Do Business Simulations work? The Evidence Case Pt 1

In a previous article I discussed the most common dilemma in business education, that of ‘external validity’ and the need to prove that investment in training (of any type) requires justification on a typically quantitative level. Most usually that it impacts the organisation positively. In this series of articles I’ll present the findings from scientific research published in peer reviewed journals which details the value of business simulation across multiple domains.

A study conducted recently by Ranchod et al. (2014) built on previous simulation research by testing the use of a high-quality computer-based business simulation. In particular, their focus was on three main categories of learning outcomes built on Bloom’s taxonomy with associated learning goals defined as:

i. Cognitive (understanding and retention at conceptual, procedural and strategic level):

• teach students the terminology, concepts and principles of business in general or of a specific discipline;
• help students understand the interdependence between various business functions (marketing, finance, production, sales
• demonstrate the procedural difficulty of applying business concepts in complex realistic situations; knowledge retention.

ii. Behavioural (skill practice and development):

• enable students to implement course concepts, by taking decisions and experiencing the consequences of their actions in an interactive environment;
• improve students’ team work and relational skills;
• generate practical experience in taking and implementing business decisions;
• improve students’ analysis and decision skills.

iii. Affective:

• improve student attitudes towards the discipline;
• enhance students’ motivation and engagement;
• increase students’ satisfaction regarding the learning experience.

In essence this relates to simulation games as experiential learning (discussed in this blog here) where a Lewinian learning cycle is followed. This means:

0. “the interaction with ‘concrete experience’ leads, through ‘reflection and observation’, to the ‘formation of abstract concepts and generalisations’”

In their study of the literature the researchers noted that there was significant evidence from earlier research in each of the three domains and they stated:

• Students can develop a deeper understanding of fundamental business concepts and procedures, as well as of their strategic significance, during their interaction with the generated experiential situation.

• Previous studies report a positive impact of experiential learning methodologies on students’ skill acquisition. Proposing an engaging, dynamic and interactive learning environment, business simulation games put students in a situation of ‘learning-by-doing’, while the realistic representation of the simulated business systems ensure the transferability of the acquired skills in real-life situation

• Besides cognitive and skill-related outcomes, simulation games research indicates the existence of affective outcomes, expressed through increased motivation, positive attitudes towards the simulation game experience, engagement, general satisfaction, and enjoyment

A critical aspect of the research indicated the dynamic nature of learning outcomes where a causal relationship exists between them. This means individuals are able to formulate their own concepts and generalisations having tested the implications of their knowledge in new situations within the simulations – the basis for skills development.

In fact, the article cites evidence of ‘adaptive expertise’ which is distinct from ‘routine experts’ who solve familiar problems quickly and accurately in that adaptive experts can “innovate and create new procedures to adapted to novel problems and situations”.

The next article in this series will look at the first of the learning goal domains: Cognitive and Conceptual Understanding.

Source:  A. Ranchhod et al. / Information Sciences 264 (2014) 75–90

 

Searching for the Active Substance

What is it that makes computer-based simulation work? What is the magic ingredient that turns training into an event – an experience – instead of the slow, miserable death from a thousand slides we’ve all had the misfortune to witness? Whilst many practitioners would pinpoint the word ‘experience’ as the critical factor, the difference between passivity and involvement or engagement, a group of researchers have attempted to answer the question directly and completely.

What’s in a name?

Business simulation, gamification and serious games. Are they different or just forms of the same process? The answer, unhelpfully perhaps, is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Gamification is billed as the application of game dynamics to non-game environments and in that respect both simulation and serious games qualify. Whether it is a business board game with strategic decision making to the fore, an enterprise simulation which models a specific part of a business, or a 3D game where future surgeons practise open-heart surgery the essence of gameplay is present in all of them.

The Babel Problem

Clark Aldrich describes his own version of the ‘Babel Problem’ in his terrific book The Complete Guide to Simulations and Serious Games, namely: do we use the term “Serious Games” or “Educational Simulations” as a common definition of simulations for educational purposes. His contention is that the lack of a definition accepted by all has hindered the progression and development of the simulation ‘space’ as practitioners, developers and organizations remain unclear of the language needed to communicate. The crux of his argument can be found here but it’s an issue that should concern all of us who recognize the power and value in simulation use.