企業經營模擬遊戲與競賽
誰表現的比較好
?
陶幼慧 高大資管系
Source:
Tao, Y.-H. and Hung, K.-C. Who performs better in business
simulation game learning - A case study of a college general course. The 10th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Informatics and Communications, Taipei, Aug. 20-22, 2010.
Yu-Hui Tao
[email protected] K. C. Hung
Business simulation game (BSG)
◦ used in 97.5% of the AACSB member schools in U.S.A. more than a decade ago [2]
BSG in higher education
◦ an indispensable motivational condition for students’ learning [9]
◦ popular means for informal learning [5]
In early studies
◦ mixed results between BSG learning performance and perception
Recent research studies
◦ shifted to non-performance perspectives
attract students’ attention help students focus in class
Extent literature focuses on business major students
Non-business major students
◦ many universities wish to cultivate their students
through extensive and in-depth general education in addition to students’ majored subjects
Lack of studies on the relationship of student performance and student profile
◦ Skill-based learning : address technical or motor skills
◦ Cognitive learning : declarative knowledge,
procedural knowledge, and strategic knowledge
◦ Affective learning: refer to attitudes
Anderson and Lawton [1]
◦ confirmed the failure to find a relationship
between simulation performance and students’ attitude toward the simulation
◦ called for further effort in finding the missing link
between performance and measurement items
Wellington and Faria [13]
◦ good simulation performers are consistently good
It seems to indicate GPA, beginning attitude
toward the simulation exercise, and team
cohesiveness were not significantly
different
Tao et al. [11]
◦ proposed an integrated model fusing IS theories
and educational theories
◦ provided adequate evidence for Taiwan’s teachers to adopt or continue using BSG
Based on the suggestion of Tech and Murff [12], a general course for teaching three different
complexity levels of BSGs
◦ BOSS (a total enterprise simulation)
◦ Retail Expert (single-player small game)
◦ Beer Game (multiple-player small game) from TOP-BOSS
is offered to undergraduate students in a university in Taiwan
Each game is taught in a sequence (in reference to problem-solving game model)
◦ introducing the game
◦ practicing by simulated game competition ◦ writing group thought-sharing report
The final grade calculation is divided into
◦ Attendance
◦ individual tests
◦ group reports
◦ Competitions
which were used as dependent variables in this analysis stage
The objective is to focus on “learning by doing” for
students with or without management background
◦ playing the games
◦ collecting needed information over the Internet.
◦ tips from the winners
descriptive analysis - profile the sample
students
t-test - test the performance of two groups
of students with different characteristics
linear regression - identify the selected
variables contributing to different performance scores
Item Mean/S.D. Range Final score (100%) 82.74/8.19 0-100
Competition score (50%) 76.77/11.18 Sharing report score (15%) 82.17/11.80 Test score (20%) 85.97/3.29 Attendance score (15%) 95.60/9.68
Online game 6.37/1.94 9-point Likert scale from 1 representing very disagree and 9 representing very agree Visual Learning 7.40/0.93 Auditory Learning 5.97/1.40 Kinesthetic learning 7.29/1.13 Wants structure 6.30/1.46 Tacit learning 7.05/1.17 Learning with others 6.60/1.29 High motivation 5.63/1.31 High persistence 5.67/1.24 Participating group discussion 6.37/1.00 Searching information after class 5.35/1.45
Profile \ Score Mean/S.D. Nyes Mean/S.D. Nno t Sig. Management major? 85.23/2.83 13 81.67/9.48 30 1.847 0.069 Female? 83.86/4.60 14 80.42/12.76 29 0.977 0.345 Management course before? 84.47/3.33 22 81.09/10.85 21 1.395 0.175 BSG before? 85.09/3.05 11 81.94/9.24 32 1.683 0.100 at 0.1 level
Independent Variable
Mean performance (Scores)
Final Competition Sharing Test Attendance Visual learning -0.504*** -0.388*/-0.356* -0.355* -0.316*
Auditory learning - - 0.319*
Kinesthetic learning -
-Tacit learning 0.291 -/0.436* - 0.562*** Wants structure -/-0.469* -0.481** Learning with others -
-High motivation -0.375 -/0.662* - -1.148*** High persistence - -/-0.169* - -0.745* Online game - - -0.341* Participating group discussion 0.440* 0.285/0.487** 0.524** Searching information after class 0.339*
GPA last semester 0.319
F 3.779* 3.844*/3.702** 4.327* 4.620** 4.849** Adjusted R square 0.264 0.155/0.343 0.097 0.259 0.465
Visual learning contributing negatively to all but the test
performance scores
BSG is more of a text-based simulation than a simulator,
the feelings of visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning do
not resemble online games or simulators.
Students with high visual learning preference may find it
negatively associated with BSG performance scores in
most cases, except in the test score
It is surprising to see negative influcnece on performance
scores for high motivational students, which may imply that they are not used to this new method of learning by doing through game competition
on the positive influnce
◦ participating group discussion had significant positive influence to student performance on
three out of five performance scores
◦ Tacit learning reflects well the nature of BSG as a problem-based gaming involves strategies
◦ Both meet the original expectation of this research.
test score indeed is very different from the
other scores in that three variables, online game, searching information after class, and
GPA of last semester, that uniquely
contribute to test score, but not others
This implies
◦ test scores may not be appropriately evaluated by the BSG competition activities, and vice versa
◦ Teachers need to be very careful in matching the course objective with its evaluation method
only the adjusted R-square of the
attendance score borders high level while
the rest are at low level or insignificant level
This implies, more hidden dimensions of
variables are needed to increase the
explaining power of the regression analysis on BSG performance score.
certain knowledge (management major)
and skill (previous BSG experience) do
matter in terms of student performance
participating group discussion and tacit
learning are positive factors in influencing
student performance, which matches the
learning-loop and reflection concepts in
students with visual learning preference
and high motivation may be not used to
BSG type of learning-by-doing style.
more hidden variables and dimensions of
variables are yet to be identified to increase
the explaining power of regress analysis for determing the contributing factors of BSG performance scores in future research
