Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by VGTU Press. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATION Eyal ECKHAUS1, Galit KLEIN2, Jeffrey KANTOR3 Department of Economics & Business Administration, Ariel University, Ramat HaGolan St. Ariel 40700, Israel E-mails: 1eyale@ariel.ac.il (corresponding author); 2galitk@ariel.ac.il; 3jeffreyk@ariel.ac.il Received 13 January 2017; accepted 20 February 2017 Abstract. Management studies have been criticized for lagging behind the actual needs of organizations, ignoring experiential dimensions. We address this issue by applying experiential learning theory using an accountancy-oriented board game designed to help participants learn about cost management. The game was played in a pricing course with an enrolment of 104 accountancy students. We examined the impact levels of game entertainment and comprehensibility on the course material comprehension as well as the game’s impact on the final grade in the course. Results show that game participants had significantly higher grades than students that did not participate in the game, and that entertainment and comprehensibility of the game predict the understanding of course material. We also found that managerial employment capability can be predicted by level of challenge participants derive from the game. This study addresses the gap between traditional management education and practice. It provides empirical evidence of the value of hands-on gameplay experience for assimilation of course concepts and strategies. The results confirmed the importance of exposing players through an entertaining game simulation to challenges that arise in the business world. In addition, we lay the ground for future studies on the novel usage of the game as a tool to assess management skills. Keywords: game, simulation, experiential learning, management, education, ac- counting. JEL Classification: M10, M41, M53. B u s i n e s s, Ma n ag e M e n t a n d e d u c at i o n ISSN 2029-7491 / eISSN 2029-6169 2017, 15(1): 42–56 doi:10.3846/bme.2017.345 1. Introduction Managers are being challenged with a greater range of problems than ever before (Szarucki 2013), however, management studies have been criticized for insufficiently preparing students for the realities of professional life (Pfeffer, Fong 2002). As such, they are the first to be blamed for failure or poor workplace performance (Taylor et al. 2002). Business schools can fall short of providing adequate real-world skills for gradu- ates to compete in the marketplace (Bennis, O’Toole 2005). Of course, classroom man- agement education bears little resemblance to actual organizational life (Quillien 1993). While experiential pedagogies are generally preferred by managers (Gold, Holman mailto:eyale@ariel.ac.il mailto:2email2@email.com mailto:3jeffreyk@ariel.ac.il https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2017.345 43 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 42–56 2001), ultimately, business schools have ignored this experiential dimension (Mello 2006). Therefore, this study addresses this issue by applying experiential learning (EL) theory (1984) to accountancy management studies. According to Kolb (1984: 38), “Learning is the process whereby knowledge is cre- ated through the transformation of experience.” This concept is now embedded in the literature (Ord, Leather 2011). It has generated considerable recent interest (Penger et al. 2011) and is a fixture in higher education today (Gerlach, Reinagel 2016). The EL approach conceives of the learner as actively involved in the learning process (Be- necke, Bezuidenhout 2011). In contrast, more traditional teaching methods (Karlowicz 2009) view the student as a passive recipient of information (Lopez et al. 2006). EL is an increasingly common college curricular alternative (Cline, Kroth 2008), merging different learning styles and enhancing the ability to apply lessons to new situations (McCleery et al. 2005) often through simulation, games, and role playing (Hale et al. 2002). Business simulations employed in management education (cf. Fawcett 1995; Granitz, Hugstad 2004) such as board games can be valuable pedagogical tools (cf. Wyss-Flamm, Zandee 2001). However, research on the effectiveness of board games in management classroom scenarios is lacking in empirical evidence, especially when applied to accountancy studies. Consistent with the goals of EL, our research is based on evaluating students at- tempting to play the hitherto untested Jacket Factory (JF) board game (Estrin et al. 1995). This game is designed to expose participants to concepts and strategies of cost management, using a simulation revolving around the manufacture of a line of goods. Accordingly, this study makes several contributions. First, it addresses the gap be- tween traditional management education and management practice. Using the game simulation, we model a hands-on scenario that assimilates concepts and strategies dis- cussed in class. Second, we provide empirical evidence that the game may improve student understanding of course material, serving as a valuable tool for academic educa- tors. Third, we argue that it may prove useful to Human Resource Management (HRM) assessment of management candidates, as well as providing a starting point for future studies in the field. 2. Review 2.1. EL and management Management education is a skill that can be learned (Lisinski, Szarucki 2011). EL has been described as one of the most effective instruments of management development (Holman, Mumford 2001), and is particularly powerful when linked to management education (Bevan, Kipka 2012; Reynolds 2009). Examples include disaster management (Rijumol et al. 2010) and lean management (De Zan et al. 2015). It has been compel- lingly argued that business education programs must include an experiential learning component (cf. Clark, White 2010). Gruver and Miller (2011) argue that EL works 44 E. Eckhaus et al. Experiential learning in management education especially well in management curricula, since organization and management require wisdom that can be acquired through experience. 2.2. EL and accounting EL theory was previously applied to accounting education, even by Kolb himself be- tween 1971 and 1999 as a means of examining learning styles (McCarthy 2010). Other examples include Young and Warren (2011), who used an EL approach based on ex- ercises that require analyzing data to encourage developments of critical thinking in accountancy students. Elijido-Ten and Kloot (2015) describe the positive aspects of EL opportunities in the form of work-integrated learning, provided by small-to-medium enterprises (SME). Chiucchi (2013) employed the EL cycle in order to measure in- tellectual capital. Fuglister, Stegmoyer, and Castrigano (2010) used EL by analyzing bank accounting and international accounting cases. Dellaportas and Hassall (2013) conducted prison visits to former professional accountants, so as to bring students face- to-face with a better understanding of ethical conflicts and practice. Cornell, Johnson, and Schwartz (2013) applied EL by having accountancy students administer structured- interviews with the goal of enhancing student confidence and reducing anxiety. Laing (2009) examined the use of an experiential learning outdoor simulation activity through role-play, based on a manufacturing production line process designed to improve student comprehension of management accounting concepts. Laing’s study, however, did not find any differences between the experiment and the control group. 2.3. Board games and management education Gaming can be an effective learning tool to drive students to maximize their learning (Sprengel 1994; Kelliher et al. 1996). Game playing can help students develop tactical awareness and decision making skills (Martin, Gaskin 2004). Board games are used in both business and academia to improve education and training (Coakley et al. 1998), and were previously applied in management education (cf. Moratis et al. 2006; Marques et al. 2013). However, board games designed specifically for accounting management are not so common, and most related research has yet to show empirical evidence of their efficacy in facilitating understanding of course material. For instance, Fouché and Visser (2008) employed a board game in an introductory accounting course, although no statistically significant results on its effectiveness were found and they neglected to provide a detailed description of the game. Fridman (2010) used the Cashflow board game in the classroom as a vehicle for learning the basics of investing and enhancing financial skills, although no statistical analysis was ever carried out. 2.4. Game assessment One of the most basic aspects of game playing is entertainment (Day 1981; Jak et al. 2013; Gibson 2003; Kurt 2013; Hsi-Peng, Wang 2008). People play games for 45 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 42–56 enjoyment (Tirakoat, Lata 2011) and simply for the fun of it (Kirk, Harris 2011). There- fore, the more entertainment provided in gameplay, the more participants will be en- couraged to play, and thus achieve its goal to better assimilate the course material. However, understanding the game and wanting to improve as a player are also strong motivators (Chandler 1996). The first requires full comprehension of its rules and goals (Procee 2006). If a player lacks understanding of game rules, meaningful play may be impossible (Ang et al. 2008). The JF game includes concepts and strategies applicable to financial accounting, and its rules are correspondingly complex. Therefore, under- standing the game and its informing concepts may be linked, which may determine level of student comprehension of course material. As noted, the main purpose of this study is to assess its value as a management edu- cation tool. We also propose that the JF game may assist in the evaluation of managers, and, therefore, we prepare the ground for future studies in this domain by assessing how challenging participants found the game. The need for challenge is a motivator for driving business (Kakabadse et al. 1996), job satisfaction (Singh et al. 2006), and is often found in entrepreneurs (Caird 1993). This reflects the need for growth (At-Twaijri et al. 1995) and can serve as an entrepreneurship success factor (Sullivan et al. 2007). Managers who express a need for challenge are viewed better in their environment (Raelin 1993). The need for challenge may also affect managerial competencies (Raelin 1997), impacting career move decisions (O’Callaghan, Fahy 2002; Sullivan et al. 2007). However, this imperative does not disappear even when individuals shift their focus to family (Sullivan, Mainiero 2007). In the JF game, participants must continuously make strategic decisions, pivoting in new directions in order to attain ultimate goals. Since challenge occurs through exposures to paradox, dilemma, and decisions (Murthy et al. 2011), the complexity of player decision-making and dilemma-solving in game play may be translated into a means of predicting managerial capabilities. In the achievement of a challenging goal, some errors may occur on the way. Man- agers need to identify their mistakes (Melewar et al. 2004) and learn from them (Pfef- fer, Sutton 2006) in order to overcome challenges and reach objectives. An important element of learning is to use self-monitoring and to deal with failure (Magdalena Mo Ching, Cheng 2001). 3. The Jacket Factory game Jacket Factory (JF) is played on a game board made up of three leaves arranged in the form of a trillium (Fig. 1). A tool for learning about cost management, the objective of the game is to earn as much money as possible by managing the manufacture of goods – in this case, jackets. All finished goods are sold at fixed wholesale prices so that the focus of the game is on cost management, not selling. The winner is the team which amasses the most money over the course of the game. However, all teams not forced to leave the game due to bankruptcy may be said to end the game successfully. 46 E. Eckhaus et al. Experiential learning in management education Fig. 1. Game Board Game description The game is played by two to four teams of players. Each team can be composed of two to four members. Each member may be assigned a role: for instance, team leader, audit controller, and strategy planner, etc. There are three types of Jackets: Leather, Denim, and Nylon. Nylon jackets are the most easily manufactured, made from the cheapest materials. More nylon jackets, although not a lot more, can be produced in a shorter time period than other kinds of jackets. However, selling prices and profits are relatively low. Denim jackets are a little more dif- ficult to manufacture, with material that is more expensive and fewer that can be made in a given period of time. Selling prices and profits are a little better, but it takes longer to reach a profit position. Leather jackets are the most expensive to manufacture, are made from the costliest materials, and are the most time-consuming to produce. It takes longer to make a profit manufacturing leather jackets, but selling prices and profits are the highest. For all kinds of jackets, period costs have to be paid. Furthermore, the longer it takes to manufacture and sell a product, the higher the costs will be and therefore the lower the profits. Figure 2 illustrates the building block levels to sell a final product, for each of the three materials. Teams must also decide which manufacturing procedure they wish to adopt: Regular manual production, fully automated production, or outsourcing; that is, subcontracting the manufacturing process. Outsourcing translates into lower costs and faster turnover, but less 47 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 42–56 volume. As in the real world, decisions as to which mode of manufacture is most appropri- ate are limited by opportunities presented. In the game these are determined by rolls of the dice. Again, as with real conditions, teams do not have unlimited financial resources. Teams begin with initial capital of $2,000,000, and may borrow up to $3,000,000 with interest payments of 1% per turn. If a team declares bankruptcy, a further $1,000,000 may be bor- rowed at double the rate of interest. In addition to player decisions, risk is represented in the game both by the throw of the dice and by 45 Risk Cards. Period costs must be paid every time the dice are picked up, so that teams are aware of the passage of game time. Time management is also a factor because game time is ultimately limited. Strategies requiring many turns to generate a profit may thus prove unsuccessful. Calculators are useful in keeping game accounts, although cost management sheets are essential. Each team must keep a running record and balance of all transactions. Once a team has accumulated a stack of Capacity, Direct Material, and Conversion Costs blocks on an Occupancy block, all of which now represent finished goods, they may be sold on the next turn after payment of period costs. As for game endings, a number of different scenarios exist. For example, players can mutually agree on a game time limit or a given number of player turns. The game can also end when all the Risk Cards are used up or when one team possesses all the resources. In any event, the team with the most money at game’s end is declared the winner. At this point, Direct Material blocks may be cashed in at a 50% discount, and Outsourced blocks at an 80% discount, but all other blocks are worthless. 4. Methodology Based on the literature above, the hypotheses of study are as follows. H1. Entertainment and comprehensibility of the JF game predict the understanding of course material. Fig. 2. The building block levels to sell a final product, for each of the three materials OutsourceOutsourceOutsourceOutsource Conversion Material Occupancy Automated Factory Material Occupancy Manual Factory Manual Factory Material Material Conversion Conversion Occupancy O utsource O utsource O utsource O utsource 48 E. Eckhaus et al. Experiential learning in management education Grade point average (GPA) was often used as a performance criteria vs. the game results in terms of earnings in the game (Faria 2001). Therefore, we hypothesize: H2. There will be a difference in course grades between students who won in the game, those who lost, and those who did not attend at all. H2a. Students who won in the game will have a higher mean course grade than students who did not participate. H2b. Students who lost in the game will have a higher mean course grade than students who did not participate. H2c. Taken as a single group, students who won and students who lost in the game will have a higher mean course grade than students who did not participate. H3. The level of challenge derived from the game, along with the ability to handle failure, predict managerial capabilities. There were 104 accountancy students enrolled in the pricing course, out of which 79 participated in the game, while 25 did not. All participants were between the ages of 20 and 30 years. Of them, 15 students were employed in managerial positions. Players were divided into three groups of three players. Rules were taught to players prior to the start of the game. 4.1. Measurement of key variables In order to show a relationship between the game play and its value as a pedagogical tool, based on the review of the literature above we first needed to measure the mo- tivation to play the game. Second, the game relies on financial accounting strategies, which make its rules more complex. Therefore, it was needed to measure the level of comprehensibility of the players, in order to validate the game’s contribution to the un- derstanding of the course materials. Third, in order to measure the level of the challenge that the game offers, as a key to growth and management development, we measured the level of the challenge the game offers. The forth construct is needed for the ability to measure the game’s success in terms of its educational value. The fifth construct is meant to measure the ability to self-monitor and to deal with failure, as an important element of learning and a key for successful management. Therefore, the five constructs measured in this study: Entertainment (ENT), entertainment associated with playing the board game; Comprehensibility (COM), understanding of game complexity; Challenge (CHL), positive impact on player excitation; Course Material (CMT), understanding of the course material due to the game; and Failure (FAL), ability to self-monitor errors. The first three variables were taken from d’Astous & Gagnon (2007), which examined factors that impact appreciation of board games. The latter two were added by the authors. Participants were also asked if they work in a managerial position. The items in the questionnaire were measured using five-point scales anchored from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” 49 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 42–56 A reliability test of the items that measure the key variables using Cronbach’s alpha yielded a standard item alpha score of 0.87 for CMT, 0.90 for ENT, 0.73 for COM, 0.77 for CHL, 0 .88 for FAL. Descriptive statistics for the ten variables and their correlations to game participants are provided in Table 1. No single observation was removed from the set. Statistical Procedure: Data was analysed using a multiple regression analysis, one-way Anova analysis, Kruskal-Wallis test, t-test, and univariate analysis. We used SPSS v23. Table 1. Correlation matrix of the variables, the means, standard deviations, and reliability ENT COM CHL CMT FAL ENT – COM .23 – CHL .09 .01 – CMT .37** .33** –.02 – FAL .22 .99*** .39** .71 – N 69 72 72 71 52 Mean 12.83 6 5.64 13.90 20.56 SD 3.51 1.63 1.58 3.01 39.51 Cronbach’s α .90 .73 .77 .87 .88 *significant at p < .05 **significant at p < .01 ***significant at p < .001 5. Results As mentioned, H1 claims Entertainment and Comprehensibility of the JF game predict the understanding of course material. This hypothesis was supported by the data, while a multiple regression analysis was carried out, in which ENT and COM were the inde- pendent variables and CMT was the dependent variable (Table 2). From Table 2, we observe that R2 = 0.16, where ENT and COM positively affect CMT. Table 2. ENT and COM effect on CMT Coefficients (B) Statistical error (SE) Weight (β) R2 Δ R2 ENT .22 .10 .26* .20 .18** COM .28 .10 .31** *significant at p < .05 **significant at p < .01 50 E. Eckhaus et al. Experiential learning in management education H2, claiming that a difference between the three groups of students (game winners, losers, and non-participants) on the final course grade, was supported. We first per- formed a one-way Anova test. The homogeneity of variances test showed significance, implying a difference in population variance. Therefore, an a-parametric test should instead be performed. We performed the Kruskal-Wallis test, which showed a statisti- cally significant difference between the three groups of students (χ2(2) = 14.71, p <.01). The highest mean rank of the grade belonged to students who won in the game (58.12), followed by students who participated in the game and lost (55.27), and finally the students who did not participated in the game at all (30.56). In order to confirm that students who won in the game will have a higher mean course grade than students who did not participate (H2a), a t-test was performed. The t-test showed a significant difference between the two groups of students (t(47) = 3.43, p < 0.01) (Table 3). Indeed, the mean of the students who won (M = 78.92, SD = 16.80) was higher than the mean grade of the students who did not participate in the game (M = 58.33, SD = 24.65). Table 3. Difference between students who won and students who did not participate N Mean Std.Div. Won 25 78.92 16.80** Didn’t attend 24 58.33 24.65 **P <.01 In order to confirm that students who lost in the game will have a higher mean course grade than students who did not participate (H2b), a t-test was performed. The t-test showed a significant difference between the two groups of students (t(27.38) = 3.60, p < 0.01) (Table 4). Indeed, the mean of the students who lost (M = 77.26, SD = 10.87) was higher than the mean grade of the students who did not participate in the game (M = 58.33, SD = 24.65). Table 4. Difference between students who won and students who did not participate N Mean Std.Div. Lost 50 77.26 10.87** Didn’t attend 24 58.33 24.65 **P <.01 Finally, in order to confirm that students who won and lost in the game, taken to- gether as a group, will have a higher mean course grade than students who did not par- ticipate (H2c), a univariate analysis was performed with Duncan’s multiple comparison test. Indeed, the test indicated statistical significance between the two groups (p <.001), as observed in Figure 3. 51 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 42–56 Fig. 3. Difference between game participants and those who did not participate H3, it should be recalled, posited that the level of challenge derived from the game along with the ability to self-check causes of failure in the game predict managerial ca- pabilities. The data supported this hypothesis as well. A binary regression analysis was used, where the independent variable is CHL and the dependent variable is Manager (if the respondent is employed in a managerial position). The regression was statistically significant (χ2 = 7.10. p = 0.03), with R2 (Nagelkerke) = .23, and CHL was statistically significant (p <.05). However, FAL was not significant. 6. Conclusions Board games employed in management education can be valuable educational tools. However, research on their effectiveness in management teaching is lacking in empirical evidence, especially when applied to accountancy studies. We propose an EL technique based on the JF board game, which offers hands-on experience using relevant strategies and techniques, challenging questions native to the business world, and an entertaining simulation. The hypotheses asserting that the game provides valuable educational experience translatable into higher GPA scores were all supported. Students who participated in the games have shown a higher GPA than the ones that did not participate. Furthermore, the game’s level of entertainment, along with its comprehensibility, was found to positively impact the understanding of the course material. It was also proposed that the JF game may also serve as a tool to identify manage- ment skills, laying the ground for future studies to examine how gameplay can predict management capabilities. Challenge was found to be statistically significant, although 52 E. Eckhaus et al. Experiential learning in management education the ability to handle failure was not significant. This may be due to the fact that not all players were ready to learn from failure, and that personal background may be a dependent factor (Huovinen, Tihula 2008). Relatedly, a limitation of this study is that the sample consisted of a small number of participants employed in management posi- tions. Future studies should use a larger sample of players in management positions, exploring a range of parameters such as strategies used during gameplay and teamwork. References Ang, C. S.; Avni, E.; Zaphiris, P. 2008. Linking pedagogical theory of computer games to their us- ability, International Journal on ELearning 7(3): 533–558. At-Twaijri, M. I.; Al-Khursani, S. A.; Abdulwahed, F. A. 1995. An empirical investigation of the job design motivating factors: the Saudi case, International Journal of Commerce & Management 5(4): 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb047319 Benecke, D. R.; Bezuidenhout, R.-M. 2011. Experiential learning in public relations education in South Africa, Journal of Communication Management 15(1): 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632541111105259 Bennis, W. G.; O’Toole, J. 2005. How business schools lost their way, Harvard Business Review 83(5): 96–104, 154. Bevan, D.; Kipka, C. 2012. Experiential learning and management education, The Journal of Manage- ment Development 31(3): 193–197. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711211208943 Caird, S. P. 1993. What do psychological tests suggest about entrepreneurs?, Journal of Managerial Psychology 8(6): 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949310047428 Chandler, T. 1996. Teaching games for understanding: reflections and further questions, Journal of Physi- cal Education, Recreation & Dance 67(4): 49–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1996.10607375 Chiucchi, M. S. 2013. Intellectual capital accounting in action: enhancing learning through intervention- ist research, Journal of Intellectual Capital 14(1): 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931311289011 Clark, J.; White, G. W. 2010. Experiential learning: a definitive edge in the job market, American Journal of Business Education 3(2): 115–118. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v3i2.390 Cline, R. C.; Kroth, M. 2008. The challenges of using service learning in construction management curricula, International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering 3(1): 1–8. Coakley, J. R.; Drexler, J. A., Jr; Larson, E. W.; Kircher, A. E. 1998. Using a computer-based version of the beer game: lessons learned, Journal of Management Education 22(3): 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299802200311 Cornell, R. M.; Johnson, C. B.; Schwartz, W. C., Jr. 2013. Enhancing student experiential learning with structured interviews, Journal of Education for Business 88(3): 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.659296 d’Astous, A.; Gagnon, K. 2007. An inquiry into the factors that impact on consumer appreciation of a board game, The Journal of Consumer Marketing 24(2): 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760710737085 Day, H. I. 1981. Play: a ludic behavior, in H. Day (Ed.). Advances in intrinsic motivation and aesthet- ics. Springer, 225–250. De Zan, G.; De Toni, A. F.; Fornasier, A.; Battistella, C. 2015. A methodology for the assessment of experiential learning lean, European Journal of Training and Development 39(4): 332–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-05–2014–0040 https://doi.org/10.1108/eb047319 https://doi.org/10.1108/13632541111105259 https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711211208943 https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949310047428 https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1996.10607375 https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931311289011 https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v3i2.390 https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299802200311 https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.659296 https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760710737085 https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-05-2014-0040 53 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 42–56 Dellaportas, S.; Hassall, T. 2013. Experiential learning in accounting education: a prison visit, The British Accounting Review 45(1): 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.12.005 Elijido-Ten, E.; Kloot, L. 2015. Experiential learning in accounting work-integrated learning: a three- way partnership, Education & Training 57(2): 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10–2013–0122 Estrin, T.; Innerd, W.; Kantor, J. 1995. Jacket Factory. Paper presented at the Developments In Busi- ness Simulation & Experiential Exercises, San Antonio. Faria, A. J. 2001. The changing nature of business simulation/gaming research: a brief history, Simula- tion & Gaming 32(1): 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687810103200108 Fawcett, S. L. 1995. The application of a US-originated computer-driven restaurant management game in the development of European hospitality managers, Education & Training 37(4): 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400919510088861 Fouché, J.; Visser, S. S. 2008. An evaluation of the integration of a board game in introductory ac- counting, South African Journal of Higher Education 22(3): 588–601. Fridman, D. 2010. From rats to riches: game playing and the production of the capitalist self, Qualita- tive Sociology 33(4): 423–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133–010–9171-z Fuglister, J.; Stegmoyer, M.; Castrigano, R. 2010. Two open-ended, experiential learning cases in ac- counting, American Journal of Business Education 3(11): 23–30. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v3i11.59 Gerlach, J. D.; Reinagel, T. P. 2016. Experiential learning in MPA programs: a case for complemen- tarity between internship and service learning requirements, PS, Political Science & Politics 49(1): 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096515001158 Gibson, L. 2003. The power of playfulness, Urologic Nursing 23(1): 66–67. Gold, J.; Holman, D. 2001. Let me tell you a story: an evaluation of the use of storytelling and argu- ment analysis in management education, Career Development International 6(7): 384–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006054 Granitz, N.; Hugstad, P. 2004. Creating and diffusing a technology champion course, Journal of Mar- keting Education 26(3): 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475304268777 Gruver, W. R.; Miller, J. A. 2011. Teaching the unteachable? Leadership studies at bucknell university, International Journal of Arts & Sciences 4(8): 341–346. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1874113 Hale, F. A.; Mann, S.; Corsun, D. L. 2002. Charting the experiential territory: clarifying definitions and uses of computer simulation, games, and role play, The Journal of Management Development 21(9/10): 732–744. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710210448011 Holman, D.; Mumford, A. 2001. Learning theory in the practice of management development: evolution and applications, Management Learning 32(1): 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507601321010 Hsi-Peng, L.; Wang, S.-m. 2008. The role of Internet addiction in online game loyalty: an exploratory study, Internet Research 18(5): 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240810912756 Huovinen, J.; Tihula, S. 2008. Entrepreneurial learning in the context of portfolio entrepreneurship, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 14(3): 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550810874673 Jak, A. J.; Seelye, A. M.; Jurick, S. M. 2013. Crosswords to computers: a critical review of popular approaches to cognitive enhancement, Neuropsychology review 23(1): 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065–013–9226–5 Kakabadse, A.; Myers, A.; Okazaki-Ward, L. 1996. Japanese managers operating in Europe: implica- tions for international management and Japanese secondees, Journal of European Industrial Training 20(7): 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599610127864 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.12.005 https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2013-0122 https://doi.org/10.1177/104687810103200108 https://doi.org/10.1108/00400919510088861 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-010-9171-z https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v3i11.59 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096515001158 https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006054 https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475304268777 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1874113 https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710210448011 https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507601321010 https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240810912756 https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550810874673 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-013-9226-5 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599610127864 54 E. Eckhaus et al. Experiential learning in management education Karlowicz, K. A. 2009. Evaluation of the urinary incontinence scales© to measure change after expe- riential learning: a pilot study, Urologic Nursing 29(1): 40–46. Kelliher, G. J.; Sachdeva, A. K.; Fleetwood, J. 1996. Preserving the best of the art of teaching, Aca- demic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 71(3): 248–250. Kirk, T.; Harris, C. 2011. It’s all fun and games in the library, Knowledge Quest 40(1): 8–9. Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. En- glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kurt, S. 2013. Examining teachers’ use of computer-based technologies: a case study, Education and Information Technologies 18(4): 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639–012–9199–7 Laing, G. K. 2009. Using a simulation activity in an introductory management accounting course to enhance learning, Accounting, Accountability & Performance 15(1): 71–96. Lisinski, M.; Szarucki, M. 2011. Exploring management development programmes in Mncs. Example of eads group, Business, Management and Education 9(1): 93–108. https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2011.07 Lopez, R. R.; Hays, K. B.; Wagner, M. W.; Locke, S. L., et al. 2006. Integrating land conservation planning in the classroom, Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(1): 223–228. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091–7648(2006)34[223:ILCPIT]2.0.CO;2 Magdalena Mo Ching, M.; Cheng, Y. C. 2001. A theory of self-learning in a networked human and IT environment: implications for education reforms, The International Journal of Educational Manage- ment 15(4/5): 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540110394429 Marques, J.; Holt, S.; Green, V. 2013. From white paper writing to white water rafting, The Journal of Management Development 32(8): 852–864. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10–2011–0105 Martin, A. J.; Gaskin, C. J. 2004. An integrated physical education model, Journal of Physical Educa- tion New Zealand 37(1): 61–69. McCarthy, M. 2010. Experiential learning theory: from theory to practice, Journal of Business & Economics Research 8(5): 131–139. https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v8i5.725 McCleery, R. A.; Lopez, R. R.; Harveson, L. A.; Silvy, N. J.; Slack, R. D. 2005. Integrating on-campus wildlife research projects into the wildlife curriculum, Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(3): 802–809. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091–7648(2005)33[802:IOWRPI]2.0.CO;2 Melewar, T. C.; Meadows, M.; Zheng, W.; Rickards, R. 2004. The influence of culture on brand build- ing in the Chinese market: a brief insight, Journal of Brand Management 11(6): 449–461. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540190 Mello, J. A. 2006. Enhancing the international business curriculum through partnership with the united states department of commerce: the “E” award internship program, Journal of Management Education 30(5): 690–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562906289049 Moratis, L.; Hoff, J.; Reul, B. 2006. A dual challenge facing management education: simulation-based learning and learning about CSR, The Journal of Management Development 25(3/4): 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710610648150 Murthy, S.; Dingman, M. E.; Mensch, K. G. 2011. Experiential leader development at the united states marine corps intelligence: a pilot study evaluation, Organization Development Journal 29(3): 23–38. O’Callaghan, D.; Fahy, J. 2002. Is the internet dumbing down marketing?, Irish Marketing Review 15(2): 59–70. Ord, J.; Leather, M. 2011. The substance beneath the labels of experiential learning: the importance of John Dewey for outdoor educators, Australian Journal of Outdoor Education 15(2): 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9199-7 https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2011.07 https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34%5b223:ILCPIT%5d2.0.CO;2 https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540110394429 https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2011-0105 https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v8i5.725 https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33%5b802:IOWRPI%5d2.0.CO;2 https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540190 https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562906289049 https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710610648150 55 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 42–56 Penger, S.; Znidarsic, J.; Dimovski, V. 2011. Experiential learning and management education: empiri- cal research and implications for practice in higher education in Slovenia, International Journal of Management and Information Systems 15(1): 23–34. https://doi.org/10.19030/ijmis.v15i1.1592 Pfeffer, J.; Fong, C. 2002. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye, Academy of Management Learning and Education 1(1): 78–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2002.7373679 Pfeffer, J.; Sutton, R. I. 2006. Profiting from evidence-based management, Strategy & Leadership 34(2): 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570610652617 Procee, H. 2006. Reflection in education: a Kantian epistemology, Educational Theory 56(3): 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741–5446.2006.00225.x Quillien, J. 1993. Management education: thick or thin, The International Journal of Educational Management 7(1): 20–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513549310023276 Raelin, J. A. 1993. The Persean ethic: consistency of belief and action in managerial practice, Human Relations 46(5): 575–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600502 Raelin, J. A. 1997. Individual and situational precursors of successful action learning, Journal of Management Education 21(3): 368–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299702100308 Reynolds, M. 2009. Wild frontiers – reflections on experiential learning, Management Learning 40(4): 387–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609335848 Rijumol, K. C.; Thangarajathi, S.; Ananthasayanam, R. 2010. Disaster management through experien- tial learning, i-Manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology 4(1): 1–6. Singh, V.; Vinnicombe, S.; Kim, J. 2006. Constructing a professional identity: how young female managers use role models, Women in Management Review 21(1): 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420610643420 Sprengel, A. D. E. R. 1994. Learning can be fun with gaming, Journal of Nursing Education 33(4): 151–152. Sullivan, S. E.; Forret, M. L.; Mainiero, L. A.; Terjesen, S. 2007. What motivates entrepreneurs? An exploratory study of the kaleidoscope career model and entrepreneurship, Journal of Applied Manage- ment and Entrepreneurship 12(4): 4–19. Sullivan, S. E.; Mainiero, L. A. 2007. The changing nature of gender roles, alpha/beta careers and work-life issues, Career Development International 12(3): 238–263. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710745881 Szarucki, M. 2013. Model of method selection for managerial problem solving in an organization, Business, Management and Education 11(1): 168–187. https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2013.10 Taylor, S.; Thorpe, R.; Down, S. 2002. Negotiating managerial legitimacy in smaller organizations: management education, technical skill, and situated competence, Journal of Management Education 26(5): 550–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256202236726 Tirakoat, S.; Lata, S. 2011. Application of 3d cartoon animation to Thai plays for Thai youth: case study of north eastern region of Thailand, International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology 2(1): 31–36. Wyss-Flamm, E. D.; Zandee, D. P. 2001. Navigating between finite and infinite games in the manage- rial classroom, Journal of Management Education 25(3): 292–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256290102500303 Young, M.; Warren, D. L. 2011. Encouraging the development of critical thinking skills in the intro- ductory accounting courses using the challenge problem approach, Issues in Accounting Education 26(4): 859–881. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace-50065 https://doi.org/10.19030/ijmis.v15i1.1592 https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2002.7373679 https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570610652617 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00225.x https://doi.org/10.1108/09513549310023276 https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600502 https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299702100308 https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609335848 https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420610643420 https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710745881 https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2013.10 https://doi.org/10.1177/105256202236726 https://doi.org/10.1177/105256290102500303 https://doi.org/10.2308/iace-50065 56 E. Eckhaus et al. Experiential learning in management education Eyal ECKHAUS is a lecturer at the Department of Economics & Business Administration at Ariel University. He received his PhD in management from Bar-Ilan University. His main research interests include management, IT, new media and the digital culture. Galit KLEIN is a lecturer in the department of Economics and Business Administration at Ariel Uni- versity. She received her PhD in Organizational Sociology from The Hebrew University. Her research interests lie in the area of investments, decision making process and social psychology process during establishment of new ventures. Jeffrey KANTOR is Professor and Head of the Department of Accounting at Ariel University. He has published several books and over 50 peer reviewed journal articles. His current research interests include the Impact of Culture as it relates to the Accounting Profession (and the economy in general).