Application of Simulation Modeling as a Teaching Pedagogy in Business Education



Abstract Views
631

Downloads
578

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Nov 19, 2022
Published Jan 9, 2023
10.24018/ejbmr.2023.8.1.1750

Abstract viewed = 631 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Simulations in higher education serve as an effective pedagogical tool to surge learners’ motivation and support in harnessing 21st-century skills. However, the cost of the software required expertise, and its complexity is some of the deterrents to its smooth adoption. It rarely allows you to learn what is happening in the background. How are the decision variables linked and affected? This research proposes and tests system dynamic (SD) based simulation modelling based on Sterman (2000) to investigate the use of simulation as a pedagogy to showcase growth in population(demand-side), its relationship to residential construction (supply-side), and finally predicts the total residential construction spending. The simulation case depicts a real-life business scenario where users are able to dynamically vary the decision variable values, and visualize its effect on dependent variables and the overall impact on the simulation goal. Even students and non-Economist can efficiently perform quality analyses for experiential learning.
Keywords: Business Simulation, Circular Economy, Experiential Learning, Higher Education, System Dynamic, 21st Century Skills.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, 41, 33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/218525261154.
     Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P., & Lawton, L. (2009). Business simulations and cognitive learning: developments, desires and future directions. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 193–216.
     Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, S., & Mahmud, A. (2008). Experiential learning and the acquisition of managerial tacit knowledge. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 189–208.
     Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Zvi, T. (2010). The efficacy of business simulation games in creating Decision Support Systems: An experimental investigation. Decision Support Systems, 61-69.
     Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, A. A., Lo, K. D., Pervez, A., Nelson, T. A., Mullane, K., Farrell, M., Tarr, E. K. (2021). Exploring business doctoral students’ attitudes, training, and use of classroom experiential learning activities. International Journal of Management Education, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100493.
     Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, B., Englehart, N., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, . New York: NY: David McKay.
     Google Scholar
  7. Carrillo, D. L., García, A. C., Laguna, T. R., Magán, G. R., & Moreno, J. A. L. (2019). Using gamification in a teaching innovation project at the university of alcalá: A new approach to experimental science practices. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 17(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.17.2.03.
     Google Scholar
  8. Chulkov, D., & Nizovtsev, D. (2001). Rent-A-Car: an integrated team-based case study for managerial economics. Journal of Business Cases and Applications, 6, 1-14.
     Google Scholar
  9. Chulkov, D., & Wang, X. (2020). The Educational Value of Simulation as a Teaching Strategy in a Finance Course. E-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship Teaching, 14(1), 40.
     Google Scholar
  10. Contu, E. G. (2019). The Role of Interactive Teaching Strategies in Business Education: Challenges for the 21st Century. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 13(1), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2019-0012.
     Google Scholar
  11. Devasagayam, R., Johns-Masten, K., & McCollum, J. (2012). Linking information literacy, experiential learning, and student characteristics: Pedagogical possibilities in business education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16(4), 1–18.
     Google Scholar
  12. Doyle, D., Brown, F.W. (2000). Using a business simulation to teach applied skills: the benefits and the challenges of using student teams from multiple countries. J. Eur. Ind. 24(6), 330-336.
     Google Scholar
  13. Eckardt, G., Selen, W., & Wynder, M. (2015). Recognising the effects of costing assumptions in educational business simulation games. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 43-60.
     Google Scholar
  14. Faria, A. (1998). Business simulation games: Current usage levels—an update. Simulation & Gaming, 29(3), 295–308.
     Google Scholar
  15. Filatova, T., Verburg, P. H., Parker, D. C., & Stannard, C. A. (2013). Spatial agent-based models for socio-ecological systems: Challenges and prospects. Environmental Modelling and Software, 45, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.03.017.
     Google Scholar
  16. Gatti, L., Ulrich, M., & Seele, P. (2019). Education for sustainable development through business simulation games: An exploratory study of sustainability gamification and its effects on students’ learning outcomes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, 667–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.130.
     Google Scholar
  17. Guevara-Rivera, E., Osorno-Hinojosa, R., & Zaldivar-Carrillo, V. H. (2020). A Simulation Methodology for Circular Economy Implementation. 2020 10th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies, ACIT 2020 - Proceedings, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIT49673.2020.9208839.
     Google Scholar
  18. Hakeem, S. (2001). Effect of experiential learning in business statistics. Journal of Education for Business, 7(77), 95-98.
     Google Scholar
  19. Hakrama, I., & Frasheri, N. (2018). Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation of an Artificial Economy, Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation of an. 10(June), 47–57.
     Google Scholar
  20. Juan, A., Loch, B., Daradoumis, T., & Ventura, S. (2017). Games and simulation in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ, 14(37).
     Google Scholar
  21. Koh, C., Tan, H.S., Tan, K.C., Fang, L., Fong, F.M., Kan, D., Wee, M.L. (2010). Investigating the effect of 3d simulation based learning on the motivation and performance of engineering students. J. Eng. Educ., 99, 237–251.
     Google Scholar
  22. Kutz, J. N. (2016). J. Nathan Kutz, Steven L. Brunton, Bingni W. Brunton, Joshua L. Proctor - Dynamic Mode Decomposition_ Data-Driven Modeling of Complex Systems-SIAM-Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (2016).pdf.
     Google Scholar
  23. Liesa-Orús, M., Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Vázquez-Toledo, S., & Sierra-Sánchez, V. (2020). The technological challenge facing higher education professors: Perceptions of ICT tools for developing 21st Century skills. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135339.
     Google Scholar
  24. Lin, Y., & Tu, Y. (2012). The values of college students in business simulation game: A means-end chain approach. Computers & Education, 1160-1170.
     Google Scholar
  25. Looyestyn, J., Kernot, J., Boshoff, K., Ryan, J., Edney, S., & Maher, C. (2017). Does gamification increase engagement with online programs? A systematic review. PLoS, 12(3), 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1134/1.1258912.
     Google Scholar
  26. Matlay, H., Tunstall, R., & Lynch, M. (2010). The role of simulation case studies in enterprise education. Education & Training, 624–642.
     Google Scholar
  27. Nurul, S., & Mohamad, M. (2018). Gamification Approach in Education to Increase Learning Engagement. International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 4(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.20469/ijhss.4.10003-1.
     Google Scholar
  28. Olfat, M., Paddrik, M.E., Hayes, R., & Wold, K. (2013). Revolutionizing financial engineering education: Simulation-based strategies for learning. Available at SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=2197542. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2197542.
     Google Scholar
  29. Pirker, J., & Gütl, C. (2015). Educational gamified science simulations. In Gamification in Education and Business (pp. 253–275): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_13.
     Google Scholar
  30. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Simulating entrepreneurial learning integrating experiential and collaborative approaches to learning. Management Learning, 38(2), 211–233.
     Google Scholar
  31. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: NY: McGraw-Hill.
     Google Scholar
  32. Ragavan, N. A., Balasubramanian, K., & Francis, R. S. (2021). Rethinking the Learning Space to Build 21st Century Learning Skills: Bringing Simulation-Based Gamification to the Hospitality Higher Education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality & Tourism, 10(2), 95–101.
     Google Scholar
  33. Rajapakse, C., & Terano, T. (2013). An Agent-based Model to Study the Evolution of Service Systems through the Service Life Cycle. International Journal of Energy, Information and Communications, 4(5), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46835-4_6.
     Google Scholar
  34. Ranchhod, A., Gurău, C., Loukis, E., & Trivedi, R. (2014). Evaluating the educational effectiveness of simulation games: A value generation model. Information Sciences, 264, 75–90.
     Google Scholar
  35. Rounsevell, M. D. A., Robinson, D. T., & Murray-Rust, D. (2012). From actors to agents in socio-ecological systems models. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1586), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0187.
     Google Scholar
  36. Salas, E., Wildman, J., & Piccolo, R. (2009). Using simulation-based training to enhance management education. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(4), 559–573.
     Google Scholar
  37. Shah, A., Mai, C.L., Shah, R., & Levine, A.I. (2019). Simulation-based education and team training. Otolaryngol. Clin. N. Am., 52, 995–1003.
     Google Scholar
  38. Sterman, J.D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Management. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601336.
     Google Scholar
  39. Sun, Z., & Müller, D. (2013). A framework for modeling payments for ecosystem services with agent-based models, Bayesian belief networks and opinion dynamics models. Environmental Modelling and Software, 45, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.06.007.
     Google Scholar
  40. Systems dynamics society. (2022, 1 31). Retrieved from Systems dynamics society: https://systemdynamics.org/system-dynamics-review/
     Google Scholar
  41. Wallis, L. (2016). Developing disurptive business strategies. AnyLogic Conference.
     Google Scholar
  42. 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, 339–357.
     Google Scholar
  43. Zelin II, R. C. (2010). An exploration of the effectiveness of an audit simulation tool in a classroom setting. American Journal of Business Education, 3(9), 7–12.
     Google Scholar