Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Is there a difference between policy courses that use a computer simulated management game (HAVSIM) and those that do not use such a tool (NOSIM)? Survey results reported here suggest that there are factors that differentiate the two groups. The factors reviewed included demographic information, information regarding availability of computing resources, and information regarding reasons for use or nonuse of a computer simulation. On the265 responses received results of stepwise discriminant analysis suggested that there was no conclusive difference between the HAVSIM and NOSIM groups but that there was a difference between those who have never used a simulation and those who have stopped using a simulation.

Keywords

difference between groups management computer simulation noncomputer users

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cohen, J. & Rhenman, E. (1961). The role of management games in education and research. Management Science, 7, 131-166.

Dale, A. G. , & Klasson, C. R. (1964). Business gaming, survey of American collegiate schools of business. Austin: University of Texas, Austin Bureau of Business Research.

Faria, A. J. , & Nulsen, R. O. (1978). The new research focus: An analysis of the simulation user. ABSEL Proceedings: Fifth Annual Symposium, p. 25.

Graham, R. G. , & Gary, C. (1969). Business games handbook. New York: American Management Association.

Hegarty, W. H. (1976). Contextual and pedagogical differences in teaching business policy among academicians. In Proceedings of the Academy of Management (pp. 125-130). Kansas City, MO.

Mace, S. (1989). Learning without the hard knocks through simulation. National Business Employment Weekly, pp. 22-23.

McRaith, J. F. , & Goeldner, C. R. (1962). A survey of marketing games. Journal of Marketing, 26, 69-72.

Neuhauser, J. J. (1976). Business games have failed. Academy of Management Review, 1, 124-129.

Ricciardi, F. M. , et al. (1957). Top management simulation: The A.M.A. approach. In E. Marting (Ed.), Top management simulation: The AMA approach. New York American Management Association.

10.

Shim, J. K. (1978). Management game simulation: Survey and new direction. University of Michigan Review, 30, 26-29.

11.

Thorelli, H. B. , Graves, R. L. , & Howells, L. T. (1962). The international operations simulation at the University of Chicago. Journal of Business, 35, 287-297.

12.

Wolfe, J. (1985). The teaching effectiveness of games in collegiate business courses: A 1973-1983 update. Simulation & Games, 16, 251-288.

13.

Wolfe, J. , & Guth, G. R. (1975). The case approach versus gaming in the teaching business policy: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Business, 48, 349-364.

14.

Wren, D. A. , Atherton, R M. , & Michaelson, L. (1980). Theory and applications in management pedagogy. Journal of Management, 6, 21-31.

Computerized Simulation in the Policy Course

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References