Promoting Entrepreneurial Intentions and Competencies Through Business Simulation Games

Abstract

Business simulation games (BSG) offer a unique opportunity to provide students with hands-on experience in a simulated business environment. This study aims to explore the effectiveness of BSG in promoting entrepreneurial intentions and competencies among undergraduate students. The study was conducted with 48 students, who participated in BSG as part of their entrepreneurship education (EE). The study used a quasi-experiment to measure changes in students' cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies, as well as their entrepreneurial intentions. The results show that participation in the BSG significantly improved students' cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies, as well as their intention to start a new business. The study concludes that BSG can be an effective teaching strategy for promoting EE and developing entrepreneurial competencies among undergraduate students. However, further research with larger sample sizes and diverse populations is needed to confirm these findings and explore how combining BSG with other teaching methods or interventions can enhance the development of entrepreneurial competencies and intentions.

Keywords

business simulation game entrepreneurial competencies entrepreneurial intention innovative teaching

Introduction

Entrepreneurial activities are vital for economic growth and job creation. Engaging young people in entrepreneurial activities can reduce unemployment (Zulfiqar et al., 2019), and higher education is often prioritized in minimizing unemployment. Furthermore, an increase in the number of entrepreneurs is expected to be proportional to the country’s economic growth rate. Universities are crucial in preparing students' entrepreneurial talent (Martínez-Martínez & Ventura, 2020; Yang et al., 2021). Entrepreneurship education (EE) is a crucial factor in a country’s economic competitiveness (Hidayat, 2018). This is based on the hope that university graduates will become entrepreneurs to drive economic growth and job creation in the future (Nabi et al., 2018).

EE involves analyzing instructional approaches that assist in the growth of the entrepreneurial society’s culture and entrepreneurial skills, focused on developing new frameworks, platforms, and collaborations to manage challenging business partnerships (Aranha et al., 2018; Gibb, 2002). Research on entrepreneurship is essential to overcome unemployment because it can encourage students to become job creators rather than only job seekers (Pérez-Pérez et al., 2021). It is commonly described as a response to the widespread globalized, unstable, and complicated world we live in, demanding that all organizations and individuals acquire entrepreneurial competencies (Costin et al., 2019).

Promoting entrepreneurial competencies through EE has ties to job creation. Therefore, teachers are challenged to provide and integrate entrepreneurial competencies into a multidisciplinary curriculum. Prior research investigated the development of entrepreneurial competencies, which included knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Lackeus, 2014). Since EE aims to provide students with the entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to conduct themselves in an entrepreneurial manner, it is the student’s responsibility to develop the corresponding entrepreneurial competencies (Costin et al., 2019). The primary objective of most EE programs is to support learners in developing entrepreneurial competencies. Additionally, scholars have examined and categorized entrepreneurial competency into two distinct domains: cognitive, encompassing knowledge and skills, and non-cognitive, focusing on entrepreneurial attitudes (Costin et al., 2019; Lackeus, 2014).

Innovative educational techniques, such as game-based learning, gamification, and virtual reality, can enhance and sustain EE (Grivokostopoulou et al., 2019). Among these techniques, simulation game-based learning, particularly Business Simulation Game (BSG), has proven effective in helping students acquire practical knowledge. BSG is a widely utilized method in adult learning, offering pedagogical advantages by presenting structured situations that resemble real-life entrepreneurial challenges (Huang et al., 2022a; Pasin & Giroux, 2011; Yen & Lin, 2020; Zulfiqar et al., 2019). By engaging in these simulated business scenarios, individuals can develop practical skills and gain valuable insights into the complexities of entrepreneurship.

BSG stands out from other learning methods due to several key elements it possesses, including interactivity, real-time feedback, realism, and the ability to provide repeated exposure to specific situations (Chang et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2022b; Schrader & McCreery, 2012). The provision of real-time feedback allows students to evaluate the impact of their actions and make necessary adjustments. This immediate feedback is crucial in enabling students to understand cause-and-effect relationships, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and cultivate a mindset of continuous improvement—an essential attribute for entrepreneurial success.

Furthermore, studies have shown that simulation games effectively assess various aspects of players' problem-solving skills, making the learning experience enjoyable while engaging students in experiential learning and “learning by doing” (Costin et al., 2018; Fox et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2022a). This combination of active engagement, practical application, and enjoyable gameplay enhances the overall effectiveness of BSG in promoting entrepreneurial intentions and competencies.

Conventional teaching methods such as lectures, case studies, and discussions provide theoretical understandings but lack practical experience. To prepare students for entrepreneurship, a comprehensive understanding of market trends, financial skills, and trade-off strategies is essential. Students need real-world application of entrepreneurial concepts. Schools should establish a supportive environment and select relevant and engaging resources (Wu et al., 2014). The critical role of entrepreneurship in alleviating joblessness and boosting a nation’s economic vitality is widely recognized. Educational establishments, especially universities, are key players in nurturing entrepreneurial aptitude among students. This contributes substantially to the competitive edge of a nation’s economy (Zulfiqar et al., 2019). Cutting-edge scholarly work highlights the efficacy of novel pedagogical approaches, notably the use of Business Simulation Games, in enriching both the cognitive and affective entrepreneurial skills of learners (Costin et al., 2019; Lackeus, 2014)

This study integrated a BSG into an entrepreneurship course for undergraduate business students. BSG facilitates creative learning in a virtual environment using real-world business scenarios (Hwang et al., 2016; Mawhirter & Garofalo, 2016). Simulation games have the potential to enhance higher education by boosting cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial skills, as well as encouraging the development of entrepreneurial intentions.

While traditional teaching methodologies, often referred to as teacher-centered or lecture-based methods, have been foundational to education, there’s growing concern that they may be insufficient in equipping students to navigate the intricate challenges of entrepreneurship in today’s dynamic landscape. Given this gap, BSG emerges as a promising pedagogical tool, offering a realistic and immersive business experience. Yet, the actual effectiveness of BSG in enhancing entrepreneurial competencies and intentions among undergraduate students remains under-explored. To robustly address this void, the authors are compelled to undertake a quasi-experiment, seeking to critically evaluate the transformative potential of BSG in bolstering both cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial skills, and in amplifying the entrepreneurial intentions of the participants. By addressing the following questions, the authors seek to contribute to our understanding of the potential benefits of employing BSG:

(1) To what extent does the use of BSG enhance students' cognitive competencies, including their knowledge and skills in entrepreneurship?

(2) Can the utilization of BSG impact students' non-cognitive competencies, such as their attitudes toward entrepreneurship?

(3) Does the integration of BSG influence students' entrepreneurial intentions, thereby motivating them to pursue entrepreneurial endeavors?

Literature Review

Cognitive Entrepreneurial Competencies (Knowledge and Skills)

Entrepreneurial competencies encompass psychological characteristics, competencies, and skills that enable entrepreneurs to perform their jobs effectively (Man et al., 2002). Cognitive entrepreneurial competencies, as described by Lackeus (2015), refer to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that influence a person’s motivation and ability to create value.

Successful entrepreneurs possess a range of interconnected skills, including leadership, communication, marketing, strategic management, and interpersonal skills, and they are adept at recognizing opportunities (Costin et al., 2019). Mamun et al. (2018) argue that entrepreneurial knowledge and skills encompass educational attainment, professional experience, knowledge of functional disciplines, and self-confidence, which collectively represent an entrepreneur’s human capital. These skills are measured by entrepreneurial abilities, market orientation, sales orientation, and networking capabilities.

The development of entrepreneurial skills relies on cognitive abilities to effectively utilize information, problem-solving, and decision-making. This includes identifying opportunities and assessing the risks, strengths, and weaknesses of a business (Costin et al., 2019). Training has been identified as a means to cultivate and acquire these skills (Costin et al., 2019; Mamun et al., 2018; Thanasi-Boçe, 2020).

Market orientation involves entrepreneurs' strategic approach to gathering, observing, and responding to market information in order to create superior customer value (Bhattarai et al., 2019; Mamun et al., 2018). It encompasses the ability to understand customer needs and adapt to changing market conditions (Bhattarai et al., 2019).

Entrepreneurs face the challenge of persuading customers to purchase their products, making the development of a sales orientation crucial. A sales orientation focuses on maximizing sales while delivering value (Baber et al., 2020; Mamun et al., 2018). Entrepreneurial networking serves as the foundation for building both business and personal relationships (Mamun et al., 2018). It plays a critical role in an entrepreneur’s strategic planning and is essential for establishing, developing, and maintaining a startup (Li et al., 2020; Mamun et al., 2018; Rus-Casas et al., 2020).

Non-Cognitive Entrepreneurial Competencies (Attitude)

An entrepreneurial attitude is considered a non-cognitive entrepreneurial competency according to Lackéus (2014). Attitudes toward entrepreneurship encompass the perception of entrepreneurship’s value and the evaluation of the desirability and implications of starting a new business (Jahani et al., 2018; Liñán & Chen, 2009). Hattab (2014) found that entrepreneurial education can influence individuals' attitudes and cognition, thereby fostering entrepreneurial intentions. Furthermore, several studies have emphasized the significant role of students' attitudes toward entrepreneurship in their decision to pursue entrepreneurial careers (Venesaar et al., 2006).

In a study conducted by Liñán et al. (2011) the association between entrepreneurial attitudes, self-efficacy, knowledge, and entrepreneurial goals was investigated among Spanish students in their final year of university. The results of this study supported a link between students' entrepreneurial attitudes and their entrepreneurial intentions, indicating the influence of attitudes on individuals' aspirations.

Entrepreneurial Intention

The intention of an individual towards entrepreneurship can be understood as a psychological state that influences their attention and behaviors in situations related to self-employment (Fayolle & Gailly, 2015). It represents an individual’s inclination to work as an entrepreneur, reflecting their aspiration for entrepreneurial endeavors (Lim et al., 2021). In this context, the desire to own or initiate a business is commonly referred to as entrepreneurial intent (Bae et al., 2014).

Notably, research has shown that entrepreneurial attitudes have a significant impact on individuals' intentions to pursue entrepreneurship, particularly among high school students. For instance, Ferreira et al. (2017) found that the entrepreneurial attitudes of high school students greatly influenced their intentions to become entrepreneurs. This highlights the crucial role of attitudes in shaping entrepreneurial aspirations from an early stage. In this regard, EE programs have been identified as a powerful tool for promoting entrepreneurship among high school students (Sánchez, 2013).

Moreover, the implementation of EE programs has been found to have a substantial positive effect on students' attitudes toward entrepreneurship. By providing students with the knowledge, exposure to entrepreneurial experiences, and the development of relevant skills, EE programs effectively contribute to enhancing their attitudes and fostering a favorable perception of entrepreneurship (Ferreira et al., 2017).

BSG as a Tool for Promoting Entrepreneurial Competencies and Intention

Researchers must distinguish between the concepts of the game and play when subjecting learning methodologies to scientific scrutiny. Nowadays, games are used to learn, whereas play aims to have fun (Ifenthaler et al., 2012; Schrader & McCreery, 2012). Furthermore, interactive games serve as simulations that provide a meaningful and engaging experience, enabling the learners to accomplish tasks effectively. Some scholars propose using BSG as an innovative method for teaching entrepreneurship competencies (Costin et al., 2019; Fox et al., 2018).

Previous research has emphasized the importance of BSG in establishing a positive and significant association between students' attitudes and their intentions toward entrepreneurial activities (Yen & Lin, 2020; Zulfiqar et al., 2019). Moreover, BSG has gained wide application across various disciplines, including economics, management, accounting, finance, marketing, product development, and entrepreneurship (Huang et al., 2022b). In a prior study, Costin et al. (2019) employed a BSG to enhance entrepreneurial competencies, which encompass both cognitive and non-cognitive aspects.

The design of BSG is based on constructivist learning theory, wherein experience, interaction, and reflection are prioritized. In the constructivist paradigm, adding new knowledge structures to existing foundational systems and linkages changes the learner’s representation of knowledge (Billings & Halstead, 2019; Dewey, 1986), and the student is an active participant in the development of conceptual understanding.

Using BSG in regular classroom settings can result in better and more enjoyable student learning outcomes. BSG allows students to build and manage different businesses, experience setbacks, encounter obstacles, and enjoy rewards in a dynamic, risk-free environment (Costin et al., 2019). Several scholars recommend using simulation games to improve entrepreneurship competency. BSG positively supports and creates meaningful attitudes and intentions toward entrepreneurship and has been recognized as essential in enhancing entrepreneurial intentions (Costin et al., 2019; Fox et al., 2018; Vos & Brennan, 2010). Thus, BSG offers a comprehensive perspective of company strategy operations and enhances students' knowledge and skill development by imitating market movements. The application of BSG enriches the learning experiences of students by providing a scenario in which they learn by doing (Matute & Melero, 2016). This approach extends authentic learning and immerses students in the reality of creating and operating a business, managing people and resources, applying for leadership, and the cognitive and non-cognitive competencies necessary for achievement.

Methodology

This study is based on a quasi-experimental design (Creswell, 2021), wherein an intervention was implemented within the EE course at one of the universities in Indonesia. Figure 1 illustrates the overall research structure of this study, in which the learning instruction strategies as the independent variable are divided into two types: conventional instruction and BSG-supported instruction. The dependent variables were the posttest for cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies, and entrepreneurial intention, while the pretest served as the covariance. The pretest and posttest utilize identical instruments of cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial intention.

Figure 1.

Research structure of the study.

Hypotheses

There are two independent variables of this study, the conventional instruction and the BSG-supported instruction. The conventional instructions were administered to the control group, involving teacher-led discussions and presentations. Whereas, the BSG-supported instruction was applied to the experimental group, which entailed students-centered learning with digital activities and challenges.

The dependent variables evaluated in this study were students’ cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial intention. The components of students’ cognitive entrepreneurial competencies include entrepreneurial skill (ability to do various business activities), market orientation (ability to handle intense competitive market and customer behavior), sales orientation (ability to turn opportunities into sales), and networking (ability to build relationship with stakeholders). Non-cognitive entrepreneurial competency means the perceptions of entrepreneurial attitudes. Entrepreneurial intention is the individual aspiration to be an entrepreneur.

The pretest score of the dependent variables was included as the covariates in the statistical analysis. Therefore, from the explanation of the independent and dependent variables, as well as the covariates, the hypotheses of this study are as follows:

The use of BSG will significantly enhance cognitive entrepreneurial competencies, including (a) entrepreneurial skill, (b) market orientation, (c) sales orientation, and (d) networking compared to students in conventional instruction.

H1o

The use of BSG will have no significant effect on the cognitive competencies, including a) entrepreneurial skill, (b) market orientation, (c) sales orientation, and (d) networking compared to students in conventional instruction.

The utilization of BSG will have a positive impact on students' non-cognitive competencies, leading to more favorable attitudes toward entrepreneurship compared to students in conventional instruction.

H2o

The utilization of BSG will have no significant impact on students' non-cognitive competencies or their attitudes toward entrepreneurship compared to students in conventional instruction.

Integration of BSG into the curriculum will lead to a significant increase in students' entrepreneurial intentions compared to students in conventional instruction.

H3o

Integration of BSG into the curriculum will have no significant effect on students' entrepreneurial intentions compared to students in conventional instruction.

Participants

Forty-eight students in the fifth semester who had completed all basic management courses were recruited to participate in this study. The students enrolled in the EE course were given the option to select one of two classes, scheduled at different times, based on their personal preferences, and without knowing the instructional strategies used in these classes. Examining the statistical power analysis table by Garrett and Lipsey (1993) to determine the appropriate sample size. The sample size was determined by identifying the power criterion (typically set at .80) and effect size of .80, therefore a minimum of 20 students were needed for each of the two groups (Creswell, 2021; Garrett & Lipsey, 1993). The experimental group (N = 24) used BSG-supported instruction to learn, while the control group (N = 24) used conventional instruction of case studies.

To minimize the potential of the Hawthorne effect (Cook & King, 1968), the students were kept unaware of the study’s true objectives. Moreover, both the control and experimental groups received standardized instructions and followed the same procedures, as outlined in the next section of the experimental procedure. These classes were taught by the same teacher and covered the same course contents, materials, and evaluation methods.

Experimental Procedure

The experiment consisted of eight consecutive meetings, each lasting for 100 minutes. The experimental procedure is illustrated in Figure 2. During the first meeting, all the students completed the pre-test questionnaires, which included questionnaires on their cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial intentions. The teacher then introduced the students to the syllabus and learning goals of the EE course. The primary goals of the course were to guide the students in building a startup business from scratch and developing a comprehensive business plan. In addition, the experimental group students received supplementary information on Marketplace Simulation©, which included details about the game scenario and the integrated perspective of the decision-making tasks in each quarter. At the end of the first meeting, the students were divided into teams of six, representing various functional areas in business. Furthermore, the students were given dedicated time to engage in team discussions and collaborate on their assigned tasks.

Figure 2.

Experimental procedure.

The experimental intervention took place over six meetings (second to seventh). The control group students were taught using conventional learning instruction of case studies analysis and group discussion. Meanwhile, the experimental group students were taught using BSG-supported learning instruction, in which they had to complete the tasks from the game. The contents and learning activities in each meeting of both the control and experimental groups can be seen in Table 1. All participants from both groups received the same learning content from the same teacher, as shown in Table 1. The control group utilized a case study approach, where the content was discussed and analyzed through case study materials. Whereas, the experimental group utilized BSG, engaging in a simulated business environment to apply and reinforce the learning content. In the eighth meeting, students presented their business plan, which included a thorough analysis of products, customers, marketing strategies, financial projections, and expansion plans. Furthermore, they also completed the posttest questionnaires assessing their cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial intentions.

Table 1.

The Contents and Learning Activities of the Control and Experimental Groups.

Meeting	Learning content	Control group	Experimental group
1	Course Introduction: syllabus and learning goals
2	Entrepreneurship Fundamentals 1. Entrepreneurship and its significance 2. Identifying business opportunities 3. Business plan elements – STP (Segmenting, Targeting, Positioning)	Case studies - Successful design-driven entrepreneurial ventures - Brainstorming on potential entrepreneurship ideas	BSG - Design company profile - Analyze market and customer information - Design product and brand name - Determine initial business strategy - Setup store location and facility
3	Developing a Winning Strategy 1. Defining business strategy 2. Identifying the target market 3. Crafting unique value preposition 4. Business plan elements – 4P (Place, Price, Product, Promotion)	Case Studies - Successful business strategies - Brainstorming on marketing strategy	BSG - Review balanced scorecard - Determine target market segmentation - Determine the marketing strategy - Design advertising and marketing campaign - Determine selling price, production schedule, and employees - Sell more than 1,000 bikes
4	Navigating Market Dynamics 1. Understanding market trends and customer behavior 2. Adapting business strategies to changing market conditions 3. Business plan elements – SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats)	Case Studies - Companies that successfully adjusted and expanded their market	BSG - Examine competitors’ strategies and market share - Expanding into new market and customer segments - Evaluate company sales and financial conditions - Maintain cash flow - Design social marketing campaign
5	Strategic Investments for Growth 1. Funding resources and strategies for entrepreneurs 2. Managing financial risks and uncertainties 3. Business plan elements – executive summary and financial reports	Case Studies - Successful investment strategies - Discuss funding options and strategies	BSG - Review balanced scorecard - Decide optimal investment strategies - Analyze company and competitors’ financial projections - Expand production capacity - Analyze and adjust the business strategy - Sell more than 2,500 bikes
6	Scaling and Diversifying the Business 1. Developing strategic partnership 2. Expanding product offerings 3. Business plan elements - Porter Diamond	Case Studies - Businesses that successfully expanded their strategies	BSG - Adjust business strategy - Develop new products for new market - Sell more than 3,000 bikes - Maintain cash flow
7	Continuous Improvement and Innovation 1. Scalability and growth challenges in design-driven business 2. Business plan elements - Business Canvas Model	Case Studies - Startups that successfully scaled their business	BSG - Review balance scorecard - Adjust the business strategy - Analyze the sales strategy - Analyze company and competitors’ strategy
8	Business Plan Presentation 1. Presentation and feedback session of the final business plans developed by students

Business Simulation Game

This study utilized Marketplace Simulation© to practice the acquired knowledge in real-world business environments. The game provided an ideal environment for students to establish their own companies and exercise entrepreneurial knowledge and skills. There were six business phases that enabled students to learn essential business management skills. Throughout the game, students were required to manage various issues and tasks, make decisions, respond strategically to the consequences of their choices, and monitor their progress. They had to navigate intense competition between companies, aiming to secure a large market share and maximize product sales. Figure 3 illustrates the business operation cycle between the marketing, sales, human resources, manufacturing, accounting, and finance divisions.

Figure 3.

The cycle of business process in BSG.

Company stakeholders played a crucial role in shaping the company’s vision, mission, and work assignments. These initial activities set the foundation for the subsequent processes in the BSG. Moving forward, the product design phase began, accompanied by the estimation of unit production costs and break-even points. Once the product was ready, the marketer took charge, formulating and implementing brand promotion strategies to effectively reach the desired market segments. Meanwhile, the salesperson evaluates customer satisfaction and gathers information on competitors to determine the brand’s priority and refine sales strategies. The accountant analyzed the profits and financial statements to construct the project cash flow, ensuring sound financial management. The finance department conducted regular reviews of the balanced scorecard throughout each business phase, assessing performance and making strategic adjustments.

These interconnected activities in BSG contributed to the development of cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies. Figure 4 illustrates the continuous promotion of these competencies throughout the six business phases of the game. By engaging in this comprehensive and well-executed business process, players had the opportunity to cultivate the essential skills and competencies necessary for entrepreneurial success.

Figure 4.

Interactive activities in building cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies.

Instruments

The instruments utilized in this study were adapted from the existing questionnaires, with slight modifications to optimize their relevance to the specific context. A 5-point Likert scale was employed to assess participants' agreement with each statement, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The validity and reliability of the instruments were calculated using the averaged variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the validity was accepted if AVE >.5, and CR >.6.

Cognitive entrepreneurial competencies (knowledge and skills)

The entrepreneurial knowledge and skills developed by Mamun et al. (2018) were used to measure students' cognitive entrepreneurial competencies, which consisted of 26 statements on students' entrepreneurial skills, market orientation, sales orientation, and networking. The reliability test results in Table 2 reveal that the CR value was .852 for entrepreneurial skills, .897 for market orientation, .847 for sales orientation, and .890 for networking. The overall AVE score suggests that the scale was sufficiently valid.

Table 2.

Validity and Reliability Test Results.

	Construct	Items	AVE	CR
Cognitive entrepreneurial competencies	Entrepreneurial skill	5	.540	.852
	Market orientation	8	.521	.897
	Sales orientation	5	.537	.847
	Networking	8	.505	.890
Non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies	Entrepreneurial attitude	5	.609	.886
Entrepreneurial intention		6	.526	.869

Non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies (attitude)

The entrepreneurial attitude was measured using five statements developed by Liñán and Chen (2009) related to students' attitudes toward becoming entrepreneurs. As presented in Table 2, the CR for the scale was .886, with an AVE score of .609, suggesting that the scale was sufficiently valid and reliable to measure entrepreneurial attitude.

Entrepreneurial Intention

Students were presented with six statements of entrepreneurial intention developed by Liñán and Chen (2009) related to their intention to become entrepreneurs. The scale had an appropriate CR of .869, with an AVE of .526 suggesting sufficient validity and reliability to measure entrepreneurial intention.

Data Analysis

The homogeneity and normality test analysis shows that the corresponding dimensions of cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies, and entrepreneurial intentions were homogeneous and normally distributed. Therefore, a parametric test of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) can be held to assess the differences between the control and experimental groups. ANCOVA is conducted to look at the overall relationship between the dependent variables and the covariates across all groups of participants (Field, 2013; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019). SPSS 25.0 was utilized for analysis, with the pretest as the covariate, groups as the independent, and posttest as the dependent variable (as shown in Figure 1). The effect size measure, eta squared (η²), was calculated to assess the magnitude of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

Assumptions

Prior to conducting the ANCOVA analysis, it is essential to verify the key assumption of ANCOVA to ensure the accuracy and robustness of the statistical inferences. These assumptions include normality, homogeneity of variance, linearity, and homogeneity of regression slopes. The normality assumption is essential to verify that the residuals of the dependent variable are normally distributed within each group. The evaluation of the normality assumption through Shapiro-Wilk test reveals a normal distribution of the construct and variable within the control and experimental groups as seen on Table 3 (p > .05).

Table 3.

The Assumption Test Results.

	Normality (Shapiro-Wilk)				Homogeneity of Variance		Linearity		Homogeneity of Regression Slopes
	control	p	experiment	p	Levene	p	F	p	F	p
Entrepreneurial skill	.958	.400	.976	.811	3.418	.071	.826	.616	2.989	.095
Market orientation	.949	.252	.944	.202	1.929	.172	.513	.908	2.424	.131
Sales orientation	.924	.073	.970	.673	3.384	.072	.797	.632	1.641	.211
Networking	.945	.209	.978	.864	2.549	.117	1.733	.111	2.758	.074
Entrepreneurial attitude	.944	.195	.923	.068	1.181	.283	1.319	.074	2.142	.127
Entrepreneurial intention	.955	.303	.957	.374	1.450	.235	.416	.962	3.159	.052

*p < .05.

The homogeneity of variance assumption entails confirming the dependent variable is equal across all groups. Table 3 displays a non-significant result of Levene test (p > .05) indicating that the assumption of the homogeneity of variance is met. A linear relationship is essential in ANCOVA because it influences the validity of the analysis and interpretation of results. The linearity assumption necessitates that the relationship between the covariate and dependent variables is linear across all groups. The finding of Deviation in Linearity in Table 3 affirms that the relationship between a covariate and the dependent variable is linear as assumed (p > .05).

The homogeneity of regression slope assumptions assumes that the effect of covariates on the dependent variable is consistent across all groups. In ANCOVA the homogeneity of regression slopes needs to be parallel with no interaction between factors and covariates. The results show that there are no violations of homogeneity of regression slopes (p > .05). Therefore, the effect of the group as an independent variable on the covariate is consistent across all levels of groups.

Results

Cognitive Entrepreneurial Competencies (Knowledge and Skills)

The results of the ANCOVA test are displayed in Tables 4 and 5. According to the mean post-test score in Table, the students in the experimental group perceived higher levels of entrepreneurial skills (M = 3.616, SD = .456) compared to the control group (M = 2.966, SD = .261). The finding shows a significant difference in entrepreneurial skills (F = 41.87, p < .05, η² = .445). The effect size (η²) of .445, signify a substantial effect of the BSG on students’ entrepreneurial skills. The adj. R² of .499, indicates that 49.9% of the variation in entrepreneurial skill is accounted by the combination of the covariances and independent variables.

Table 4.

The Descriptive Results of the Cognitive and Non-cognitive Entrepreneurial Competencies and Intention.

Variable	Control group					Experimental group
	Pre-test		Post-test		Mean Diff. (Pre-post)	Pre-test		Post-test		Mean Diff. (Pre-post)
	M	SD	M	SD	Mean Diff. (Pre-post)	M	SD	M	SD	Mean Diff. (Pre-post)
Entrepreneurial skill	2.791	.570	2.966	.261	−.175	2.783	.559	3.616	.456	−.833
Market orientation	3.179	.497	3.195	.702	−.015	2.991	.515	3.715	.428	−.724
Sales orientation	2.800	.433	3.083	.819	−.283	2.983	.598	3.850	.472	−.866
Networking	3.455	.407	3.512	.485	−.056	3.445	.446	3.777	.411	−.332
Entrepreneurial attitude	3.200	.710	3.358	.581	−.158	3.125	1.043	4.000	.592	−.875
Entrepreneurial intention	3.846	.589	3.882	.797	−.035	3.728	.860	4.680	.339	−.951

Table 5.

The ANCOVA Results in Cognitive and Non-cognitive Entrepreneurial Competencies and Intentions.

Variable	SS	df	Mean square	F	p	η ²	Adj. R²
Entrepreneurial skill	5.102	1	5.102	41.87	.000*	.445	.499
Market orientation	2.662	1	2.662	7.99	.007*	.146	.167
Sales orientation	6.308	1	6.308	14.03	.000*	.235	.235
Networking	.864	1	.864	4.43	.041*	.085	.095
Entrepreneurial attitude	5.359	1	5.359	21.88	.000*	.253	.446
Entrepreneurial intention	8.180	1	8.180	23.57	.000*	.321	.346

*p < .05.

In term of the market orientation, the experimental group (M = 3.715, SD = .428) perceived higher post-test score compared to their counterpart (M = 3.195, SD = .702). The ANCOVA results signify the significant difference among them after controlling the pretest scores (F = 7.99, p < .05, η² = .146). The effect size of .146 suggest the importance of BSG in enhancing students’ market orientation. The adj. R² of .167, indicates that 16.7% of the variation in market orientation is accounted by the combination of the covariances and independent variables.

In term of the sales orientation, the control group students (M = 3.083, SD = .819) also perceive lower post-test score compared to the experimental group students (M = 3.850, SD = .472). The statistical results show a significant difference in sales orientation (F = 14.03, p < .05, η² = .235). The effect size of .235, signify a substantial effect of the class intervention on students’ sales orientation. The adj. R² of .235, indicates that the combination of the covariance and independent variables contribute 23.5% to student sales orientation.

The ANCOVA results in Table 5 revealed a significant difference between the control and experimental groups in networking (F = 4.43, p < .05, η² = .085). The obtained η² value of .085 indicates a moderate effect of the learning instructions on networking skills. Furthermore, the adj. R² of .095 indicates that the combination of the covariance and independent variables contribute 9.5% of variance in sales orientation. According to the mean post-test score in Table 4, the students in the experimental group perceived higher levels of networking (M = 3.777, SD = .411) compared with the students in the control group (M = 3.512, SD = .485).

Non-Cognitive Entrepreneurial Competencies (Attitude)

The descriptive results of entrepreneurial attitudes in Table 4 show that the control group (M = 3.358, SD = .581) had a lower post-test score than the experimental group (M = 4.000, SD = .592). The ANCOVA results in Table 5 confirmed a significant difference between the two groups (F = 21.88, p < .05, η² = .253). The η² values of .253 suggest a strong difference between the learning instructions and the entrepreneurial attitude. The adj. R² of .446, indicates that 44.6% of the variance in students’ non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies is accounted for by the combination of the covariance and independent variables. The results demonstrated the positive impact of BSG on enhancing students’ entrepreneurial attitude compared to those in the control group.

Entrepreneurial Intention

The presented results of entrepreneurial intention in Table 4 show that the control group (M = 3.882, SD = .797) had a lower post-test score than the experimental group (M = 4.680, SD = .339). Further analysis of ANCOVA in Table 5 validated a significant difference between the two groups (F = 23.57, p < .05, η² = .321). The obtained eta squared (η²) of .321 indicates the proportion of variance in the entrepreneurial intentions can be accounted for by the use of BSG in the classroom. Furthermore, the adj. R² of .346 indicates that the combination of the covariance and independent variables contribute 34.6 of variance in students’ entrepreneurial intention. The results show that the students who learned about entrepreneurship through BSG had higher entrepreneurial intentions than the control group.

The Relationship Between Entrepreneurial Competencies and Entrepreneurial Intention

The relationship between entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial intention was measured using Pearson’s r. According to Table 6, there is positive correlation between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial skill (r = .601, p < .01), market orientation (r = .392, p < .01), sales orientation (r = .490, p < .01), networking (r = .645, p < .01), and entrepreneurial attitude (r = .401, p < .01). The result suggests that an increase in the aforementioned variables increases participants entrepreneurial intention.

Table 6.

The Correlation Between Entrepreneurial Competencies and Entrepreneurial Intention.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Entrepreneurial skill	-
2. Market orientation	.485**	-
3. Sales orientation	.571**	.682**	-
4. Networking	.357*	.485**	.517**	-
5. Entrepreneurial attitude	.611**	.716**	.694**	.686**
6. Entrepreneurial intention	.601**	.392**	.490**	.645**	.401**	-

*p < .05, **p < .01.

Discussion

This study investigated the educational effect of BSG on students' cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies, and entrepreneurial intention. The research findings indicate that BSG activities improve students' cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies; and their intention toward entrepreneurship.

Effect of BSG on Cognitive Entrepreneurial Competencies

Regarding the first question concerning the enhancement of students' cognitive competencies, specifically their knowledge and skills in entrepreneurship through the utilization of BSG, the study yielded affirmative results. It revealed that the incorporation of a BSG positively influenced students' cognitive entrepreneurial competencies. Entrepreneurial knowledge and skills can be classified as cognitive entrepreneurial competencies. Cognitive entrepreneurial competencies refer to the intellectual abilities and knowledge that entrepreneurs possess, which enable them to effectively identify and capitalize on entrepreneurial opportunities. Furthermore, cognitive skills require logical, intuitive, and creative thought—using techniques, materials, tools, and facilities (Costin et al., 2019). Entrepreneurial knowledge and skills encompass a broad range of competencies that are vital for success in the entrepreneurial realm. These competencies include entrepreneurial skills, market orientation, sales orientation, and networking (Mamun et al., 2018). Cognitive skills require logical, intuitive, and creative thought—using techniques, materials, tools, and facilities (Costin et al., 2019).

Entrepreneurial skill was identified when the students engaged in various business activities, as illustrated in Figure 5. These skills can include areas such as strategic planning, financial management, decision-making, and problem-solving. Through various business activities in the game, students developed entrepreneurial skills by assessing business risks, strengths, weaknesses, and competition with other companies. They demonstrated professionalism, teamwork, situation analysis, and decision-making abilities. The experimental group, exposed to the simulation game, exhibited stronger entrepreneurial skills compared to the control group. This finding aligns with previous research highlighting the real-world business opportunities provided by BSG (Thanasi-Boçe, 2020; Zulfiqar et al., 2019).

Figure 5.

Characteristics of the simulation game correspond to entrepreneurial skills.

Figure 6 focused on how students developed market orientation through the use of a BSG in an intensely competitive market. Market orientation involves conducting market research, analyzing consumer behavior, and developing strategies to effectively position and differentiate a product or service within the market. Through BSG, the students were challenged to observe the market, understand customer preferences, and align them with product design. During the game, students learned about market dynamics and translated that knowledge into a company orientation that aimed to satisfy customer needs. The activities in the game encouraged students to adopt a market-oriented approach and identify opportunities within the market.

Figure 6.

Characteristics of the simulation game correspond to market orientation.

The results indicated a notable difference in market orientation between the experimental and the control groups. The experimental group demonstrated higher scores for market orientation, highlighting the effectiveness of the BSG in improving students' ability to analyze market opportunities. This finding aligns with the research by Baber et al. (2020), who emphasized the importance of developing market orientation. They highlighted that market orientation enhances the gathering and dissemination of information, as well as strategic coordination. In the study context, the BSG provided students with a practical platform to develop and enhance their market orientation skills, ultimately improving their ability to identify and respond to market opportunities. In summary, the study found that the use of a BSG significantly improved students' market orientation skills. Through the game activities, students were able to observe the market, understand customer preferences, and align their strategies to meet customer needs. The BSG proved to be an effective tool for developing market orientation, enabling students to analyze market opportunities and make informed decisions.

Figure 7 presents the activities related to understanding and fulfilling customer price demands. Overall, the BSG significantly affected sales orientation. Sales orientation pertains to the entrepreneurial mindset of actively seeking opportunities to sell products or services and effectively persuading potential customers. It involves mastering techniques such as prospecting, lead generation, negotiation, and closing deals, all with the goal of driving sales and revenue growth. The BSG activities developed the students' ability to identify the most profitable opportunities. The findings indicated that students in the experimental group outperformed those in the control group regarding sales orientation. The learning activity using the BSG provided more opportunities to explore and understand the complexity of selling strategies and how they are connected to other aspects of the business. The BSG provided simulated business scenarios, tools, and feedback mechanisms, enabling students to navigate market dynamics and better understand the interplay between sales strategies and broader business decisions. Mamun et al. (2018) noted that the competitiveness of business environments and high customer expectations require entrepreneurs to develop products that strongly emphasize customer needs. According to Baber et al. (2020), sales orientation is integrated with information gathering, dissemination, and strategic coordination in all aspects of a business.

Figure 7.

Characteristics of the simulation game correspond to the sales orientation.

Networking skills play a crucial role in entrepreneurial knowledge and skills as they involve building relationships with stakeholders, such as mentors, investors, and industry professionals. Effective networking provides valuable resources, support, and collaboration opportunities. In this study, the impact of a BSG on networking ability was analyzed using independent sample t-tests. The results in Table 4 indicated that the BSG significantly influenced networking skills. Group discussions within the game facilitated quick analysis of information, leading to more changes in networking skills among the experimental group compared to the control group. These findings align with Thanasi-Boçe’s (2020) research, highlighting the importance of discussions in establishing networking relationships and fostering student support toward achieving their goals.

Effect of BSG on Non-cognitive Entrepreneurial Competencies

The second research question examines the influence of BSG on students' non-cognitive competencies, encompassing factors such as their attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Attitude is a crucial non-cognitive entrepreneurial competency encompassing an entrepreneur’s beliefs, values, and mindset. It significantly influences their behavior, decision-making, and overall approach to entrepreneurship. The results in Table 4 confirm that using a BSG for learning activities has a more substantial impact on improving students' non-cognitive entrepreneurial competency (attitudes) compared to activities provided to the control group.

BSG offers hands-on experience in making business decisions, resource management, and dealing with outcomes. This experiential learning helps participants gain a practical understanding of entrepreneurship and the challenges they may encounter, enhancing their confidence, problem-solving skills, and decision-making abilities. The non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies encompass initiative, proactivity, autonomy, and inventiveness in professional and personal life, including motivation, positive feedback, and job goals.

Non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies are characterized by perceiving the value of entrepreneurial benefits, favorability, and repercussions (Jena, 2020). It includes the dimensions of the need for achievement, innovation, and self-esteem (Fenech et al., 2019). In the game activities, students performed Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analyses, so they learned to be more competitive and analyze their competitors' strengths and weaknesses.

BSG creates dynamic and ever-changing environments that mirror the real-world business landscape. Participants must adjust their strategies and make swift decisions in response to market shifts and competitor actions. This fosters an attitude of adaptability and resilience as they learn to navigate uncertainties and modify their approach to achieving success (Thanasi-Boçe, 2020). Additionally, BSG showcases the innovative aspect of entrepreneurship by allowing students to design and market new products, inspiring and motivating them to develop an entrepreneurial attitude (Zulfiqar et al., 2019). In general, BSG offers a platform for individuals to cultivate and reinforce various attitudes associated with non-cognitive entrepreneurial competencies. Through engaging in simulated business scenarios, participants can enhance their experiential learning, perception of risk, adaptability, collaboration, strategic thinking, and emotional resilience—all of which contribute to their overall entrepreneurial attitude.

Effect of BSG on Entrepreneurial Intention

The results regarding the third research question, which focuses on the impact of integrating BSG on students' entrepreneurial intentions, align with the findings of Fox et al., (2018). This study emphasizes the significance of BSG activities in facilitating students' learning progress and fostering entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurial intention refers to a cognitive state characterized by aspirations, desires, and expectations that shape individuals' decisions to pursue entrepreneurship. By immersing students in a virtual environment through entrepreneurial activities within the simulation game, their intention to develop their own businesses is enhanced. These activities simulate real-life business scenarios, encompassing crucial aspects such as product design, market-entry, sales strategies, report writing, business planning, and strategic development. The comprehensive nature of these scenarios plays a fundamental role in cultivating students' intention toward entrepreneurship.

Conclusion

A quasi-experimental study used a BSG to assess students' entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, attitudes, and intentions. The study compared instructional strategies between conventional learning instruction and BSG-supported. Results demonstrated that incorporating BSG into EE courses offers students enhanced opportunities to learn about entrepreneurial activities. The results highlight the efficacy of business simulation games in fostering both cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial skills and intentions, underscoring the advantages of hands-on learning, and interactive learning experience, allowing students to simulate real-world business scenarios, experiment with various strategies, and observe the consequences of their actions in a risk-free environment.

BSG utilizes a team-focused approach that emphasizes the importance of creating value. This method deepens comprehension and immerses participants in the complex facets of business management, from allocating resources to navigating the hurdles of dynamic environments. Throughout their engagement with BSG, participants experience a significant enhancement in both cognitive and non-cognitive abilities, a claim reinforced by multiple studies (Blenker et al., 2008; Cooper et al., 2004; Vanevenhoven, 2013). Furthermore, this form of experiential learning cultivates critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making skills, contributing to the development of entrepreneurial competencies (Fox et al., 2018; Kolb, 2015; Zulfiqar et al., 2019).

BSG facilitates direct engagement with the realities of the subject matter, allowing students to reflect on their decisions and performance through feedback mechanisms. This reflection promotes self-awareness, continuous learning, and the ability to adjust strategies based on valuable insights from simulation outcomes and feedback from peers or teachers. Overall, BSG creates a dynamic and immersive learning environment that enhances students' entrepreneurial competencies and intentions. Universities are encouraged to incorporate BSG into other business courses and consider integrating simulation and games into their curricula.

Limitations and Future Research

The study, while insightful, had several limitations that warrant attention. Firstly, a primary constraint was its relatively small sample size, which might limit the generalizability of the findings. While the research provides valuable perspectives, the limited sample could hinder the results from being statistically significant for the broader population.

Secondly, BSG as a valuable tool, may not fully capture the complexities of real-world entrepreneurial contexts. Genuine entrepreneurship is influenced by myriad external factors, such as market dynamics, legalities, and socio-cultural nuances, which might not be entirely mirrored in such simulations.

Thirdly, the study’s reliance on self-reported measures to assess entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, and intentions can introduce variances. Different interpretations by individuals, despite similar experiences, can skew such self-reported data. The quasi-experimental design, although valuable in highlighting potential causal relationships, has its set of limitations.

For future research, several recommendations emerge: Firstly, enhancing statistical reliability necessitates the inclusion of broader and more varied sample groups. Secondly, it’s clear that BSG should be combined with modern teaching strategies. Incorporating methods such as flipped classrooms, intensive mentorships, and real-world entrepreneurial experiences into BSG is crucial for optimizing learning results.

Lastly, given the inherent constraints of the quasi-experimental design and the reliance on self-reported data, future investigations should consider a mixed-method approach. Combining quantitative techniques with qualitative methods, such as interviews or observations, would yield a richer, more nuanced understanding of participants' experiences.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan (NSTC 112-2515-S-224-001) and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST 111-2628-H-224 -001 -MY3 and MOST 110-2511-H-224-003-MY3).

ORCID iD

Ting-Ting Wu

Appendix

Tables A1, A2, A3 Table A1.

List of Questionnaire Items of Cognitive Entrepreneurial Competencies.

	Statement	Score
Entrepreneurial Skill	ES1. I have the ability for economic negotiation
	ES2. I have the ability to communicate about financial concepts
	ES3. I have the ability to access advice and support services
	ES4. I have the ability to get along well with other people
	ES5. I keep systematic business records
Market orientation	MO1. I have a loyal customer base
	MO2. I think that the business is sensitive to the business needs
	MO3. I use promotional campaign as an advantage to attract the customer
	MO4. I have the capabilities and resources to compete in the market.
	MO5. I learn from my competitors’ strengths
	MO6. I think the businesses that I run have advantages compared to other competitors
	MO7. People can accept the new product that I developed
	MO8. I think the unfulfilled needs for any type of products and services will become new opportunities to develop
Sales orientation	SO1. In my opinion, many local businesses are developing new products and services to be marketed outside their usual market.
	SO2. In my opinion, the current market network is not efficient for obtaining optimal profits
	SO3. In my opinion, businesses should clearly identify their target market.
	SO4. In my opinion, this product is profitable in many markets
	SO5. In my opinion, this business achieves decent profits
Networking	N1. I try to meet people who may be important to my business
	N2. I am active in building a liaison network
	N3. I maintain contacts outside my social circle
	N4. I like talking to new people
	N5. An entrepreneur creates good relationships to share opinions through existing networks by providing support to new members
	N6. An entrepreneur establishes relationships with various business communities
	N7. Relationships are built to solve the problems
	N8. A well-established relationship will provide enthusiasm for new contact

Table A2.

List of Questionnaire Items of Non-Cognitive Entrepreneurial Competencies.

	Statement	Score
Entrepreneurial attitude	EA1. Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than disadvantages to me
	EA2. A career as an entrepreneur is attractive for me
	EA3. If I had the opportunity and resources, I would love to start a business
	EA4. Being an entrepreneur would give me great satisfaction
	EA5. Among various options, I would rather be an entrepreneur

Table A3.

List of Questionnaire items of Entrepreneurial Intentions.

	Statement	Score
Entrepreneurial intentions	EI1. I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur
	EI2. My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur
	EI3. I am determined to create a business venture in the future
	EI4. I have very seriously thought about starting a firm
	EI5. I have got the intention to start a firm one day
	EI6. I intend to start a firm within five years of graduation

Author Biographies

Lusia Maryani Silitonga, PhD. is a PhD graduate from the Department of Technological and Vocational Education at the National Yunlin University of Science and Technology. Currently, she is doing a postdoctoral program at the same university. She is a lecturer and associate professor at the Universitas PGRI Semarang, Indonesia. Her research focuses on using EEG, Game-based Learning in Entrepreneurship Education, and computational thinking skills in Academic Writing.

Budi Dharmawan, PhD received a PhD in Forest Policy from the University of Göttingen, Germany, in 2017. Since 2018, he has worked as an Associate Professor with the Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, at Jenderal Soedirman University, Indonesia. His research interests include agricultural and forest policy, strategic management, and system thinking.

Astrid Tiara Murti received her MBA from the National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, in 2020. She is currently a PhD candidate in the Graduate School of Technological and Vocational Education at the same university. Her research interest includes game-based learning and computational thinking.

Professor Ting-Ting Wu, Ph.D, is a Distinguished Professor and Director at the Graduate School of Technological and Vocational Education at the National Yunlin University of Science and Technology. She received her PhD from the Department of Engineering Science at National Cheng Kung University in 2011. Her academic research was focused on learning portfolio analysis, mobile and ubiquitous learning, information technology-assisted instruction, and the implementation and development of intelligent learning systems.

References

Aranha

E. A.

dos Santos

P. H.

Garcia

N. A. P.

(2018). EDLE: An integrated tool to foster entrepreneurial skills development in engineering education. Educational Technology Research & Development, 66(6), 1571–1599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9624-8.

Baber

Kaurav

R. P. S.

Paul

(2020). Impact of individual market orientation on selling and customer orientation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 28(4), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2018.1489880

Bae

T. J.

Qian

Miao

Fiet

J. O.

(2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta–analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12095

Bhattarai

C. R.

Kwong

C. C. Y.

Tasavori

(2019). Market orientation, market disruptiveness capability and social enterprise performance: An empirical study from the United Kingdom. Journal of Business Research, 96(2019), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.042.

Billings

D. M.

Halstead

J. A.

(2019). In Billings

D. M.

Halstead

J. A.

(Eds.), Teaching in nursing e-book: A guide for faculty (6th ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences.

Blenker

Dreisler

Fæ

M. H.

Kjeldsen

(2008). A framework for developing entrepreneurship education in a university context. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2008.015953

Chang

Y. C.

Peng

H. Y.

Chao

H. C.

(2010). Examining the effects of learning motivation and of course design in an instructional simulation game. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(4), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820802574270

Cook

D. L.

King

(1968). A study of the Hawthorne effect in educational research. Research in the Teaching of English, 2(2), 116–122.

Cooper

Bottomley

Gordon

(2004). Stepping out of the classroom and up the ladder of learning: An experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship education. Industry and Higher Education, 18(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000004773040924.

10.

Costin

O’Brien

Slattery

(2018). Using simulation to develop entrepreneurial skills and mind-set: An exploratory case study. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(1), 136–145.

11.

Costin

O’Brien

M. P.

Hynes

(2019). Developing cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competences through business simulation games. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 27(04), 471–498. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495819500171

12.

Creswell

J. W.

(2021). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, ebook (Global Edition). Pearson Education.

13.

Dewey

(1986). Experience and education. The Educational Forum, 50(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728609335764

14.

Fayolle

Gailly

(2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12065

15.

Fenech

Baguant

Ivanov

(2019). Entrepreneurial attitudes, self-efficacy, and subjective norms amongst female emirati entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(1), 1–11.

16.

Ferreira

A. da S. M.

Loiola

Gondim

S. M. G.

(2017). Motivations, business planning, and risk management: Entrepreneurship among university students. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 14(2), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2017.03.003

17.

Field

(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Statistics, 58(4), i-915.

18.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

19.

Fox

Pittaway

Uzuegbunam

(2018). Simulations in entrepreneurship education: Serious games and learning through play. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737285

20.

Garrett

A. D.

Lipsey

M. W.

(1993). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. The Statistician, 42(2), 195. https://doi.org/10.2307/2348989.

21.

Gibb

(2002). In pursuit of a new “enterprise” and “entrepreneurship” paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 233–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00086.

22.

Grivokostopoulou

Kovas

Perikos

(2019). Examining the impact of a gamified entrepreneurship education framework in higher education. Sustainability, 11(20), 5623. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205623

23.

Hattab

H. W.

(2014). Impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Egypt. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971355713513346

24.

Hidayat

(2018). Game-based learning: Academic games sebagai metode penunjang pembelajaran kewirausahaan. Buletin Psikologi, 26(2), 71. https://doi.org/10.22146/buletinpsikologi.30988

25.

Huang

Silitonga

L. M.

Murti

A. T.

(2022a). Learner engagement in a business simulation game: Impact on higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(1), 96–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221106918.

26.

Huang

Silitonga

L. M.

(2022b). Applying a business simulation game in a flipped classroom to enhance engagement, learning achievement, and higher-order thinking skills. Computers and Education, 183(2022), 104494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104494.

27.

Hwang

G. J.

P. H.

Chen

C. C.

N. T.

(2016). Effects of an augmented reality-based educational game on students’ learning achievements and attitudes in real-world observations. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8), 1895–1906. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1057747.

28.

Ifenthaler

Eseryel

(2012). Assessment for game-based learning. In Ifenthaler

Eseryel

(Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives (pp. 1–8). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3546-4_1

29.

Jahani

Babazadeh

Haghighi

Cheraghian

(2018). The effect of entrepreneurship education on self-efficacy beliefs and entrepreneurial intention of nurses. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 12(6), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2018/31525.11654.

30.

Jena

R. K.

(2020). Measuring the impact of business management student’s attitude towards entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 107(2018), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106275

31.

Kolb

D. A.

(2015). Experiential Learning- Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (2nd ed.). Person Education, Inc.

32.

Lackeus

(2014). An emotion based approach to assessing entrepreneurial education. International Journal of Management in Education, 12(3), 374–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.06.005

33.

Lackeus

(2015). Entrepreneurship in education: What, why, when, how. OECD.

34.

Ahmed

Qalati

S. A.

Khan

Naz

(2020). Role of business incubators as a tool for entrepreneurship development: The mediating and moderating role of business start-up and government regulations. Sustainability, 12(5), 1822. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051822

35.

Lim

J. Y.

Kim

(2021). The effects of the Start-Up NurseS program on nursing students using management strategy simulation. Nurse Education Today, 105(2021), 105020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105020.

36.

Liñán

Chen

(2009). Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x

37.

Liñán

Rodríguez-Cohard

J. C.

Rueda-Cantuche

J. M.

(2011). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for education. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0154-z

38.

Mamun

A.Al

Kumar

Ibrahim

M. D.

Yusoff

(2018). Establishing a valid instrument to measure entrepreneurial knowledge and skill. Business Perspectives and Research, 6(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/2278533717730449

39.

Man

T. W. Y.

Lau

Chan

K. F.

(2002). The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(2), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00058-6

40.

Martínez-Martínez

S. L.

Ventura

(2020). Entrepreneurial profiles at the university: A competence approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(2020), 612796. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.612796.

41.

Matute

Melero

(2016). Game-based learning: Using business simulators. Universia Business Review, 13(3), 72–111. https://doi.org/10.3232/UBR.2016.V13.N3.03.

42.

Mawhirter

D. A.

Garofalo

P. F.

(2016). Expect the unexpected: Simulation games as a teaching strategy. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 12(4), 132–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.12.009

43.

Nabi

Walmsley

Liñán

Akhtar

Neame

(2018). Does entrepreneurship education in the first year of higher education develop entrepreneurial intentions? The role of learning and inspiration. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1177716

44.

Pasin

Giroux

(2011). The impact of a simulation game on operations management education. Computers and Education, 57(1), 1240–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.006

45.

Pérez-Pérez

González-Torres

Nájera-Sánchez

J.-J.

(2021). Boosting entrepreneurial intention of university students: Is a serious business game the key? International Journal of Management in Education, 19(3), 100506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100506

46.

Rus-Casas

Eliche-Quesada

Aguilar-Peña

J. D.

Jiménez-Castillo

La Rubia

M. D.

(2020). The impact of the entrepreneurship promotion programs and the social networks on the sustainability entrepreneurial motivation of engineering students. Sustainability, 12(12), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124935.

47.

Sánchez

J. C.

(2013). The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12025

48.

Schrader

P. G.

McCreery

(2012). Are all games the same? In Ifenthaler

Eseryel

(Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives (pp. 11–28). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3546-4_2

49.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education, 5(Issue 7th), 983.

50.

Thanasi-Boçe

(2020). Enhancing students’ entrepreneurial capacity through marketing simulation games. Education + Training, 62(9), 999–1013. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2019-0109

51.

Vanevenhoven

(2013). Advances and challenges in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 466–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12043.

52.

Venesaar

Kolbre

Piliste

(2006). Students’ Attitudes and Intentions toward Entrepreneurship at Tallinn University of Technology (pp. 97–114). TUTWPE, 154.

53.

Vos

Brennan

(2010). Marketing simulation games: Student and lecturer perspectives. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 28(7), 882–897. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501011086472

54.

C. J.

Chen

G. D.

Huang

C. W.

(2014). Using digital board games for genuine communication in EFL classrooms. Educational Technology Research & Development, 62(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9329-y.

55.

Yang

Chen

Yang

Liu

(2021). How to develop entrepreneurial talent more effectively? A comparison of different entrepreneurship educational methods. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(2021), 644113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.644113.

56.

Yen

W.-C.

Lin

H.-H.

(2020). Investigating the effect of flow experience on learning performance and entrepreneurial self-efficacy in a business simulation systems context. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(9), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1734624.

57.

Zulfiqar

Sarwar

Aziz

Ejaz Chandia

Khan

M. K.

(2019). An analysis of influence of business simulation games on business school students’ attitude and intention toward entrepreneurial activities. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 106–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117746746