Strategic Management Education Incorporating Written or Simulation Cases: An Empirical Test

Abstract

In the context of hospitality education, this article reports on an empirical study of student learning considering four factors: strategic management skills, team process skills, level of difficulty, and overall perceived learning. Results of the empirical study suggest that the use of management computer simulation cases facilitates greater educational development than does the use of written cases (or a combination) as perceived by hospitality students in a capstone strategic management course. Discussion and future research proposals on using computer simulation cases for team and individual strategic management development and research are noted.

Developing Creative Teaching Module: Business Simulation in Teaching Strategic Management

“…In the analysis of simulation in relation to hospitality industry, students benefit mosts in financial analysis and marketing in relation to strategic management process and strategic decision making (Kendal & Harrington, 2003). This study also indicates that students appreciate the multidisciplinary qualities of business simulation.…”

In pursuit of contemporary content for courses on strategic management in tourism and hospitality schools

“…Other studies focus on one teaching method, such as the case method (Jennings, 1996) and business simulation games (Keys, 1997;Knotts and Keys, 1997;Wolfe, 1997;Wolfe and Roge, 1997). With regard to teaching strategic management in tourism and hospitality schools in particular, a number of studies have been undertaken by Kendall and Harrington (2003), Martin and McEvoy (2003), Russell and Russell (1996). However, they mainly focus on business simulation games.…”

Contributors to hospitality students' knowledge enhancement

“…Following exposure to business simulations, students' performance outcomes have been measured by self-reporting, and by group and individual assessments (Adobor & Daneshfar, 2006;Gopinath & Sawyer, 1999;Washbush & Gosen, 1998). Both Tompson and Dass (2000) and Kendall and Harrington (2003) adopted control groups and, using case study simulations, the former showed that over time students' self-efficacy improved (Tompson & Dass, 2000) and, in turn, facilitated greater educational development (Kendall & Harrington, 2003). Furthermore, Bandura and Cervone (1986), p. 93 identified that self-efficacy affects and influences individual's motivations and goal setting behaviour.…”

“…In the initial phase, RO subsumes comprehension of the decision-making process and the relationship between decision sets. Typically students put their thoughts and observations into writing through the preparation of a business plan and initial budget (Chen & Downing, 2006;Edelheim & Ueda, 2007;Kendall & Harrington, 2003;Marriott, 2004;Martin & McEvoy, 2003). RO leads directly to AC where an initial strategy is prepared within the parameters of the simulation based upon the business plan and budget (Chen & Downing, 2006).…”

“…As Kolb's cycle (upward spiral) begins again, students compare the results of the decision-making to their predictions and expectations (CE), analyse performance, reflect on current strategy and cause/effect relationships in line with this performance (RO), consider alternative actions or revision to the chosen strategy (AC), then implement a new set of decisions for the next period of the simulation (AE) (Gopinath & Sawyer, 1999). During the simulation period, students document their outcomes via at least one annual report, including future performance predictions (Chen & Downing, 2006;Edelheim & Ueda, 2007;Kendall & Harrington, 2003;Marriott, 2004;Martin & McEvoy, 2003). This reporting of performance outcomes, with justification, supports the higher levels of the cognitive domain, (analysis, synthesis and evaluation), suggested by Bloom (1956).…”