1

The Broad Value of Simula1on Across Pedagogies to Enhance Student Capability in Post-Secondary
Business Administra1on Educa1on

Darren G Mahaffy
School of Educa4on, Thompson Rivers University
Kamloops, BC

A capstone product submiDed to Thompson Rivers University in par4al fulfilment of the requirements of
the degree of Master of Educa4on

November 20, 2024

2

Abstract
This paper is set within the context of my intersec4ng personas as educator in a post-secondary business
school, student in a Master of Educa4on program, successful marketer and a former Bachelor of
Business Administra4on student. Each forma4ve sec4on of my life either exposed me to the benefits of
simula4on for business learning or deepened my belief that these teaching tools are valuable to students
and educators. I argue that business school educators can use well-structured simula4on op4ons within
their learning tools regardless of their pedagogical philosophy and that the inclusion of these tools
improves student learning outcomes. As instructors are more likely to select tools which fit their
pedagogical philosophies, assessing the fit of simula4ons with high frequency of use pedagogies assists
in understanding its broad value. The ability of students to achieve deep learning is linked both to the
aRtude of the student and the instructor approaches to challenge at higher levels in Bloom’s Taxonomy
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), so iden4fying tools that deliver on both is cri4cal to maximize poten4al
outcomes for students. The implica4on of these two benefits is that simula4ons should be used more
broadly within business schools and courses. This asser4on assumes that well-structured simula4ons
exist to support the learning objec4ves and that students can reflect on their experiences to fully embed
and understand their learning outcomes. Beyond in-class outcomes, simula4on may also afford postsecondary business schools the ability to offer cer4fica4ons or advanced standing in post-graduate
programs to beDer reflect real world learning experiences.

Keywords: simula4on, business administra4on, post-secondary, pedagogical fit, student
comprehension, student capability, assessment

3

Contents
Chapter 1: Introduc1on........................................................................................................................ 5
Background .............................................................................................................................................. 5
My Business Educa4on Journey from Student to Teacher and Back Again .............................................. 6
Simula4on as an Important Tool in my Strategic Marke4ng and Teaching Career ................................... 7
Importance of the Topic ........................................................................................................................... 8
The Thesis for Business Simula4on Inclusion in Business and Administra4on Programs ........................ 9
Counterarguments ................................................................................................................................. 10
Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Chapter II - Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 11
Overview of Major Pedagogies and Linkage to Simula4on Use ............................................................. 11
Construc4vism ................................................................................................................................... 11
Direct Instruc4on ............................................................................................................................... 12
Cogni4vism ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Social Learning Theory ....................................................................................................................... 12
Connec4vism ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Learning by Doing .............................................................................................................................. 13
Other Theories ................................................................................................................................... 13
Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Compara4ve Understanding of the Use of Simula4ons to Support Knowledge Transfer....................... 15
Impact of Simula4on Use on Student Learning Outcomes .................................................................... 16
Summary of Learning on Why Simula4ons Work................................................................................... 18
Arguments Against the Inclusion of Simula4ons .................................................................................... 18
Literature Review Summary ................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter III – Personal Applica1ons ..................................................................................................... 20
Personal Experience in the Classroom ................................................................................................... 20
Experience with the Use of Simula4on to Teach Marke4ng Strategy .................................................... 22
Context .............................................................................................................................................. 22
Classroom: ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Outcome ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Experience with the Use of Simula4on to Teach Nego4a4on in the Business Development Context ... 25
Context .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Classroom .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Outcome ............................................................................................................................................ 28

4

Understanding Why Simula4on is a Personal Fit.................................................................................... 29
Fit with Learning Outcomes ............................................................................................................... 29
Fit with Personal Teaching Approaches ............................................................................................. 30
Linking to Personal and Structural Incen4ves .................................................................................... 31
Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 32
Chapter IV - Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 33
Overview of Key Conclusions from the Literature Review ..................................................................... 33
Argument Success .................................................................................................................................. 34
Connec4ng My Thinking ........................................................................................................................ 34
Theore4cal Implica4ons..................................................................................................................... 35
Prac4cal Implica4ons ......................................................................................................................... 36
Final Thoughts ........................................................................................................................................ 36
References ......................................................................................................................................... 38

5

The Broad Value of Simula1on Across Pedagogies to Enhance Student Capability in Post-Secondary
Business Administra1on Educa1on
Chapter 1: Introduc1on
The use of simula4ons in undergraduate and post-graduate business administra4on programs is
widespread and longstanding (Tanner et al., 2012). They have persisted in use even as other teaching
techniques may ebb and flow due to the general belief that the challenges help students internalize and
apply mul4ple concepts concurrently. Simula4on programs aDempt to contextualize the complexity of
the real-world challenges of managing companies (Naylor, 1971 as cited in Schmuck, 2021).
Background
Simple business simulators were introduced in 1956 (Cohen & Rhenman, 1961, as cited in
Tanner et al., 2012) by the American Management Associa4on and over 4me expanded to simula4ons as
defined later in this ar4cle. Their use in business schools has grown in popularity since that 4me for a
variety of reasons including the view by faculty that they are an efficient use of 4me and effec4ve
teaching tools (Tanner et al.) and are well accepted by students (Lainema & Lainema, 2007). There are a
wide variety of pedagogical approaches used in higher educa4on today (Sepp, 2021; Hammad et. al,
2020) and there is significant research suppor4ng the use of simula4ons where outcomes can be well
aligned to the pedagogical goals. Further, simula4ons appear to fit well for both students and faculty in
both a synchronous and asynchronous delivery method poin4ng to its broad and mul4faceted value as a
teaching tool (Chandna & Newaz, 2023; Anderson and Dron, 2011; Maher & Hughner, 2007).
Simula4ons and games are terms that are oken used interchangeably, and while they are similar,
they are not quite the same. Narayanasamy et al. (2006), drawing on ideas from Sauvé et al. (2005),
assessed games, simula4ons and simulators across seven iden4fica4on characteris4cs. The only material
difference between a game and a simula4on is the end state. Games have a pre-defined and known end
state while simula4ons may, in theory, run for as long as the par4cipants wish to engage in the

6

simula4on. For this paper, business simula4ons are defined as computerized reenactments of real-world
situa4ons which allow par4cipants to set dis4nct strategies and adjust the inputs of the business to
match those strategies with the goal of outperforming a defined opposi4on. As supported by
Narayanasamy et al., complex simula4ons involve compe44on with others while simple business games,
such as Lemonade Stand (coolmathgames.com, n.d.), do not have the vector of compe44on nor of
mul4ple strategic inputs to adjust to fit strategy and are excluded from the analysis.
My Business Educa1on Journey from Student to Teacher and Back Again
During my undergraduate business degree at Wilfrid Laurier University, I was focused on
understanding the interac4vity of business processes across various areas of study. With a long-term
goal of becoming a corporate lawyer, the need to understand this interac4vity appeared to be a cri4cal
knowledge base to be able to effec4vely assist and instruct corpora4ons in nego4a4ng the intricacies of
the legal landscape and to implement the decisions of company leadership across the en4rety of an
organiza4on. While this did not become my ul4mate career path, it did prepare me to become a
marke4ng strategist at major interna4onal packaged goods companies. While aDending university, I also
began my training as a teacher through my work as a teaching assistant for the introductory business
course. Early in my career, training and development became an important requirement of the work I
was conduc4ng. Developing, i.e. teaching, the skills my direct reports needed to succeed was a
requirement to move upwards in the organiza4on. I was able to translate this growing skill into the
opportunity to teach within the Marke4ng and Behavioural Science division at a highly rated business
school. Discovering, through this teaching work, that I enjoyed working in the classroom far more than in
the boardroom, I have expanded the scope of my teaching responsibili4es over the last seven years. To
solidify my bona fides at the school and to expand my understanding of the underlying reasons for the
approach I took to teaching, I reengaged as a student to complete a Master of Educa4on at Thompson
Rivers University. I have focused my learning journey at TRU on both the philosophical underpinnings

7

and prac4cal tools to help advance the learning experience and outcomes for my students. Through the
experiences of learning about various pedagogical approaches, and the reinforcement of this learning
through mul4ple different classes in the program, I have been able to generate a comprehension of my
own teaching approaches including an understanding of why simula4on as a teaching tool speaks so
clearly to me. Learning about Dewey (1916/2024) and the modern educa4onal philosophers who base
their thinking on his founda4ons has assisted in understanding why I value doing and prac4ce with a
prac4cal applica4on to the real world as a cri4cal deliverable in my classes. Further, the understanding
generated in various M.Ed. classes about the opportuni4es, challenges and limits of technology in
delivering excep4onal student learning experiences has made me more cognizant of how to op4mally
deliver simula4on tools for my students’ context.
Simula1on as an Important Tool in my Strategic Marke1ng and Teaching Career
The first seminal learning experience I had at Wilfrid Laurier University was in a second-year
course in Managerial Decision Making. The purpose of this course was to help students understand the
interoperability of the four core business func4ons of marke4ng/sales, finance, opera4ons, and human
resources. The major por4on of this course was a 10-round compe44ve challenge using a simula4on
game called Markstrat. This program required students to manage a business and make cri4cal and
interrelated decisions around brand posi4oning, sales strategy, research and development and
adver4sing. Teams submiDed their decisions to a central hub and a computer program took the inputs
from 5 different teams in an industry to determine which was doing the best job in fulfilling consumer
needs. This challenging project provided an eye-opening understanding for me on a variety of aspects of
business opera4ons, but most relevant to my personal journey, helped me to understand the value of a
dis4nct business strategy along with a clear understanding of the needs of consumers and how mee4ng
those needs with excellence provided a path to business success. Moreover, the work with other skilled
and capable business students demonstrated the value of team work to achieve greater results than any

8

individual on their own. This learning began a cri4cal reassessment of my expected career path and
pushed me towards a more formal and ac4ve business management role which focused on using these
interrelated tools to achieve real world business success. As would be expected based on the learning
foregrounded in the literature review of this paper, I experienced this simula4on as both a tremendous
approach for integra4ng learning from various vectors while also achieving an improved perspec4ve on
the value the course instructor was providing to students.
When I returned to the formal classroom as an educator, I was keen to integrate simula4on into
the instruc4onal approach I pursued. In classes covering marke4ng analy4cs, marke4ng strategy and
business development, I have been able to find simula4ons, including the current version of Markstrat,
that support my learning objec4ves and allow students with various learning styles to apply their
learning to a real-world situa4on. I see students reac4ng to the inclusion of simula4on in the same way I
did, as an eye-opening path to understand how learning across various func4onal areas can come
together for business success and that schoolwork can be fun.
Importance of the Topic
To assess the importance of the topic, it is important to return to the raison d’etre for most
business schools. Canada’s leading (Macleans, 2024) business school, UBC Sauder, ar4culates its mission:
“as part of one of the world’s finest public universi4es, we pursue excellence in research and
teaching to inspire and educate responsible leaders who improve business, drive innova4on, and
advance well-being in Bri4sh Columbia and throughout the world.” (UBC Sauder, 2023)
Embedded in this mission is excellence in teaching. Learning regarding op4mal teaching approaches
centered on the student experience evolves over 4me (Kinshuk et al, 2016) but pedagogies across the
spectrum of op4ons all contain a goal of students achieving a desired learning outcome even if they
differ on the approaches or expected applica4ons of same (Lozano et al, 2017). Consequently,

9

understanding the various tools available and how they can advance or detract from those learning
outcomes is an important opportunity for educators to enhance their classroom approach.
In the case of business schools, the overarching, if unstated, goal of the program is to make
money for the university. As with a consumer-facing business, this is achieved when a buyer associates a
high level of value with the product you are selling (Aaker, 2004). By ensuring that current users,
students, are happy with the product and that they can be seen using it effec4vely, the seller, the school,
increases the likelihood that future buyers will also purchase the product. Educators who do a beDer job
of delivering these learning outcomes will have greater success in, and for, their schools.
The Thesis for Business Simula1on Inclusion in Business and Administra1on Programs
In this ar4cle, I argue that the use of simula4on games should be expanded in business and
administra4on post-secondary programs and used wherever strong simula4on programs exist to advance
learning objec4ves. Through the literature review, I will show that this is because business simula4ons
are a strong fit with most pedagogical approaches seen in leading business schools, par4cularly those
pedagogies that are descended from Dewey’s (1916/2024) concepts. When doing is a key aspect of a
pedagogical approach, simula4on, par4cularly when combined with case study, is a strong fit on a
pedagogical basis (Sepp, 2021; Hammad et al., 2020). Further, the use of business simula4on leads to
improved achievement of student learning objec4ves with a strong linkage to occasions when instructors
are seeking to deliver more challenging objec4ves according to Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001). Instructors are constantly challenged to elevate their learning objec4ves in the areas
of including analyzing (Schmuck, 2021; Lainema & Lainema, 2007), evalua4ng (Chandna & Newaz, 2023;
Schmuck 2021) and crea4ng (Wollscheid & Skjelbred, 2021; Ben-Zvi & Canton, 2007). In each of the
previously noted papers, business simula4ons are shown to forward the noted objec4ves. Addi4onally,
students report deeper engagement with materials and concepts, which contributes both to superior
comple4on of learning objec4ves as well increased student percep4on of teaching quality (Arizzi et al,

10

2020; Maher & Hughner, 2007). While teaching effec4veness is a secondary considera4on for many
faculty, the use of the tool does improve these scores. Finally, success in simula4ons is not 4ed to
intelligence or personality but rather concept understanding and hard work (Wollscheid & Skjelbred,
2021) which allows instructors to separate excep4onal students from the balance of the class. Beyond
the ra4onal for the use of simula4on I will add colour by showing how these approaches have useful
applica4on to my own teaching and demonstrate some important implica4ons for universi4es and the
wider community for using the outcomes of simula4on exercises for improved grading and hiring.
Counterarguments
This argument is contestable on two fronts. First, there remain educators focused on a
behaviourist (Mechlova & Malcik, 2012) approaches to instruc4on and that this pedagogy is a poor fit
with the personal and construc4vist (MaDar, 2018) approach required to build a credible learning
experience using simula4on. Second, that barriers such as access to hardware and bandwidth may limit
student access and create barriers to learning that other tools do not create (Educause, 2021). While
these can be acknowledged as limita4ons to be addressed by educators when considering simula4on,
they do not rise to the level of exclusionary ra4onale. In fact, given the prevalence of use of simula4on in
business school teaching, it could be argued that the acceptance of simula4on in one class should lead
to the strong considera4on of inclusion in others if the simula4ons are rated similarly.
Summary
Simula4on models and modules are a valuable tool for educators in a business school
environment who approach student learning from a progressive lens. I have had success with these tools
as a student, a business professional and as an instructor teaching business concepts. Because
simula4on can be applied across a broad range of teaching styles and philosophies with success and due
to the improved nature of student outcomes using simula4on it can and should be u4lized across a
broad range of business school classes where capable models have been developed.

11

Chapter II - Literature Review
The literature suppor4ng the use of simula4on clusters around four general areas which will be
expanded on here. The first is the value of simula4on to various pedagogical approaches, the second is
the depth of knowledge transfer students achieve when from simula4on when used with other learning
approaches, the third is the learning outcomes achieved by students with the use of simula4on and the
final is learning suppor4ng why simula4ons work to achieve their stated goals. While there are
countering views either ques4oning the value of simula4on as a whole or in rela4on to other teaching
tools, this work is limited in scope as compared to the volume of work suppor4ng its use. Consequently,
it seems clear that the balance of the literature supports the use of simula4on in a business
administra4on teaching environment across a broad range of pedagogies and subject maDer areas.
Overview of Major Pedagogies and Linkage to Simula1on Use
The use of simula4on in a par4cular business course is driven by the fit between pedagogical
approach of the instructor and the availability of a strong tool to fit with the subject maDer at hand.
Given the shiking nature of topics to be covered in business programs, this paper will not aDempt to
understand the quality and fit of various available resources but rather examine how the literature
suggests a fit between pedagogical approaches. As far back as Dewey (1916/2024), educa4on
philosophers have looked to experience paired with understanding of concepts as a process to maximize
benefits to students. In a more modern seRng, Hammad et. al (2020) iden4fied mul4ple pedagogical
approaches used in higher educa4on including construc4vism and ac4ve learning, behaviourism, direct
instruc4on, cogni4vism and social learning theory and connec4vism. Each of these, as covered below,
are connected back to Dewey’s constructs in one form or another.
Construc)vism
Within construc4vism theory, learners are believed to learn in a holis4c way by understanding
their external environment through the previous experiences they have had (MaDar, 2018). Essen4ally,

12

this theory supposes that all learners are unique and learn in a unique way and that all learning is
scaffolding to future learning. Learners either assimilate new informa4on into exis4ng cogni4ve
structures or they accommodate it by modifying those structures. (Hammad et al., 2020). Simula4on is a
strong fit with this type of pedagogical approach as it is itera4ve in nature. That is, the student receives
feedback from each choice they make via the outcomes provided by the simula4on. Using that feedback,
they modify or adapt their theory of success and make new decisions.
Direct Instruc)on
Direct instruc4on uses a highly prescrip4ve approach with a precise order of materials and is
somewhat at odds with inquiry-based learning (Datchuk, 2017). While the learner is not at the focal
point of the learning process, the emphasis on prac4ce within the approach lends itself to using
simula4on to generate that prac4ce. It also has value as an assessment tool that permits the instructor
both close observa4on and feedback.
Cogni)vism
A replacement theory to behaviorism in the 1960’s, cogni4vism focuses on using mental
approaches to explain behaviour. Under the umbrella of cogni4ve learning falls sub-theories of
construc4vism and developmentalism (Hammad et al., 2020). As an objec4vist view, cogni4vism imputes
that informa4on and knowledge exists beyond human comprehension, unchanging (Harasim, 2012). This
links with using simula4on as an approach as it allows the user to seek to comprehend the system in
which they are opera4ng and aDempt to understand and deconstruct it to their advantage during play.
Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory suggests that learning and knowledge are generated through social
processes (Bates, 2019) and that “learners learn from observing and interac4ng within social and cultural
contexts, e.g. social learning environments.” (Hammad et al, 2020) Social learning is an offshoot of
cogni4vism because it assumes that individuals can learn and reason for themselves. Simula4on is

13

effec4ve in this type of pedagogical approach because the simula4on is, itself, a social environment
where interac4on with other teams is fundamental to both the learning experience and success in the
game.
Connec)vism
Connec4vism emerged in the last 10 years in response to the prolifera4on of social media
networks and other on-line engagement tools. The theory centers learning around technology and
organiza4ons within a data rich environment (Siemens, 2018). While there are mul4ple tenets to the
construct, for the purpose of this analysis two from Siemens are highlighted which can be linked to the
use of simula4ons to promote learning within the theory:
1. Learning may reside in non-human appliances. For example, the simula4on itself may possess
the knowledge and assist in transferring it to the student.
2. The ability to see connec4ons between fields, ideas and concepts is a core skill. This is an
important learning deliverable for most complex simula4ons.
Learning by Doing
Perhaps the most obvious and directly descendant theory from Dewey (1916/2024), learning by
doing is an extension of experien4al learning theory. It suggests that when learners perform the tasks
they are learning on their own, the learning is deepened and more meaningful (Feng et al, 2013). It is
one of the few learning approaches that has been validated to deliver superior results in specific
situa4ons (Leyer et al., 2014), par4cularly those where knowledge is created by the personal
transforma4on of the experience itself (Feng et al.) which is consistent with the use of simula4on.
Other Theories
When these main pedagogies are not primarily used, other technology focused pedagogies were
iden4fied by Sepp (2021) including Gamifica4on and Game-Based Learning, and Place-Based and Mobile
Learning (also Traxler, 2007). These secondary approaches all linked to, or value, a doing orienta4on

14

model for learning. While the focus is more specific to sustainability, Earle and Leyva-de al Hiz (2021)
argue that simula4on can pair with most pedagogies to assist in the educa4on of wicked problems which
are generally more complex and require “system-level problem solving” (Earle & Leyva-de al Hiz, p.582).
This type of thinking is required for most upper-level business courses. Loon et al. (2015) argues for
simula4on as a pedagogy unto itself and while this is appealing for its simplicity, it ignores the work of
authors such as Tanner et al. (2012) and Lainema and Lainema (2007), who both concluded that
simula4on was a strong partner within other pedagogical approaches.
Summary
There are mul4ple pedagogical approaches iden4fied as ac4ve within the higher educa4onal
learning environment and, by extension, the business schools within those organiza4ons. Because each
of those approaches have a doing or ac4ve experience component to them, the use of simula4on will be
a fit with the teaching approach most comfortable for the instructor. Table 1 iden4fies an overview of
each theory and assesses the fit with simula4ons as opportuni4es for passive and ac4ve learning tools
rela4ve to the theory.
Table 1
Pedagogical Approaches and Fit with Simula;ons (from Hammad et al., 2020 and Sepp, 2021)
Simula4on Use
Passive Use
Ac4ve Use

Pedagogy

Key Focus

Construc4vism

Holis4c, learners make sense
of their environment;
meaning depends on
internal experience

Some value to start
learning process

Strong value to
demonstrate
understanding of meaning
and test meaning op4ons

Direct Instruc4on

Presenta4on, reflec4on,
prac4ce, assessment.
Prac4ce is a key focus

Yes, for
presenta4on

Yes, for prac4ce and
assessment stages. Strong
ability to leverage in
prac4ce stage

15

Cogni4vism

Learners make meaning out
of new informa4on and
experience

Yes, to
demonstrate
theory

Yes, to make meaning from
the theory and understand
factor impacts

Social Learning

Learning as a social process,
construc4on through social
interac4on

Limited value

Strong value in team-based
classes where students
learn from one another

Connec4vism

Learning from diverse
opinions; learning is about
understanding how to know
rather than knowledge itself.

Limited value

More value, opportunity to
learn through student
results and studying the
results of others; current

Learning by Doing

Learners perform tasks to
Some
demonstrate and deepen
understanding; useful in
laboratory studies and where
applied learning needs to be
demonstrated

High value of being able to
prac4ce the skills taught
directly and to assess the
impacts of links and
changes within the
environment

Gamifica4on

Applying game elements to
exis4ng learning ac4vi4es

Limited, no student
outcome

Some, depending on
simula4on

Game-based
learning

Designing learning ac4vi4es
that are inherently game-like

Yes, to show how

Yes, to prac4ce the skills
and theories taught

Placebased/Mobile

Opportunity for students to
learn outside normal spaces

Limited

Deeper, while not strictly
“place-based”, simula4ons
are immersive in a way that
aligns with the theories
goals

Compara1ve Understanding of the Use of Simula1ons to Support Knowledge Transfer
The literature is generally aligned that knowledge transferred using simula4on tools is equally or
more readily available for deeper learning and comprehension than other business educa4on tools such
as lecture, case study, project work or reflec4on (Loon et al., 2015). Surveys of educators across the
globe summarized in Schmuck (2021) indicate a high level of alignment with the idea that using

16

simula4ons delivers a higher level of concept comprehension. In a meta-study conducted by Wollscheid
and Skjelbred (2021), they concluded that simula4ons across marke4ng and business administra4on
courses performed well at sharing financial and marke4ng concepts. They also relate learning from
mul4ple studies which showed that general course concept comprehension increased as the simula4on
progressed, indica4ng the tool is valuable for transla4ng and communica4ng ideas in unique ways. This
concept is also supported by one of the three conclusions about simula4ons from Ben-Zvi and Canton
(2007), namely that simula4ons “provide students an opportunity to immediately apply classroom
concepts to real management problems” (Ben-Zvi & Canton, p. 15). In his comprehensive research
summary on business simula4ons, Schmuck found mul4ple studies which supported this conclusion
when comparing the use of simula4ons in business classes to lecture, individual work or group work, but
par4cularly focuses on the “depth of learning of decision-making skills and interpersonal communica4on
skills” (Schmuck, p. 557) rather than general business knowledge where simula4ons perform on par with
other teaching methods. Lainema & Lainema (2007) shared a perspec4ve on why business simula4ons
advance business knowledge acquisi4on including the concepts of learning by doing, empowerment,
authen4city, intensity and complexity. The ra4onale for this increased learning comprehension may be
found in the mo4va4on of students. Buil et al. (2019) compared both the intrinsic mo4va4on levels and
competence levels of students who par4cipated in business simula4ons and found posi4ve correla4ons
between both. As students are more excited to par4cipate in business simula4ons, they are concurrently
more interested in understanding the course-based knowledge to allow them to succeed.
Impact of Simula1on Use on Student Learning Outcomes
Business simula4ons can be valuable to instructors who are looking to achieve a variety of
learning outcomes. Bloom’s Taxonomy (Figure 1), as revised in 2001 (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) has
become a gold-standard in higher educa4on for assessing the type of learning outcome instructors are
interested in achieving. A myriad of studies have concluded that instructors can achieve desired learning

17

outcomes, par4cularly those targeted at the top of Bloom’s Taxonomy such as analyzing, evalua4ng and
crea4ng. Learning from mul4ple sources conclude that simula4ons allow students to demonstrate
capability in analyzing strategies (Schmuck, 2021; Ben-Zvi & Canton, 2007; Lainema & Lainema, 2007)
and evalua4ng complex systems (Schmuck; Wollscheid and Skjelbred, 2021; Lainema & Lainema). While
the basis of simula4on is applying concepts to solving problems, (Wollscheid & Skjelbred; Ben-Zvi &
Carton; Lainema & Lainema) they also allow students to apply prac4ces for working with others
(Schmuck; Chandna & Newaz, 2023; Wollscheid and Skjelbred) and both apply and evaluate the use of
leadership skills in a group context (Schmuck; Chandna & Newaz). At the basis of simula4on technology
is the crea4on or evolu4on of a business en4ty within the context of the simula4on and the
development of a deeper understanding of the workings of the simula4on as it would apply to the
business world. Both support upper-level goals of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Figure 1
Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Gerta, 2023)

18

Summary of Learning on Why Simula1ons Work
There is substan4al literature which supports mul4ple reasons why simula4ons deliver on both
learning outcomes and knowledge transfer. While they are not unanimous in their thesis and
understanding of the methods of ac4on, they provide an emerging understanding of the drivers of
student mo4va4ons. Building off the perspec4ves from Lainema and Lainema (2007), addi4onal research
has pointed to improvements in student engagement (Wollscheid and Skjelbred, 2021; Maher &
Hughner, 2007), par4cularly Schmuck’s (2021) comparison to other teaching approaches which showed
that students have a clear engagement preference for simula4ons over most other vehicles other than
case studies, which had parity engagement. Schmuck also discovered that simula4on leads to
improvements in student percep4ons of self-efficacy and capability. This leads to deeper engagement as
recounted in both Arizzi et al., (2020) and Maher & Hughner (2007). A final telling factor, though
students may not realize it in the moment, is that the success outcomes in simula4ons are not based on
intelligence or personality (Wollscheid & Skjelbred, 2021). Business students who may have previously
been stymied by the more behaviouralist pedagogical approaches taken in early and founda4onal classes
can see superior results rela4ve to their expecta4ons and beDer engage with both the material and the
pedagogy in a simula4on environment.
Arguments Against the Inclusion of Simula1ons
There are two arguments to be made that simula4on may be inappropriate for learning in a
business environment within higher educa4on. The first is when an instructor is pursuing a pedagogy of
behaviourism, which focuses the student on learning based on a s4mulus and response approach to
teaching (Mechlova & Malcik, 2012). Students learn informa4on and are s4mulated to share it back but
not necessarily to derive their own connec4ons and contexts for the informa4on or apply it to new
situa4ons (Hammad et al. 2020). This is an4the4cal to the use of simula4on. In business schools, where
this approach is used, it is generally in very large introductory classes where the sheer volume of

19

students may auger against simula4on as an effec4ve training tool in any event. Secondly, the use of
simula4on generally adds costs to students who par4cipate in classes with the tool. Beyond the cost of
the program itself, which is passed onto the students either through a direct fee or higher tui4on costs,
students are required to have a computer and internet access to par4cipate. This poten4al impact of the
digital divide between have and have-not students (Educause, 2021) should cause educators to consider
whether simula4on is equally benefi4ng all students before they implement the program.
Literature Review Summary
As educators assess their choice of teaching tools, they start by filtering their op4ons based on
their preferred pedagogical approach. On nearly all fronts, except for behaviourism, simula4on is a good
to strong fit with the main pedagogies used in business schools. Next, instructors assess the learning
objec4ves they desire from a course of study. Given that higher educa4on instruc4on is targeted at the
upper por4ons of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), simula4on is shown to be a strong
fit with these objec4ves. Students are seen to learn as well or beDer when using simula4on than all
other approaches within a business school teaching environment. Instructors can be confident about
using simula4ons as they create superior engagement with students and allow them to engage in the
deep learning that keeps them focused on the program at hand. Provided instructors are cognizant of
the poten4al cost implica4ons on students which may limit their ability to par4cipate, the literature on
the topic is strongly suppor4ve of the inclusion of simula4on in a post-secondary business school
environment.

20

Chapter III – Personal Applica1ons
Personal Experience in the Classroom
Simula4on and game-based play has been a learning approach from which I have always found
great personal benefit. I can remember as far back as my grade school days being challenged to
accomplish a task of wri4ng a computer program game, a maze generator, in my case. We were then
tasked with solving the game to both beDer understand how the programming worked to deliver the
experience and to challenge the programmers to make the game more fun and complex without making
it more complicated. This early exposure and the love of games that was inculcated into me by my
parents was founda4onal in my approach to the use of games as a teaching tool.
When I was in grade eight, rather than par4cipa4ng in a regular English class, I was invited to be
part of the Hobbit Club wherein students read the four, primary, J.R.R. Tolkien books that cover the 4me
of Hobbits in Middle Earth. Instead of standard assignments, the students were given a variety of tasks
to complete, including essays, but also challenged to develop a board game based on the books which
was the most fun and interes4ng of the assignments. These games from the various students were
played to see how compelling they were and whether they brought you into the “magic circle” (Huizinga,
1955 as cited in Juul, 2008). Within this magic circle, anything within the rules was possible and it was
through this expression of possibility that the Hobbit Club students were able to push boundaries, assess
whether various strategies were effec4ve at winning the game and evaluate whether the game was
perceived as fun.
In high school, I was involved in one of the most ubiquitous team academic games in Canada,
Reach for the Top. This quiz game for students was, at the 4me I was involved, played in over 300 schools
across the country. It permiDed students like me with a love of learning to bring the knowledge they
were imbibing both in the classroom and beyond, pair that comprehension with fast reac4on 4mes, and
outduel other likeminded students across a 30 to 40-minute game challenge. My team was good, but we

21

became so through both prac4ce and developing appropriate strategies. As a four-person group, we
were not just tasked with bringing up our knowledge quickly, but also knowing when someone else on
the team should take the lead as the individual with the greatest acumen in the topic area. We
experimented with and honed these strategic skills over two school years and found ourselves as the
Na4onal runner-up in 1992.
When I arrived at Wilfrid Laurier University later that same year, I was excited to see what the
challenge of post-secondary educa4on would hold for me. I was thrilled, in my second year, to discover
that a simula4on was part of the required course curriculum. I was further delighted to find that the
game would require a strong understanding of the rules of the game and how the game was played but
also of the interac4on between the various aspects of the game itself. Strategy played a cri4cal role in
the ability of our team to succeed. Analysis would also be important as the ability to gather data and
break it down to understand its meaning would allow teams to accelerate their success. Team dynamics
were also important. There was far too much work for one person to manage effec4vely so working
collec4vely was required for excellent outcomes. The results achieved were very good for our group,
winning our industry and demonstra4ng to ourselves that these characteris4cs of strategy, hard work,
data analysis and team cohesion would be important aspects of success in future work in the real world.
Moreover, I found the class to be fun and engaging and used that informa4on to advocate with wavering
students to take the class as soon as possible.
In summary, games and simula4ons have had a founda4onal impact on my learning journey. It is
from this perspec4ve that I have built out my own approach to using simula4ons, but it has not always
been successful when the quality of the simula4on and the ability of students to effec4vely reflect on
the process misses the mark. However, when it works, the student feedback is always universally posi4ve
about their learning outcomes and this posi4ve student response is both personally mo4va4ng and
helpful to secure con4nuous assignments from the university.

22

Experience with the Use of Simula1on to Teach Marke1ng Strategy
For the past seven years, I have been using the Markstrat1 simula4on from StratX as a core tool
to teach students the prac4cal applica4ons of the learning objec4ves for a marke4ng strategy class in a
diploma program at the business school. This is the same simula4on I used in my undergraduate class,
though it has been meaningfully upgraded over the past 25 years. Gone is the requirement to hand in a
3.5” floppy disk to a teaching assistant for each round of the game aker figh4ng through a clunky and
challenging user interface. Now, students use an elegant web-based program to make their selec4ons
across a range of over 75 variables to adjust within the marke4ng, sales, opera4ons, research, and
development func4ons of the organiza4on. Students are s4ll provided with a tremendous volume of
data that describes how consumers view the products of the company and the broader market, the
company and market financial results along with informa4on about the other compe44ve companies,
the results of research and development projects and the outcomes of any marke4ng test markets they
have executed. Generally, the simula4on is run over 10 rounds that each take between 4 and 7 days for
the students to complete and the program runs for the full term of the course.
Context
There are three key concepts that simula4on allows the instructor to bring into sharp relief for
students. Given that the core deliverable of the course is for students to understand the concepts of
marke4ng strategy, it is first crucial that they be able to apply strategic concepts to the game. Teams are
required to create a strategy as they enter the game, adapt it as they move through the game and reflect
on its effec4veness as they conclude their work. This allows students to work in the upper levels of
Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). If their strategy is effec4ve and they apply it with
vigour they generally perform effec4vely. Teams that do not develop effec4ve strategies can adapt as the
game progresses and achieve reasonable results. Teams that develop poor strategies and do not adapt

1

h-ps://web.stratxsimula>ons.com/simula>on/strategic-marke>ng-simula>on

23

score weak results. These expected outcomes are judged to be consistent with the real world and help
students understand how their behaviour will impact their business and personal success. If they use the
data effec4vely, they can understand how consumers are moving in the market, the product aDributes
they are most interested in buying and the prices they are willing to pay to purchase those products. It is
that ability to see around the corner to the future which separates the good teams from the best teams.
Further, the simula4on requires teamwork to maximize success metrics. It is, in my experience, the
quality of this teamwork that permits teams who have clever ideas to exceed the outcomes of other
compe4tors.
Classroom:
Markstrat is used as a framing device for the broader discussions of marke4ng strategy and
marke4ng data analysis. Students are provided with a variety of models for their strategic thinking and
the instructor shares the posi4ve aspects and major drawbacks of each. This is an important aspect of
the learning objec4ves, namely that there is no one best way to conduct strategy development. As a
teaching tool, this is a cri4cal lesson as, in my experience, the world of business wri4ng, as separate from
academic wri4ng, is fraught with perspec4ves that tout themselves as the solu4on to all problems. A
major early challenge in the game is for students to decide on the strategic framework they are going to
employ and to provide a ra4onale to the instructor as to both why it was selected and the strategy they
will use to aDempt to succeed in the game. This provides the instructor with an opportunity to assess
student understanding of the concepts and their ability to apply them and provides an early opportunity
for feedback to challenge the students to go deeper if they are opera4ng at a surface-level. This review
happens during the prac4ce rounds of the simula4on so that students can apply the feedback prior to
the main por4on of the simula4on exercise. The use of prac4ce is also an important aspect of student
engagement with the game. Because of its significant complexity, students are encouraged to play with
the game in a way that doesn’t give away their strategy but allows them to understand how the various

24

levers and op4ons work and interact. This prac4ce session has been iden4fied through student feedback
as an important tool for students to get the most out of the actual game play. Since one of the valuable
outcomes is that students increase their enjoyment of the class through simula4on (Wollscheid and
Skjelbred, 2021; Maher & Hughner, 2007) and deepen their learning (Arizzi et al., 2020; Maher &
Hughner) this is more likely to occur if students are focused on decisions and outcomes rather than basic
gameplay.
Outcome
The use of Markstrat as a simula4on tool in my classrooms has been roundly met with praise and
approval from the students who have par4cipated. These students are primarily adults who are pursuing
con4nuing educa4on, and they provide feedback that the simula4on brings together their learning from
across the six courses within the program. While they consistently indicate that each decision set is a fair
amount of work to complete they are, nonetheless, keen to understand their results each week and will
resist star4ng the class un4l they have been provided with a status update from the previous decision
and permiDed to engage in some compe44ve banter amongst themselves. The team that receives the
highest cumula4ve score in the simula4on is provided with a very large trophy at the end of the term
and the images of this trophy and what it means for the students is shared broadly across social media
plasorms with a focus on LinkedIn, indica4ng that the students believe that their success is an indicator
to others of their professional competence. Consistent with the learnings from Wollscheid and Skjelbred
(2021), the students who succeed in the challenge are not always the most intelligent but rather the
ones who put in the work and are prepared to take just enough risk to stand out from the crowd. I have
also seen that the teams that are successful also have the highest peer mark average, though it is
difficult to say if this is what helps generate success or if the success generates posi4ve assessments of
peer work.

25

One of the cri4cal steps in securing the learning for the students, regardless of their results in
the simula4on is a post-challenge reflec4on and presenta4on provided by each team. Consistent with
the learning by doing and construc4vist approaches I take in my classes, this reflec4on allows stronger
teams to deepen their understanding of why the strategies they applied work effec4vely in the
simula4on market. Conversely, it allows teams with weaker results to look back and see where they
made errors in judgement, strategy or execu4on. These learnings can be valuable for future, real-world,
decision making. In truth, the learning may be more valuable for teams with weaker scores, as reflected
in the higher quality and deeper understanding these presenta4ons oken generate when compared to
the teams with greater in-game success.
Experience with the Use of Simula1on to Teach Nego1a1on in the Business Development Context
Since 2021, I have used a simula4on called REVMANEX2 to challenge students in a senior-level
undergraduate business development class to see if they can conduct sales calls and nego4a4ons with a
variety of buyers in a business-to-business context. The simula4on asks the students to individually
nego4ate the sale of three different 4ers of a product to two different organiza4ons, represen4ng six
buyer mee4ngs. Using ques4ons, cues, emo4onal input and background data the students are
challenged to maximize three company metrics. Revenue and market share represent short-term
deliverables while client sa4sfac4on represents the longer-term brand equity for the organiza4on and
indicates the poten4al for repeated sales over mul4ple years. In addi4on to the results calculated within
the simula4on itself, students are provided with an opportunity to reflect on their performance in the
game and assess where they did well and where they have opportuni4es for improvement in their future
sales and nego4a4on approaches. To teach and run the simula4on, students are generally given a 45minute training lecture then provided with unlimited prac4ce aDempts between the training lecture and
the following class. In that following class students are given the op4on to con4nue their prac4ce or

2

h-ps://web.stratxsimula>ons.com/simula>on/sales-and-nego>a>on-simula>on

26

engage in tackling the six sales calls. As 80 minutes is generally insufficient to complete all six
interac4ons, students are given an addi4onal week to finish the calls on their own 4me before wri4ng
their reflec4on exercise.
Context
The learning outcomes that students pursue through this simula4on include their ability to use
both their analy4c and emo4onal sensors to guide a sales call, their ability to understand how business
targets impact selling strategies and the need for flexibility in approach when engaged in selling
ac4vi4es. Students are encouraged to set a strategy in advance of each call based on the informa4on
provided in the game, their learning from previous calls within the simula4on and background dossiers
of each buyer they encounter. They are also provided with immediate feedback on the core metrics they
are aDemp4ng to achieve so they understand on a round-to-round basis how they are performing
rela4ve to target. Students who use their in-game feedback to adapt and adjust their approach to the
context in which they operate in each new call tend to perform beDer than those who find an effec4ve
strategy in early rounds but do not adapt as the buyers become more challenging and sophis4cated.
Classroom
The REVMANEX simula4on has proven to be a more challenging simula4on to use for students
than Markstrat despite its simplified approach and much shorter dura4on. Because a cri4cal factor in the
ability to exceed expecta4ons is the emo4onal response of the buyer to the ac4ons taken within the
simula4on, students must be mindful of how emo4ons are progressing. For example, if the student
consistently makes offers where the price is too high, the buyer may start to indicate anger or
frustra4on. However, these emo4ons are represented by emo4cons within the game rather than by a
more immersive approach where they might be interpre4ng language, tone or body language cues to
understand how their counterpart views the nego4a4on. To counter this challenge, students are
provided with three routes to gain understanding both prior to and during the game, as follows:

27

1. The instructor provides a thorough briefing on the game prior to the students making any
aDempts to use the simula4on. All the key variables are discussed, including the emo4on
indicators, and the class engages in a conversa4on about what they might mean and how they
could be both interpreted and used within the context of the game. While the instructor should
not give away all the secrets of the game as their discovery is part of the learning process, this is
an opportunity to drop breadcrumbs for the students to follow.
2. The students are provided with unlimited prac4ce round opportuni4es. With each prac4ce
round taking seven to ten minutes apiece, this stage provides the students with an easy and low
stakes opportunity to fully understand the simula4on func4onality and gives them a chance to
become adept at using the game to give them the informa4on they need once real gameplay
starts. Students are also encouraged to seek clarifica4on and perspec4ve from the instructor
during this phase of learning to be sure they are clear about the game func4ons and outcomes.
This support is not provided once the simula4on is ac4ve.
3. The game provides a coaching module once it is ac4ve to ensure the students are seeing and
understanding the most germane data points each interac4on is aDemp4ng to communicate.
Because the game is laddered, with the first two rounds being substan4ally easier than the two
final rounds, this is a valuable tool when the students use it correctly, to improve performance
over the course of the live game.
Aker the game is complete the students are asked to write a two-page reflec4on about the
simula4on experience where they are challenged to assess their ini4al strategy, how they reacted within
the game as new data was received and their key takeaways from the work including a perspec4ve on
how they would change their approach or decisions looking back with current knowledge. They are also
asked to provide feedback to the game designers on what is working effec4vely and what could be
improved about the game. This higher level meta-cogni4ve review of their experience helps to solidify

28

their understanding of why they are using the game in addi4on to understanding the outcomes of the
game itself.
Outcome
The results of using REVMANEX have been more mixed for my students than the generally
posi4ve outcomes seen with Markstrat. While there are always students who have great success in both
games, the spread of outcomes in REVMANEX is much broader than with Markstrat. Some of this
difference is aDributed to the individual nature of the simula4on as opposed to the team nature of
Markstrat. In an individualized assignment, the level of prepara4on, understanding and effort provided
by each student is obvious. In a team environment like Markstrat, there is a risk of free-riders or of the
strongly mo4vated or comprehending student bringing others along for the ride. However, all students
share in both success and challenge which provides opportunity, par4cularly in bad 4mes, to be
collec4vely suppor4ve. As this is not the case in an independent study, it can lead to frustra4on and
lower mo4va4on from students using REVMANEX. When they fail to have early success, they have only
themselves to fall back on for support. The course does provide tools to help manage that failure. It is a
course about business development and so managing the “ocean of rejec4on” (Pink, 2012, p. 97)
experienced by sales people is an aspect of the learning objec4ves for students. If these tools are not
independently applied students can flounder. This is consistent with the intrinsic mo4va4on
development learning from Buil et al. (2019). The reflec4ons provided by students demonstrate this
mo4va4on clearly. Those with the greatest success in the simula4on have the strongest reflec4ons while
those who were most challenged seem to take less away from the work. It is for the reason of diverse
success and low student mo4va4on that I paused the use of the simula4on in my 2024 course while I
seek a beDer sales simula4on or revamp the sec4on of the course where Revmanex is used to generate
greater success in achieving student learning objec4ves.

29

Understanding Why Simula1on is a Personal Fit
When I arrived in the Master of Educa4on program, I knew that I enjoyed teaching and training.
This was clear from my 4me working in various marke4ng leadership roles to my work as a mentor to
younger marketers and from my early 4me as a teaching assistant to my later role as a post-secondary
instructor at a prominent business school. What I lacked, as I arrived in the program, was an
understanding of why that was the case. What was it about teaching that was a mo4vator and why did I
approach teaching with a focus on case study, simula4on, reflec4on and class discussion and a general
aversion to examina4on and tes4ng? These were the ques4ons I was hoping to answer through my work
in the program and some strong philosophical and prac4cal answers were found in the various courses I
undertook over the last 16 months. Through courses including The Philosophy & History of Educa4on
and Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, I was exposed to both the philosophical thinking that 4ed to my
personal beliefs and the conceptual frameworks for beDer implemen4ng these ideas. Various courses on
Leadership and the perspec4ve gained from Diversity: Construc4ng Social Reali4es further expanded my
thinking about how to implement my approaches in ways that enhanced student accessibility while
building my own learning through my students. While it was unclear to me how these would come
together, it was through my more focused work thinking about technology in the classroom within
Contemporary Issues in Technology Enhanced Learning that these vectors focused my thinking on the
compara4ve reasons why simula4on has held a pre-eminent place in my view of how classes are best
executed in a post-secondary business school environment. The following sec4on summarizes these fit
points with learning outcomes, personal teaching philosophy and to the personal and structural
incen4ves of the post-secondary environment.
Fit with Learning Outcomes
As has been demonstrated in the above sec4ons both from my own experience and the research
conducted in the field, simula4ons can challenge students at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy

30

(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). As the courses I am teaching are designed to be more challenging either
because they are for con4nuing educa4on or are upper year courses within the undergraduate program,
this is appropriate for the students. Prac4cal applica4on of concepts is always a focus for me as I prepare
my students to matriculate to working environments where they are expected to be able to increase
their performance levels because of their educa4on. Simula4on provides these students with both the
challenge of prac4ce rather than conceptual discussions and an opportunity for safe failure as compared
to the demands of the working world. It also allows the most successful students to tout their
capabili4es as they search for their first job or seek to upgrade from their current employment.
Fit with Personal Teaching Approaches
Lecture, when used as a one-way delivery of informa4on from instructor to student owes its
place in higher educa4on to the behaviourism movement of the mid-20th century. As was clearly covered
in my work in The Philosophy & History of Educa4on course, this approach permiDed universi4es to
instruct a much larger cohort of students, and weed out those unable to make broader connec4on, but
lek the issues of comprehension to the student to both diagnose and treat if the s4mulus and response
approach (Mechlova & Malcik, 2012) was not working for them on a specific topic or general course.
While I can learn in this fashion, I always perceived it as boring and less mo4va4ng, as did later thinkers
who advanced educa4on pedagogies to a more engaging and reciprocal approach. I have always been
drawn to a conversa4onal, Aristotelean (Gutek, 2015a) approach to breaking down subjects into their
components and then reassembling them to see if a more fulsome understanding can be created for
both the teacher and the pupil. As I worked my way through the M.Ed. program, philosophies based on
Dewey (1916/2024) and his descendants including concepts like learning by doing (Gutek, 2015b) and
construc4vism (MaDar, 2018) have resonated. It is, therefore, unsurprising that the structure of my
courses focuses on shorter and more cogent reading which leads to class discussions, cases which
challenge students to apply the concepts discussed to a prac4cal problem, and simula4ons which allow

31

them to apply mul4ple concepts simultaneously to solve a problem in a rela4vely low-risk environment.
Simula4ons are, like their sister the case study, the training-wheels of concept cogni4on rela4ve to realworld applica4on. Whether the student succeeds or fails, they are not risking their own or someone
else’s economic well-being.
Linking to Personal and Structural Incen)ves
As demonstrated clearly by Maher & Hughner (2007) and Tanner et al. (2012), students who
par4cipate in courses which use simula4on have a stronger percep4on of the quality of the class and the
quality of the instruc4ons they received in that class. This leads directly to incen4ves for instructors like
me to use well-func4oning simula4ons. As an adjunct professor, I serve the university on a term-to-term
basis. There is no tenure to protect me, there is only my ability to interact successfully with both my
peers and my students to deliver the goals of the program in which I operate. The key measure of that
success is the Student Experience of Instruc4on survey conducted for every course and sec4on within
the business school. While students do assess items like preparedness, command of the concepts, speed
of grading and general assistance in learning, the key metric that administra4on uses is the overall
assessment score provided by the students. Because students are likely to have a higher score in this
sec4on if I use simula4on than if I do not, I am spurred to find a strong simula4on that students will
enjoy. The other incen4ve I have as an instructor to use simula4on is to ensure that my course is full
each year. Courses with insufficient registrants are cancelled, and so is the contract of the adjunct
professor teaching that class. That previously understood student enjoyment has an addi4onal knock-on
effect to future classes. Students talk about the courses they like and the professors they enjoy. They
enroll in courses where they are likely to have a good outcome and fulfilling class experience. This reality
expands my desire to use effec4ve simula4ons to protect my tenuous hold on my teaching role.

32

Summary
I am fortunate to teach in an environment where I can both set my own syllabus to support the
learning needs of students and determine the best approaches to deliver those needs. Having had
significant and posi4ve experiences with games and simula4on in my own forma4ve years, I was keen to
understand why using an ac4ve think/do (Lozano et al., 2017) approach to instruc4on and educa4on
resonated with me. I have had success using simula4on in both an undergraduate and adult
learning/diploma environments when the simula4on program is of high quality. However, when the
program is of lower quality it does not permit the same levels of value. Of note, the success or challenge
of the underlying simula4on quality and approach can be magnified with the use of reflec4on to lock in
understanding. Having discovered the teaching philosophies of Dewey (1916/2014) and his descendants,
including ar4cula4ons around Construc4vism (MaDar, 2018) and Learning by Doing (Gutek, 2015b), I
now beDer understand why I have gravitated towards these instruc4onal models and why they link
effec4vely with both my personal and structural incen4ves.

33

Chapter IV - Conclusion
In an undergraduate or post-graduate seRng, business simula4on is the strongest learning tool
an instructor can employ to ensure that they meet learning objec4ves. These simula4on tools must be
well veDed against the learning objec4ves and supported with deep knowledge of both the subject
maDer and the parameters of the simula4on in use to maximize student outcomes. When these key
criteria are met, the tool enables students and instructors to succeed.
Overview of Key Conclusions from the Literature Review
Business simula4ons are a valuable tool that instructors can u4lize to support a variety of
pedagogical approaches and desired learning outcomes. Simula4ons can be used across most business
and administra4on subject areas and, because they are a fit with most pedagogies, they can be
seamlessly added to most course content structures and con4nue to contribute to the learning outcome
goals targeted by the course. In fact, the only major pedagogical choice where simula4on is not a fit is
the behaviourist (Mechlova & Malcik, 2012) approach which is waning in use in all but the most
simplis4c introductory business courses where the volume of students processed and sorted is a larger
focus than the quality of student understanding. While the fit level does fluctuate across the remaining
pedagogies, there is a role for simula4on to play in each that supports the instruc4onal approach. There
is liDle, from a pedagogical approach, that should create barriers to the use of simula4on.
Simula4ons are a valuable tool to promote content and concept understanding. They increase
concept comprehension at levels that exceed tools like lecture, case study, project work or reflec4on
(Loon et al., 2015). Simula4ons also allow students to increase their comprehension of concepts as the
game progresses, scaffolding students to higher levels. They allow students to apply their concepts to
real world problems which provides both alternate learning opportuni4es and the chance to fail in a lowrisk situa4on. Students are also more excited and self-mo4vated to learn and par4cipate when using

34

simula4on tools (Buil et al., 2019), which is an asset to help build important learning outcomes. It is this
depth of learning benefit that should excite business school professors to enhance their use of the tool.
Business simula4ons assist students in crea4ng deeper learning on key course topics and allow
them to apply skills at the more complex levels within Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
There is significant research across mul4ple types of student learning outcomes at this higher level
including analyzing, evalua4ng and crea4ng (Schmuck, 2021; Wollscheid and Skjelbred, 2021; Ben-Zvi &
Canton, 2007; Lainema & Lainema, 2007) while also allowing them to prac4ce leadership and
coopera4ve skills (Chandna & Newaz, 2023). These tools work effec4vely because students look
posi4vely on their inclusion in course materials. This is based on their higher levels of engagement and
their increased percep4on of both self-efficacy and capability (Schmuck, 2021).
Argument Success
It is with confidence that I have connected three important aspects of instruc4on to the
selec4on and use of simula4on in business administra4on programs and the post-secondary level using a
broad body of research in the literature review. First, I have demonstrated that there is a good to strong
fit with the main pedagogical approaches in use at the post-secondary level and simula4on as a teaching
tool. Secondly, I have demonstrated that students who use simula4on to learn about and demonstrate
mastery of specific concepts do so at higher levels and with deeper comprehension, per Bloom's
Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), than using other tools. Lastly, I have shown that students have
a higher personal sa4sfac4on with the use of simula4ons in class and thus a higher engagement with
materials. As it is beDer for learning, beDer for students and, by extension, beDer for instructors,
simula4on is a tool that all business administra4on instructors can u4lize with confidence.
Connec1ng My Thinking
Games and simula4on have provided me with both significant joy and tremendous learning in
my personal, educa4on and instruc4onal journey as outlined in the introduc4on chapter of this paper.

35

The bias inherent in that understanding for the reader is that the analysis and wri4ng collected in this
paper tends to favour games and simula4on in its analysis. However, the ra4onal for pursing this area of
thinking, which was demonstrated strongly in the literature review sec4on, comes from a deep-seated
desire to provide my students with the strongest possible learning experience. The literature not only
validated that the tool can be used across a preponderance of business administra4on courses but that
doing so benefits both the student and the instructor. While this outcome was edifying, the value of the
understanding becomes valuable when it can be extended to broader theory and prac4cal applica4on.
Theore)cal Implica)ons
The major theoretical implication this paper contributes to is the discussion around measuring
student success. There is much discussion in the literature, particularly around business administration
education, about separating measurement of theory understanding from the ability to apply that theory
with excellence in a shifting and inconsistent world. While no simulation is likely to mirror the
complexity of how business is conducted in the real world, students who are successful within its
constructs are demonstrating links between the theoretical and the application of theory. They are also
demonstrating the ability to work hard and, often, collectively, to achieve a goal (Wollscheid &
Skjelbred, 2021). This grit (Duckworth et al., 2007) may be applicable to hiring choices of firms as the
ability to parse resumes becomes more challenging in our achievement-oriented university culture.
A key area for future research would be the impact on the professional outcomes of students
linked to their performance on simulations while in school. There is a thread of this idea in Wollscheid
and Skjelbred (2021) that could be expanded through longitudinal comparative studies that examine the
performance of students who have experienced simulation-based learning versus those who have not,
later in their career. This could be further supplemented by sub-setting the simulation experience group
based on their success within the simulation. This could help recruiting businesses understand if specific
simulations and their results point to the potential for success in employment. In my own case, I saw

36

that students who were successful with Markstrat in my university cohort were strongly correlated with
those that had success in their business careers. Similarly, students in my current classes who succeed
with the same simulation are seen later taking top-tier jobs out of their undergraduate degrees or
achieving promotions in their daily jobs while taking the diploma program.
Prac)cal Implica)ons
An important practical implication of this paper is the potential for universities to use simulation
to implement Practical Learning Assessment and Recognition (Harris & Wihak, 2018) approaches in two
unique situations. First, it could be used for certification purposes when referencing self-taught or longterm experience individuals. As a financial tool for universities, these certifications would require
payment to the school which generates revenue without the institution having to bear the cost of their
education. Second, it could be valuable when assessing potential entrants to post-graduate programs
either for comparative purposes to decide on admissions or for advanced standing to acknowledge
current comprehension levels. This would represent a win for both the student and the school.
Final Thoughts
The basis of this paper starts from a place of deep influence that games and simula4ons have
had on my learning and teaching journey. From some of my earliest memories of forma4ve educa4on
experiences to the challenges placed in front of me in public, secondary, and post-secondary educa4on,
simula4ons have played an important role in both allowing me to test the limits of my understanding as
well as demonstrate knowledge competence. For those reasons, I have used simula4on in my own
teaching and training programs where excellent models have existed. The pedagogical reasons explaining
why I was using these tools were not in my comprehension when I started my M.Ed. journey. It became
clear as I understood the think/do approaches forwarded by Dewey (1916/2024) and others in his
philosophical tree. When examining the preponderant pedagogical approaches used in business
administra4on teaching at the post-graduate level it follows that simula4on fits effec4vely with all but

37

the most behaviourist approaches and should be adopted by instructors to both expand the depth of
student learning and to enhance the student experience of learning in the classroom. While I have not
had unqualified success with all the simula4ons I have used when instruc4ng students, those that are
well designed and which allow the students to reflect effec4vely on the ways they achieved success or
the roadblocks they faced provide a safe learning path and one that separates hard work and
comprehension from raw brain power.

38

References
Aaker, D. A. (2004). Leveraging the corporate brand. California Management Review, 46(3), 6-18.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educa;onal objec;ves. Longman.
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three genera4ons of distance educa4on pedagogy. The Interna;onal
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80-97.
Arizzi, G., Breitenreiter, J., Khalsa, R., Iyer, R., Babin, L.A. & Griffin, M. (2020). Modelling business student
sa4sfac4on: U4litarian value and hedonic value as drivers of Sa4sfac4on. Marke;ng Educa;on
Review (30)4. 196-207.
Bates, A.W. (2019). Teaching in a Digital Age, 2nd ed., Tony Bates Associates,
hDps://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/
Ben-Zvi, T. & Carton, T.C. (2007) From rhetoric to reality: Business games as educa4onal tools. INFORMS
Transac;ons on Educa;on 8(1), 10-18.
Buil, I., Catalán, S. & Marxnez, E. (2019). Encouraging intrinsic mo4va4on in management training: The
use of business simula4on games. The Interna;onal Journal of Management Educa;on, 17(2),
162-171
Chandna, V. and Newaz, T. (2023). We can all be winners – The influence of team composi4on and a
delivery modality on business students’ sa4sfac4on and simula4on performance. Economic
Horizons, 25(3), 261 – 272
coolmathgames.com (n.d.). Lemonade stand. coolmathgames. hDps://www.coolmathgames.com/0lemonade-stand
Datchuk, S. (2017). A direct instruc4on and precision teaching interven4on to improve the sentence
construc4on of middle school students with wri4ng difficul4es. The Journal of Special Educa;on,
(51)2, 62-71.

39

Dewey, J. Democracy and educa;on: an introduc;on to the philosophy of educa;on. Project Gutenberg,
2024, March 24. hDps://www.gutenberg.org/files/852/852-h/852-h.htm#link2HCH0001 (Original
work published 1916)
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., MaDhews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: perseverance and passion for
long-term goals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(6), 1087.
Earle, A.G. and Leyva-de la Hiz, D.I. (2021). The wicked problem of teaching about wicked problems:
Design thinking and emerging technologies in sustainability educa4on. Management Learning,
52(5), 581-603.
Educause. (2021). 7 Things you Should Know about the Digital Divide. Educause.
hDps://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2021/4/eli7177.pdf
Feng, J.Y., Chang, Y.T., Chang, H.Y., Erdley, W.S., Lin, C.H. & Chang, Y.J. (2013). Systema4c review of
effec4veness of situated e-learning on medical and nursing educa4on. Worldviews on EvidenceBased Nursing, (10)3, 174-183.
Gerta (2023, August 8). Bloom’s taxonomy: How it can help you design beaer online courses? Gerta.
hDps://gerta.eu/blooms-taxonomy-how-can-it-help-you-design-beDer-online-courses/
Gutek, G.L. (2015). Aristotle: Founder of Realism. In Pearson Custom Educa;on: Philosophy and History
of Educa;on (pp. 51-68). Thompson Rivers University.
Gutek, G. (2015). John Dewey: Pragma4st Philosopher and Progressive Educator. In Pearson Custom
Educa;on: Philosophy and History of Educa;on (pp. 267-289). Thompson Rivers University.
Juul, J. (2008). The magic circle and the puzzle piece.
Hammad, R., Khan, Z., Safieddine, F., and Ahmed, A. (2020). A review of learning theories and models
underpinning technology-enhanced learning artefacts. World Journal of Science, Technology and
Sustainable Development, 17(4), 341-354.
Harasim, L. (2012). Learning Theory and Online Technologies, Routledge.

40

Harris, J., & Wihak, C. (2018). The recogni4on of non-formal educa4on in higher educa4on: Where are
we now, and are we learning from experience? Interna;onal Journal of E-Learning & Distance
Educa;on, 33(1).
Kinshuk, Chen, NS., Cheng, IL. & Chew, S.W. (2016) Evolu4on Is not enough: Revolu4onizing current
learning environments to smart learning environments. Interna;onal Journal of Ar;ficial
Intelligence in Educa;on, 26, 561–581.
Lainema, T., & Lainema, K. (2007). Advancing acquisi4on of business know-how: Cri4cal learning
elements. Journal of Research on Technology in Educa;on, 40(2), 183-198.
M. Leyer, J. Moormann and M. Wang, Is Learning-by-Doing via E-learning Helpful to Gain Generic
Process Knowledge? 2014 IEEE 14th Interna;onal Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies,
Athens, Greece, 2014, pp. 711-713.
Loon, M., Evans, J. & Kerridge, C. (2015). Learning with a strategic management simula4on game: A case
study. The Interna;onal Journal of Management Educa;on, 13(3), 227-236.
Lozano, R., Merrill, M.Y., Sammalisto, K., Cuelemans, K., & Lozano, F.J. (2017). Connec4ng competencies
and pedagogical approaches for sustainable development in higher educa4on: A literature review
and framework proposal. Sustainability, 9(10), 1889
Maclean’s (2024). Maclean’s university rankings 2025. Maclean’s.
hDps://macleans.ca/universityrankings2025/
Maher, J.K. & Hughner, R.S. (2005). Experien4al marke4ng projects: Student percep4ons of live case and
simula4on methods. Journal for Advancement of Marke;ng Educa;on, (7). 1-12.
MaDar, J. (2018). Construc4vism and connec4vism in educa4on technology: ac4ve, situated, authen4c,
experien4al, and anchored learning. RIED Revista Iberoamericana De Educación a Distancia, (21)2,
201-217.

41

Mechlova, E. & Malcik, M. (2012). ICT in changes of learning theories. The 10th IEEE Interna4onal
Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applica4ons, Stara Lesna, 253-262
Narayanasamy, V., Wong, K. W., Fung, C. C., & Rai, S. (2006). Dis4nguishing games and simula4on games
from simulators. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 4(2), 1-18.
Pink, D.H. (2012). To Sell Is Human. Riverhead Books.
Sauve, L. Renaud, L., & Kaufman, D. (2005). Games and simula4ons – Theore4cal underpinnings.
In Changing Views: Worlds in Play. Digital Games Research Associa;on’s 2nd Interna;onal
Conference, Vancouver.
Schmuck, R. (2021). Educa4on and training of manufacturing and supply chain processes using business
simula4on games. Procedia Manufacturing 55, 555-562.
Siemens, G. (2018). Connec4vism. In R. West (Ed.), Founda;ons of Learning and Instruc;onal Design
Technology: The Past, Present, and Future of Learning and Instruc;onal Design Technology (pp.
236-247). Edtech Books.
Sepp, S. (2021). Emerging pedagogies and prac;ces in learning technology. University of New England.
hDps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/55428
Tanner, J.R., Stewart, G., Totaro, M.W. & Hargrave, M. (2012). Business simula4on games: Effec4ve
teaching tools or window dressing? American Journal of Business Educa;on (5)2. 115-128.
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evalua4ng mobile learning: The moving finger writes and
having writ …. The Interna;onal Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(2).1-12
UBC Sauder (2023). Momentum 2023 – 2028 strategic plan. UBC Sauder.
hDps://www.sauder.ubc.ca/about-ubc-sauder/strategic-plan
Wollscheid, S. and Skjelbred, S.E. (2021). Playing your way to knowledge: The impact of digital games on
student learning in marke;ng and business studies. Nordic Ins4tute for Studies in Innova4on,
Research and Educa4on.