Business Games and Simulations: Which Factors Play Key Roles in Learning

  • Andrea CeschiEmail author
  • Riccardo Sartori
  • Giuseppe Tacconi
  • Dorina Hysenbelli
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 292)


The paper reports the results of an empirical study on the effects and impact of a specific business game, which is also a team competition, treated as an innovative teaching tool in learning. The paper starts by introducing business games and simulations as methods able to improve learning experiences and goes on by dealing with the specific business game simulation used for the aims of our research. Considering the most relevant empirical studies on business games and simulations, the following four factors were extracted in order to test their importance for learning: Decision-Making Experience (DME), Teamwork (T), Simulation Experience Satisfaction (SES), Learning Aims (LA). Each construct has been investigated by using a questionnaire administrated to 48 participants of the Stock Market Learning Simulation divided into 10 teams. Results show the importance of these factors in detecting critics aspectal of learning using a business game simulation.


Business games and simulations learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, N.R., West, M.A.: Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19(3), 235–258 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Freitas, S., Oliver, M.: How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers & Education 46(3), 249–264 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faria, A.J.: Business simulation games: current usage levels—an update. Simulation & Gaming 29(3), 295–308 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faria, A.J.: The changing nature of business simulation/gaming research: A brief history. Simulation & Gaming 32(1), 97–110 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faria, A.J., Wellington, W.J.: A survey of simulation game users, former-users, and never-users. Simulation & Gaming 35(2), 178–207 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gredler, M.E.: Games and simulations and their relationships to learning. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology 2, 571–581 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Härtel, C., Härtel, G., Barney, M.: SHAPE: Improving decision-making by aligning organizational characteristics with decision-making requirements and training employees in a metacognitive framework for decision-making and problem-solving. The International Journal of Training Research 4, 79–101 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirokawa, R.Y., Poole, M.S.: Communication and group decision making, vol. 77. SAGE Publications, Incorporated (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kivimäki, M., Kuk, G., Elovainio, M., Thomson, L., Kalliomäki-Levanto, T., Heikkilä, A.: The team climate inventory (TCI)—four or five factors? Testing the structure of TCI in samples of low and high complexity jobs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 70, 375–389 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knotts, U.S., Keys, J.B.: Teaching strategic management with a business game. Simulation & Gaming 28(4), 377–394 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kofman, F., Senge, P.M.: Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics 22(2), 5–23 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kolb, D.A.: Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, vol. 1. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1984)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kolb, D.A., Lewis, L.H.: Facilitating experiential learning: Observations and reflections. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education (30), 99–107 (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mintzberg, H.: Crafting strategy. Harvard Business School Press (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nilniyom, P.: The impacts of group climate on creativity and team performance of auditors in Thailand. International Journal of Business Research Publisher: International Academy of Business and Economics 7(3) (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Segev, E.: Strategy, strategy-making, and performance in a business game. Strategic Management Journal 8(6), 565–577 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tidhar, G.: Team-oriented programming: Social structures. Technical Report 47, Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute, Melbourne, Australia (September 1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    West, M.A., Farr, J.L.: Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Ceschi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Riccardo Sartori
    • 1
    • 2
  • Giuseppe Tacconi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dorina Hysenbelli
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Education and PsychologyUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.CARVET, Center for Action Research in Vocational Education and TrainingVeronaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Developmental Psychology and SocializationUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations