Many past educational validity studies of business gaming simulation, and more specifically total enterprise simulation, have been inconclusive. Studies have focused on the weaknesses of business gaming simulation; which is often regarded as an educational medium that has limitations regarding learning effectiveness. However, no attempts have been made to provide guidelines for assessing educational validity in terms of building, implementing, and validating business gaming simulation. Accordingly, this study has combined literature on learning, simulation design, and research methods to formulate a methodology to assess the educational validity of total enterprise simulation; the concepts of which can be applied more broadly to business gaming simulation. The authors propose that the framework introduced within this article can provide a foundation for future educational validity studies that can assist simulation designers to implement valuable and powerful simulation learning media in the future.
Alessi, S. ( 1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 40-47.
2.
Biggs, J. ( 1999), Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
3.
Bloisi, W. ( 2003). Management and organisational behaviour. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.
4.
Bloom, B.S. ( 1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
5.
Borodzicz, E.P. ( 1999). Using simulations to "facilitate" learning within risk situations. In D. Saunders, & J. Severn (Eds.), Simulation and gaming research yearbook: Vol. 7. Simulations and games for strategy and policy planning (pp. 169-181). London, Kogan Page.
6.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. ( 2003). Business research methods. Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press.
7.
Burgess, T. ( 1995). Business gaming: An historical analysis and future perspective . In D. Saunders (Ed.), The international simulation and gaming research yearbook: Vol. 3, Simulations and games for strategy and policy planning. London: Kogan Page.
8.
Burns, A., Gentry, J., & Wolfe, J. ( 1990). A cornucopia of considerations in evaluating the effectiveness of experiential pedagogies. In J. Gentry (Ed.), Guide to business gaming and experiential learning (pp. 253-278). London: Kogan Page.
9.
Carvalho, T.A. ( 1991). Evaluating computerized business simulators for objective learning validity. Simulation & Gaming, 22, 328-347.
10.
Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
11.
Denscombe, M. ( 1998). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
12.
Denzin, N.K. ( 1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath .
14.
Dickinson, J., & Faria, A. ( 1994). A random-strategy criterion for validity of simulation game participation. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 21, 35-39. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
15.
Dickinson, J., Whiteley, R., & Faria, A. ( 1990). An empirical investigation of the internal validity of a marketing simulation game. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 17, 47-52. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
16.
Duffy, T.M., & Cunningham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instructions. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Macmillan.
17.
Elgood, C. ( 1993). Handbook of management games (5th ed.). Aldershot, UK: Gower Press .
18.
Faria, A. ( 2001). The changing nature of business simulation/gaming research: A brief history. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32, 97-110.
19.
Faria, A., & Wellington, W. (2004a). A survey of simulation game users, former-users, and never-users. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 35, 178-207.
20.
Faria, A., & Wellington, W. (2004b). Validating business simulations: Does high market share lead to high profitability?Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 31, 332-336. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
21.
Faria, A., & Wellington, W. (2005). Validating business gaming: Business conformity with PIMS findings. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 36, 259-273.
22.
Feinstein, A., & Cannon, H. ( 2001). Fidelity, verifiability, and validity of simulation: Constructs for Evaluation. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 28, 57-67. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
23.
Gentry, J. ( 1990). What is experiential learning. In J. Gentry (Ed.), Guide to business gaming and experiential learning (pp. 9-21). London: Kogan Page .
24.
Gold, S. ( 2003). The design of a business simulation using a systems-dynamics-based approach. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 30 . (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
25.
Goosen, K., Jensen, R., & Wells, R. ( 2001). Purpose and learning benefits of simulations: A design and development perspective. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32, 21-39.
26.
Gosen, J. ( 2004). The influence of variables easily controlled by the instructor/administrator on simulation outcomes: In particular, the variable reflection. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 31, 318-324. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
27.
Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. ( 2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 35, 270-293.
28.
Grossler, A. ( 2004). Don’t let history repeat itself: Methodological issues concerning the use of simulators in teaching and experimentation. System Dynamics Review, 20, 263-274.
29.
Hall, J. ( 2004). Computer simulation: A design architectronic. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 31, 166-175. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
30.
Hely, T., & Jarvis, N. ( 1999). Students’ expectations and realization levels of computer-simulated business exercises: A case study in service management . In D. Saunders & J. Severn (Eds.), The international simulation and gaming research yearbook: Vol. 7. Simulations and games for strategy and policy planning (pp. 69-86). London: Kogan Page .
31.
Herzberg, F. ( 1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland : World Publishing.
32.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. ( 1986). Using our learning styles. London : Honey.
33.
Jacques, D. ( 1995). Games, simulations and case studies: A review. In D. Saunders (Ed.), The international simulation and gaming research yearbook: Vol. 3. Simulations and games for strategy and policy planning (pp. 21-38). London: Kogan Page.
Keys, J., & Biggs, W. ( 1990). A review of business games. In J. Gentry (Ed.), Guide to business gaming and experiential learning (pp. 48-73). London: Kogan Page .
36.
Kim, D. ( 1993). The link between individual and organisational learning . Sloan Management Review, 35, 37-50.
37.
Knowles, M.S. ( 1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). New York : Cambridge Books.
38.
Kolb, D.A. ( 1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
39.
Lainema, T., & Hilmola, O. ( 2005). Learn more, better and faster: Computer-based simulation and gaming of production and operations. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 7, 34-59.
Malik, D., & Howard, B. ( 1996). How do we know where we are going if we don’t know where we have been: A review of business simulation research. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 23, 49-53. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
42.
Martin, J., & Dunne, R. ( 1996). Simulation in professional training. In D. Saunders, F. Percival , & M. Vartiainen (Eds.), The simulation and gaming yearbook: Vol. 4. Games and simulations to enhance quality learning (pp. 243-253). London: Kogan Page.
43.
Maslow, A.H. ( 1943). A theory of motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
44.
McClelland, D.C. ( 1961). The achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
45.
Moon, J. ( 1999a). Learning journals. London: Kogan Page.
46.
Moon, J. ( 1999b). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. London: Kogan Page.
47.
Napier, H., & House, W. ( 1985). Congruency of critical performance factors in simulated and real world environments: An exploratory study. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 12, 11-13. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
48.
Norris, D. ( 1986). External validity of business games. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 13, 126-129. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
49.
Norris, D., & Snyder, C. ( 1980). External validation of simulation games. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13, 73-85.
50.
Oakshott, L. ( 1997). Business modelling and simulation. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
51.
Peters, V., Vissers, G., & Heijne, G. ( 1998). The validity of games. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 20-30.
52.
Pidd, M. ( 1998). Computer simulation in management science (4th ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
53.
Robson, C. ( 2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
54.
Rolfe, J., & Hampson, B. ( 2003). Flight simulation: Viability versus liability. The Aeronautical Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, 107, 631-635.
55.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. ( 2003). Business research methods for business students (3rd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson.
56.
Spector, J.M. ( 2000). System dynamics and interactive learning environments: Lessons learned and implications for the future. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31, 528-535.
57.
Stainton, A., & Johnson, J. ( 2006). To what extent can total enterprise simulation be validated?The international simulation and gaming yearbook (Vol. 14, pp. 102-110). Edinburgh, UK: SAGSET.
58.
Stretch, D. ( 2000). Simulation design. In D. Saunders & N. Smalley (Eds.), The simulation and gaming yearbook: Vol. 8. Simulation and games for transition and change (pp. 33-46). London: Kogan Page .
59.
Teach, R., & Schwartz, R. ( 2004). Are business games really delivering what students are led to believe?Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 31, 264-272. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
60.
Trauth, E.M., Farwell, D., & Lee, D. ( 1993). The IS expectation gap: Industry expectations versus academic preparation. MIS Quarterly, September, 293-307.
61.
Whiteley, T., Ledue, R., & Dawson, B. ( 2004). A cognitive investigation of the internal validity of a management strategy simulation game. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 31, 229-233. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
62.
Wolfe, J. ( 1976). Correlates and measures of the external validity of computer-based business policy decision-making environments. Simulation & Gaming: AN Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 411-438.
63.
Wolfe, J. ( 1997). The effectiveness of business games in strategic management course work. Simulation & Gaming: AN Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 360-376.
64.
Wolfe, J., & Jackson, R. ( 1989). An investigation of the need for valid business game algorithms. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 16, 31-36. (Reprinted in The Bernie Keys Library, 2nd ed., by H. M. Cannon, Ed.).
65.
Wolfe, J., & Roberts, C.R. ( 1986). The external validity of a business management game. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 45-59.
66.
Wolfe, J., & Roberts, C.R. ( 1993). A further study of the external validity of business games: Five year peer group indicators. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 21-34.
67.
Yin, R. ( 2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage .
