (2009). Generation Y and learning. The Ashridge Journal, 26-32.
43.
ShellmanS. M.TuranK. (2006). Do simulations enhance student learning? An empirical evaluation of an IR simulation. Journal of Political Science Education, 2(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160500484168
44.
SkibaD. J.BartonA. J. (2006). Adapting your teaching to accommodate the net generation of learners. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 11(2), 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17201579
45.
StaintonA. J.JohnsonJ. E.BorodziczE. P. (2010). Educational validity of business gaming simulation: A research methodology framework. Simulation and Gaming, 41(5), 705–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878109353467.
46.
TeeT. K.Md YunosJ.KuppusamyB.YeeM. H.Mohaffyza MohamadM.OthmanW.RusR. C.HanapiZ. (2015). The pattern of learning styles among second year students in business management and hospitality programs at one of the vocational college in Northern Zone. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.110.
47.
TowlerM.LeanJ.MoizerJ. D. (2009). An exploration of student perception of a business simulation game. International Journal of Management Education, 7(2), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.3794/ijme.72.225
48.
VlachopoulosD.MakriA. (2017). The effect of games and simulations on higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0062-1
49.
WolfeJ. (1976). The Effects and Effectiveness of Simulations in Business Policy Teaching Applications. Academy of Management Review, 1(2), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1976.4408663
50.
ZamfirA.PlumbI.DobrinC.PopaI. (2009). Using computers and simulations in business education. In WSEAS international conference. Proceedings recent advances in computer engineering(No.10), Prague, 23 March 2009 (pp. 147–152). WSEAS.
51.
ZantowK.KnowltonD. S.SharpD. C. (2005). More than fun and games: Reconsidering the virtues of strategic management simulations. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(4), 451–458. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.19086786
