This article explores students' perceived learning from using either a complex business game or a simple one, along with some case studies in business policy courses. The pedagogical differences between the case method and the game method are discussed. The criteria important to teaching business policies are identified. The course pedagogy involves a mix of cases, computerized business games, readings, lectures, and student presentations, with the principal emphasis on cases and games. This experiment was designed to compare the perceived effectiveness of applying a simple versus a complex game as supplements to the case method in a business policy course. There were 159 students in a business policy course who participated in the study. The results seem to indicate that the complex game is pedagogically more effective than the simple game, that the students using the complex game gain more insights into business environment and various functions of the firm, and that the complex game is as effective as the case method along some important pedagogical dimensions.
Applegate, L. M.
(1989). Case teaching at Harvard Business School: Some thoughts for new faculty (Ref. No. 9-189-062). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
2.
Bellman, R.
, Clark, C. E., Malcom, D. G., Craft, C. J., & Ricciardi, F. M. (1957). On the construction of a multi-stage, multi-person business game. Operations Research, 5(7), 469-503.
3.
Biggs, W. D.
(1987). Functional business games. Simulation & Games, 18(2), 242-267.
4.
Bonoma, T. V.
(1989). Learning with cases (Ref. No. 9-589-080). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
5.
Bruns, W. J., Jr.
(1970). Teaching at the Harvard Business School: A diary (Ref. No. 9-170-038). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
6.
Charan, R.
(1976). Classroom techniques in teaching by the case method. The Academy of Management Review, 1(3), 116-125.
7.
Christensen, C. R.
(1987). Teaching and the case method (Ref. No. 9-387-001). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
8.
Corey, E. R.
(1976). Use of cases in management education (Ref. No. 9-376-240). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
9.
Corey, E. R.
(1981). Case method teaching (Ref. No. 9-581-058). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
10.
Dooley, A. R.
, & Skinner, W. (1977). Casing case method methods. The Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 277-289.
11.
Faria, A. J.
(1987). A survey of the use of business games in academia and business. Simulation & Games, 18(2), 207-224.
12.
Faria, A. J.
, & Schumacher, M. (1984). The use of decision simulations in management training programs: Current perspectives. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning (pp. 220-225). Honolulu: ABSEL.
13.
Gragg, C. I.
(1951). Because wisdom can't be told (Ref. No. 9-451-005). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
14.
Graham, R. G
, & Gray, C. F. (1969). Business games handbook. New York: American Management Association, Inc.
15.
Hammond, J. S., III.
(1976). Learning by the case method (Ref. No.9-376-241). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
16.
Hargrove, M. M.
(1976). The case method (Ref. No. 9-376-896). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
17.
Keys, B.
(1987). Total enterprise business games. Simulation & Games, 18(2), 225-241.
18.
Keys, B.
, Burns, O. M., Case, T., & Wells, R. A. (1988). Decision support package in a business game. Simulation & Games, 19(4), 440-452.
19.
Ladd, D. R.
(1973). Notes on use of the case method (Ref. No. 9-373-894). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
20.
Marting, E.
(Ed.). (1957). Top management decision-making simulation: The AMA approach. New York: American Management Association, Inc.
21.
McKenney, J. L.
(1979). The use of cases in executive education (Ref. No. 9-379-044). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
22.
McNair, M. P.
, & Hersum, A. C. (Eds.). (1954). The case method at the Harvard Business School. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
Meier, R. C.
, Newell, W. T., & Pazer, H. L. (1969). Simulation in business and economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
24.
Merry, R. W.
(1954). Preparation to teach a case (Ref. No. 9-354-021). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
25.
Moore, L. F.
(1967). Business games versus cases as tools of learning. Training and Development Journal, 21(10), 13-23.
26.
Neeley, S. E.
, & Pringle, C. D. (1983). An innovative technique for improving case method courses. Journal of Business Education, 59(1), 40-42.
27.
Paget, N.
(1988). Using case methods effectively. Journal of Education for Business, 63(4), 175-179.
28.
Pigors, P.
(1967). Case method. In R. L. Craig & J. R. Bittel (Eds.), Training and development handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Raia, A. P.
(1966). A study of the educational value of management games. Journal of Business, 39(3), 339-352.
30.
Ricciardi, F. M.
(1957). Business war games for executives: A new concept in management training. Management Review, 46(5), 45-56.
31.
Schachter, H. L.
(1980). Simulations for training and assessment: The problems of relevance to the real world. Public Personnel Management, 9(3), 225-227.
32.
Schrieber, A. N.
(1958). Gaming-A way to teach business decision making. University of Washington Business Review, 17(7), 18-29.
33.
Shapiro, B. P.
(1984). Introduction to cases (Ref. No. 9-584-097). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
34.
Thavikulwat, P.
(1988). Emphasizing different modes of learning through a configurable business simulation game. Simulation & Games, 19(4), 408-414.
35.
Unterman, I.
(1977). A note on case methodology teaching (Ref. No. 9-377-633). Boston: Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services.
36.
Van de Ven, A.
, & Delbecq, A. L. (1971). Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 14(2), 203-212.
37.
Whiteley, T. R.
, & Faria, A. J. (1989). A study of the relationship between student final exam performance and simulation game participation. Simulation & Games, 20(1), 44-64.
38.
Whitney, G.
(1984). A comparison of two business strategy simulations for microcomputers. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning. Honolulu, HI: ABSEL.
39.
Wolfe, J.
(1973). The comparative learning effects of a management game vs. casework in the teaching of business policy. Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (pp. 291-298). Boston: Academy of Management.
40.
Wolfe, J.
(1978). The effects of game complexity on the acquisition of business policy knowledge. Decision Sciences, 9(1), 143-155.
41.
Wolfe, J.
, & Guth, G. R. (1975). The case approach versus gaming in the teaching of business policy: An experimental evaluation. The Journal of Business, 48(3), 349-364.
42.
Zappia, G. F
(1986). The case method and computer simulation: Observation, comments, and justification. Journal of Education for Business, 61(7), 330-331.
