Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Online business simulations: authentic teamwork, learning outcomes, and satisfaction

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Educators have struggled to incorporate authentic team-based learning (TBL) into the business curriculum despite increasing evidence that collaborative learning can enhance learning outcomes. We investigate the use of online business simulations as a platform for fostering authentic TBL for undergraduate and postgraduate business students studying at seven institutions in Australia and Hong Kong. Quantitative analysis of 365 surveys is supported by focus groups with 14 students. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is used to model the relationships between teamwork, learning outcomes, and satisfaction. Qualitative results support the statistical modeling and are presented to add further insights and conceptual richness. The findings support our proposition that online business simulations provide an authentic TBL environment, which contributes to learner satisfaction by supporting the development of management-related learning outcomes through socially constructed meaning. This conceptual contribution highlights further avenues for research and leads to some practical implications for educators using simulation-based pedagogies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anaya, G. (1999). College impact on student learning: comparing the use of self-reported gains, standardized test scores, and college grades. Research in Higher Education, 40(5), 499–526.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

  • Anderson, P. H., & Lawton, L. (2009). Business simulations and cognitive learning: developments, desires, and future directions. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 193–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Finch, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological and social dimensions of teaching in online learning environments. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 435–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arias, J. J., & Walker, D. M. (2004). Additional evidence on the relationship between class size and student performance. The Journal of Economic Education, 35(4), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Qualifications Framework Council (2013) Australian Qualifications Framework (Second Edition). Adelaide: Australian Qualifications Framework Council.

  • Beaubien, J. M., & Baker, D. P. (2004). The use of simulation for training teamwork skills in health care: how low can you go? Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(suppl 1), i51–i56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benckendorff, P., Lohmann, G., Pratt, M., Reynolds, P., Strickland, P., & Whitelaw, P. (2015). Enhancing student learning outcomes with simulation-based pedagogies: final report 2015. Sydney: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, N. A. (2010). Can 1st-year college students accurately report their learning and development? American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 466–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: enhancing graduate employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravorty, S. S., & Franza, R. M. (2005). Enhancing cross-functional decision making: a simulation approach. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3(2), 331–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaparro-Peláez, J., Iglesias-Pradas, S., Pascual-Miguel, F. J., & Hernández-García, Á. (2013). Factors affecting perceived learning of engineering students in problem based learning supported by business simulation. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(3), 244–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chasteen, L. (2016). Simulations for strategy courses: measuring teamwork. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 43(1), 141–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, E. (2009). Learning outcomes from business simulation exercises: challenges for the implementation of learning technologies. Education & Training, 51(5/6), 448–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, B. S., & Anderson, S. E. (2006). The students’ view of a business simulation: perceived value of the learning experience. Journal of Strategic Management Education, 3, 151–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devitt, A., Brady, M., Lamest, M., Dalton, G., Newman, N., & Gomez, S. (2015). Serious games in marketing education: developing higher order cognitive skills through collaboration in a simulation game. INTED2015 Proceedings, 6340–6349.

  • DIISRTE. (2013). Core skills for Work Developmental Framework. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: what do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3–19). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitropoulos, K., Manitsaris, A., & Mavridis, I. (2008). Building virtual reality environments for distance education on the web: a case study in medical education. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 62–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglass, J. A., Thomson, G., & Zhao, C. M. (2012). The learning outcomes race: the value of self-reported gains in large research universities. Higher Education, 64(3), 317–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, R., Goldsmith, G., & Strachan, R. (2006). A novel approach to teaching teamwork. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelheim, J., & Ueda, D. (2007). Effective use of simulations in hospitality management education—a case study. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 6(1), 18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, A. H., Mann, S., & Corsun, D. L. (2002). Charting the experiential territory: clarifying definitions and uses of computer simulation, games, and role play. Journal of Management Development, 21(10), 732–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fripp, J. (1997). A future for business simulations? Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(4), 138–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H. A. (2010). Bare pedagogy and the scourge of neoliberalism: rethinking higher education as a democratic public sphere. The Educational Forum, 74(3), 184–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gros, B., & López, M. (2016). Students as co-creators of technology-rich learning activities in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). London: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82(1), 11–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H.-M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S.-S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1171–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurme, T.-R. (2010). Metacognition in group problem solving—a quest for socially shared metacognition. Doctoral dissertation, Oulu: University of Oulu.

  • Jensen, K. O. (2003). Business games as strategic team-learning environments in telecommunications. BT Technology Journal, 21(2), 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college what evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 30(4), 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, K. W., & Harrington, R. J. (2003). Strategic management education incorporating written or simulation cases: an empirical test. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 27(2), 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1990). The role of management games and simulations in education and research. Journal of Management, 16(2), 307–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, C., Tan, H. S., Tan, K. C., Fang, L., Fong, F. M., Kan, D., Lye, S. L., & Wee, M. L. (2010). Investigating the effect of 3D simulation based learning on the motivation and performance of engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, L. M. (2001). Enhancing student and team learning with interactive marketing simulations. Marketing Education Review, 11(1), 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaPointe, D. K., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2004). Developing, testing and refining of a model to understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in computer-mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt, H. J. (1989). Educating our MBAs: on teaching what we haven't taught. California Management Review, 31(3), 38–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, C. C. (2010). Student learning and student satisfaction in an interactive classroom. The Journal of General Education, 59(4), 238–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D., & McEvoy, B. (2003). Business simulations: a balanced approach to tourism education. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(6), 336–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Pérez, V., Martín-Cruz, N., & Pérez-Santana, M. P. (2013). Learning teamwork knowledge, skills and abilities: business simulation vs. case studies. International Journal of Management in Education, 7(4), 376–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1996). Ten ideas designed to rile everyone who cares about management. Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. J. (2001). Collaborative learning environments: Exploring student attitudes and satisfaction in face-to-face and asynchronous computer conferencing settings. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 427–448.

  • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: learning together in community. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 78–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R. (2011). Using college students’ self-reported learning outcomes in scholarly research. New Directions for Institutional Research, (150), 41–58.

  • Porter, S. R. (2011). Do college student surveys have any validity? The Review of Higher Education, 35(1), 45–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proenca, T. (2009). Self-managed work teams: a lean or an autonomous teamwork model? International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 9(1), 59–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C., & Okey, J. R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design (pp. 191–202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, P. L., Anderson, P. H., Scott, T. W., & Lawton, L. (2001). A framework for evaluating simulations as educational tools. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 28, 215–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, M. J., Morey, J. C., Small, S. D., Langford, V., Kaylor, C. J., Jagminas, L., Suner, S., Salisbury, M. L., Simon, R., & Jay, G. D. (2004). Simulation based teamwork training for emergency department staff: does it improve clinical team performance when added to an existing didactic teamwork curriculum? Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(6), 417–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • So, H.-J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stepanyan, K., Mather, R., & Dalrymple, R. (2014). Culture, role and group work: a social network analysis perspective on an online collaborative course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 676–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T., & Wong, S. L. (2013). Modeling key drivers of e-learning satisfaction among student teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(1), 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., Parente, J. M., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2001). Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: students’ reported learning gains. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Staalduinen, J. P., & de Freitas, S. (2011). A game-based learning framework: linking game design and learning. In M. S. Khyne (Ed.), Learning to play: exploring the future of education with video games (pp. 1–37). New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In A. R. Luria, M. M. Lopez-Morillas, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch (Eds.), Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes. Translated by. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Y., & Yang, Y. (2010). Student learning in business simulation: an empirical investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 85(4), 223–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127–136.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Support for this project has been provided by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT). The views in this project/activity do not necessarily reflect the views of the OLT. The project team would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Char-Lee McLennan, Dr. Jakob Trischler, Wendy London, and Lainie Groundwater and the contributions of the reference panel consisting of A/Prof Mark Freeman, Prof Janne Liburd, Prof Ulrike Gretzel, Dr. Trish Andrews, and Dr. Sandra Barker. Any errors are the authors’ responsibilities.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Griffith Aviation, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Building N25, Room 1.18, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia

    Gui Lohmann

  2. Department of Tourism, Sport, and Hotel Management, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia

    Marlene A. Pratt

  3. UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Pierre Benckendorff

  4. La Trobe University, Kingsbury Drive, Bundoora, VIC, 3086, Australia

    Paul Strickland

  5. University of South Australia, Adelaide, 5001, SA, Australia

    Paul Reynolds

  6. William Angliss Institute, Melbourne, 3000, VIC, Australia

    Paul A Whitelaw

Authors
  1. Gui Lohmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marlene A. Pratt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pierre Benckendorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul Strickland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul Reynolds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul A Whitelaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gui Lohmann.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Key quantitative measures
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lohmann, G., Pratt, M.A., Benckendorff, P. et al. Online business simulations: authentic teamwork, learning outcomes, and satisfaction. High Educ 77, 455–472 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0282-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0282-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation