The effective use of simulations in business courses.

Seaton, L. Jeff ; Boyd, Michael

ABSTRACT

Since the beginning of business education history, heated discussions have occurred and several lines have been drawn in the sand relating to the most effective methodology for the teaching of business courses. One of the most prominent methodological arguments is between the academicians who profess that simulations are the best thing that has appeared in the educational environment since the chalkboard and those academicians who with equal vitality, profess that simulations are a useless teaching tool that will quickly follow pet rocks, mood rings, and lava lamps down the path to a proverbial "fad grave."

As individuals who teach in a business area that is highly charged with the divergent "Simulation--No Simulation" argument (i.e., strategic management), the current authors felt it necessary to research the reasoning why individuals choose to use or not to use simulations in business courses.

COURSE DESIGN AS A MEANS TO FACILITATE LEARNING

While delivery of material is an important component of teaching, course design can be a much more important component of learning. To be successful as a facilitator of learning, a teacher must be competent in both material delivery and course structure (Fink, 2005). Whetten (2007) acknowledge that 30 years of teaching experience has taught him that the most important component of the facilitation of learning lies in the choice of reading material, assignments, activities and learning objectives and not in the personal delivery of those materials.

Diamond (1998) suggests that when attempting to teach, an educator should make a determination as to what would best facilitate the learning process for the individuals in which you wish to teach. A business course should be designed, not with the needs and preferences of the professor in mind, but instead, focused on the needs and preferences of the students. Therefore, it appears to the present authors that the educator should use a type of "contingency approach" when choosing teaching methodology. The educator should evaluate the situation (i.e. course and student) and use the methodology most effective for that particular situation. In the field of strategic management we refer to this type of reasoning as creating a "strategic fit".

Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives suggests that there are different stages of learning. An individual's learning cycle will mature through the following stages: comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and finally, evaluation. The earlier stages (i.e. comprehension and application) consist of acquiring and applying basic knowledge while the final stages (i.e. analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) consist of a higher level of critical thinking skills.

Bloom's(1956) taxonomy applied to the academic environment seems to suggest that students are entering the early stages of the taxonomy of learning during their principle or core courses and then should mature into the latter stages of the taxonomy when moving into their more advanced courses. The problem with this application of theory is that most professors develop a type of pedagogical structure early in their careers, including methodologies, and use that structure in each class they teach. We refer to this as a "teaching style". This process totally ignores the stages of learning referred to in Bloom's taxonomy.

DEVELOPING OF TEACHING METHODOLOGIES

The current authors uncovered a very interesting phenomena during the research of why individuals use or don't use particular methodologies as part of their course presentation. The phenomena seemed to point to the realization that often professors may have strong feelings about the use or non use of new methodologies based, not on the new methodology's effectiveness as a teaching tool, but instead in the resulting time and effort it would take to research and implement a new methodological change.

Researchers who study the change process in organizations, have consistently suggested that people will resist change (c.f., Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Peach, Mukherjee, & Hornyak, 2007; Piderit, 2000). Often people will not consider new ideas or activities simply because they are quite comfortable with the old way of doing things and don't want to disturb the status quo. From this paradigm came the old adages: "That is the way I have always done it" or "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Nowhere is this paradigm more salient than in the academic environment.

It has been suggested that professors develop a style of teaching early in their careers and often, they don't deviate far from that style (Greenberg, et. al, 2007; Whetten, 2007). The researchers state that this lack of style change is a result of the professors managing their priorities.

Greenberg, et. al. (2007) and others (c.f., Bennis & O'Toole, 2005; Billimoria, 2000) reported that doctoral candidates learn early in their careers that success as a business professor means they must develop discipline-specific knowledge and hone their skills as researchers. This research focus coupled with incentive structures that promote research excellence means that many business professors will devote most of their time to becoming better researchers at the expense of time to develop better teaching skills.

Billimoria (2000) supported this argument by stating that once management professors enter into their academic positions and become involved in the responsibilities of that position, they rarely engage in any type of activity that focuses on making them better educators. One can't help but think about Steven Kerr's (1975) seminal article "The Folly of Rewarding A While Hoping for B".

Whetten (2007) makes the problem even more complex by suggesting that even when business professors put forth an effort to change their style and become a better educator, they focus on teaching and not learning. There is a disturbing myth that being a well polished instructor automatically translates into a quality learning environment for your students. Whetten (2007) gave evidence of this paradigm by suggesting that when we attempt to create high quality classes we ask the following questions:

 What do I want to teach?

 How can I best cover the designated course material?

 How can I deliver the material in a quality way?

The focus on teaching and not learning is disturbing when we acknowledge the fact that the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), the premier accrediting agency that most of our collegiate business programs are governed by, has charged the business school programs with the responsibility of closing the gap between what the students are learning within the educational environment and the knowledge they will need in their professional careers.

Business schools lack excellence not because of ineffective teaching, but because of misalignment of what they intend to teach, what is actually being taught and what they assess as having been taught (Cohen, 1987). The AACSB has given a major responsibility to educators. This responsibility is going to be a true challenge if educators don't understand the learning process and can't find ways of improving those processes within our classrooms.

USING SIMULATION METHODOLOGIES

When choosing the methodology that creates the best "strategic fit" for the course and the students in that course, an educator should consider the particular learning objectives associated with that particular methodology. Simulations offer some very valuable learning opportunities which are equally present in other methodologies. Simulations also offer some learning objectives that are unique to this type of methodology. Figure 1 presents the commonality of valuable learning opportunities between other methodologies and simulation methodology and also presents learning objectives unique only to the simulation methodology.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

AUTHENTICITY OF ASSIGNMENT

As shown in Figure 1, both simulation and other methodologies can place the assignment in an authentic perspective. Using cases from actual companies or industry specific reading assignments, for example, the students can see behaviors, activities, and strategies represented in real companies and industries outside of the academic environment.

Critical Thinking Requirements

Critical thinking techniques can be required in several types of methodologies. Case analysis, problem solving exercises, as well as simulations require students to engage in critical thinking. The experiences and lessons learned from these types of activities contribute to what Bloom (1956) referred to as part of a higher learning objective.

Integration of Functional Areas

As students move through their educational experience, they become focused on their particular functional area. Marketing students for example, focus most of their time and efforts honing their knowledge and skills in the area of marketing of products or services. While knowledge in a specific area is very important for individuals who make the transition from the academic to the professional environment, equally important is the individual's conceptual or holistic skills. Lainema and Lainema (2007) suggested that today's business organizations need business graduates who have knowledge and skill in the integration of business functions for a strategic purpose. Methodologies such as cross-functional case analysis, discussions which require functional integrated reasoning, reading assignments which cross functional boundaries, or simulations can all stress the importance of functional integration in business processes.

Learning of Team Dynamics

Another very important skill essential to students entering their professional environments is the ability to work effectively and efficiently as a member of a diverse work team. Methodologies which require that students be grouped together into work teams allows students to experience the forming, storming, norming, and performing stages of team development referred to by Tuckman (1965) in his early work with small work team dynamics. Several types of methodologies including simulation methodology can be structured into a group project, giving the students the opportunity to have the group experience.

While the above learning objectives can be accomplished using several different types of methodologies, the present authors suggest that there are some learning objectives that are unique to the simulation type of methodology (See Figure 1). These four learning objectives are: 1) Academic/professional environment linkage; 2) Equifinality in approach; 3) Action learning; and 4) Autonomy of learning processes.

Academic/Professional Environment Linkage

One of the primary problem areas for training organizations is the disconnection between the learning environment and the actual environment where the learned performance will take place (Lainema & Lainema, 2007). While case analysis, company or industry specific readings, and other pedagogical methodologies can bring some authenticity to the course, these methodologies do a poor job of actually linking the academic environment to the professorial environment in which these learned behaviors will someday take place.

Doyle and Brown (2000) describes classrooms that lack simulation methodologies as an artificial context of learning which does not reproduce the characteristics of a working situation. It has been suggested that this type of business school context can prepare a student in "analytical" skills but does not adequately prepare students in behavioral knowledge and behavioral skills (Rynes, et. al., 2003; Trocchia, et. al., 2007). Trocchi, et.al., (2007) goes even further to suggest that this type of context can cause students to graduate from business schools with a more narrow perspective of how to handle business situations than they had going into their academic experience.

While they are not perfect in their ability to link the academic environment to the professional environment, simulations have been shown to be more realistic than alternative learning methods (Nel, et al., 1996; Doyle & Brown, 2000). These authors suggest that through simulations, the learner is directly in touch with the realities being studied. Keeton and Tate (1978) suggest that simulations involve a direct encounter with the studied phenomenon rather than merely thinking about it.

After evaluation of many types of training methods, the fields of aviation and medical training has concluded that simulation based training has a substantial and positive impact on the quality of training and future performance of individuals (Tichon, 2007; Von Lubitz & Levine, 2005). A major part of the success of these simulations has been the simulation's ability to bring the environmental context into the equation. The simulations create a "micro world" which greatly resembles the environment an individual will encounter in their work position (Senge and Fulmer, 1993).

One essential attribute of this created training environment is stress. Performing under the same stressful operating conditions that will be encountered in the real work environment is essential to quality training (Zakay & Wooler, 1984; Tichon, 2007).

Another attribute of simulations that is lost in other methodologies such as case analysis is the focus of the assignment as a process and not a product. When a case analysis is conducted, the student will use evaluation and analytical skills to make a determination of the situation and often make recommendations to future actions needed. The product produced by the student is then evaluated by the assignment instructor and feedback is given, essentially ending the assignment.

Simulations most often consist of multiple periods or rounds where analysis is conducted, decisions made, actions implemented and then the consequences are reviewed. This continuous cycle is process focused rather than product focused as seen in other methodologies. Having students run a simulated company over a number of decision periods helps students develop a strategic (i.e. holistic and long term) planning focus, much like the focus needed in today's businesses (Doyle & Brown, 2000; Thompson & Stappenbeck, 1995).

Equifinality in Approach

One problem in many learning domains is oversimplification due to looking at a concept from just one perspective (Lainema & Lainema, 2007). While the business world is very complex in both situations and strategy alternatives, teaching methodologies such as case analysis, most often suggest that the students work to find the "optimal strategy" for a given situation. In these methodologies, the course's professor or case author often unconsciously expect the students to view the problem situation from their own perspective and therefore, the optimal solution becomes the optimal solution bounded by the rationality of the professor or the case author.

The ever-increasing environmental dynamism of the business environment outside the world of academia has made flexibility a necessity (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997; Lainema & Lainema, 2007; Zeleny, 1989). Simulations alleviate a lot of oversimplification by offering an equifinality approach to problem solving or strategy formulation. The simulations have usually been designed, produced, tested and continuously improved by a team of individuals. This team approach brings different perspectives, skills, abilities, and knowledge into the course and prevents the overshadowing effect of one person's perspective. The simulation method allows for different perspectives and solution alternatives while putting emphasis upon active application of knowledge or skills to a practical problem (Kolb, 1984; Lainema & Lainema, 2007). This type of application process is what Bloom (1956) referred to as a higher objective of learning and serves the students much more in the real world than does the knowledge the student gains from simply searching for the professor's opinion of the "optimal solution."

Action Learning

Simulations provide quick feedback and allow students to see the consequences of their decisions (Fripp, 1993). Yourstone, et. al., (2008) suggests that the entire dynamic of the classroom changes when the student is given immediate feedback (Yourstone, et. al., 2008).

Simulations, different from other methodologies, are "reciprocal in nature", meaning that past decision results are both an end of a process and the beginning of future actions. The purpose of simulations is to have users revisit past actions and commit to changing those past actions in an attempt to create positive future outcomes (Vega, 2007). In this way, assessments of past decisions stimulate further learning, this is referred to as "action learning" (Walvoord & Anderson, 1998; Whetten, 2007).

Action learning is a dialectical process where lessons are derived from and continuously modified through experience (Kolb, 1984). Students who operate a company through several time periods using a simulation, can see how their decisions relate to and/or constrain future decisions (Doyle & Brown, 2000).

Simulation methodology is focused on the process of student learning and not on the students' individual decisions. Washbush and Gosen (1998) discovered that players who made bad decisions and performed poorly at the beginning of the simulation, became very skilled and knowledgeable of successful business practices as they conscientiously played the game and worked to correct their earlier bad decisions. This would not be a possible outcome for teaching methodologies that did not allow the student to work through their decision errors.

Business organizations have placed a strong emphasis on individuals who are sensitive to strategic indicators and impulses and possess the agility and creativity to quickly adjust to the many changes that occur within today's extremely dynamic and hyper-turbulent business environment. This is the exact type of skills and knowledge that are consistent with the learning objectives of the simulation methodology.

Autonomy of Learning Process

Whetten (2007) suggests that sometimes educators harm the student learning process more than they facilitate the process. This is partly the result of the old educational paradigm that assumes that the quality of the learning experience depends on the ability of the educator to teach the course material. With this paradigm in mind, the educators practice the mechanics of teaching the course materials. Whetten (2007) compares this logical inference to a golfer who has a bad swing. The golfer continues to practice his bad swing in order to become a better golfer but instead he just becomes better at making a bad swing. To be a better golfer he must change his swing and then, and only then, will his practice produce a better golfer.

Educators can take note of the golfer with the bad swing. No matter how much the educators improve or practice on their teaching style, without good pedagogical methodologies, the student learning will not improve.

Making the learning process more autonomous is one way of improving the learning experience. Researchers have suggested that more student involvement in the learning process leads to a higher order learning (c.f., McKeachie, 1990; Whetten, 2007; Yourstone, et. al., 2008). The more autonomy our students have to uncover and manage the learning process in their courses, the more likely they are to master the course material and internalize the lessons learned (Whetten, 2007).

Simulation methodology totally changes the roles of the actors in the learning process. The learners are now given a very high degree of autonomy (Brown, 2001; Hannafin, 1984). The students are now in control of their self-directed learning experience and the instructors act solely as facilitators for that learning process (Nonaka, 1994).

Once again the learning objectives of the simulation methodology, autonomy in this case, are objectives that are essential in today's business environment. Thus, what is learned in the academic environment can be linked to the future activities of the student in the professional environment.

SIMULATIONS AS A STAND ALONE METHODOLOGY

As this paper has pointed out, there are a lot of teaching objectives that are unique to the simulation methodology. To say however, that simulations can stand alone as the sole pedagogical methodology in the student's learning process is as incorrect as saying simulations are not useful in the learning process. While a lot of the simulations used today in business courses are very effective in helping the student transition from the academic environment to the professional environment, a realistic evaluation of these simulations will conclude that no simulation is 100% complete in preparing the student. Using the simulation as a stand-alone methodology will deny the student important information which may be available though other methodologies.

As stated earlier in the paper, simulations are a good practice in critical thinking techniques. However, some courses, especially core courses where the students are first learning the terminology and theories associated with that subject matter, require a different type of learning objective. Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of learning objectives refers to this as the early stages of learning. He states at this point, the learning objective should be comprehension and simple application. Whetten (2007) states that students can't apply something they don't understand, therefore, the educator should find means in which to help the student comprehend the subject matter as soon as possible so they can begin the critical thinking part of the learning process. In this instance, simulations could possibly be used as part of the simple application learning objective referred to by Bloom, but, a caveat must be given in relying too heavily on simulations at this stage of the student learning process. Most application of knowledge at this early stage of learning requires careful guidance by the instructor. This is in stark contrast to the autonomous nature of simulations. Applying Boom's taxonomy, instructors should seek a strategic fit between the course design and their students' stage of learning. This design may or may not include simulation methodology.

Another caveat given to instructors is to remember that all simulations are not the same. Educators should examine the content of each simulation carefully. Even though simulations have improved dramatically, there are usually still some missing elements. One of the most common elements missing from simulations is ethical training.

While many MBA instructors use simulations as part of their teaching methodology, only 22% of MBA students polled stated that their business school was adequately preparing them ethically for the professional environment (Trocchia, et. al., 2007). One only has to go as far as the local newspaper or morning news to understand the paramount importance of ethically preparing students to operate in the business environment. If the simulation is lacking in an ethical perspective, the instructor must supplement the simulation with adequate methodology that eliminates this void. Some simulations that were examined by the current authors lack any type of global perspective. The companies that the students strategically managed in the simulation were domestic companies that only competed against other domestic companies. While these simulations still have the teaching objectives suggested earlier in the paper, they were definitely weakened by the lack of a global perspective that is so prevalent in today's business environment (c.f., Tempel & Walgenbach, 2007; Adekola & Sergi, 2007). These simulations needed support from methodologies that supplied the global element that was so obviously void from these simulations.

Finally, the linking of the academic environment to the professional environment is almost always lacking in the hands on experience of the actual implementation of a strategy, idea, or theory. In academic courses as well in academic research, the transferring of knowledge is intangible. In different types of methodology the students make decisions and design strategies however, in reality the implementation of those changes and strategies involve more people than simply the members of a project work team. The strategist or change agents must use "change leadership" in order to get the members of the organization to "buy into" a new change or strategy otherwise the change will not happen (French & Bell, 1990). Even when using simulations where the linkage between the academic and professional environments is strong, this implementation element is missing.

While other methodologies (e.g., specific reading assignments, video documentaries, cooperative programs) are not perfect in teaching the needs and requirements for implementation of organizational change, they can be used to supplement the void within the simulation only methodology.

CONCLUSION

While the arguments associated with pedagogical methodology will probably continue to the end of time, this paper has offered some insight into using simulations in the teaching of business courses.

Diamond (1998) suggests that when attempting to teach, an educator should make a determination as to what would best facilitate the learning process for the individuals in which you wish to teach. Bloom's (1956) taxonomy suggests that individuals are at different levels of learning maturity. Educators can successfully facilitate the learning experience if they use this theoretical foundation as a means to understand the needs of the students in which they wish to teach.

Obviously, simulations are not the panacea that will change every business course taught into the perfect learning environment. If business courses, however, are designed with the primary focus of strategically fitting the course methodology with the needs of the student learners, simulations can be a very important part of the learning process.

REFERENCES

Bennis, W. G., & O'Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 98-104

Billimoria, D. (2000a). A new scholarship of teaching and learning: An agenda for management education scholarship. Journal of Management Education, 24(6), 704-707

Billimoria, D. (2000b). Teachers as learners: Whither our own development? Journal of Management Education, 24(3), 302-303

Bloom B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. London: Longmans, Green and Company.

Brown, F. W., (2001). Using a business simulation to teach applied skills-the benefits and the challenges of using student teams from multiple countries, Journal of European Industrial Training 24(6), 330-336.

Cohen, S. A. (1987). Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic bullet. Educational Researcher, 16, 16-20.

Diamond, R. M. (1998). Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Doyle, D. & Brown, F. (2000). Using a business simulation to teach applied skills: The benefits and the challenges of using student teams from multiple countries. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(6). 330-336.

Driskell, J.E. & Johnston, J.H. (1998). Stress exposure training. In Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E., (eds.) Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 191-217.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where's the learning in service learning? San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Fink, D. (2005). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fripp, J. (1993). Learning through simulations, McGraw-Hill, London

Greenberg, D., Clair, J. & Maclean, T. (2007). Enacting the role of management professor: Lessons from athena, prometheus, and asclepius. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(4), 439-457.

Hannafin, M.J. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7, 6-10.

Hannan, M. & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149-164.

Heifetz, R.A. & Laurie, D.L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124-134.

Keeton, M. & Tate, P. (1978). What, Why, How, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass..

Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A whole hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 769-783.

Kolb, D. A., (1984). Experimental learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Lainema, T. & Lainema, K. (2007). Advancing acquisition of business know-how: Critical learning elements. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 183-198.

McKeachie, W. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical background. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 189-200.

Nel, D., Pitt. L., Berthon, P. & Prendergast, G. (1996). Social decision schemes and group processes: some impacts on decision making making, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(6), 4-18.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Peach, B., Mukherjee, A., & Hornyak, M. (2007). Assessing critical thinking: A college's journey and lessons learned, Journal of Education for Business, July/August, 313-320.

Piderit, S.K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783-794.

Rynes, S. L., Trank, C. Q., Lawson, A. M., & Ilies, R. (2003). Behavior coursework in business education: Growing evidence of a legitimacy crisis. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 269-283

Senge, P. & Fulmer, R. (1993). Simulations, systems thinking and anticipatory learning, Journal of Management Development, 12 (6), 21-33.

Thompson A. & Stappenbeck, G. (1995). The Business Strategy Game, Chicago, IL: Irwin..

Tichon, J. (2007). Training cognitive skills in virtual reality: Measuring performance. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 286-289.

Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups, Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.

Vega, G. (2007). Teaching business ethics through service learning metaprojects. Journal of Management Education, 31(5), 647-678.

Von Lubitz, D.K & Levine, H. (2005). Distributed, multiplatform high fidelity human patient simulation environment: A global-range simulation-based medical learning and training network. International Journal of Healthcare Technology Management, 6(4/5/6). 500-528.

Walvoord, B. E., & Anderson, V. J. (1998). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Washbush, J.B. & Gosen, J. (1998). Total enterprise simulation performance and participant learning, Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(6/7).

Whetten, D. (2007). Principles of effective course design: What I wish I had known about learning-centered teaching 30 years ago. Journal of Management Education, 31(3), 339-357.

Yourstone, S., Kraye, H. & Albaum, G. (2008). Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learning? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. 6(1). 75-88.

Zakay, D. & Wooler, S. (1984). Time pressure, training and decision effectiveness. Ergonomics, 27, 273-284

L. Jeff Seaton, Murray State University

Michael Boyd, Western Carolina University