PROFESSORS’ RATINGS OF BUSINESS POLICY LEARNING METHODS questionnaire item was presented as follows: Other experiential exercises Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 10, 1983 32 PROFESSORS’ RATINGS OF BUSINESS POLICY LEARNING METHODS B. Irvin Summers, Southwest Missouri State University Charles Boyd, Southwest Missouri State University ABSTRACT Preferences for four Business Policy learning methods are rated by Business Policy professors. The findings are most favorable to case analysis; less favorable data are reported for computer simulations and other experiential techniques. However, the findings are not perceived by the writers as pessimistic as regards either simulation or experiential learning techniques. INTRODUCTION Several reports have indicated the positive aspects of games as learning methods. Rais (5) found games to be efficient for acquiring content knowledge. Robana (6) reported numerous learning results. Shim (7) reported positive student learning responses. Further, as we meet in discussion sessions and informally in groups at ABSEL each year, we, as a professional interest group, generally endorse simulations and games as useful learning techniques. Other investigators have recently focused attention on simulation games and experiential learning techniques in industry. Examples are the Thompson and Pitts (9) panel at the 1980 ABSEL meeting and the Hunter and Price (2) article in Industry Week. Less positive findings were reported by Summers and Boyd at the 1982 ABSEL meetings (8). They surveyed executives from seven industrial groups. These respondents indicated a preference for cases and lecture/discussion as learning methods in the Business Policy course. In recent ABSEL meetings the membership has been encouraged to present research that can be replicated and to build a research base by replicating and extending previous research. The data reported here is a replication of the Summers and Boyd study utilizing a sample of Business Policy professors. The data here reported provides Business Policy professors’ ratings of Business Policy learning methods. The questionnaire item was presented as follows: Considering the student’s future application of Business Policy concepts to their career in a company, what learning method do you believe is best? (Please rate 1 through 5) Please mark those about which you have no knowledge with a 6. Lecture/discussion Computer simulation game Case analysis Other experiential exercises The respondents had previously been instructed that 1 was the most favorable or positive rating and that 5 was the least favorable or most negative rating. A systematic random sample of 200 was drawn from the membership of the Academy of Management’s Business Policy and Planning Division. Fifty-seven usable questionnaires were returned, representing a 28.5 percent response rate. FINDINGS Tables 1-4 The mean ratings given by the respondents were cross- tabulated in four ways; the results are presented in Tables 1- 4. Table 1 presents the responses based on the respondents’ academic rank. Cases received the highest overall mean rating, and the ratings were fairly consistent across all academic ranks. Lecture/ discussion received a slightly higher rating than computer simulation games, and other experiential exercises received the lowest rating. In Table 2, the responses were classified by the respondents’ length of graduate-level Policy teaching experience. The order in which the four learning methods were rated was the same as in Table 1, The magnitude of the ratings was also very similar, except that cases received a much higher mean rating by professors with more than 20 years of graduate teaching experience. The responses were further classified by the professors’ length of undergraduate Policy teaching experience, and once again the previous ranking and magnitude of the mean ratings emerged, as revealed in Table 3. For cases, one can see a pattern of progressively higher ratings as length of undergraduate teaching experience increases beyond six years. The overall pattern holds once again in Table 4, where the respondents were classified by length of nonacademic management experience. Curiously, respondents with more then 20 years of management experience gave a much lower mean rating to cases than did any other group, and they also rated all four learning methods fairly evenly. A number of the standard deviations throughout all four tables are greater than 1.0; given the 1-5 scale this would appear to indicate somewhat diverse Opinions. The overall pattern of responses, however, is consistent across all four tables. The pattern indicates that the Business Policy learning methods were rated in the following order of preference: − Cases − Lecture/discussion − Computer simulation game − Other experiential exercises Table 5 Tables 1-4 are averaged responses. Table 5 presents the frequencies. For those interested in replicating or extending this research, the frequencies may be Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 10, 1983 33 useful. Frequencies also provide findings that may be obscured by means. For instance; (1) while 31 professors rated Lecture/Discussion favorable, 20 did not, (2) evidently 20 percent of our sample had little knowledge of experiential learning, and (3) not more than 20 percent rated simulations and experiential exercises extremely negatively. Table 5 reveals the same general pattern as Tables 1-4. The data, however, depending on one’s perception of a 3 rating-- and whether one perceives the glass one-half full or one-half empty-- can lead to more positive conclusions regarding simulation and experiential learning. DISCUSSION The overall order of preferences for Business Policy learning methods revealed in this study is the same as that found in the Summers and Boyd (8) study of practicing executives. This would seem to indicate that the Policy learning methods practicing executives believe to be best are probably the ones being most used in the classroom. Professors with more than 20 years of nonacademic management experience tended to give similar ratings to all four learning methods. Perhaps these more seasoned management veterans perceive value from blending a variety of learning methods, and perhaps they are less traditionally attached to any specific learning approach. Conversely, when teaching experience alone was the classification criterion, the pattern that emerged was the tendency for increasing years of undergraduate Business Policy teaching experience to lead toward a steadily increasing preference for cases. This phenomenon forms an interesting contrast to the ratings of those with more years of management experience. The relatively large standard deviations reported for several class groupings in the tables may--at least in part--be a function of relatively small class sample sizes. Before dismissing them too quickly on that basis, the plausible explanation that they may represent very diverse opinions of the various learning methods should be investigated. It would appear that further research might be directed toward attempting to discover the underlying reasons for Business Policy professors’ ratings of these learning methods. For example, do the attitudes and levels of preparation of their students play an important role in shaping professors’ preferences? Understanding any such interacting relationships should advance our knowledge of when, for instance, simulation or experiential exercises are selected as an instructional technique. Possible Errors in Research Design Although the question requested a rating, inspection of the data does seem to indicate that the respondents ranked the learning methods. i.e., no duplicate ratings were obtained on 27 of the questionnaires. Combining Lecture/Discussion as a category may be in error; some respondents made notes that this was not an acceptable category. The data do not indicate all of the respondent’s experience. For example, we did not ask the respondent the extent of their experience with any one learning method--in fact, we do not know which respondents have the facilities necessary to utilize a computer game simulation. Recapitulation and Extension Clearly about 31 percent of the respondents are favorable toward computer simulation games, and about 21 percent are negative toward these learning methods. Very clear, also, is the favorable rating of case analysis. We prefer to view the results of the survey as finding the glass 30 percent full as compared to 70 percent empty. We also would like to submit for consideration that case analysis is closely related to experiential learning. Does one experience, albeit vicariously (or at least secondhand), the situation of the case? It does seem to the writers that the role of simulation and experiential learning is perceived by a reasonable number of the respondents as a useful learning technique. Further, the continued development of simulation and experiential techniques is supported by the findings. TABLE Professors Main Rating of Policy Teaching Methods Based on Academic Rank Teaching Method L/D Games Ca.. Other Experiential Academic Rank _ X S.D. _ X S.D. _ X S.D. _ X S.D. 3,3 1.4 Professor (n = 20) 3.3 1.3 2.9 1.2 1,4 .9 (a=16) 3.1 3.1 Associate Professor (n = 18) 2.3 1.3 3.6 1.4 1.7 1.2 (n=17) 3.8 1.7 Assistant Professor (n = 11) 2.7 1.6 3.1 1.1 .2.6 1.0 (n=10) 2.9 1.2 Other (n = 8) 2.1 1.2 2.7 1.7 1.7 .9 (n=8) 3.3 1.5 Total (n = 57) 2.7 2.4 3.1 1.3 1.6 1.0 (n=51) 1-highest rating 5=lowest ratio; : Professors' Mean Ratings of Policy Teaching Methods Based on Length of Graduate Policy Teaching Experience roan, of Teaching Experience: Teaching Method LID Game Case Other Experiential Graduate Policy S.D. LI X LL. X LL. 3 (n - 17) 2.5 1.3 2.8 1.3 1.5 .9 3.61.6 In - 16) 3-5 In - 11) 3.1 1.4 3.5 1.3 1.9 1.4 3.7 1.3 (n - 9) 6-10 (n • 10) 2.7 1.5 2.6 1.1 1.3 .7 3.3 1.1 10-20 (n - 7) 3.4 1.1 3.3 1.3 2.1 1.5 2.0.8 (n - 4) ,20 In - 4) 3.2 1.3 3.0 .8 1.0 0 . 0 3.2 1.7 Total Sample (n.49) 2.9 3.0 1.6 3.3 (n = 43) Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 10, 1983 34 REFERENCES (1) Carlsson, Barbara, P. Keane, and J. B. Martin, Organizational Psychology: A Book of Readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971. (2) Hunter, Bill and Margaret Price, “Business Games: Underused Learning Tools?" Industry Week, Vol. 206, No. 4, August 18, 1980, pp. 53-54, 56. (3) Parasuraman, A., “Evaluation of Simulation Games A Critical Look at Past Efforts and Future Needs,” Proceedings, Seventh ABSEL Conference Dallas, 1980, pp. 192-194. (4) Parasuraman, A., Assessing the Worth of Business Simulation Games: Problems and Prospects, Simulation and Games, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1981, pp. 189- 200. (5) Raia, Anthony P., ‘A Study of the Educational Value of Management Games,” The Journal of Business, Vol. 39, No. 3, 1966, pp. 339-352. (6) Robana, Abderrahman, “What Business Students Learn From Finance Simulations,” Proceedings, Seventh ABSEL Conference, Dallas, 1980, pp. 177- 179. (7) Shim, Joe K., “Management Game Simulation: Survey and New Direction,” Business Review, University of Michigan, Vol. 30, No. 3, 1978, pp. 26- 29. (8) Summers, B. Irvin, and Charles W. Boyd, “Corporation Executives’ Ratings of Policy Learning Techniques,” Proceedings, Ninth ABSEL Conference, Phoenix, 1982, pp. 69-72. (9) Thompson, Kenneth R., and Robert E. Pitts, “Using Simulation and Experiential Learning in Industrial Settings,” Proceedings, Seventh ABSEL Conference, Dulles, 1980, p. 44. Table of Contents Volume 10, 1983 Is the Computerized Business Simulation Relevant? Business Professionals Play a Student Game A Methodology For Assessing the Internal Validity of Business Simulations A Longitudinal Study of the External Validity of a Business Management Game Policy Analysis and Decision: A corporate Relocation Simulation Exercise Effective Listening: An Exercise in Managerial Communication The Symbol Exercise: An Initial Group Activity Concept Based Simulations Institutional Users of Experiential Learning Packages: A Preliminary View from Publishers' Adoption Lists How to Use Business Games in the Business Policy Course: The Students' Perspective Professors' Ratings of Business Policy Learning Methods Moot Trial: An Exercise in Trial Procedure and Evidence The Advertising Agency Game: An Experiential learning Exercise The Use of Videotaped Cases in Teaching Information Acquisition and Decision-Making Skills Experiencing Information Processing Strategies as a Means to Explore Decision Making Importance Ratings and Operations Data as Predictors of Business Game Performance Determinants of Performance in Computer Simulations Predicting Business Game Performance form Perceptions of Manager Information and actions Business Consulting: A Practicum for Undergraduate Internship as a Contingency Based Experiential Learning Program for More Effective Organizational Socialization: A Conceptual Framework MANSYM III Decision Support System Demonstration Learning the Concept of market Value Through Simulation Conflict Management for Economic Developers Development of Data Analysis Units Designed to Enhance Reasoning and Knowledge Transfer in the College Level Course BOSS: A Behavioral-Quantitative, Computer-Supported Game Entrepreneurial Potential: An Experiential Exercise in Self Analysis and Group Assessment Development of Strategists: Simulated Cases BANKRUPT: A Deceptively Simple Business Strategy Game Simulating Market and Firm Level Demand - A Robust Demand System COMPSIM A Computer Center Management Simulation Hiving Model: Assessing Management Skill Awareness The Johari Window, A Reconceptualization Role-Playing Based on Video-Tape Scenarios: An Application of Modeling to Building Supervisory Skills How to Internationalize Your Curriculum A Computerized Model of Human Behavior in a Total-Firm Management Simulation the Worksheet Approach for Simulation Game Strategy Analysis Teaching Competitive Bidding Using a DSS Generator Do We Learn from Experience? The Use of Theory Power for Increased Research Momentum in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises Research Report on Programmatic Research on Perceived Learning Barriers with Simulation and Experiential learning An Empirical Examination of Conflict - and Nonconflict - Oriented Problem-Solving Technologies Management Curriculum: 1982 Humor as a Management Tool: Use in Formal Game Presentations Student Behavioral Change Through Teacher behavioral Change