IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v53y2022i1p56-74.html

Why Students Should Be Taught Differently: Learner Characteristics, Learning Styles and Simulation Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Bindu Kulkarni
  • Ranjan Banerjee
  • Rajasekaran Raghunathan

Abstract

Background Business simulation as an instructional tool helps in developing integrative thinking and decision making skills. It is being taught to audiences who differ considerably in age, work experience (learner characteristics) and learning styles. The use of simulations is likely to grow further with advancements in internet technology and the fact that simulations are very amenable to remote modes of instruction. Aim This study aims to assess how learner characteristics and learning styles impact business simulation performance. It further assesses the combined effect of learner characteristics and learning styles on performance in business simulations, we specifically consider the manner in which learning styles moderate the impact of learner characteristics (age) on simulation performance. Method The study was conducted with 605 students of full time MBA and executive MBA programs with age group varying from 21 years to 53 years. They were taught using the same business simulation by CAPSIM. The learning styles were measured using Felder-Solomon’s instrument ‘Index of learning style’. Regression analysis was conducted with predictor variables of learner characteristics and learning styles and outcome variable of simulation performance. The moderating effect of specific learning styles on learner characteristics was identified. Results The findings indicate that age is a significant predictor of simulation performance (younger, tech savvy students do better). Also, the use of reflective learning style enables better performance in business simulations. Older students are able to draw on experience and benefit more from reflective learning, for business simulations which involve integration across functions. Conclusion The study enhances our conceptual understanding of the factors enabling performance in business simulations and provides specific direction on how instructors must adapt facilitation approaches for different age groups of participants. Reflection is important for learning with business simulations; hence, the reflective learning style should be encouraged particularly among older students.

Suggested Citation

  • Bindu Kulkarni & Ranjan Banerjee & Rajasekaran Raghunathan, 2022. "Why Students Should Be Taught Differently: Learner Characteristics, Learning Styles and Simulation Performance," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 53(1), pages 56-74, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:53:y:2022:i:1:p:56-74
    DOI: 10.1177/10468781211065809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10468781211065809
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10468781211065809?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew J. Stainton & Johnnie E. Johnson & Edward P. Borodzicz, 2010. "Educational Validity of Business Gaming Simulation: A Research Methodology Framework," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 41(5), pages 705-723, October.
    2. Tim Rogmans & Wasseem Abaza, 2019. "The Impact of International Business Strategy Simulation Games on Student Engagement," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 50(3), pages 393-407, June.
    3. David Crookall, 2010. "Serious Games, Debriefing, and Simulation/Gaming as a Discipline," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 41(6), pages 898-920, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonna Koponen & Saara Julkunen, 2015. "Theoretical Principles of Simulation-Based Sales Communication Training," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(2), pages 137-147, April.
    2. Aad Slootmaker & Hans Hummel & Rob Koper, 2017. "Evaluating the Usability of Authoring Environments for Serious Games," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 48(4), pages 553-578, August.
    3. Frank Ulrich & Niels Henrik Helms, 2017. "CREATING EVALUATION PROFILES FOR GAMES DESIGNED TO BE FUN: An Interpretive Framework for Serious Game Mechanics," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 48(5), pages 695-714, October.
    4. David Kirschner & J. Patrick Williams, 2014. "Measuring Video Game Engagement Through Gameplay Reviews," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 45(4-5), pages 593-610, August.
    5. Mark W Wiggins & Jaime Auton & Piers Bayl-Smith & Ann Carrigan, 2020. "Optimising the future of technology in organisations: A human factors perspective," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(3), pages 449-467, August.
    6. Korina Katsaliaki & Navonil Mustafee, 2015. "Edutainment for Sustainable Development," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(6), pages 647-672, December.
    7. Jop van den Hoogen & Julia Lo & Sebastiaan Meijer, 2016. "Debriefing Research Games," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(3), pages 368-388, June.
    8. Frederick M. C. van Amstel & Julia A. Garde, 2016. "The Transformative Potential of Game Spatiality in Service Design," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(5), pages 628-650, October.
    9. Tracey Ledoux & Melissa Griffith & Debbe Thompson & Nga Nguyen & Kathy Watson & Janice Baranowski & Richard Buday & Dina Abdelsamad & Tom Baranowski, 2016. "An Educational Video Game for Nutrition of Young People," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(4), pages 490-516, August.
    10. Magnuszewski Piotr & Hegadorn Chris & Szewczyk Katarzyna & Bertolozzi Caredio Daniele & Ciaian Pavel, 2026. "Operational framework for stress testing EU food security," JRC Research Reports JRC145765, Joint Research Centre.
    11. Lucy R. Zheng & Catherine M. Oberle & W. A. Hawkes-Robinson & Stéphane Daniau, 2021. "Serious Games as a Complementary Tool for Social Skill Development in Young People: A Systematic Review of the Literature," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 52(6), pages 686-714, December.
    12. Rudy McDaniel & Joseph Fanfarelli, 2016. "Building Better Digital Badges," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(1), pages 73-102, February.
    13. Apinya Dhatsuwan & Monamorn Precharattana, 2016. "Blockyland," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(4), pages 445-464, August.
    14. Jonna Koponen & Eeva Pyörälä & Pekka Isotalus, 2014. "Communication Skills for Medical Students," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 45(2), pages 235-254, April.
    15. Jop van den Hoogen & Sebastiaan Meijer, 2015. "Gaming and Simulation for Railway Innovation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(5), pages 489-511, October.
    16. Peter Korfiatis & Robert Cloutier & Teresa Zigh, 2015. "Model-Based Concept of Operations Development Using Gaming Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(5), pages 471-488, October.
    17. Dalia Majumdar & Pamela A. Koch & Heewon Lee Gray & Isobel R. Contento & Ana de Lourdes Islas-Ramos & Daniel Fu, 2015. "Nutrition Science and Behavioral Theories Integrated in a Serious Game for Adolescents," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(1), pages 68-97, February.
    18. Daniel Lovin & Monica Raducan & Alexandru Capatina & Nicoleta Cristache, 2021. "Sustainable Knowledge Transfer from Business Simulations to Working Environments: Correlational vs. Configurational Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.
    19. Richard B. Powers & Kat Kirkpatrick, 2013. "Playing With Conflict," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 44(1), pages 51-72, February.
    20. Marcin Wardaszko & Błażej Podgórski, 2017. "Mobile Learning Game Effectiveness in Cognitive Learning by Adults: A Comparative Study," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 48(4), pages 435-454, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:53:y:2022:i:1:p:56-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.