ABSEL: THE WAY WE TALK! Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 ABSEL: THE WAY WE TALK! Barbara Howard, SUNY Geneseo Daniel Strang, SUNY Geneseo ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to review and reveal trends of research that ABSEL has undergone and identify the impact that the most active ABSEL contributors have had on the research agenda of the organization. The authors use content analysis to reveal patterns of emphasis of research throughout the 27 years of ABSEL’s existence. In addition, the authors quantitatively record and report the contribution of ABSEL’s leading scholars. INTRODUCTION Over the past 26 years, ABSEL, as an organization devoted to research as its name suggests on business simulations and experiential learning, has been significantly influenced by the works of a relatively small but committed and energized group of scholars. During its evolution, ABSEL has experienced discernible shifts of emphasis and focus of its research even within the narrowly defined parameters of the organization. The purpose of this paper is to review and reveal trends of research that ABSEL has undergone and quantify the impact that the most active ABSEL contributors have had on the research agenda of the organization. This paper reviews the research contributions to the organization, as published in Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, the ABSEL Proceedings from 1974-2000. The authors use content analysis to reveal patterns of emphasis of research throughout the 27 years of ABSEL’s existence. In addition, the authors quantitatively record and report the contribution of ABSEL’s leading scholars. As one would expect, one can observe the emergence and exit of some key contributors to ABSEL while others have demonstrated a pattern of sustained scholarship virtually throughout ABSEL’s entire history. It is not by chance that any serious scholar of simulation and games would recognize the names Faria, Gentry, Gosen (Gosenpud), Wolfe, and Wheatley. These researchers have been ABSEL’s preeminent scholars for a number of years. The paper demonstrates how truly significant have been their contributions to the body of literature. There has been an increase in retrospective assessment of ABSEL associated with the 1999 celebration of ABSEL’s 25th Anniversary. Several of ABSEL’s more recognized authors reviewed the contributions made to the field (see Graf, 1999; Kelley and Brice, 1999; Butler, 1999, and Gold and Pray, 1999). Graf focused his attention on experiential research in the 1970s, Kelly and Brice focused on the 1980s, Butler reviewed the 1990s, and Gold and Pray focused more narrowly on the development of algorithms over the entire 25-year span. To celebrate the millennial year Faria (2000) reviewed the ABSEL studies for a 25- year period and focused attention on “three important research areas.” Several earlier studies were conducted that focused on significant elements of ABSEL. Butler et al. (1985) considered the “degree of rigor of research designs and the degree to which they address various educational objectives.” Markulis et al. (1989) considered a number of other dimensions including author turnover, multiple authorship, institutional representation, etc. In 1991 Markulis et al. narrowed the scope of focus to an “assessment of the award-winning procedures and protocols.” Burns and Banasiewicz (1994) look at author co-citations and develop clusters of authors and their common interests. All of these contributions have provided the readers with a better picture of the research and its development. METHODOLOGY With the ABSEL conference of 2000 came the introduction of The Bernie Keys Library in CD format. The Keys Library contains the full contents of the ABSEL Proceedings for the years 1974 to 2000 on one CD. The introduction of the Keys Library has made a significant contribution by making ABSEL’s research history available in one place. The CD version of the proceedings is easily read using Acrobat Reader. The query utility of Acrobat Reader facilitates searches that otherwise would be time- consuming and tedious. The Keys Library was used to conduct the content analysis reported in this paper. Content analysis has been described as “a research technique for the objective, systematic, and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication (Holsti, 1969). Krippendorf (1980) defines content analysis as “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from data to their context.” One form of content analysis that is utilized by researchers is classified as semantical content analysis. The authors used the sub- category of designations analysis as a methodological tool for this analysis. The uses of this type of content analysis include; to describe trends in communication, to trace the development of scholarship, and to reveal the focus of attention (Krippendorff, 1980). 111 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 The authors performed a content analysis on the titles of the published contributions to ABSEL over the 27-year span (i.e. from its inception to present). The incidence of occurrence of key words was recorded. The list of key words was established in what might seem to be a somewhat subjective process - perusing the titles of published contributions for ABSEL’s early years, the middle years, and for the most recent years. The process of reviewing three time periods was used to minimize the chance of missing a key word that had recently fallen from use and to ensure that key words that had recently emerged would not be excluded (e.g. Internet). A table indicating the usage of key words over time was constructed. Since changes and trends are one of the important results that content analysis can reveal, the authors scrutinized the table looking for significant patterns of usage. Another dimension of the evolution of the research of ABSEL can be related to a longitudinal review of the contributions made by ABSEL’s most prolific scholars. To consider this dimension the library of all ABSEL proceedings was perused again. A table identifying all authors who had been published at least 5 times in the proceedings was constructed. The dates of the initial publication and last publication were recorded as well as the number of contributions in total. This aspect of the research was not as simple as the first analysis where key words or phrases were the target of the search. A number of minor difficulties were encountered in recording the data on the number per author. One obvious difficulty is that multiple authorship means that the relationship between the number of contributions and the number of instances that an author contributed can be misleading. In other words, the number of authors attributed with contributions exceeds the total number of contributions for the year. Differences or changes in names or forms of names also made the process difficult. Several authors have used various combinations of their first, middle, and last names. For instance, Faria was listed under “A. J. Faria,” “Tony Faria,” and “Anthony Faria. John Butler had several different combinations. He has articles credited to John Butler; John Butler, Jr.; John G. Butler; John K. Butler; and John K. Butler, Jr. One explanation offered in the case of John Butler is that the appearance of variants is an indication of feeble attempts by John to adopt a pseudonym. Bruce McAfee is also listed as R. Bruce McAfee; Ron Frazer is also listed as J. Ronald Frazer and even a Frazier. Alvin Burns appears as Alvin D. Burns, Alvin C. Burns, and Alvin S. Burns. Jerry Gosen is also listed under Gosenpud and John Schreier is credited under James Schreier as well. Stephen Snyder almost didn’t make the list because he is better known as LT and has contributions under both names. We even found a “Gentry” listed “Centry” incorrectly! In all of the cases where a question relating to the name arose, the article was checked to see if it provided evidence of a possible error. For example, all of the John Butlers listed teach at Clemson. The authors are not aware that John is teaching with his father, his son, or his brother. Even if one concedes the possibility of minor errors; if they occurred they did not materially affect the significance of the results. (This is also our way of saying that we have tried diligently to assure the accuracy of our list – but that we apologize for any errors.) RESULTS An initial list of 48 words or word combinations that the authors thought might occur frequently in the titles of the proceedings’ contributions was used. As mentioned previously, these key words were originally selected based on the authors’ knowledge of the field and a perusal of the ABSEL proceedings. Twelve of these words were omitted from the results in Table 1 because they had fewer than 5 occurrences over the 27-year period. An examination of the results indicated some very predictable outcomes, yet some interesting trends and questions about the research ABSEL authors conduct also emerged. Not surprisingly, the words Business, Simulation, Experiential, and Learning were the top 4. Even ABSEL was in the top 20 on the list. These words have been constantly used throughout the entire time period. Case, Case Study, Game and Gaming, Model, and Exercise have been consistently used since 1974, however the usage of Case and Case Study is clearly waning. It also appears that Research is being used less frequently. Perhaps this says something about our development as an organization as we have become less self-conscious about defending our research interests and beliefs. Performance, Evaluation, and Assessment, although used throughout ABSEL history, seem to be of even more interest since 1990, with Evaluation being used less often and Assessment more frequently in recent years. Given the current trend of both governing and accrediting bodies to “assess” everything, this finding is not too surprising. Along the same lines, Effective and Effectiveness have played a major role throughout ABSEL’s history as we try to prove what most members believe – that experiential learning techniques are effective pedagogical methods. The term Group was very popular early on, but seems to be of less interest to ABSELites in the past 10 years. International, not surprisingly present throughout the time period, has seen a recent upsurge. This reflects the impact of globalization in the business world as well as ABSEL’s efforts to become a more international organization. The term Systems appears more often in recent years than it did in the 1980s, and Design appears to be making a comeback as well. Some of the newer additions to the ABSEL vocabulary include Ethics and Ethical, Cooperative and Collaborative, Leadership, Strategy, and, of course, Internet. The emergence of these phrases corresponds with the trends observed throughout the general education arena. Of as much interest might be the terms that we are not using. For instance, AACSB has only been used twice over the 27-year period, despite the over-whelming influence that organization seems to have in business schools. Service 112 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 Learning, and Cognitive have appeared only three times each, while Algorithm and Regression were used only 6 times combined. Also of note is the use of the word Review, which appears primarily around ABSEL’s 25th Anniversary. Phrases such as Inter-Group, Meyers-Briggs, Ethnocentric, New Age Learning, Twitch-speed, and Typology are recent additions to the list, and while used infrequently, may indicate new areas of exploration for the membership. Also of interest was the absence of the term Focus group. Table 1 provides an overview of the type of research that has been conducted by the ABSEL membership. It reflects both the mainstay topics as well as some trends and fads. The identification of these key phrases is a clear indication of the breadth of the contributions made to the simulation and experiential learning field. While conducting the content analysis on the titles of contributions, it became apparent that along with frequently used terminology, there were frequent contributors too. This led to an analysis of the names of those writing for ABSEL as well. Details of the analysis are discussed in the methodology section of this paper. Table 2 shows all authors with more than 5 publications (defined as an entry in the ABSEL Proceedings, including workshops and panels etc.) since 1974 and the year of their first and “last to date” article. Articles with multiple authors were treated as a contribution for each author. It’s not too surprising, for long-time ABSEL members anyway, to find Tony Faria and Jim Gentry as the top publishers. Both have made significant contributions to the organization, not only through their research, but as ABSEL Fellows, reviewers, chairs, discussants and of course their words of wisdom. Jerry Gosen, Joe Wolfe, Walt Wheatley, Al Burns, and Precha Thavikulvat have all served as President and Hugh Cannon keeps the whole group together as Executive Director. Burns and Banasiewicz (1994) developed a similar author list in their study of co-citations. A comparison of the two tables reveals that more of the early contributors have been added to the “Where are They Now” category and some of their “Second Decade People” and “Next Generation” have continued to contribute throughout the 1990s. The 90s added some fresh faces to the scene, including Platt, Howard, Leonard, Malik, Wellington, and Pittenger, each with an average of almost 2 contributions per year. Faria’s work originally concentrated on marketing simulations, although a movement toward the evaluation of both simulations and experiential exercises is evident. Faria also “went International” in the 90s, with international management simulations and work with Russia and Estonia. He was also one of the retrospective authors for the 25th anniversary. Gentry looked at different “packages” as instructional tools before getting involved in the “theory” and evaluation aspects of simulations. He too was involved in the anniversary’s retrospectives. His fairly regular co-author, Burns, had several marketing and market research related contributions before colluding with Gentry on the evaluative and performance tract. Wolfe’s contributions have been in the evaluation area particularly with respect to research design. He also “went International” in the 90s and looked at market-based versus socialist aspects of simulations, particularly in Eastern Europe. Gosen (nee Gosenpud) has generally been involved in the perceptions of students and their performance on simulations particularly in the strategy and OB areas. Also noteworthy is the direct correlation between the length of his article titles and the length of his name! Wheatley was the first to introduce topics such as right brain, imagination, visualization, guided imagery, envisioning, scripting, and creativity. This led to “magic” and “music” which will remain Walt’s legacy. CONCLUSIONS Not surprisingly, the content analysis of ABSEL research, as published in the Proceedings, indicates a strong relationship between the topics of research interest and the name of the organization. Clearly, the dominance of articles that contain the words Business, Simulation, Experiential, and Learning makes sense. The continual presence of the terms Evaluation, Performance, Assessment, and Effectiveness highlights the interest of the ABSEL membership in validating their activities. This analysis also shows that new topics have emerged and that the organization has kept up with the changes in both educational thinking and technology. The core researchers include some of the early members; Faria, Gentry, Gosen, Wolfe and Burns, with a large group of contributors joining in the 1980s. However, the group of researchers has and will continue to evolve as the demographics of the membership change. We have already seen the “retirement” of some of the founders, but new contributors are taking their place and making their mark as well. Perhaps future researchers will have an impact in a whole new arena not yet apparent. 113 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 TABLE 1 CONTENT ANALYSIS Y ea r S im ul at io n B us in es s E xp er ie nt ia l Le ar ni ng G am e E xe rc is e P er fo rm an ce C as e (S tu dy ) R es ea rc h E va lu at io n G am in g G ro up E fff ec tiv e( ne ss ) M od el A ss es sm en t In te rn at io na l S ys te m s 1974 13 13 2 5 8 1 1 1975 14 10 8 5 4 1 4 3 4 2 3 2 1 1976 27 9 14 19 2 7 10 1 4 3 2 7 1 2 1 4 1977 12 9 16 8 8 5 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 1978 14 5 11 17 4 4 7 6 4 2 4 3 3 1 1 1 1979 21 13 8 10 8 3 2 6 4 1 4 3 3 2 1 1980 20 10 20 11 4 7 5 4 3 6 4 4 2 2 2 1 1981 25 17 22 23 9 4 3 5 5 5 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 1982 17 12 20 21 6 7 2 3 4 5 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 1983 8 12 6 7 9 6 3 3 2 2 2 1 1984 16 16 12 8 5 9 1 1 1 2 4 4 2 3 1 1 1985 14 7 10 5 5 2 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1986 15 11 12 9 7 8 4 2 4 1 3 1 3 1 1 1987 16 14 7 6 7 3 5 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 4 1988 24 11 10 7 6 4 4 1 4 1 3 1 2 2 1989 17 12 8 5 3 4 7 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1990 24 18 18 15 6 8 10 2 1 6 1 3 3 6 3 4 1991 15 15 8 6 6 4 8 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 1992 24 23 14 11 5 5 11 2 2 1 5 4 2 1 2 4 1993 16 16 19 6 4 8 5 6 4 2 4 2 1 4 2 1994 17 11 6 12 4 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 1995 21 11 18 11 4 7 3 2 1 3 1 3 4 1 1 2 1996 8 10 9 12 2 6 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1997 17 18 10 23 10 5 6 4 1 2 2 2 4 2 4 3 2 1998 13 15 10 15 6 6 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1999 23 24 14 15 9 7 5 1 1 2 3 4 3 3 1 2000 13 10 9 17 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 464 352 321 309 147 137 118 63 59 57 57 52 47 45 44 40 40 Y ea r Tr ai ni ng A B S E L D es ig n S tra te gy Le ad er sh ip P ed ag og y/ P ed ag og ic al E th ic s/ E th ic al In te rn et D em an d C og ni tiv e P ar tic ip an t(s ) S ur ve y C oo pe ra tiv e (L ea rn in g) G ra di ng C ol la bo ra tiv e P la ye r To ta l P ub s 1974 2 1 2 1 2 53 1975 4 1 1 1 1 2 43 1976 2 2 4 2 1 55 1977 4 1 1 1 2 48 1978 49 1979 1 4 1 69 1980 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 69 1981 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 86 1982 2 1 1 81 1983 2 2 43 1984 2 2 1 1 2 68 1985 1 2 2 1 49 1986 4 1 1 1 68 1987 2 1 1 1 1 66 1988 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 63 1989 2 1 2 1 45 1990 3 1 1 1 2 1 97 1991 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 60 1992 2 1 1 2 3 4 4 1 1 1 2 92 1993 2 4 1 1 3 1 1 75 1994 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 58 1995 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1996 1 1 2 4 1 1 1997 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 2 1 2 1 83 1998 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 72 1999 2 7 2 5 2 1 4 1 81 2000 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 59 36 33 32 32 22 20 18 17 16 15 13 10 8 8 5 5 1761 78 51 114 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 TABLE 2 ABSEL AUTHORS (1974-2000) First Latest Article First Latest Article Year Year Count Year Year Count Faria, A. J. 1974 2000 37 Jackson, George 1982 1998 8 Gentry, James 1974 1999 37 Jensen, Ronald 1974 1999 8 Gosen (Gosenpud), Jerry 1980 2000 33 King, Albert 1977 1984 8 Wolfe, Joseph 1976 2000 32 Oppenheimer, Robert 1984 1993 8 Wheatley, Walter 1986 1999 29 Overby, John 1988 2000 8 Burns, Alvin 1975 1999 27 Sampson, Nancy 1977 1995 8 Cannon, Hugh 1987 2000 26 Snyder, Stephen (LT) 1993 1999 8 Thavikulvat, Precha 1982 2000 26 Stratton, Willaim 1978 1998 8 Anderson, Philip 1984 2000 24 Whiteley, Richard 1989 1997 8 Fritzche, David 1974 2000 23 Whitney, Gary 1982 1992 8 Markulis, Peter 1983 2000 23 Decker, Ronald 1981 1995 7 Strang, Daniel 1978 2000 23 Halterman, Carroll 1979 1995 7 Graf, Lee 1980 2000 22 Kline, Donald 1981 1994 7 Biggs, William 1975 2000 21 Mills, Janet 1983 1988 7 Brenenstuhl, Daniel 1975 1988 20 Palia, Aspy 1989 2000 7 Butler, John 1981 2000 18 Peach, Brian (E. Brian) 1997 2000 7 Goosen, Kenneth 1974 1999 18 Pillutla, Sharma 1994 2000 7 Lawton, Leigh 1986 2000 18 Schellenberger, Robert 1981 1990 7 Pray, Thomas 1978 2000 18 Ward, Willaim 1982 1990 7 Washbush, John 1991 2000 18 Whatley, Arthur 1976 1985 7 Schreier, James 1975 1990 17 Winchell, Michael 1992 2000 7 Frazer, J. Ronald 1975 1996 16 Boozer, Robert 1993 2000 6 Smith, Jerald 1974 1999 16 Chesteen, Susan 1990 1994 6 Teach, Richard 1984 2000 16 Churchill, Geoffry 1974 1980 6 Dickenson, John 1976 2000 15 Cotter, Richard 1985 1998 6 Gold, Steven 1981 2000 15 Curran, Kent 1987 1990 6 Keys, Bernard 1974 1999 15 Edge, Alfred 1979 1992 6 Page, Diana 1985 2000 15 Lambert, David 1980 1988 6 Patz, Alan 1987 1999 15 Leonard, Thomas 1994 1999 6 Barton, Richard 1974 1990 14 Morgan, Sandra 1993 2000 6 Hemmasi, Masoud 1987 2000 14 Newstrom, John 1982 1989 6 Maddox, E. Nick 1987 2000 14 Roderick, Roger 1979 1993 6 Catalanello, Ralph 1976 1994 13 Roge, Joseph 1995 1997 6 Hornaday, Robert 1986 2000 13 Ruble, Thomas 1978 1990 6 Nulsen, Ray 1974 1996 13 Wilterding, Jim 1980 1997 6 Roberts, Ralph 1974 1999 13 Wolfe, Douglas 1974 1979 6 Sanders, Patricia 1982 2000 13 Armstrong, Terry 1989 1997 5 Chiesl, Newell 1979 1994 12 Badgett, Tom 1977 1983 5 House. Willaim 1977 1995 12 Basuray, Tom 1979 1981 5 Gomolka, Eugene 1982 1990 11 Beatty, Richard 1974 1977 5 Kelley, Lane 1978 1999 11 Boyd, Charles 1982 1985 5 McAfee, Bruce (R. Bruce) 1978 2000 11 Bradley, Michael 1988 1996 5 Platt, Richard 1992 1999 11 Byrne, Eugene 1975 1979 5 Crino, Michael 1978 2000 10 Efraty, David 1994 1998 5 Howard, Barbara 1995 2000 10 Fuhs, F. Paul 1980 1988 5 Leonard, Nancy 1994 2000 10 Hall, Jeremy 1994 1996 5 Malik, S. Dolly 1995 2000 10 Hsu, Ti 1985 1998 5 Vik, Gretchen 1979 2000 10 Hunsaker, Johanna 1981 1993 5 Wellington, William 1990 1997 10 Hunsaker, Phillip 1977 1990 5 Dutton, Richard 1976 1992 9 Klepetar, Wendy 1991 1995 5 Napier, Herman 1974 1988 9 Micklich, Douglas 1998 2000 5 Pittenger, Khush 1996 2000 9 Miesing, Paul 1981 1991 5 Scott, Timothy 1994 2000 9 Morgan, Fred 1985 1990 5 Certo, Samuel 1974 1985 8 Morse, Kenneth 1997 2000 5 Chanin, Michael 1982 1991 8 Moschella, Paul 1983 1999 5 Golden, Peggy 1986 1990 8 Raveed, Sion 1978 1981 5 Hoover, J. Duane 1974 1980 8 Savaia, Antonio 1993 2000 5 Wingender, John 1987 1993 5 115 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 REFERENCES Burns, A., Banasiewicz, A. (1994) “The Intellectual Structure of ABSEL: A Bibliometric Study of Author Co-Citations Over Time,” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 21, 7-12. Butler, J. (1999) “ABSEL’s Contributions to Experiential Exercises in the 90s,” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 26, 16-24. Butler, R., P. Markulis, and D. Strang (1985) “Learning Theory and Research Design: How has ABSEL Fared?” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 12, 86-90. Faria, A. J. (2000) "The Changing Nature of Simulation Research: A Brief ABSEL History," Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 27, 84- 90. Gold, S. and T. Pray (1999) “Business Simulations – Algorithms and Model Enhancements: A 25 Year Review,” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 26, 32. Graf, L. A. (1999) “ABSEL’s Contributions to Experiential Learning/Experiential Exercises: The decade of the 1970s,” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 26, 25-31. Holsti, O. (1969) "Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities." Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Kelly, L. and W. Brice (1999) “The Contributions of ABSEL During the 1980’s,” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 26, 8-10. Krippendorff, K. (1980) "Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology." Beverly Hills: Sage. Markulis, P., P. Ricci, and D. Strang (1991) “A Critical Review and Assessment of ABSEL’s Award-Winning Procedure and Protocols,” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 18, 61-65. Markulis, P., P. Ricci, and D. Strang (1989) “A Review of Salient Trends in Proceeding’s Characteristics: A Fifteen Year Profile of ABSEL,” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 16, 200-203. 116 Table of Contents Volume 28, 2001 Using A Web Based Tutorial Program To Enhance Student Learning Reflecting On Reflection: An Examination Of Reflective Learning And Assessing Outcomes Overcoming Obstacles To A Cross-Global Collaborative Classroom Panel Discussion On Building And Maintaining Trust In The Abselesque Classroom Cosmopolitan-Based Cross National Segmentation In Global Marketing Simulations Strategic Management And The Case Method: Survey And Evaluation In Hong Kong Designing Interactive Self-Learning Modules Using Macromedia Director Teaching Financial Markets Using The Wall Street Journal Core Course Outcomes Assessment And Program Continuous Improvement Using An Integrative Business Plan Œ An Empirical Evaluation Using A Mock Trial Activity For Interdisciplinary Learning Fidelity, Verifiability, And Validity Of Simulation: Constructs For Evaluation 2001 International Collegiate Business Strategy Competition: 37 Years Of Collegiate Competition Motivating Students: An Initial Attempt To Operationalize The Curiosity Gap Model E-Learning: The Next Wave Of Experiential Learning Helping New Game Adopters: Four Perspectives An Initial Validity Invesitigaion of A Test Assessing Total Enterprise Simulation Learning Administering A Marketing Simulation - Common And Varied Practices Among Instructors Issues In Case Method Instruction: Class Discussion Leadership Sex Composition, Cohesion, Consensus, Potency And Performance Of Simulation Teams Integrating Management Curriculum: Linking Courses With Frontpage Absel: The Way We Talk! Teaching Strategic Management: A Case Study In The Diffusion Of Innovation In Education A Demonstration Of Bussim Strategy A Total Enterprise Simulation Teaching Methods: Etic Or Emic Antecedents Of Work Team Performance In A Business Simulation: Personality And Group Interaction When Experiential Educators Reflect Upon Their Craft: A Qualitative Research Report Strategic Sensemaking In Organizations: Model Formulation And Operationalization Panel Discussion: A Model For Initiative Development: Discussion And Ideas Of Individual Spirit Harmonics Assessing The Efficacy Of Experiential Learning In A Multicultural Environment Are Business Schools Producing 21st Century Managers? Blue Horizon Cruises: An International Simulation Exercise To Illustrate Conflicting Economic And Cultural Models Different Perceptions Of The Same Thing: An Experiential Exercise Current Use Of Agribusiness Simulation Games: Survey Results Of University Agribusiness And Agricultural Economics Programs Team Building 101 For Accountants An Online Evaluation Of The Compete Online Decision Entry System (Codes) Total Enterprise Simulation Winners And Losers: A Preliminary Study Gilding The Lily, Enhancing The Pedagogical Experience, Or Fixing What Isn™t Broke: The Dilemma Of New Simulation Versions The Absel Endnote Database: The Perfect Tool For The Bernie Keys Library Decision-Making Exercises (A), (B), And (C): Examining The Role Of Conflict In Group Decision-Making Group Decision Simulation (A)-(F): Examining Procedural Justice In Group Decision-Making Processes Evaluation Of Performance In Business Games: Financial And Non Financial Approaches A Framework For Evaluating Simulations As Educational Tools Congruence II™: A Strategic Business Board Game The Tournament Concept: Extending The Idea Of Using Simulations As Instruments Of Assessment The Economic And Political Transition Of The Mexican State In The Threshold Of Twenty First Century: From The Entrepreneurial State To The State Of Entrepreneurs. Experiential Learning For Accountants: The Not For Profit Project An Investigation Of The Environmental Awareness Attained In A Simple Business Simulation Game A Daily Exercise In Theory Application: Is This Why I Had To Take Marketing, Management, Finance –? An Alternative View to Scoring Selected Simulation Games and Experiential Exercises