Skip to main content

Hitting the Ground Running: Group Simulations Within Business School Cohorts

Abstract

Within an ever more marketised Higher Education (HE) landscape, business students are focusing increasingly on the ‘Graduate Premium.’ This involves balancing the costs of their programmes against expected benefits such as facilitated entry into, and progression within, fulfilling and well remunerated business careers. As such, educators are charged with differentiating their programmes from those of other institutions, not only to attract more applicants, but also to give their graduates a competitive advantage in the marketplace. The use of simulations as a learning and assessment strategy within business schools is widespread and growing, affording the dual role of enhancing both programme attractiveness and graduate capabilities, and hence employability. The purpose of this chapter is to analyse, by means of a literature review, the debate surrounding the use of such technology, identifying pedagogical benefits and potential limitations, and to critique how such technology may be harnessed to provide more transparent pathways to professionalism for today’s diverse, demanding students. This review highlights some of the key benefits and challenges experienced by students in using simulations, as they adapt to a different social and learning culture.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-26342-3_25
  • Chapter length: 25 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-26342-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

References

  • Adobor, H., & Daneshfar, A. (2006). Management simulations: determining their effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 25(2), 151–168.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, P., & O’Brien, C. L. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3), 255–264.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (2005). The relationship between student perceptions of team dynamics and simulation game outcomes: an individual-level analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 81(2), 85–90.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. H., & Lawton, L. (1997). Demonstrating the learning effectiveness of simulation: Where we are and where we need to go. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 24, 68–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, S. J., & Mahmud, A. (2008). Experiential learning and the acquisition of managerial tacit knowledge. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2), 189–208.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, D. R., & Stewart, K. A. (2006). How fast do students forget what they learn in consumer behavior? A longitudinal study. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(3), 181–192.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, T. F., Dixon, A. L., & Gassenheimer, J. B. (2005). Exploring the “lone wolf” phenomenon in student teams. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), 81–90.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, T. F., & McNeilly, K. M. (2002). The value of students’ classroom experiences from the eyes of the recruiter: information, implications, and recommendations for marketing educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(2), 168–173.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bascoul, G., Schmitt, J., Rasolofoarison, D., Chamberlain, L., & Lee, N. (2013). Using an experiential business game to stimulate sustainable thinking in marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 35(2), 168–180.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Batra, M. M., Walvoord, B. E., & Krishnan, K. S. (1997). Effective pedagogy for student-team projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 19(2), 26–42.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17(2), 345–381.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobot, L. (2010). Teaching sales and negotiation with combining computer-based simulation and case discussions. Marketing Education Review, 20(2), 115–122.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, M. K. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams: A “just-in-time” approach to learning. Journal of Management Education, 23, 233–250.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (1993). Using experience for learning. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourner, J., Hughes, M., & Bourner, T. (2001). First-year undergraduate experiences of group project work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 19–39.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bovinet, J. W. (2007). Different skill-set views: A four-year study of marketing students, practitioners and educators. Journal of Business and Public Affairs, 1(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandyberry, A. A., & Bakke, S. A. (2006). Mitigating negative behaviors in student project teams: An information technology solution. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(2), 195–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, R., & Vos, L. (2013). Effects of participation in a simulation game on marketing students’ numeracy and financial skills. Journal of Marketing Education, 35(3), 259–270.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brew, A. (2001). Conceptions of research: A phenomenographic study. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 271–285.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buckenmyer, J. A. (2000). Using teams for class activities: Making course/classroom teams work. Journal of Education for Business, 76(2), 98–107.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buzzard, C., Crittenden, V. L., Crittenden, W. F., & McCarty, P. (2011). The use of digital technologies in the classroom: A teaching and learning perspective. Journal of Marketing Education, 20(10), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2006). Can’t we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 557–569.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M. L., Toy, D., & Wright, L. K. (2010). Are student groups dysfunctional? Perspectives from both sides of the classroom. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(1), 39–49.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, K. J., & Van Auken, S. (2001). Creating positive group project experiences: An examination of the role of the instructor on students’ perceptions of group projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(2), 117–127.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chavan, M. (2011). Higher education students’ attitudes towards experiential learning in international business. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 22(2), 126–143.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, W. Y., Lam, S. F., & Chan, C. Y. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 205–221.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, J., Dukes, R., & Gamson, W. (2009). Assessment in simulation and gaming: A review of the last 40 years. Simulation & Gaming, 40(4), 553–568.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (1996). An innovative introduction to business course: Marketing the skills that marketing majors (and others) as business majors will need for success. Marketing Education Review, 6(3), 53–71.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Colbeck, C. L., Campbell, S. E., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2000). Grouping in the dark: What college students learn from group projects. Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 60–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, S., Ahmadi, R., & Esselborn, R. (1997). Assessing simulation games for the classroom. Assessment Update, 9(3), 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crittenden, V. L., & Wilson, E. J. (2006). Content, pedagogy, and learning outcomes in the international marketing course. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 17(1–2), 81–101.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cronan, T. P., & Douglas, D. E. (2012). A student ERP simulation game: A longitudinal study. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53(1), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crookall, D. (2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 898–920.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dabbour, K. S. (1997). Applying active learning methods to the design of library instruction for a freshman seminar. College & Research Libraries, 58(4), 299–308.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aloisio, A. (2006). Motivating students through awareness of the natural correlation between college learning and corporate work settings. College Teaching, 54(2), 225–230.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, S. P. (2001). Student-operated Internet businesses: True experiential learning in entrepreneurship and retail management. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 204–215.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Kennedy, K. N., & Ramsey, R. P. (2002). Enriching our understanding of student team effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(2), 114–124.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, N., Koernig, S. K., & Iqbal, Z. (2008). Uniting active and deep learning to teach problem-solving skills: Strategic tools and the learning spiral. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(10), 116–129.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dieckmann, P., Molin Friis, S., Lippert, A., & Østergaard, D. (2009). The art and science of debriefing in simulation: ideal and practice. Medical Teacher, 31(7), 287–294.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dommeyer, C. J. (2007). Using the diary method to deal with social loafers on the group project: Its effects on peer evaluations, group behavior, and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(2), 175–188.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Drea, J. T., Tripp, C., & Stuenkel, K. (2005). An assessment of the effectiveness of an in-class game on marketing students’ perceptions and learning outcomes. Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 25–33.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA.: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (1999). Effects and timing of developmental peer appraisals in self-managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 58.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egenfeldt-Nielson, S. (2007). The educational potential of computer games. New York, NY: Continuum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N., & Magin, D. (1997). Detecting gender bias in peer marking of students’ group process work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(4), 385–396.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Faria, A. J. (2001). The changing nature of business simulation/ gaming research. Simulation and Gaming, 32(1), 97–110.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Faria, A. J., Hutchinson, D., Wellington, W. J., & Gold, S. (2009). Developments in business gaming a review of the past 40 years. Simulation & Gaming, 40(4), 464–487.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, C. J., & Gordon, M. E. (1998). What skills are most important? A comparison of employer, student, and staff perceptions. Journal of Marketing Education, 20(2), 103–109.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fortmüller, R. (2009). Learning through business games acquiring competences within virtual realities. Simulation & Gaming, 40(1), 68–83.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L., & Greenacre, L. (2011). An examination of socially destructive behaviors in group work. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(1), 5–17.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fripp, J. (1993). Learning through simulations: A guide to the design and use of simulations in business and education. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frontczak, N. & Rivale, G. (1991). An empirical investigation of learning styles in marketing education. In Proceedings of the Western Marketing Educators’ Association (pp. 93–100).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganesh, G., Sun, Q., & Barat, S. (2010). Improving the marketing math skills of marketing undergraduate students through a unique undergraduate marketing math course. Marketing Education Review, 20(1), 47–64.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Garber, L. L., Hyatt, E. M., Boya, Ü. Ö., & Ausherman, B. (2012). The association between learning and learning style in instructional marketing Games. Marketing Education Review, 22(2), 167–184.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, T. Y., & Pontrich, P. R. (1996). The effects of autonomy on motivation and performance in the college classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 477–486.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, B. S., & Korth, S. J. (1998). A framework for learning to work in teams. Journal of Education for Business, 74(1), 28–33.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation and learning: Simulation and gaming. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Theory, Practice and Research, 33(4), 441–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 20.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goosen, K. R., Jensen, R., & Wells, R. (2001). Purpose and learning benefits of simulations: A design and development perspective. Simulation & Gaming, 32(1), 21–39.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goretsky, M. E. (1984). Class projects as a form of instruction. Journal of Marketing Education, 6(3), 33–37.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation & Gaming, 35(2), 270–293.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Granitz, N. A. (2001). Active learning and morality: Incorporating greater meaning into marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 11(2), 25–42.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Halfhill, T. R., & Nielsen, T. M. (2007). Quantifying the “softer side” of management education: An example using teamwork competencies. Journal of Management Education, 31(1), 64–80.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hamer, L. O. (2000). The additive effects of semi structured classroom activities on student learning: An application of classroom-based experiential learning techniques. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1), 25–34.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 11–19.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, G. D., Heinrich, P., Lyon, P. M., Barratt, A. L., Simpson, J. M., Hyde, S. J., et al. (2005). Helping students understand their learning styles: Effects on study self-efficacy, preference for group work, and group climate. Educational Psychology, 25(4), 395–407.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Henke, J. W. (1985). Bringing reality to the introductory marketing student. Journal of Marketing Education, 7(3), 59–71.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hinck, W., & Ahmed, Z. U. (2015). The effect of anticipatory emotions on students’ performance in marketing simulations. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 5–22.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. J., De Caluwé, L., & Peters, V. (2010). Why simulation games work-in search of the active substance: A synthesis. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 824–843.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hromek, R., & Roffey, S. (2009). Promoting social and emotional learning with games:” It’s fun and we learn things”. Simulation & Gaming, 40(5), 626–644.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, E. (1989). Role-event gaming simulation in management education. Simulation and Gaming, 20(4), 409–438.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, L. C., Cooper, J., & Jones, W. (2002). The development and consequences of trust in student project groups. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 24–34.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 887.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in post secondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15–29.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. D., Piskin, B., & Bol, B. (2009). Educational blogging: Integrating technology into marketing experience. Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 50–63.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Karns, G. L. (2006). Learning style differences in the perceived effectiveness of learning activities. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(1), 56–63.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1994). Teams at the top. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2005). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 83(7), 162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayes, A. B., Kayes, D. C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming, 36(3), 330–354.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kear, A., & Bown, G. R. (2015). Emotional engagement and active learning in a marketing simulation: A review and exploratory study. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 6(1), 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, F. A., & Dull, R. B. (2008). Transferable team skills for accounting students. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 17(2), 213–224.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, J. B., & Bell, R. R. (1977). A comparative evaluation of the management of learning grid applied to the business policy learning environment. Journal of Management, 3(2), 33–39.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kneale, P. (2009). Teaching and learning for employability: Knowledge is not the only outcome. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 9–23). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning as the science of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New York City: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2012). Experiential learning theory. Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1215–1219). New York City: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Korinek, A., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2018). Artificial intelligence and its implications for income distribution and unemployment. In A. K. Agarwal (Ed.), Economics of artificial intelligence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kratwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York City: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriz, W. C. (2008). A systemic-constructivist approach to the facilitation and debriefing of simulations and games. Simulation & Gaming, 41(5), 663–680.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, D., & Lynch, K. (2002). Group project work and student-centred active learning: Two different experiences. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26(2), 217–237.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, J., Cooper, J. L., Smith, K. A. & Robinson, P. (2000). Strategies for energizing large classes: From Small groups to learning communities. The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. In New directions for teaching and learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, D. B. (1994). An investigation of students’ learning styles in various disciplines in colleges and universities. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 33(2), 65–74.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • May, G. L. (2008). The effect of rater training on reducing social style bias in peer evaluation. Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 297–313.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • May, G. L., & Gueldenzoph, L. E. (2006). The effect of social style on peer evaluation ratings in project teams. Journal of Business Communication, 43(1), 4–20.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McCorkle, D. E., Alexander, J. F., & Reardon, J. (2001). Integrating business technology and marketing education: Enhancing the diffusion process through technology champions. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 16–24.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McCorkle, D. E., Alexander, J. F., Reardon, J., & Kling, N. D. (2003). Developing self-marketing skills: Are marketing students prepared for the job search? Journal of Marketing Education, 25(3), 196–207.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McCorkle, D. E., Reardon, J., Alexander, J. F., Kling, N. D., Harris, R. C., & Iyer, R. V. (1999). Undergraduate marketing students, group projects, and teamwork: The good, the bad, and the ugly? Journal of Marketing Education, 21(2), 106–117.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McHaney, R., White, D., & Heilman, G. E. (2002). Simulation project success and failure: Survey findings. Simulation & Gaming, 33(1), 49–66.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McLean, C., Reid, C., & Scharf, F. (1998). The development of transferable skills in business studies degrees. Irish Journal of Management, 19(1), 47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meese, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, D. R., & Chen, S. L. (2005). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform. London: Muska & Lipman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C. (2004). Combining cases and computer simulations in strategic management courses. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 198–204.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neu, W. A. (2012). Unintended cognitive, affective, and behavioral consequences of group assignments. Journal of Marketing Education, 34(1), 67–81.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, A. J., & Hermans, C. M. (2008). Breaking the MBA delivery mould: A multi-group international MBA/practitioner virtual collaborative project. Marketing Education Review, 18(1), 9–14.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, H. F., Wainress, R., & Baker, E. L. (2005). Classification of earning outcomes: Evidence from the computer games literature. Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 455–474.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, T., Rice, J., Rogerson, S., & Saunders, C. (1996). Successful group work. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, B. K., & Monk-Turner, E. (2006). Collaborating with undergraduates: Obstacles and tips. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16(2), 292–299.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Drago, W. (2005). The reflective learning continuum: Reflecting on reflection. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(3), 250–263.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peltier, J. W., Schibrowsky, J. A., & Drago, W. (2007). The interdependence of the factors influencing the perceived quality of the online learning experience: A causal model. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(2), 140–153.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, N. W., Huss, M. T., McAuliff, B. D., & Galas, J. M. (1996). An active-learning approach to teaching the undergraduate psychology and law course. Teaching of Psychology, 23(2), 76–81.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peter, P. J., & Olson, J. C. (2008). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy. Mcgraw-Hill: Maidenhead.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A., Albaum, G., Munuera, J. L., & Cunningham, W. H. (2005). Reflections on the use of instructional technologies in marketing education. The Journal of Educators Online, 2(2), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petranek, C. F. (2000). Written debriefing: the next vital step in learning with simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 31(1), 108–118.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff, E., & Huddlestone, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), 37–45.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, M. B., Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation. Management Science, 39(10), 1281–1297.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, B. L., & Lilly, B. (2008). Gaining confidence and competence through experiential assignments: An exploration of student self-efficacy and spectrum of inquiry. Marketing Education Review, 18(2), 55–66.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, L. W., & McKibben, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift of thrust into the 21st century. New York City: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prichard, J. S., Bizo, L. A., & Stratford, R. J. (2006). The educational impact of team-skills training: Preparing students to work in groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 119–140.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, S. V. (1998). Group work in science, engineering, and mathematics: Consequences of ignoring gender and race. College Teaching, 46(3), 82–88.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., Dufresne, R. L., & Raemer, D. B. (2006). There’s no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: A theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simulation in Healthcare, 1(1), 49–55.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rundle-Thiele, S., Russell-Bennett, R., & Dann, S. (2005). The successful preparation and development of future marketing professionals: A recommended methodological framework. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 7, 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, G., Valverde, M., & Rodríguez-Ardura, I. (2001). Marketing education, distance learning and hypermedia: Teaching “current issues in marketing” in a virtual campus. Marketing Education Review, 11(3), 41–53.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Saber, J. L., & Foster, M. K. (2011). The agony and the ecstasy: Teaching marketing metrics to undergraduate business students. Marketing Education Review, 21(1), 9–20.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schibrowsky, J. A., Peltier, J. W., & Boyt, T. E. (2002). A professional school approach to marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 43–55.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., Gee, J. P., & Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory. (2004). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 105–111.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sherrard, W. R., Raafat, F., & Weaver, R. R. (1994). An empirical study of peer bias in evaluations: Students rating students. Journal of Education for Business, 70(1), 43–47.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, B., Haghirian, P., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2003). Enriching global marketing education with virtual classrooms: An effectiveness study. Marketing Education Review, 13(3), 27–40.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. T., & Boyer, M. A. (1996). Designing in-class simulations. PS: Political Science & Politics, 29(04), 690–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87–101.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Games & Simulation, 2(1), 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, M. (1998). Managers seek to balance individual rewards with group goals. InfoWorld, 20(37), 91–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong, J. T., & Anderson, R. E. (1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(2), 61–67.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A. S. A., Backlund, P., & Niklasson, L. (2012). The coaching cycle a coaching-by-gaming approach in serious games. Simulation & Gaming, 43(5), 648–672.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tu, Y., & Lu, M. (2005). Peer-and-self assessment to reveal the ranking of each individual’s contribution to a group project. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16(2), 197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuten, T. (2009). Real world experience, virtual world environment: The design and execution of marketing plans in Second Life. Marketing Education Review, 19(1), 1–5.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tyagi, P. K. (2010). Expectancy theory and social loafing in marketing research group projects. The Business Review, 14(2), 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaidyanathan, R., & Rochford, L. (1998). An exploratory investigation of computer simulations, student preferences, and performance. Journal of Education for Business, 73(3), 144–149.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kleef, G. A., Van Dijk, E., Steinel, W., Harinck, F., & Van Beest, I. (2008). Anger in social conflict: Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(1), 13–30.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Vance, E. (2007). College graduates lack key skills, report says. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(22), A30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos, L. (2014). Marketing simulation games: A review of issues in teaching and learning. The Marketing Review, 14(1), 67–96.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Vos, L. (2015). Simulation games in business and marketing education: How educators assess student learning from simulations. The International Journal of Management Education, 13(1), 57–74.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Vos, L., & Brennan, R. (2010). Marketing simulation games: Student and lecturer perspectives. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 28(7), 882–897.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Washbush, J. B., & Gosenpud, J. J. (1991). Student attitudes about policy course simulations. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 18, 105–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, S. (2003). Closing the feedback loop: Ensuring effective action from student feedback. Tertiary Education and Management, 9(2), 145–157.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wideman, H. H., Owston, R. D., Brown, C., Kushniruk, A., Ho, F., & Pitts, K. C. (2007). Unpacking the potential of educational gaming: A new tool for gaming research. Simulation & Gaming, 38(1), 10–30.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. L., Beard, J. D., & Rymer, J. (1991). Team projects: Achieving their full potential. Journal of Marketing Education, 13(2), 45–53.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E. A., Duray, R., & Reddy, V. (2006). Teamwork orientation, group cohesiveness, and student learning: A study of the use of teams in online distance education. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 592–616.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., Larkins, S., & Latané, B. (1981). A deterrent to social loafing: Two selecting experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303–331.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Estock, J. L., et al. (2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes review and research proposals. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 217–266.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J., & Chacko, T. I. (1983). Education team size effects on business game performance and decision making behaviors. Decision Sciences, 14(1), 121–133.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C. M. (2003). The effects of creating psychological ownership among students in group projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(3), 240–249.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Workman, M. (2004). Performance and perceived effectiveness in computer-based and computer-aided education: Do cognitive styles make a difference? Computers in Human Behavior, 20(4), 517–534.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, L. K., Bitner, M. J., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1994). Paradigm shifts in business education: Using active learning to deliver services marketing content. Journal of Marketing Education, 16(3), 5–19.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. R., Cordill, E. M., & Murphy, J. W. (2008). Evaluating experiential learning activities. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 13, 28–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. R., Klemz, B. R., & Murphy, J. W. (2003). Enhancing learning outcomes: The effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behavior. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2), 130–142.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zantow, K., Knowlton, D. S., & Sharp, D. C. (2005). More than fun and games: Reconsidering the virtues of strategic management simulations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(4), 451–458.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Brown .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brown, D.M., Charity, I., Robson, A. (2019). Hitting the Ground Running: Group Simulations Within Business School Cohorts. In: Diver, A. (eds) Employability via Higher Education: Sustainability as Scholarship. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26342-3_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26342-3_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26341-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26342-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)