Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbit20

Behaviour & Information Technology

ISSN: 0144-929X (Print) 1362-3001 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20

Student interactions in online discussion forums:their perception on learning with businesssimulation games

Ana Beatriz Hernández-Lara & Enric Serradell-López

To cite this article: Ana Beatriz Hernández-Lara & Enric Serradell-López (2018): Studentinteractions in online discussion forums: their perception on learning with business simulationgames, Behaviour & Information Technology, DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2018.1441326

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1441326

Published online: 27 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Student interactions in online discussion forums: their perception on learningwith business simulation gamesAna Beatriz Hernández-Lara a and Enric Serradell-López b

aDepartment of Business Management, Rovira i Virgili University, Reus, Spain; bBusiness and Management Department, Universitat Oberta deCatalunya, Barcelona, Spain

ABSTRACTDigital technology offers new teaching methods with controversial results over learning. They allowstudents to develop a more active participation in their learning process although it does not alwaysdrive to unequivocal better learning outcomes. This study aims to offer additional evidence on thecontribution of business simulation games to students’ learning outcomes, considering studentinteractions in online discussion forums. We conducted a qualitative research with the onlinediscussion forums of 5 different courses at bachelor and master levels, which involves 41students’ teams. The final sample was composed of 3681 messages posted by the students. Theresults reveal that some generic and specific managerial skills exert a positive influence onlearning outcomes. Students mostly highlighted teamwork, decision-making, informationprocessing, reaching agreements, and dealing with uncertainty as the most relevantcontributions of the game towards their learning. These results have instructional andpedagogical implications for determining the best way to enhance students’ motivation andlearning outcomes when using digital technology methods, which involves recommendationsthat affect their design and monitoring.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 13 November 2017Accepted 11 February 2018

KEYWORDSStudent interactions; onlinelearning; higher education;simulations; computer-mediated communication;learning outcomes

1. Introduction

Digital technology and information and communicationtechnologies (ICT) have provided new methods ben-eficial for education and professional development(John and Wheeler 2012). These methods have also pro-moted different types of learning interaction betweenstudents and content, students and instructors, andamong students themselves (Cheng and Chau 2014), asthey are necessary not only to apply the new technologybut also in planning and managing how to use it toenhance its contribution towards the achievement ofeducational objectives and the development of the newcompetence-based learning models (Cheng and Chau2014; Noeth and Volkov 2004).

In the specific field of business and administration,business simulation games constitute a well-knownexample of an e-learning method in management train-ing (Siddiqui, Khan, and Akhtar 2008). The main contri-bution of this method emerges from the nature of thesimulation itself, which improves experiential learningrecreating on-the-job situations that avoid real risks, fail-ures, and reprisal; and from the fact that games are moremotivational and enjoyable for students (Fu, Su, and Yu2009; Gilgeous and D’Cruz 1996; Jones 2005; Zantow,Knowlton, and Sharp 2005). Nevertheless, conflicting

voices also have emerged regarding the educationalimpact of these e-learning methods that question theircharacteristics drive to unequivocal improved learningresults, claiming for more empirical evidence to under-stand the effectiveness of these methods and their realeffects on learning (Connolly et al. 2012; Tao, Yeh, andHung 2015). Student interactions, their voices andopinions registered through online systems, could bereally helpful to enter into this black box of the students’learning process (Kent, Laslo, and Rafaeli 2016), which iseven more relevant in the new scenario where studentsassume a more autonomous role as builders of theirown knowledge (Hernández, Gorjup, and Cascón 2010).

This study seeks to enter into this black box of thelearning process of students and offer new empirical evi-dence on the learning outcomes of students when parti-cipating in business simulation games. To do so, aqualitative analysis was conducted through the onlinediscussion forums used by students to interact witheach other while participating in business simulationgames.

This study aspires to contribute to the open debate onthe educational effectiveness of business simulationgames based on the students’ opinions, to understandthe skills fostered by business simulation games and

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Enric Serradell-López eserradell@uoc.edu

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 2018https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1441326

the learning outcomes achieved by the students usingthese e-learning methods. It also aims to recommendthe instructors and teachers how best to administer thegames and how their interaction with students shouldbe to solve problems in their learning process in orderto enhance their engagement and learning outcomes.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Educational contribution of businesssimulation games

Business simulation games are generally considered e-learning methods that improve knowledge and compe-tence, on the basis of several learning theories, such asexperiential learning and constructivism (Siewioreket al. 2013), at both the individual and social level (socialconstructivism) (Kent, Laslo, and Rafaeli 2016).

Among the benefits of this e-learning method, pre-vious research has underlined the skills that businesssimulation games allow students to put into practice,mostly generic or transferable skills – like analytical abil-ities, teamwork, decision-making, leadership, and abil-ities related to processing information (Fitó-Bertrán,Hernández-Lara, and Serradell-López 2014, 2015; Jensen2003) – as well as specific managerial skills – like thepractising of managerial roles, the establishment ofgoals for a company, and the design, planning andimplementation of business strategies (Chang et al.2003; Fitó-Bertrán, Hernández-Lara, and Serradell-López 2014, 2015).

However, several conflicting voices have also emergedwith regard to the educational effectiveness of businesssimulation games. These criticisms underline that thereis not an unequivocal link between the use of thesemethods and learning results; it depends on how thistool is used by students and teachers (Lonn, Teasley,and Krumm 2011). Regarding students, they could bemore focused on the recreational and technologicalaspects of the game than on its learning dimension(Gros-Salvat 2009), which is a problem that emergeswhen they perceive a lack of transparency about the con-tribution of these games to their learning (Connolly et al.2012; Tobias and Fletcher 2012). Besides, students mayperceive the game as being unrealistic or not based onthe real world (Siewiorek et al. 2013), which will nega-tively affect their engagement and motivation (Eseryelet al. 2014).

Other challenges relate to teachers’ and instructors’roles, which in a scenario dominated by digital technol-ogies and ICT have dramatically changed (Worley andTesdell 2009). The teaching-centred paradigm has beenovercome, and a new model emerges centred in students

as builders of their own learning (Romero et al. 2013).This scenario has modified the traditional role of tea-chers as transmitters of contents into a new one wherethey act as facilitator, collaborator, advisor, moderator,and coach in the teaching-learning process (Hernández,Gorjup, and Cascón 2010). In the specific case ofbusiness simulations games, these changes are translatedinto a situation where instructors and teachers couldinfluence and improve the students’ learning resultsintervening to help students in the understanding oftechnology and the logic of the game, and correctingpotential students’ attitudinal problems (Hernández,Gorjup, and Cascón 2010; Pando-Garcia, Periañez-Cañadillas, and Charterina 2016; Schellens et al. 2007).Nevertheless, among these changes, it is also importantto highlight the loss of instructors’ views and opinionsas the only indicator of students’ learning achievements(Cheng and Chau 2014; Kent, Laslo, and Rafaeli 2016).

In the new educational paradigm, the evaluation ofstudents’ achievement has also been transformed(Kent, Laslo, and Rafaeli 2016), and players’ opinionsand feedback extracted from student interactions havebecome a powerful source for determining the successof business simulation games in contributing towardsstudents’ learning outcomes (Pando-Garcia, Periañez-Cañadillas, and Charterina 2016).

2.2. Student interactivity and learning outcomes

According to Kent, Laslo, and Rafaeli (2016), ‘social con-structivism perceives knowledge as constructed betweenpeople by a social process of interacting’. The relation-ship that exists between interactivity and learning out-comes depends on the nature of the interactivity,which involves not only communication but also othercomplex activities developed by learners, such as enga-ging, reflecting, questioning, answering, elaborating, dis-cussing, problem-solving, constructing, and analysingamong others (Liaw and Huang 2000). As long as inter-activity allows students to engage in all these activities, itcontributes to knowledge construction (Schellens et al.2007), and hence learning from the interactive exchangeof information and the development of relatednessamong pieces of information (Kent, Laslo, and Rafaeli2016).

Student interactions based on digital technology andICT can be divided into two main categories: contentinteraction and social interaction (Northrup 2001), thelatter including learner-instructor interactions and lear-ner-learner interactions (Moore and Kearsley 1996).Learner-instructor interactions allow instructors to actas coaches, counsellors, and supporters in the students’learning process (Lonn, Teasley, and Krumm 2011)

2 A. B. HERNÁNDEZ-LARA AND E. SERRADELL-LÓPEZ

and provide instructors with useful information for theassessment of the students’ learning achievements. Lear-ner-learner interactions, on the contrary, do not necess-arily involve instructors because students seem moreinterested in interaction with companions than withinstructors (Xie, Lin, and Zhang 2001); so they normallydo not take part in the discussions among students andeven may be unaware that such interaction occurs orof its consequences in terms of the students’ learning.Furthermore, this interaction is mostly neglected in theevaluation of the knowledge construction and learningof students and is not taken into account for effects oninstructional and pedagogical issues.

Learner-learner interactivity is rarely evaluated orconsidered as a learning evaluation metric (Kent, Laslo,and Rafaeli 2016). Its use, if any, is restricted to reportingon students’ task completion or to tracking students atrisk of dropping out (Gašević, Dawson, and Siemens2015). Therefore, it is not used for assessing the learningprocess itself, the progress of the learners’ understanding,their ability to relate information and to build on existingknowledge, and the contribution of the business simu-lation game to their expectations and satisfaction regard-ing their learning (Reich 2015).

This gap makes it hard to know about learning out-comes in terms of interactivity (Song and McNary2011). There are some previous studies that have lookedfor a correlation between participation in asynchronousdiscussions and marks or classroom performance andachievements (Kent, Laslo, and Rafaeli 2016). However,this approach has two problems: firstly, the lack of con-sensus about whether or not this relationship actuallyexists (Picciano 2002; Song and McNary 2011); and sec-ondly, the excessive focus on quantitative indicatorswhen analysing interactivity, such as posting frequency,the number of logins or the number of posts read (Schel-lens et al. 2007). This approach offers only a partial viewof the students’ learning in terms of interactivity, whichshould be complemented by other indicators of quality,centred on the content of students’ discussions, to reallyappreciate the learning construction favoured by peer-

led discussion as an essential component in blendedand online learning environments (Lonn, Teasley, andKrumm 2011; Ozkan and Koseler 2009).

This study seeks to provide new insights into the con-tribution of business games to students’ learning out-comes, by considering the interactivity among learners.We analyse the content of their online discussion for-ums, where without the presence or intervention ofinstructors, it is possible to gain a better and less-biasedsource of information to capture the students’ points ofview regarding the skills that better contribute to theirlearning achievements, satisfaction, and the fulfilmentof expectations while participating in business simu-lation games.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data collection

This study used a qualitative analysis on the online dis-cussion forums used by students participating inbusiness simulation games administered in several man-agement courses, three at bachelor’s degree and two atmaster’s degree level, at the Universitat Oberta de Cata-lunya,1 during the academic years 2011–2012 and 2012–2013.

A total of 182 students participated in the 5 courses,with 12, 10, 5, 6, and 8 teams in each one. Each teamwas composed of an average of 4.4 students.

Table 1 summarises the demographic profile of thestudents. The participants were mostly men, 62.61%,while 37.39% were female. Their mean age was 36years old, with slightly more than 50% between 31 and40 years old, and more than 20% between 41 and 50years old. Most of the students, nearly 90%, did nothave any previous experience with business games.

The students’ interaction in the online discussion for-ums of the five courses represented a total number of7172 messages or posts. Given the high number of mess-ages registered in the forums of each course, we decidedto analyse only the communications of the team havingthe highest number of messages in each course, whichmeant analysing a total of 3681 messages. In Table 2,we can see the main figures for each course.

3.2. The game

All the students had the same instructor and also playedthe same business simulator game, Cesim Global Chal-lenge (www.cesim.com). This strategic game simulatesan international mobile telecommunications company,and its focus is centred on strategic management, inter-national business, global operations, and business policy,

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample.Profile of the students Total number %

Male 72 62.61Female 43 37.39Previous experience with business games 14 12.2No previous experience with business games 101 87.8Age21–30 24 20.8731–40 61 53.0441–50 27 23.48>50 3 2.61

Bachelor’s degree level 77 66.96Master’s degree level 38 33.04

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 3

integrating different functional areas. The game wasadministered online in the five courses. Participation inthe business simulation game was a full course at bothlevels, bachelor and master, and was a non-compulsorysubject worth six ECTS credits (European Credit Trans-fer System).

3.3. Coding of the messages

We analysed the students’ online forums looking forinformation that would show any kind of relationshipbetween the skills acquired by students participating inthe games and their learning outcomes.

The codes were established firstly in a deductive phaseusing the categories of previous research. In regard toskills, the categories used correspond to those identifiedin previous studies of business simulations games, whichclassified skills into generic and specific managerial skills(Chang et al. 2003; Fitó-Bertrán, Hernández-Lara, andSerradell-López 2014, 2015; Jensen 2003).

The learning outcomes were coded also through thedimensions pointed out by previous research that con-sidered learning performance in terms of the achieve-ment of learning objectives and the learning processitself (Carenys, Moya, and Perramon 2017; Tao,Cheng, and Sun 2009, 2012), expectations (Venkateshet al. 2003; Vos, Van der Meijden, and Denessen 2011)and satisfaction (Yu et al. 2002). These dimensionsunderline different facets of learning outcomes thattake place while using digital technologies in education,although previous studies normally have consideredthem separately. To better define and understand themeaning and application of these dimensions in thespecific case of business simulation games, two expertinstructors of this methodology were consulted. Theydefine learning objectives like the achievement of skillsand knowledge previously established by the instructorin the teaching plan of the subject, such as the under-standing of the roles and functions of top managers inthe decision-making process, the integration of differentfunctional areas, and processing information and data toguide decision-making. Secondly, the learning processitself which comprises the different tasks and functionsdeveloped by students while participating in the game

that allows them to attain skills and knowledge. Thirdly,the students’ expectations which refer to their previousideas towards what the game was going to offer them,not in terms of learning, already included in the learningobjectives, but in terms of joy, motivation, or other tar-gets not directly learning-related. And finally, the valueperceived and experienced (regarding satisfaction or dis-satisfaction) by students while playing in terms of theirlearning experience.

The opinion and review of these two business gamesexpert instructors confirmed the content validity of thefour dimensions that composed the learning outcomes(Fu, Su, and Yu 2009). The reliability of these dimensionswas checked by a focus group composed of 14 masterstudents participating in the same business simulationgame at Rovira i Virgili University during the academicyear 2011–2012. The participants of this focus group dis-cussed on the understanding and utility of the fourdimensions to reflect the learning outcomes of studentswhile participating in business simulation games. Theyalso valued through a 5-point Likert scale ranging from1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) the fourdimensions in the specific case of the business simulationthey were using. We conducted Cronbach’s alpha test ofreliability, which showed a value of 0.891, demonstratingthe internal consistency of the four dimensions of learn-ing outcomes.

We considered appropriate to check the validity andreliability of these dimensions as far as research has con-sidered them separately in previous studies.

4. Data analysis

In order to obtain a more in-depth understanding of themost relevant dimensions of students’ learning and skillsacquired while participating in business simulationgames, we conducted a qualitative analysis of the onlinediscussion forums that were held among students whilethey were playing.

We conducted a qualitative analysis of the messages inthe students’ online forums through content analysis(Moretti et al. 2011). Using an inductive approach, weorganised data into codes that identify the most frequentcategories of skills and learning outcomes that later came

Table 2. Figures of the online courses.

CharacteristicsBachelor’s 2Sem 2011/

2012Bachelor’s 1Sem 2012/

2013Master’s 1Sem 2012/

2013Bachelor’s 2Sem 2012/

2013Master’s 2Sem 2012/

2013

Number of teams 12 10 5 6 8Number of rounds 9 9 7 9 7Total number of messages 2202 359 3387 269 955Maximum number of messagesper team

861 150 1845 198 627

Name given to the selected team Team A Team B Team C Team D Team E

4 A. B. HERNÁNDEZ-LARA AND E. SERRADELL-LÓPEZ

up as topics in students’ conversations while they wereplaying and were registered in the online forums.NVivo software was used to codify all qualitative data.

In the deductive phase of the research, two main cat-egories that emerged from previous research were used,skills and learning outcomes, which were decomposedin two and four sub-categories respectively, generic andspecific managerial skills on the one hand, and the fourdimensions of learning outcomes on the other. In theinductive phase of the research, we firstly conducted adescriptive coding, which consisted in placing the quotesextracted from the online discussion forums into the cat-egories and sub-categories described, including both,those related to skills and those related to learningoutcomes.

With regard to learning outcomes, the descriptionsgiven by the two expert instructors were used to placethe quotes into a specific dimension of learning. Withregard to skills, during the descriptive coding phase,other codes emerged, to specify and disaggregate theskills acquired, which could be generic or common todifferent academic disciplines, like processing infor-mation, decision-making, time management, or the useof ICT, among others; or business-specific, like reachingthe goals of a company, improving its competitive pos-ition, and processing financial information.

In order to obtain the results about which skillsbusiness games’ students practised more during thegame and which ones also made a great contributionto their learning outcomes, we conducted a node matrixto detect the quotes at the intersection of the codes refer-ring to the skills acquired and the learning outcomes’dimensions. This procedure allowed us to detect thequotes from the online discussion forums that were pre-viously coded as an example of some kind of skill acqui-sition, and at the same time that were referred to acertain dimension of learning outcomes.

It is important to note that the contribution of thegame to the learning outcomes of students is not onlyrelated to the achievement of a high degree of values,expectations, and satisfaction; on the contrary, it alsorefers to a low degree of values, problems, and badexperiences suffered during the game, as far as theyalso imply an effort to overcome these situations whilepracticing and learning.

Table 3 shows the quotes from the students about theskills they practised more during the game and whichalso made a great contribution to their learning out-comes, even if the experiences associated with practisingwere not valuable or satisfactory.

In Table 3, we can observe that the most relevant cat-egories related to the students’ learning outcomes arethose of generic skills, such as information processing,

decision-making, teamwork, dealing with uncertainty,or reaching agreements. There are also commentsabout some specific managerial skills, like reaching thegoals of a company, dealing with competition, or proces-sing financial information as a specific form of proces-sing data in general. However, the frequency andrelevance of these latter topics in the students’ online for-ums were lower. Even if in the decision-making processthe students have a certain strategic goal in their minds,this information does not frequently appear in theircommunication pattern. It seems that they apply amore short-term approach, just deciding for eachround, considering competitors and their financial situ-ation from the previous round, but without any clearlong-term planning or goals.

The generic skills, however, were more clearlyobserved in the students’ discussions, as shown in pre-vious research (Fitó-Bertrán, Hernández-Lara, and Ser-radell-López 2014; Fu, Su, and Yu 2009). Our analysisalso allowed us to appreciate the relationship of theseskills with different dimensions of learning outcomes.In the case of teamwork, for example, we couldobserve comments regarding how the teamwork wasorganised, achievements regarding working in teams,the overcoming of previous expectations about thecontribution of the game to teamwork as well assome bad experiences and problems related to work-ing with others. It is important to highlight the roleof socialisation in creating a positive atmospherewhile playing and emphasise that both good and badexperiences with teamwork were talked about. Goodexperiences implied a good division of work, contri-butions by all or most of the members of the team,closeness in their relationship, etc., and they wereindependent of the results achieved in the game. Badexperiences normally related to big differences in stu-dents’ levels of involvement in and dedication to thegame, communication problems, or not valuing thecontribution of others.

The skill related to dealing with uncertainty was alsoemphasised by students who normally expressed theirdoubts regarding the best options even agreeing thatno such thing existed. Some of the dimensions of thelearning outcomes were related to their comments, forexample, solutions for dealing with uncertainty or state-ments about overcoming it, comments about how uncer-tainty made the game more difficult than expected, andeven anger at not being in control of some of thegame’s parameters. The necessity to play in these uncer-tain scenarios contributed to the sharing of opinions, notimposing a certain viewpoint, looking for agreement,more collaborative attitudes, delegating and trusting inothers, etc.

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5

Table 3. Online discussion forums.Learning outcomes

Skills categories Learning objectives Learning process Expectations Satisfaction or dissatisfaction

Processinginformation

‘Considering the prices of competitors, the bestoption would be… ’ (Team B)‘We are the company with least number ofemployees and the lowest salaries; I made somecalculations and the cost is not high’ (Team A)‘Considering all the prices of the previous round… ’ (Team E)

‘This payment is too high considering ourcapital’ (Team D)‘We have too many plants’ (Team E)‘Our inventories are very high and I don’tknow how to reduce them, because our pricesare already quite low’ (Team C)

Decision-making ‘How tech 2 is working in Asia makes meunderstand the influence of prices andpromotion, and the relationship between them. Itseems that our commercial strategies areworking’ (Team C)

‘What do you think about these decisions given oursituation? For example: USA – 100% tech 3 andoutsourcing tech 3 (2300 units) and tech 4 (245units), and for Asia and Europe… ’ (Team D)‘The payment for shareholders could be $600,000.What do you think?’ (Team E)‘We have to sell tech 1 in the USA and see whathappens… ’ (Team A)

‘It is amazing to practice decision-making at the top’ (Team E)‘Our decisions on when to introducethe newest technology will make usthe winning team’ (Team A)

‘We need to do something for enhancing thepercentage of production capacity used’(Team B)‘It is necessary to reduce the debt byinvesting all our cash in the next round’(Team A) ‘We have a perfect mechanism topredict the prices of the competition andchoose the best price for us’ (Team C)

Relating orintegratinginformation andfunctions

‘Have you read my report on the long-termplanning? There I explained the relationshipbetween short-term debt and payments andinvestments each round’ (Team A)

‘Buying the license allows you to offer this technologynow’ (Team B)‘Where you sell does not depend on where youproduce; then you transport your products from onemarket to the other, which enhances your logisticscosts’ (Team C)

‘Our investment in plants makes us thebest team in cost production perunit … right at our goal. We got it inthe third round!! We are great!!’(Team D)

‘We have to revise our policy in price transfer toimprove our financial situation’ (Team A)‘WOW, this round we almost perfectly matchdemand and production’ (Team D)

Time management ‘As the CEO I am responsible for including all thedecisions before the deadline, I manage thesituation in case of conflict or if the consensus isnot reached, and you see that we are always ontime’ (Team B)

‘What I propose is that, at first, every player makestheir individual decisions; after this, everyWednesday, we discuss the individual decision as ateam. The decisions finally included in the gameshould be reached by consensus, in the globalmeeting on Wednesdays, and, the day before thedeadline of the round, all the decisions should beregistered so they can be discussed in the finalglobal meeting’ (Team B)

‘Our meetings for each round shouldbe at this time, the same day everyweek, so we can meet the deadlines’(Team C)

‘I can be online very late, and then everything isdone’ (Team D)‘I will be here until tomorrow’ (Team A)‘I don’t think that I could be online for a longtime’ (Team E)‘I was online at 6 pm, but nobody was there… I guess you were busy’ (Team B)‘I made my decisions during the week, but atthe last moment, just before the deadline, mypartner changed everything… and now youcan see our results’ (Team A)

Using ICT andtechnology

‘We can talk using Skype’ (Team B)‘We could think about making these meetingsthrough Skype, without video, if you don’t want tobe seen in your pyjamas;)’ (Team C)‘Using Drive to share documents and edit themsimultaneously would be useful’ (Team C)

‘It is fun and fast; you changesomething and immediately observea change in your situation’ (Team B)

‘If somebody knows how this cell in the gameworks… I cannot recover the previousdecisions’ (Team E)‘It has been impossible to send the report; anerror occurs during the process (string index−1)’ (Team E)‘I think it is time to produce tech 2, but I don’tknow how to do it with the game software’(Team A)‘The software is not working right; it doesn’tallow me to change some of the data’ (TeamB)

Teamwork ‘In the practice stage I think that it didn’t work well,but now it is working. Really, the best option hasbeen to do several global meetings whereeveryone participates and defends their choices inevery functional area’ (Team B)

‘This is my proposal about how to organise theeveryone’s functions’ (Team C)‘What do you think about these decisions… ?’(Team B)‘I won’t change it because I don’t have an opinionwith a solid base, I trust you’ (Team A)

‘I didn’t have expectations aboutteamwork studying in an onlineuniversity, but it has been a goodexperience. The best, working withyou guys’ (Team A)

‘I dońt think so, I cannot reduce it further, andbesides I don’t have time, I am very busy withother subjects’ (Team D)‘I was online as always but I was alone,nobody tells me about any changes, I couldn’thelp myself and I made some changes to

6A.B.H

ERNÁNDEZ

-LARA

ANDE.SERRA

DELL-LÓ

PEZ

‘You need to reduce your part to avoid repetition,following the suggestions of the instructor’ (TeamD)‘What do you think about the best way to divide andorganize the work?’ (Team A)

logistics in the end’ (Team D)‘What’s happening? You are missing… ’(Team E)

Reachingagreements

‘I don’t agree with you, the rest of the team, are youalive?’ (Team D)‘We can discuss it… ’ (Team C)‘We will decide individually and then we will share’(Team B)‘We need to reach an agreement on our policies’(Team E)‘If most of you feel the same way, then for me it’sperfect’ (Team A)‘Please, tell me if you think that there is somethingwrong; we can talk about it’ (Team A)

‘WOW, everyone thinks like me… forthe first time’ (Team C)

‘I don’t agree, and you are not going toconvince me, but you can do what you want’(Team D)

Dealing withuncertainty

‘It is a pity that we didn’t understand the game atthe beginning, but we have dealt with thissituation and now our figures are better’ (Team A)‘I will post these questions in the forum of thecourse; perhaps someone knows how to solve it. Itworked other times’ (Team C)

‘I don’t know how the game calculates the financialdata’ (Team D)‘I would like to estimate demand for tech 4, but Idon’t know how to do it’ (Team E)‘I don’t know if it is appropriate to invest a lot inpromotion’ (Team C)‘There are no better or worse decisions a priori’(Team B)‘I don’t have an opinion with a solid base’ (Team A)‘I am wondering if it is a good or bad decision?’(Team C)‘It is probable but not sure that other teams do notsell tech 3’ (Team A)‘It is complicated to know what the preferredtechnology would be’ (Team E)

‘I didn’t imagine that it would be sodifficult; it is impossible to knowwhat will happen, what competitorswill do and what the best decisionswill be’ (Team E)

‘Do you know what these data about demandforecasts and production are? … I don’tunderstand anything!!!’ (Team E)

Delegating/trusting ‘For me, whatever you decide is okay’ (Team A)‘I see that you have been making a lot of progress,I agree with your decisions’ (Team A)‘I see that you have everything under control, socome on… ’ (Team C)

‘Change what you want, I won’t say anythingelse’ (Team E)

Reaching the goalsof a company

‘We have enhanced the market share and the profitssince the second round; it was our aim since thebeginning’ (Team A)

‘I hope we win, my future depends onit’ (Team E)

‘I don’t know what we missed, but I am nothappy with our results’ (Team D)

Improving thecompetitiveposition of acompany

‘Seeing what other teams decide… ’ (Team D)‘Our problem is having prices that are far removedfrom the market’ (Team B)‘We will have to reduce prices if we want toovercome our problems of competitiveness’ (TeamC)

‘We wanted to be leaders but we arefar from being the leader… ’ (TeamE)

Processing andanalysingfinancialinformation

‘Take a look at the profit and loss statements,investments in R&D and administrative expensesare reducing our good results from previousrounds’ (Team D)‘We are in the second position in profits,shareholders’ returns, share price, capitalization… but we have still opportunities forimprovement’ (Team B)‘I have compared my profits with the rest of yourexpected profits… ’ (Team A)

BEH

AVIOUR&INFO

RMATIO

NTEC

HNOLO

GY

7

Most of the messages were related to information pro-cessing and decision-making because the practising ofthese skills constitutes the main focus of this type ofgames. We found comments regarding the students’decisions about different functional areas and how theyprocessed information and data to decide on these mat-ters as part of the learning process. We also foundexamples where the success of the decisions made andthe way in which information was related were themain learning objectives accomplished. In this regard,the most relevant expectations were winning and theopportunity to act as top managers; we also observedmany comments showing dissatisfaction becausedecisions were not working out as the students expected.

By analysing the voices of students in the online dis-cussion forums, we could also detect the most relevantobstacles to students’ learning, which were basicallyrelated to demotivation caused by not understandinghow the game worked, the consequences of theirdecisions, not knowing how to improve their financialresults and performance, and problems related to stu-dents’ availability and the time dedicated to playing,which finally led to teamwork dysfunction.

Finally, the students also expressed their emotionsand attitudes towards the game, sharing these feelingswith their partners, and shared personal informationthat did not contribute to the learning outcomes butwhich contributed to the teamwork atmosphere. A fewquotes, by way of example:

Enjoy the holidays. (Team C)

‘Today is my birthday, I couldn’t come early’ […] ‘Itwould be great to share a piece of cake together’ […]‘I can make professional cakes, although it is not myjob’. (Team C)

Merry Christmas. (Team D)

Congratulations on the work done. (Team A)

We are ready! Now for the first position! (Team B)

They also sometimes acted to empower the simu-lation, making the learning scenario more real, as inthe following quotes:

‘The CEO is exiting now’ (Team E), or ‘I am deciding tobuy shares of our company)’ (Team E), or ‘I hope wewin, my future depends on it’ (Team E).

5. Discussion and conclusions

The main objective of this paper was to analyse the con-tribution of business simulation games in students’learning outcomes, determining which skills betterenhance learning. To do so, we conducted a qualitative

study through the analysis of the online discussion for-ums of business simulation games.

5.1. The contribution of business simulation gameto learning results

The findings confirm that, from the students’ perspectives,the most relevant skills affecting their learning outcomeswere generic ones, such as information processing,decision-making, teamwork, dealing with uncertainty,and reaching agreements. Some specific managerial skills,like reaching a company’s goals, dealing with competition,or processing financial information, also appeared in thestudents’ discussions, but not as frequently, as previousresearch mentioned (Fitó-Bertrán, Hernández-Lara, andSerradell-López 2015).

This result is in line with the contributions of previousresearch, mostly centred on identifying the improvementof certain generic skills as a relevant benefit of businesssimulation games (Fitó-Bertrán, Hernández-Lara, andSerradell-López 2014; Jensen 2003). However, our find-ings go a step further. While previous research mostlyconfirmed the improvement of generic skills when parti-cipating in business simulations games (Hernández-Lara, Serradell-López, and Fitó- Bertran 2016), ourstudy underlined the link between these generic skillsand students’ learning outcomes, in terms of learningobjectives and learning process, and students’ expec-tation and satisfaction, making a relevant contributionto the effectiveness of this method for learning purposes.

From the analysis of the online discussion forumsamong students, instructors can obtain better knowledge,more useful and less-biased data, and richer perspectives,which complement the information that they receivefrom students using other methods. Sometimes it is theonly way to know exactly what is happening within thework teams, especially if the game is administered online.Instructors can detect when their students are having trou-ble understanding how the game works, which conceptsare missing, and which problems they are encountering.Using this information, instructors can mediate in team-work and motivate students as they face uncertainty andrisks. As amatter of fact, sometimes online communicationis the onlyway todeal with problems related to low levels ofstudent engagement or motivation. Skills that students arenot developing properly can also be identified. Therefore,this information can be very useful in improving the newroles of teachers and instructors in the digital era.

5.2. Recommendations and limitations

Once the students’ voices were heard, the main obstaclesto their learning were detected, which were basically

8 A. B. HERNÁNDEZ-LARA AND E. SERRADELL-LÓPEZ

related to the following topics: first, demotivation of stu-dents caused by not understanding the consequences oftheir decisions, not understanding the calculations con-ducted by the game, and poor performance of the simu-lated company; second, problems with using andunderstanding the game software, especially at the begin-ning; and third, problems related to the students’ avail-ability and the time dedicated to playing, which finallyled to problems within the teams, among the partners.

Taking into account these obstacles, we are able topropose some practical recommendations that affectthe design and monitoring of the courses. These rec-ommendations seek to improve students’ engagementand offer solutions to solve the most relevant problemsdetected in their learning process.

Regarding how to deal with students’ demotivationdue to difficulties with the game and how to improveforecasts related to decisions, instructors should offeradditional support to students in dealing with uncer-tainty and risks. This support could take the form ofdecision-making techniques for uncertain situations,mathematical tools for estimations and predictions, les-sons about the inclusion and consideration of differentscenarios, etc. Furthermore, although students integrateand apply their previous knowledge to managementwhen participating in the game, it would be advisableto achieve higher levels of reflection about what specifictype of knowledge they are applying, and that the appli-cation of managerial concepts and theories will be part ofthe students’ marks and grades.

To solve problems related to not understanding thegame software, the interaction between learners andinstructors should be fostered, especially at the begin-ning, with the latter having a more proactive role inthis interaction. This could include, for example, videosthat online students could view to know more abouthow the game works before playing or meetings duringthe first practice rounds through the use of synchronouscommunication techniques to handle students’ doubtson this matter.

With regard to teamwork, we consider it necessary towork harder on this skill. One possible option would beto create specific forums comprising members of differ-ent teams to share good and bad experiences form theirwork teams, for offering and receiving advice. Theinstructor should also be more proactive in detectingpossible problems, not just waiting for students to com-plain, but monitoring the teamwork from the very begin-ning, whether it is working or not. Also, it would beadvisable to work harder on the teams’ composition, try-ing to obtain groups in which the members complementeach other and share the same level of expectation, invol-vement and availability for participation in the game.

Nevertheless, this study has some limitations thatsuggest interesting research lines for the future. One ofthe most important limitations is that with our data, itwas not possible to analyse the potential influence ofdifferent learning styles in the acquisition of skills andlearning outcomes using business simulation games.There is not a single commonly accepted method to deter-mine learning styles, but on the contrary several potentialscales and classifications are used, focused mostly onenvironmental factors, sensory modalities, personalitytypes, or cognitive styles (Coffield et al. 2009; De Vita2001). Culture also plays an influence on learning stylesthat explains that the learning outcomes and methodsare not the same everywhere and cannot be always easilytransferred (De Vita 2001). It means that students whobelong to different cultures could also value differentlyhow the business simulation games contribute to theirlearning in terms of skills and outcomes. In the Spanishcontext, the culture influences the students who do notshow preferences for uncertain environments, problem-solving and open-ended learning situations, which couldfinally exert some kind of influence of the value theygive to the business simulation games. Attaining moredata of students from different cultural and educationalcontexts and with different learning styles could contrib-ute to improving our understanding of the influence ofskills on learning outcomes and also could provideinstructors with clues for detecting flaws in the use ofthe game and their possible solutions.

Note

1. The Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Open Universityof Catalonia, UOC) is an innovative university based inCatalonia and open to the world through e-learning andthe Internet offering online courses in Arts and Huma-nities, Economics and Business, Health Sciences, Infor-mation and Communication Sciences, ComputerScience, Law and Political Science, and Psychologyand Education Sciences.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the students for their willingness tocollaborate in this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Ana Beatriz Hernández-Lara http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8110-9328Enric Serradell-López http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2719-1380

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 9

References

Carenys, J., S. Moya, and J. Perramon. 2017. “Is it Worth it toConsider Videogames in Accounting Education? AComparison of a Simulation and a Videogame inAttributes, Motivation and Learning Outcomes.” SpanishAccounting Review 20 (2): 118–130.

Chang, J., M. Lee, K. L. Ng, and K. L. Moon. 2003. “BusinessSimulation Games: The Hong Kong Experience.”Simulation & Gaming 34 (3): 367–376.

Cheng, G., and J. Chau. 2014. “Exploring the RelationshipBetween Learning Styles, Online Participation, LearningAchievement and Course Satisfaction: An Empirical Studyof a Blended Learning Course.” British Journal ofEducational Technology 47: 257–278.

Coffield, F.,D.Moseley, E.Hall, andK.Ecclestone. 2009.LearningStyles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning. A Systematic andCritical Review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Connolly, T. M., E. A. Boyle, E. MacArthur, T. Hainey, and J.M. Boyle. 2012. “A Systematic Literature Review ofEmpirical Evidence on Computer Games and SeriousGames.” Computers & Education 59: 661–686.

De Vita, G. D. 2001. “Learning Styles, Culture and InclusiveInstruction in the Multicultural Classroom: A Businessand Management Perspective.” Innovations in Educationand Teaching International 38: 165–174.

Eseryel, D., V. Law, D. Ifenthaler, X. Ge, and R.Miller. 2014. “AnInvestigation of the Interrelationships Between Motivation,Engagement and Complex Problem Solving in Game-BasedLearning.” Educational Technology & Society 17 (1): 42–53.

Fitó-Bertrán, A., A. B. Hernández-Lara, and E. Serradell-López. 2014. “Comparing Student Competences in a Face-to-Face and Online Business Game.” Computers inHuman Behavior 30: 452–459.

Fitó-Bertrán, A., A. B. Hernández-Lara, and E. Serradell-López. 2015. “The Effect of Competences on LearningResults: An Educational Experience with a BusinessSimulator.” Computers in Human Behavior 51: 910–914.

Fu, F. L., R. C. Su, and S. C. Yu. 2009. “EGameFlow: A Scale toMeasure Learners’ Enjoyment of e-Learning Games.”Computers & Education 52 (1): 101–112.

Gašević, D., S. Dawson, and G. Siemens. 2015. “Let’s NotForget: Learning Analytics Are About Learning.”TechTrends 59 (1): 64–71. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0822-x.

Gilgeous, V., and M. D’Cruz. 1996. “A Study of Business &Management Games.” Management Development Review 9(1): 32–39.

Gros-Salvat, B. 2009. “Certezas e Interrogantes Acerca del usode los Videojuegos Para el Aprendizaje.” Comunicación 1(7): 251–264.

Hernández, A. B., M. T. Gorjup, and R. Cascón. 2010. “TheRole of the Instructor in Business Games: A Comparisonof Face-to-Face and Online Instruction.” InternationalJournal of Training and Development 14 (3): 169–179.

Hernández-Lara, A. B., E. Serradell-López, and À Fitó-Bertran. 2016. “The Influence of Competences onLearning Outcomes: A Comparison Between Face-to-Faceand Online Business Simulation Games.” In Edulearn16Proceedings. IATED.

Jensen, K. O. 2003. “Business Games as Strategic Team-Learning Environments in Telecommunications.” BTTechnology Journal 21 (2): 133–144.

John, P., and S. Wheeler. 2012. The Digital Classroom:Harnessing Technology for the Future of Learning andTeaching. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones, H. C. 2005. “Lifelong Learning in the European Union:Whither the Lisbon Strategy?” European Journal ofEducation 40 (3): 247–260.

Kent, C., E. Laslo, and S. Rafaeli. 2016. “Interactivity in OnlineDiscussions and Learning Outcomes.” Computers &Education 97: 116–128.

Liaw, S., and H. Huang. 2000. “Enhancing Interactivity inWeb-Based Instruction: A Review of the Literature.”Educational Technology 40 (3): 41–45.

Lonn, S., S. D. Teasley, and A. E. Krumm. 2011. “Who Needsto do What Where? Using Learning Management Systemson Residential vs. Commuter Campuses.” Computers &Education 56 (3): 686–694.

Moore, M. G., and G. Kearsley. 1996. Distance Education: ASystems View. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Moretti, F., L. Van Vliet, J. Bensing, G. Deledda, M. Mazzi, M.Rimondini, C. Zimmermann, and I. Fletcher. 2011. “AStandardized Approach to Qualitative Content Analysis ofFocus Group Discussions from Different Countries.”Patient Education and Counseling 82 (3): 420–428.

Noeth, R. J., and B. B. Volkov. 2004. Evaluating theEffectiveness of Technology in our Schools. ACT PolicyReport. Washington, DC: ACT.

Northrup, P. 2001. “A Framework for Designing Interactivityinto Web-Based Instruction.” Educational Technology 41(2): 31–39.

Ozkan, S., and R. Koseler. 2009. “Multi-dimensional Students’Evaluation of e-Learning Systems in a Higher EducationContext: An Empirical Investigation.” Computers &Education 53 (4): 1285–1296.

Pando-Garcia, J., I. Periañez-Cañadillas, and J. Charterina.2016. “Business Simulation Games with and WithoutSupervision: An Analysis Based on the TAM Model.”Journal of Business Research 69 (5): 1731–1736.

Picciano, A. G. 2002. “Beyond Student Perceptions: Issues ofInteraction, Presence, and Performance in an OnlineCourse.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network 6 (1):21–40.

Reich, B. J. 2015. “Rebooting MOOC Research.” Science 347(6217): 34–35.

Romero, C., M. I. López, J. M. Luna, and S. Ventura. 2013.“Predicting Students’ Final Performance fromParticipation in On-Line Discussion Forums.” Computers& Education 68: 458–472.

Schellens, T., H. Van Keer, M. Valcke, and B. De Wever. 2007.“Learning in Asynchronous Discussion Groups: AMultilevel Approach to Study the Influece of Student,Group and Task Characteristics.” Behaviour &Information Technology 26 (1): 55–71.

Siddiqui, A., M. Khan, and S. Akhtar. 2008. “Supply ChainSimulator: a Scenario-Based Educational Tool to EnhanceStudent Learning.” Computers & Education 51 (1): 252–261.

Siewiorek, A., A. Gegenfurtner, T. Lainema, E. Saarinen, and E.Lehtinen. 2013. “The Effects of Computer-Simulation GameTraining on Participants’ Opinions on Leadership Styles.”British Journal of Educational Technology 44 (6): 1012–1035.

Song, L., and S. W. McNary. 2011. “Understanding Students’Online Interaction: Analysis of Discussion Board Posting.”Journal of Interactive Online Learning 10 (1): 1–14.

10 A. B. HERNÁNDEZ-LARA AND E. SERRADELL-LÓPEZ

Tao, Y. H., C. J. Cheng, and S. Y. Sun. 2009. “What InfluencesCollege Students to Continue Using Business SimulationGames? The Taiwan Experience.” Computers & Education53: 929–939.

Tao, Y. H., C. J. Cheng, and S. Y. Sun. 2012. “Alignment ofTeacher and Student Perceptions on the Continued Use ofBusiness Simulation Games.” Educational Technology &Society 15: 177–189.

Tao, Y. H., C. R. Yeh, and K. C. Hung. 2015. “Validating theLearning Cycle Models of Business Simulation Games viaStudent Perceived Gains in Skills and Knowledge.”Educational Technology & Society 18 (1): 77–90.

Tobias, S., and J. D. Fletcher. 2012. “Reflections on a Review ofTrends in Serious Gaming.” Review of Education Research82: 233–237.

Venkatesh, V., M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis.2003. “User Acceptance of Information Technology:Toward a Unified View.” MIS Quarterly 27 (3): 425–478.

Vos, N., H. Van der Meijden, and E. Denessen. 2011. “Effectsof Constructing Versus Playing an Educational Game onStudent Motivation and Deep Learning Strategy Use.”Computers & Education 56 (1): 127–137.

Worley,W. L., andL. S. Tesdell. 2009. “InstructorTime andEffortin Online and Face-to-Face Teaching: Lessons Learned.” IEEETransactions on Professional Communication 52: 138–151.

Xie, X., F. Lin, and T. Zhang. 2001. “Comparison Between On-and Off-Campus Behaviour and Adaptability in OnlineLearning: A Case from China.” Behaviour & InformationTechnology 20 (4): 281–291.

Yu, F. Y., L. J. Chang, Y. H. Liu, and T. W. Chan. 2002.“Learning Preferences Towards Computerized CompetitiveMode.” Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning 18: 341–350.

Zantow, K., D. S. Knowlton, and D. C. Sharp. 2005. “Morethan Fun & Games: Reconsidering the Virtues of StrategicManagement Simulations.” Academy of ManagementLearning & Education 4 (4): 451–458.

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 11

本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。

学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，

提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP

图书馆。

图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。

图书馆导航：

图书馆首页 文献云下载 图书馆入口 外文数据库大全 疑难文献辅助工具