This research examines students’ reactions to a contemporary simulation infused in the business communication curriculum. Results show that students indicated the experience helped them learn how to work better as a team, how to maintain composure, how the business world works, and how to improve their communication. Students also verified the validity of the simulation, stating that it prepared them for the business world by providing them with a challenging yet positive experience to demonstrate learned business communication principles. Details about the pedagogical framework of the business communication simulation and possible explanations and implications behind the findings are discussed.
GreenlawP. S.LowellW. H.RawdonR. H. (1962). Business simulation in industrial and university education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
HildebrandJ. E. (1997). The company division meeting: A business communication simulation. Business Communication Quarterly, 60(3), 96-106.
5.
HugenbergL. W. (1992). Simulations as a fundamental teaching tool: Striking the appropriate balance. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 55, 65-69.
6.
HugenbergL. W.OwensA. W.RobinsonD. J. (1988). Simulations for business and professional communication. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
7.
HuntS. K. (2003). Encouraging student involvement: An approach to teaching communication. Communication Studies, 54, 133-136.
8.
JamesonD. A. (1993). Using a simulation to teach intercultural communication in business communication courses. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 56, 3-11.
9.
KolbA. Y.KolbD. A. (2009). The learning way: Meta-cognitive aspects of experiential learning. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 297-327.
10.
LedermanL. C. (1984). Debriefing: A critical re-examination of the post-experience analytic process with implications for its effective use. Simulation & Gaming, 15, 415-431.
11.
MelroseJ.MelroseK. K. (1987). BUCOMCO: A business communication simulation (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
12.
MilesM.HubermanA. (1999). Qualitative data analysis. London, England: Sage.
13.
OppenheimA. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. New York, NY: Continuum.
14.
PetranekC. F. (1992). Three levels of learning in simulations: Participating, debriefing, and journal writing. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 174-185.
15.
PetranekC. F. (2000). Written debriefing: The next vital step in learning with simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 31, 108-118.
16.
RussT. L. (2007). Experiential learning in the basic communication course: Creating educative, not miseducative experiences. In HugenbergL. W.MorrealeS.WorleyD. M.HugenbergB. S.WorleyD. A. (Eds.), Basic communication course best practices (pp. 67-80). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
17.
RussT. L. (2009). The status of the business communication course at U.S. colleges and universities. Business Communication Quarterly, 72, 395-413.
18.
RussT. L. (2010). Programmatic and participatory: Introducing two frameworks for classifying experiential change implementation methods. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 767-786.
19.
RussT. L. (2011a). An exploratory study of an experiential change program’s impact on participants’ affective outcomes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32, 493-509.
20.
RussT. L. (2011b). Using experiential learning to implement organizational change. In BiechE. (Ed.), 2011 Pfeiffer Consulting annual (pp. 265-276). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
21.
SaundersP. M. (1997). Experiential learning, cases, and simulations in business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 60(1), 97-114.
22.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
StullJ. B.BairedJ. W. (1993). Business communication: A classroom simulation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.
24.
YinR. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
