BUSINESS POLICY CONTENT AND TEACHING METHODS: COMPARISONS OF THE HEGARTY AND SUMMERS AND BOYD FINDINGS Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 12, 1985 105 BUSINESS POLICY CONTENT AND TEACHING METHODS: COMPARISONS OF THE HEGARTY AND SUMMERS AND BOYD FINDINGS Irvin Summers, Indiana State University Stephen Parker, Southwest Missouri State University Charles W. Boyd, Southwest Missouri State University ABSTRACT The two studies utilized the same membership group for obtaining data. Comparisons of the two research findings are made, especially as they pertain to policy course content and the use of business games and cases as teaching methods. The conclusion regarding content is that the findings are very similar and the apparent difference in use level of games is because of item content differences in the questionnaires. The lack of a stream of research that permits comparison and the need for replication is emphasized. INTRODUCTION Faculty acceptance and utilization is an area of continuing concern for those interested in developing simulations and experiential learning materials. (Hegarty, 1976; Hunter and Price, 1980; Raia, 1966; Robana, 1980; Shim, 1978; Shim, Scott, and Knod, 1982; Summers and Boyd, 1984, 1983, 1982; Thompson and Pitts, 1980). The extent these learning methods are used depends at least in part, on the faculty member’s perception of course content and one’s role as a professor. The Business Policy course and the professors of Business Policy have been especially targeted for research in this area. The reasons for this interest are extensively reviewed in the studies cited in the first paragraph; we will not repeat that background here. At the 1984 ABSEL meeting, Summers and Boyd reported their findings in this research area. Their tables, which space limitations required omitting from the Proceedings, were distributed at the meeting. In 1976 Hegarty reported his findings in the same research area at the Academy of Management meeting. This paper compares the two sets of data, and especially seeks differences in the findings that nay indicate shifts in professors’ perceptions over time. Both studies drew the sample from the membership of the Business Policy and Planning division, the Academy of Management. Hegarty mailed the questionnaire to all division members associated with a college or university; Summers and Boyd mailed 200 to a random sample of the division membership. Comparison of respondents’ distribution by academic rank cannot be made, since Hegarty did not report this breakdown. FINDINGS There are some terminology differences between the two studies. The operational definition of that which Summers and Boyd label content is almost the same as that which Hegarty labels course objectives. Summers and Boyd distinguished between the graduate and undergraduate course while Hegarty did not. Even given the difficulties of data comparison (Tables 2 and 3), inspection does seem to clearly indicate that Strategic Planning, or Strategy Making and Top Management Perspective, continue to be most important in the professor’s view of the Policy course. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 12, 1985 106 Hegarty’s findings regarding course emphasis (Table 4) are clearly consistent with Summers’ and Boyd’s findings regarding Strategic Planning and Setting Goals/Objectives (Table 3). While not inconsistent, the findings regarding Strategy Implementation may be indicating a slight shift in the professors’ emphasis. Business Game Hegarty found that 51 percent of his sample were using a business game, 49 percent of his sample were devoting 10 percent or more of their course to the game, and 23 percent were devoting 30 percent or more of their course to the game (Table 5). Only 6 percent of Hegarty’s respondents indicate they tried a business game without success. The Hegarty respondents appeared to positively perceive business games. The Summers and Boyd findings are more negative regarding the use of business games--out of four learning methods It was ranked third by the professors and fourth by executives. Note however, that Hegarty reported about 49 percent not using a business game. Inspection of Table 5 would indicate cases would have also been ranked higher by Hegarty’s subjects. Do these findings indicate a shift in the popularity of business games? We do not know from these data. The differences may only be because Hegarty asked the time devoted to a learning method and Summers and Boyd asked for a ranking (Table 5, 6) Cases Both studies report similar findings regarding cases. Hegarty finds that most course time is spent on cases; Summers and Boyd find cases rank first as a teaching method (Table 5, 6). SUMMARY After an approximate eight-year span of time, there appears to be no remarkable shift in the findings. The attempt to compare these two research papers highlights the need for replication and extension of Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 12, 1985 107 research. The two studies are not directly comparable. An opportunity for useful comparison was missed; especially so because the same membership group was sampled. By combining parts of both studies and replicating them, a more conclusive set of data can be obtained. It is important that trends within the interest areas of ABSEL be known. This paper is evidence of a need for a continuous and comparable flow of research and data in that regard. Ranking should be avoided in favor of rating. The method(s) and instrument(s) used need to be clearly presented Time devoted to a learning method needs to be distinguished as class time, student’s time, and instructor’s time. The instructor’s belief regarding what course content is supported by which learning method should be assessed. Those instructors not using business games should be asked why they do not. Terminology in the questionnaire needs in some instances to be defined and standardized, e.g., business games or computer simulations. There are examples of each that do not include the other. When we mean a computer- based simulation of firms functioning in an industry, we need to use words that make this explicit. REFERENCES [1] Hegarty, W. Harvey, “Contextual and Pedagogical Differences in Teaching Business Policy Among Academicians,” Proceedings, 36th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 1976, pp. 125-129. [2] Hunter, Bill, Price, Margaret, “Business Games: Underused Learning Tools,” Industry Week, Vol. 206, No. 4, (August 18, 1980). [3] Raia, Anthony P., “A Study of the Educational Value of Management Games,” The Journal of Business, Vol. 39, No. 3, 1966, pp. 339-352. [41 Robana, A., “What Business Students Learn From Finance Simulations,” Proceedings, 7th ABSEL Conference, Dallas, TX, 1980, pp. 177-179. [5] Shim, J. K., “Management Game Simulation: Survey and New Direction,” University of Michigan, Business Review, Vol. 30, No. 3, (May 1978), pp. 26-29. [6] Shim, Bong-Gong, Scott, C. William, Knod, Edward, “A Progress Report on Policy Case Evaluation and Selection Survey,” Proceedings, 42nd Annual meeting of the Academy of Management, 1982, New York City, NY. [7] Summers, Irvin, and Boyd, Charles “Comparisons of Practitioners’ and Professors’ Perceptions of Business Policy Content and Learning Methods,” Proceedings, 11th ABSEL Conference, Honolulu, MI, 1984, pp. 148- 151. [81 Summers, Irvin and Boyd, Charles, “Professors’ Ratings of Business Policy Learning Methods,” Proceedings, 10th Annual ABSEL Conference, Tulsa, OK, 1983 [9] Summers, Irvin, Boyd, Charles, “Corporation Executives’ Ratings of Policy Learning Techniques,’ Proceedings, 9th ABSEL Conference, Phoenix, AZ, 1982, pp. 69-72. [10] Thompson, K. R., Pitts, E. Robert, “Using Simulation and Experiential Learning in Industrial Settings,’ Proceedings, 7th ABSEL Conference, TX, 1980, p. 44. Table of Contents Volume 12, 1985 One Step Beyond Naiveté: Laboratory Simulation of Strategic Management Predicting Performance Over the Course of the Simulation Congruency of Critical Performance Factors in Simulated and Real World Environments: An Exploratory Study Stimulating Learning and Creating Course Involvement Through the Use of Debates A Novel Approach to Writing Texts ABSEL Revisited: In-Class Student Involvement Increases Learning Bus-Sim Micro: An Introductory Business Simulation Demonstration Solutions Diversified: And Experiential Introduction to Management Information Systems Simulating Rigorous Analysis in Stimulation Gaming The Use of Decision Support Systems (DSS) and Operations Research/Management Science (OR/MS) Techniques to Enhance the Learning Experience of Students Participating in Computerized Simulation Problems Associated with the Administrative Use of Student Ratings Enthusiasm Awareness in the Experiential Classroom Participation Expectations of Students in Experiential Settings Using the Computer as a Planning Aid in an Applied Marketing Course Integrating Microcomputers in the Marketing Curriculum Through the Use of Marketing COMPUPROBS Giving Students Experience in Team Report Writing Description and Results of an Experiential Approach in the Teaching of Business Policy Using Real World Experiences as an Experiential Activity: the Page Technique A Guide to Writing Microcomputer Simulations The Development of a Microcomputer Distributed Processing Business Game A Monte-Carlo Approach to Interactive Gaming Single Case Experimental Design as an Alternative to the Conventional Approach Learning Theory and Research Design: How Has ABSEL Fared? Criticisms of the Use of Simulations in Economics: A Rebuttal Using the General Management Game in the Business Policy Course General Management Policy Simulations: Which Games are Popular, and Why do Professors Stop Using Games? Business Policy Content and Teaching Methods: Comparisons of the Hegarty and Summers and Boyd Findings Let's Talk to the Experiential Authors A Computerized Logistics Game for Micros Effects of Contextual Factors on Bargaining Decisions of Experiential Group Representatives The Linking of a Collective Bargaining Simulation and a Business Simulation Game - A Case Study Students are Surrogates in Arbitration Studies AIRWAYS: A Microcomputer Simulation of a Service Industry A Proposed Interactive Inventory Control Simulation Microcomputer Demonstration Exercises for a Course on Creativity and Problem Solving Processing Skills for Teachers, Trainers and Managers Developing the Competencies of Resistance to Stress and Accurate Self-Assessment Raising Elizabeth: Socializing Girls to Aspire to Careers as Managers, Secretaries or Corporate Wives Factors Influencing Perception: Gaining Understanding Through Experience Painless Computer Simulation The Effects of Differential Grade Weights on Business Game Learning levels An Investigation of the Validity of a Recommendation for Experiential Exercise Debriefing Simulation and Experiential Practices of Faculty: A Data-Based Workshop The Live Case Study: Filling the Gap Between the Case Study and the Experiential Exercise A Reactive Microcase Pedagogy Advantages of a Multigame Simulation Course Using the Logistic Function to Score Computer-Supported Games A Simulation Model to Calculate Session Time for Running Simulation Models in a Shared Resource Environment On the Core Size of Small Task Groups and the Cause for the Core Size to Emerge