The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2046-469X.htm

Delivery mode
Delivery mode and strategic and strategic
management simulation outcomes man

On-ground versus distance learning

Jeffrey W. Alstete and Nicholas J. Beutell 77
LaPenta School of Business, Iona College, New Rochelle,
New York, USA Received 26 August 2019
Revised 13 December 2019
Accepted 2 February 2020

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to analyze learning assurance measures derived from a
business simulation as part of capstone business strategy courses delivered via distance learning (DL)
compared to traditional classroom (on-ground [OG]) delivery modes using experiential learning
theory.
Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 595 undergraduate capstone business students from 21
course sections taught over a four-year period in a medium-sized private master’s level college is investigated.
Variables included learning assurance measures from a competitive online simulation (GLO-BUS), gender,
business degree major, capstone course grades and cumulative grade point averages. The analytic strategy
included correlations, linear regressions, multiple regressions and multivariate analyses of variance.
Findings – Results reveal that there are significant differences in learning assurance report (LAR) scores,
gender differences and differences between academic majors based on delivery mode (OG versus DL).
Simulation performance was higher for DL students, although the relationship between simulation
performance and final course grades was not significantly different for OG and DL cohorts.
Research limitations/implications – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, implications for courses,
programs, curricula and learning assessment are considered. The strengths (actual performance measures)
and potential limitations (e.g. possible deficiency of measures) of LAR scores are discussed.
Originality/value – This research compares OG and DL modes for strategic management course
outcomes using direct assessments, including simulation learning assurance measures, student
characteristics, capstone course grades and student grade point averages.
Keywords Strategic management, Business simulation, Experiential learning, Capstone course,
Distance education, Assurance of learning, Online courses
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Current generations of college students (Millennials and Gen Z) have a strong interest in and
aptitude for using technology to facilitate learning efficiency and effectiveness, coupled with
a desire for engaging experiences (Calvo-Porral et al., 2019; Jha et al., 2019; Montiel et al.,
2019). Online learning management systems and related technological tools seem
particularly well suited to the new generations of learners (Aviles and Eastman, 2012;
Postolov et al., 2017). Millennials and Gen Z students have strong affiliation needs, low
tolerance for ambiguity, expectations for prompt feedback and demand personalized
learning experiences more than previous generations who were largely taught via lectures
(Aviles and Eastman, 2012; Meola, 2016). In fact, younger students, consistent with these Journal of International Education
in Business
generations, appear to perform better than older students in business simulations Vol. 14 No. 1, 2021
pp. 77-92
(Hernández-Lara et al., 2019). Faculty members are increasingly using instructional © Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-469X
technologies consistent with these new generations by providing them with active learning DOI 10.1108/JIEB-08-2019-0041
JIEB experiences, group engagement and the timely feedback provided by capstone business
14,1 simulations (Ross, 2019).
Business simulation games can be effective learning tools in capstone strategic
management courses, aside from, or in addition to, case studies and consultancy projects
(Alstete and Beutell, 2016). However, as distance learning (DL) continues to increase in
popularity, there is a need to examine the differences, if any, between simulation
78 effectiveness and outcomes in on-campus (on-ground [OG] classroom) courses and DL
delivery modes. For this study, we are defining OG as a course that meets in a classroom (i.e.
face-to-face) on a weekly basis for the duration of the semester and DL as an asynchronous
course that is fully online (i.e. no face-to-face meeting in a classroom). These instructional
methods and delivery systems have different strengths but similar learning goals. And,
while the use of multiple delivery modes is not mutually exclusive, professors must
understand the variables at play to maximize the benefits of each (Alstete and Beutell, 2016).
This study was designed to compare DL and OG delivery modes in a capstone business
simulation overall but also in relation to gender, academic major (e.g. accounting,
management) and relationships between simulation performance and capstone grade by
course format.

Research contributions
DL versus OG capstone delivery methods raises crucial questions about the comparability
of and possible differences in student learning, performance, engagement and satisfaction
arising from participation mode. Because many universities are moving toward fully online
programs, the question of comparability of learning outcomes with fully OG course sections
is of paramount importance with implications for student learning and overall program
quality. This is a particularly salient issue for capstone courses that are intended to be the
finale of the business program. Delivery mode should not be a factor in learning outcomes.
Yet, there is a dearth of research focusing on outcomes, assurance of learning and course
delivery mode for capstone courses in academic business programs.
First, this study contributes by exploring delivery format (DL versus OG) in capstone
business courses using the GLO-BUS simulation. DL versus OG is our main independent
variable. Possible differences in delivery mode are critical because the capstone course is
intended to be an integrative experience that builds on prior learning. We focus on learning
assurance and performance outcomes rather than attitudinal, affective or perceptual
outcomes. This is a critical point because most of the existing studies measure student
perceptions of their learning or degree to which they liked the learning process
(e.g. simulation) rather than actual learning outcomes. This is not to say that attitudinal or
perceptual outcomes are unimportant. And, studies that have used outcomes rely on
assessments such as multiple-choice tests (Cater et al., 2012). It is unlikely that a test of this
sort would fully capture the experiential and learning assurance outcomes derived from
simulation engagement. Overall, actual outcomes need much more attention in the
experiential, simulation-based learning process.
Another contribution is the examination of gender differences in relation to delivery
mode. Women and men are presumed to bring different skills to business education,
including business simulation, sometimes referred to as “poets and quants.” The gist of this
notion is that men have more quantitative skills while women have enhanced verbal skills.
Further, women tend to view the simulation experience as collaborative while men believe
that it is essentially competitive in nature (Garber, 2017). Men and women also appear to
exhibit different learning styles that might differentially affect participation in, and
outcomes derived from, business games overall but specifically in relation to DL versus OG.
 Next, differences in learning assurance report (LAR) scores based on academic majors Delivery mode
(e.g. accounting, marketing) for DL versus OG delivery are considered. The underlying and strategic
assumption is that choice of an academic major is based on individual preferences that are man
related to skills, knowledge, abilities, as well as learning style. Certain business major areas
of study (e.g. finance, management) might provide a competitive advantage in business
simulation that is further differentiated by course delivery mode.
Finally, the relationship business simulation performance and capstone course grades 79
are examined for differences for online versus OG course delivery. Students may receive
differential cues from professors that might affect participation and performance related to
delivery mode. The literature is mixed on this issue. The notion that some OG experience is
needed to realize the full potential of online learning has been advanced. However, few
studies have considered this idea using actual learning outcomes.

Theoretical background
The importance of experiential learning is now entrenched in the management education
literature (Ord and Leather, 2011). Active learning strategies continue to garner research
interest (Penger et al., 2011), and are a staple in higher education (Gerlach and Reinagel, 2016).
Experiential learning encourages active involvement of students in their learning (Benecke
and Bezuidenhout, 2011), contrary to established “sage on the stage” instructional practices
that regard learners and as inactive recipients of information (Bonwell and Eison, 1991;
Levant et al., 2016; Stewart et al., 2012). Synthesizing various learning styles and improving
concept utilization in realistic situations including simulations, games and role-playing
scenarios (Hale et al., 2002; Riley et al., 2017) continues to evolve.
The experiential learning model (Ahn, 2008) is the main theoretical paradigm underlying
business simulations and games. This model explicitly or implicitly informs much
simulation teaching and learning design and practice. It has also been used as a framework
for informing the learning dynamics of business simulation research studies. Indeed, the
model is widely accepted in the academic community and in business practice. Business
simulations, from the perspective of experiential learning, are designed to:
[. . .] allow for dynamic business decision making where players formulate a strategy and then
carry out a series of decisions to implement the strategy. Game participants receive feedback that
demonstrates the consequences of their decisions, and the participants are able to evaluate their
strategies and, if necessary, reformulate their strategies. The experience gained from the repeated
iterations of decision periods provides direct feedback to players, from which they are able to
learn (Faria et al., 2009).
This quote describes the main components of the experiential learning model developed by
Kolb (1984) who defines experiential learning as a “holistic integrative perspective on
learning that combines experience, cognition and behavior” (p. 21). Learning is a cyclical and
continuous process derived through iterative experiences. The main elements of the model
are concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active
experimentation. According to Kolb (1984) the authentic and complex learning situations,
such as business simulations, foster relationships between concepts and applications,
allowing for the emergence of a multidimensional perspective. Kolb explains that
simulations give learners the opportunities to face real-life problems enabling them to learn
by doing (Kolb, 1984). Kolb’s model has been extremely influential in general and in
business simulation research in particular. Note that we use Kolb’s theory to help frame our
hypotheses although we do not measure learning styles in this study.
JIEB Literature review and hypotheses
14,1 This section is organized around the major study variables. We begin with the main
independent variable DL versus OG delivery modes by examining the literature on
differences in simulation outcomes. Next, we examine the literature on gender as a variable
in simulation performance and simulation outcomes including LARs. Then we consider the
research on academic business major by outcomes. Finally, we review studies on the
80 relationship between simulation performance and capstone grades for OG and DL courses.
Hypotheses are noted at the end of each of the sections just identified. See Table I for a
summary of existing findings for each of the following hypotheses.

Distance learning versus on-ground outcomes

Distance education enrollment has continuously grown in recent decades with over 30 per
cent of students taking at least one online course (Seaman et al., 2018). Interestingly, DL

Hypothesis Study Findings

H1: Learning Riley et al. (2017) Ease of simulation use and comprehension stronger for DL
assurance, OG versus students
DL Guy and Lowes- Simulation more effective as supplement to OG
Jackson (2015)
Freeman and Capper No differences in learning outcomes between business
(1999) students participating in role simulations either face-to-face
or asynchronously DL
Mullens (2017) DL students scored higher than OG using a standardized
assessment
H2: Gender Levant et al. (2016) No difference in soft skill development for OG versus DL men
differences in LAR or women
Alstete and Beutell No differences in LAR but women did better on other
(2019) performance measures; no gender differences in simulation
performance
Mullens (2017) Women scored higher; gender was also used as a control
variable
Latta et al. (2016) Men scored higher of leadership and financial analysis GLO-
BUS LAR dimensions
H3: Academic major Gammie et al. (2003) No gender differences in accounting course in LAR OG versus
differences DL (cited in Levant et al., 2016, performance see page 379)
Ahn (2008) No differences based on concentration track
Alstete and Beutell Moderate differences in LAR scores based on academic major
(2019)
H4: Simulation Thomas and Morin Grades in online course sections were significantly and
performance (2010) capstone course grade lower OG versus DL
Mayer et al. (2011) Strategic and financial decisions and expected capstone grade
related to knowledge transfer
Ahn (2008) Positive relationship between simulation performance and
knowledge application skills
Alstete and Beutell LAR scores have some relationship to capstone grade
(2019)
Mullens (2017) GPA was positively related to simulation performance
Woodham (2018) Marketing simulation grade positively related to overall
Table I. course grade and final examination
Summary of research
studies by Notes: DL = Distance learning; OG = On-ground, in a classroom; LAR = Learning assurance report; GPA =
hypothesis Grade point average
enrollments stay geographically local and approximately 53 per cent of all DL students Delivery mode
simultaneously took a course on-campus. The “migration” to DL raises important questions and strategic
about learning styles, learning assurance and outcomes in relation to delivery mode.
Interestingly, results from studies comparing OG and DL have only considered a narrow
man
range of success factors (i.e. outcomes) and that online simulations may be a suitable
instructional method in overcoming barriers to DL (Ali et al., 2018).
As noted above, Kolb’s concepts of are often noted in research on simulations and DL
(Eckhaus et al., 2017; Riley et al., 2017). Kolb states that learning is a process that creates 81
knowledge through the “transformation of experience” (p. 23) (Kolb, 1984) and well-run
simulations that measure learning can enhance the nature of the capstone course experience
(Alstete and Beutell, 2019). However, the relationship between learning style and simulation
performance for OG versus DL is unclear at this point.
A number of studies have looked at business simulation outcomes in relation to delivery
format. For example, Riley et al. (2017) examined how delivery mode affects comprehension
using an operations management simulation. Results showed that ease of use and
instructor’s guidance affect student comprehension. For the in-person sample (OG in our
study), student team interaction, previous software experience, instructor’s direction and the
simulation game’s usability affected student learning. Notably, this differed from the DL
students who were only influenced by the simulation’s usability and instructor’s direction
(Riley et al., 2017).
However, research on the effectiveness of different delivery mode and outcomes (LAR,
simulation performance) is sparse. In one such study, Mullens (2017) found, contrary to
prediction, that DL students scored about nine percentage points higher than OG students
using a standardized assessment. Thus, it is particularly important to examine OG versus
DL because simulations in capstone strategic management courses are central pedagogical
tools fostering the development of valued management skills necessary for crafting business
strategies (Ritchie et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2018). Research studies have determined that
simulations help to cultivate knowledge integration and deep learning in capstone courses
(Kachra and Schnietz, 2008; Parks and Lindstrom, 1995; Stephen et al., 2002).
Dodd (2001) examined cumulative GPA scores of DL and OG students but found no
significant differences. Various other research studies have found no significant differences
in student learning or perceived learning in online versus face-to-face delivery in business
courses or closely related disciplines (Freeman and Capper, 1999; Hatcher et al., 2013;
Haughton and Kelly, 2015). Overall, the findings for OG versus DL delivery are mixed.
Thus, based on the foregoing we test the following hypotheses:

H1o. There is no difference in LAR scores and simulation performance for OG versus
DL delivery mode;
H1a. LAR scores and simulation performance are significantly different based on OG
versus DL delivery mode.

Gender
The notion that women and men may differ in learning styles and as “poets and quants”,
was noted previously. Differences have been found with respect to perceptions of
collaboration (women) and competitiveness (men) as approaches to business simulations. It
could be argued that women and men, based on these findings, perceive the simulation in
very different ways. These differences might affect game performance and possibly game
outcomes. Two questions are immediately apparent:
JIEB
14,1 Q1. Do men and women differ in actual learning outcomes from simulation
performance?
Q2. Are these possible differences related to delivery mode?
The Garber (2017) study looked at perception of learning rather than actual outcomes from
82 the marketing simulation they studied.
Most of these studies have examined feelings and perceptions rather than cognitive
(learning) outcomes (Clarke, 2009). The notion that women and men do have different
learning styles has been advanced but that these style differences are not reflected in
differential performance based on gender. One study by Alstete and Beutell (2019) found no
significant difference between women and men in LAR scores or business simulation
performance although learning styles were not measured in that study. Latta et al. (2016) did
use LAR scores to test for gender differences. Men and women differed on two LAR
dimensions: leadership and financial management. The sample size in the Latta et al. study
was small so the stability of the results might be in question. And, like the Alstete and
Beutell (2019) study gender differences in OG versus DL were not examined. However,
Mullens (2017) did find that women scored higher than men in a study of DL and OG
although the presentation of the results made further interpretation difficult.
The question of gender differences by delivery mode remains. Because women appear to
approach simulations from a “collaborative” perspective, is collaboration equally achievable
in OG versus DL modes? Is face-to-face a necessary condition to foster collaboration or can
collaboration take place in a DL environment? Media richness theory (Daft and Lengel, 1986)
would suggest that face-to-face is necessary because some of the critical collaborative cues
are nonverbal in nature. However, it is not readily apparent why the competitive approach
favored by men would not be attainable in either delivery mode. More research is clearly
needed to disentangle the mixed findings on gender. Based on the foregoing, we test the
following hypotheses:

H2o. There is no difference in LAR scores and simulation performance for women and
men based on OG versus DL delivery mode.
H2a. Women and men differ significantly in LAR scores and simulation performance
based on OG versus DL delivery mode.

Business major field

Learning style preferences may be one reason that students gravitate toward one academic
major or another. Experiential approaches appear to be more prevalent in management and
marketing courses than in accounting and finance courses. Management and marketing are
sometimes called “touchy feely” meaning “soft”, “experiential”, and qualitative while
accounting and finance courses are more quantitative and “cut and dry”, the real subjects of
business. The skills that are developed in each major might contribute differentially to
simulation performance and LAR outcomes. Management might be related to the leadership
aspects of the game while accounting and finance majors might have an advantage
regarding analytical skills and financial management. There is some evidence to support the
latter notion. Finance majors did score higher on the financial management LAR dimension,
and, for strategic analysis, finance majors were significantly higher than accounting and
marketing majors (Alstete and Beutell, 2019). Moderate overall differences were reported in
LAR scores by academic major (Alstete and Beutell, 2019). But Ahn (2008) found no Delivery mode
differences based on concentration track but it is not clear if such a track is equivalent to and strategic
business major field used in this study. The empirical findings on academic major are man
mixed; however, such differences have not been examined in the context of OG or DL
delivery mode. Thus, we test the following hypotheses:

H3o. There is no difference in LAR scores and simulation performance by academic

major for OG versus DL delivery mode. 83
H3a. LAR scores and simulation performance will differ for academic majors based on
OG versus DL delivery mode

Simulation performance and course grade

Simulations are presumed to provide business students with a dynamic, integrative
immersion in an on-going company. Exposure to various financial, marketing, management,
human resources and socially responsible aspects of running a business should, in theory,
improve course knowledge, thereby contributing to higher course grades. Woodham (2018)
has articulated this rationale for the relationship between simulation performance and
course grades using a marketing simulation. Indeed, extant findings have not consistently
confirmed the simulation-course grade nexus (Woodham, 2018). However, Woodham (2018)
did report that improvement in simulation performance was positively related to course
grade and that simulation performance measures were related to the final examination
grade. In another study, Alstete and Beutell (2019) found that two LAR dimensions were
related to capstone course grade, which, in turn, is significantly related to cumulative grade
point average (GPA). Other findings indicated that expected capstone course grade was
related to knowledge transfer (Mayer et al., 2011), that simulation performance was related
to GPA (Mullens, 2017) and that simulation performance was related to application skills
(Ahn, 2008).
While there is some evidence supporting the simulation–outcome relationship, there is
little evidence in relation to OG versus DL delivery mode. The following hypotheses are
intended to fill this gap:

H4o. There is no difference in the relationship between simulation performance and

capstone course grade for OG versus DL delivery mode.
H4a. There is a significant difference in the relationship between simulation
performanceand capstone course grade for OG versus DL delivery mode.

Method
Sample
The sample comprised 595 senior-level baccalaureate degree business students who enrolled
in strategic management and business policy capstone course sections. The students
involved were 248 women (42 per cent) and 345 men (58 per cent). The degree majors
included accounting (n = 129, 24 per cent), business administration (n = 11, 2 per cent),
finance (n = 135, 25 per cent), management (n = 84, 16 per cent), marketing (n = 129, 24 per
cent), international business (n = 32, 6 per cent) and information systems (n = 28, 5 per cent).
JIEB Measures
14,1 In addition to gender and academic business major, the following variables were included:
OG versus DL, LAR scores, simulation grade, capstone course final grade and cumulative
GPA.
OG versus DL: This self-selection variable indicated whether students were enrolled in
OG, in-classroom section (coded as “1”) or a DL, internet-based course (coded as “2”).
84
Learning assurance
The GLO-BUS simulation provides nine empirical measures of student performance derived
for making strategic business decisions. Three of these LAR scores are associated with
individual performance (i.e. leadership skills, collaboration and teamwork and analytical
skills) (Table II). The remaining six dimensions are individual scores based on small team
participation (i.e. financial management, operations management, marketing management,
human resource management, strategic analysis and planning and corporate social
responsibility). This study focuses on the individual level of performance. Observed scores
are based on relative external performance of all participants in the simulation within the
USA or globally. This study focuses on US comparisons.

Capstone course grade

This was the final grade for the capstone course recorded on a four-point grading scale
where A = 4.0, Bþ = 3.5, B = 3.0, Cþ = 2.5, C = 2.0, Dþ = 1.5, D = 1 and F = 0. Higher scores
indicate better course performance. Because GLO-BUS simulation company performance
was included as 16 per cent of the final grade, our analyses controlled for the simulation
component.

Cumulative grade point average

This was the overall grade point for all undergraduate courses attempted by the
participants. Once again, a four-point grading system was used where an A = 4.00. Higher
scores indicate better overall academic performance.

Leadership skills Assessment of the individual’s leadership and independent thinking skills
Collaboration and Assessment of the individual’s collaborative skills, teamwork and ability to
teamwork work well with others
Analytical skills Assessment of the individual’s skills in analyzing and calculating financial
ratios, as well as identifying appealing ways to improve company performance
Financial Assessment of the group’s ability to apply financial management principles
management based on the company’s ROE, credit rating and stock price performances
Operations Assessment of the group’s ability to manage production operations and
management control production costs
Marketing Assessment of the group’s ability to effectively market the company’s product
management and control marketing
Human resources Assessment of the group’s proficiency in workforce management and
management controlling labor costs based on workforce compensation, workforce
productivity and labor costs per unit sold
Strategic analysis Assessment of the group’s strategic planning and strategic thinking skills
Table II. and planning based on scores achieved on the three-year strategic plan exercise
Learning assurance Corporate social Assessment of the group’s awareness of and commitment to operating the
dimensions for GLO- responsibility company in a socially responsible manner and being a “model corporate
BUS simulation citizen”
Procedure Delivery mode
The study involves 595 students who were enrolled in 21 business strategy capstone course and strategic
sections during a three-year period from 2015 to 2018 in an AACSB-accredited business
school at medium-sized US private college in large metropolitan area. The same full-time
man
tenured management professor taught all of the course sections. All students were required
to participate in the GLO-BUS simulation game provided by McGraw-Hill publishing that
has been identified as providing a “particularly rich context for student application of
capstone constructs through complex, yet enjoyable, competitive frameworks” (p. 768) 85
(Karriker and Aaron, 2014). GLO-BUS is packaged with a required course textbook that
examines strategic management concepts that are coordinated with applied decision-
making in the simulation game and real-world business cases.
All enrolled students participated in the GLO-BUS simulation. Students are assigned to
work in teams of two or three that compete against other company teams in each course
section that is a simulated competitive industry. All students (OG and DL) were provided
with the same GLO-BUS instructions, completed the same number of practice rounds and
were given support in performing the simulation. The simulation game counts 16 per cent of
the overall course grade. Student names were removed from the database to preserve
privacy and confidentiality. The Institutional Review Board indicated that this study was
exempt because it was deemed programmatic evaluation.

Data analysis
H1-H3 were tested using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to control for
relationships between the dependent variables (LAR scores) and to minimize the probability
of Type I errors. Tukey post hoc tests were used to assess statistically significant
differences between multiple groups for research questions 2 and 3. H4 was tested using
Pearson product–moment correlations computed separately for OG and DL groups. The
significance of the difference between these correlations was tested using Fischer’s r to z
transformation.

Results
Table III reports the means, standard deviations and Pearson product–moment correlations
for the major study variables. Three strong and highly significant correlations stand out:
leadership and teamwork (r = 0.82); financial management and simulation grade (r = 0.83);
and, strategic analysis and simulation grade (r = 0.66).
Recall that H1 asked whether there were differences between delivery methods (OG
versus DL) predicting LAR scores from capstone business simulation performance.
MANOVA results (Table III) indicated significant differences for four of the nine LAR
dimensions: analytical skills [F(1, 557) = 37.67, p < 0.001], financial management [F(1, 557) =
43.80, p < 0. 001], marketing management [F(1, 557) = 5.82, p < 0.05] and HRM [F(1, 557) =
10.37, p < 0.01]. DL students were significantly higher on all of these LAR dimensions with
the exception of financial analysis where OG students were significantly higher. Thus, H1o
was rejected and H1a was confirmed.
H2 examined gender differences in LAR scores for OG versus DL course delivery. As
shown in Table III, there were four significant differences in LAR scores based on OG-DL
and gender: analytical skills [F(3, 557) = 5.15, p < 0.01], financial management [F(3, 557) =
15.60, p < 0.001], marketing management [F(3, 557) = 4.61, p < 0.01] and human resource
management [F(3, 557) = 3.65, p < 0.05]. Post hoc analyses revealed that men in DL sections
scored significantly higher than men and women in OG sections for all significant LAR
scores with the exception of analytical skills. Women in DL sections scored higher on
 86
14,1
JIEB

variables
Table III.

deviations and

for major study

Means, standard

Pearson correlations
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Leadership 69.36 28.56

2. Teamwork 71.26 29.16 0.82**
3. Analytic skills 34.09 31.14 0.07 0.05
4. Financial management 60.07 21.31 0.01 0.04 0.06
5. Operations management 58.56 27.27 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
6. Marketing management 54.94 20.17 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.32** 0.10*
7. HRM 43.60 28.74 0.06 0.07 0.12** 0.36** 0.11** 0.17**
8. Strategic analysis 43.67 23.42 0.05 0.02 0.31** 0.58** 0.09* 0.33** 0.29**
9. CSR 50.01 28.97 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.17** 0.16** 0.22** 0.09* 0.15**
10. Simulation grade 82.90 16.14 0.07 0.08* 0.12** 0.83** 0.03 0.45** 0.48** 0.66** 0.21**
11. Capstone grade 3.17 0.94 0.20** 0.19** 0.12* 0.26** 0.02 0.08 0.12** 0.24** 0.14** 0.38**
12. GPA 3.25 0.42 0.24** 0.23** 0.22** 0.19** 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.17** 0.05 0.23** 0.55**

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; CSR = Corporate social responsibility; GPA = Grade point average (cumulative); Gender: 0 = Male; 1 = Female; OG vs DL = On-
ground (OG = 0) vs distance learning (DL = 1)
financial management than men and women in OG sections. OG men and women scored Delivery mode
significantly higher than DL women on analytical skills while OG women scored higher and strategic
than DL men on the same dimension. Thus, H2a was supported with significant gender
differences between OG and DL students.
man
Next, H3 tested for LAR differences in academic business major for OG and DL course
sections. This analysis was confined to the four largest majors (i.e. accounting, finance,
management and marketing) because sample sizes for the other majors were too small for
analysis. Thus, eight groups were compared representing combinations of OG versus DL 87
and the four largest academic majors. Findings indicated three overall differences for these
analyses: leadership [F(3, 313) = 2.56, p = 0.05], marketing management [F(3, 313) = 3.51,
p < 0.01] and strategic analysis [F(3, 313) = 5.50, p < 0.001]. Post hoc analyses indicated that
finance majors scored significantly higher (p < 0.05) on leadership and marketing
management (p < 0.05) than marketing majors. Finance majors scored significantly higher
(p < 0.05) on strategic analysis than accounting and marketing majors.
Finally, H4 examined differences in the relationships between GLO-BUS simulation
performance and capstone course grades for OG courses versus DL courses. Correlations
between simulation grades and capstone course grade were computed separately for OG
and DL cohorts. The correlation between simulation performance and capstone grade was,
r = 0.44 (p < 0.01) for OG students and r = 0.31 (p < 0.01) for DL students. An r to z
transformation indicated that the two correlations were not significantly different (z = 1.41,
p = 0.08).

Discussion
Based on the results of this study, analyzing learning assurance results from business
simulations might be useful in contributing to programmatic and curricular changes that
have the potential to enhance student learning, competencies and program effectiveness.
There were differences in learning assurance dimensions for OG versus DL (H1), OG versus
DL by gender (H2), and, to a lesser extend OG versus DL by academic business major field
(H3). Most of the observed differences clustered around five LAR outcomes: analytical skills;
financial management; marketing management; human resource management and strategic
analysis. These findings are interesting and suggestive but clearly not definitive because
many other factors could be involved. One of the truly important and interesting aspects of
GLO-BUS for current generations of college students (i.e. Millennials and Gen Z) is feedback
about simulation performance levels within the school, within the USA, and on a global
basis.
The importance of timely, evaluative performance feedback for current generational
groups was noted previously. Thus, students get comparative rankings of their performance
that is the basis for subsequent competitive decisions. This suggests that the benefits of the
game from the students’ perspective transcends what LAR scores are revealing about
outcomes (things that are more important for curriculum and outcomes assessment
committees); this “meta” benefit of competitive feedback for students might be more difficult
to capture with questionnaires because it is temporal (i.e. until the next decision).
This study was focused on differences in LAR scores for OG and DL students but
differences in simulation performance scores were also noted. Although the relationships
between simulation performance and course grade were each statistically significant, the
differences in the magnitude of the relationships were not significantly significant for OG
and DL students (H4). However, there were observed differences in simulation performance
for these groups. DL students scored significantly higher than OG students on simulation
performance although overall course grades did not differ significantly. Because students
JIEB were not randomly assigned to course sections, we are uncertain about the extent that
14,1 observed differences are the result of the course format, individual difference variables or a
combination of factors. Nevertheless, the results of this portion of the study are different
than aforementioned research that found no difference in DL and OG learning disciplines
(Hatcher et al., 2013; Haughton and Kelly, 2015; Sack, 1996).
Because LAR differences largely “clustered” around five LAR factors, a confirmatory
88 factor analysis was conducted on all nine LAR variables. This analysis yielded
two dimensions: leadership/collaboration and functional management (i.e. financial
management, marketing management, human resource management and
strategic management). Note that four of the five LAR dimensions comprise the functional
management latent factor. This is a notable finding in itself. A priori, differences in
leadership/collaboration might be anticipated between OG and DL cohorts because DL
students might have less face-to-face interaction and team contact. While there were
significant differences on functional management (as expected and confirmed by previous
results of this study), no differences for leadership/collaboration were observed. If the DL
cohorts functioned as virtual teams, this would be an important finding. Nonetheless, these
findings and other results in this study may negate some student beliefs in some previous
research that Millennials and Gen Z students believe they do not have sufficient knowledge
to effectively use DL (Postolov et al., 2017).
It should be noted that there are caveats to using GLO-BUS LAR scores “off the shelf” as
it were. The LAR scores should not be taken exclusively at face value for programmatic
validation purposes. The scores are useful but need to be considered as a part of an overall
program assessment providing guidance on curriculum development, evaluation and
improvement strategies. The comparative aspects of the scores are a major strength because
comparisons can be made nationally or globally. Using GLO-BUS LAR dimensions requires
that users move beyond LAR labels to examine the specific items that are being assessed. At
a more “macro” level, LAR likely does not represent the full range of variables that schools
are seeking to achieve as outcomes of their programs. Nevertheless, LAR scores do add an
important dimension in such assessments. This is especially important in light of the
Seaman et al. (2018) study showing how growth in DL gives students new choices such as
simultaneously enrolling in OG and DL courses.

Limitations
Possible limitations of this study include using a single business school population, the
same instructor taught all of the courses, the structural limitations of grading allocations for
the assignments studied, the change in the simulation game from previous editions and the
population of DL students sampled. The DL students included only spring semester
students that represented a slightly higher percentage of accounting majors that may be a
factor in observed differences. This study did not include shorter summer distance courses.
There may also be self-selection biases because, until recently, students could select a
capstone section based entirely on case studies with no business simulation. Perhaps
students with higher levels of technology skills select DL sections based on their perceived
proficiency in competing in an online format although previous studies have not reported
such proficiency differences (Cater et al., 2012).
Other researchers have argued for the benefits of simulation research within one
institution’s business school where all of the students are enrolled in a business-related
major (Bell and Loon, 2015). Specifically, using a sampling frame containing students:
 [. . .] within one department, at the same level and year of study, and at the same HEI (higher Delivery mode
education institution), should help to minimize the potential for wide variations in student
motivation and academic abilities (p. 8) (Bell and Loon, 2015)
and strategic
man
Controlling as many sources of variability as possible allows researchers to make stronger
inferences from their study perhaps at the expense of generalizability. In other words, this
“limitation” may be strength from a research design perspective. The present study was
conducted by essentially controlling all of the variables identified by Bell and Loon (2015), 89
but we also had one professor teach all course sections.
Two other limitations should be noted: one is focused on GLO-BUS model overall while
the other considers the LAR variables and their labels. In an era that is characterized as
“services” GLO-BUS (and other simulations) continues to focus on manufacturing
companies (Latta et al., 2016) for simulation. Perhaps, over time, capstone business
simulations can migrate to service companies that are more central to and prevalent in the
contemporary economy. Second, the LAR variable names may be reinforcing the “silo”
mentality by focusing on functional areas from the business curriculum rather than
fostering integration of knowledge from a holistic perspective. The notable exceptions to
this are leadership and collaboration skills. Yet, in debriefing sessions with students, they
seem mindful of the integrated nature of the simulation environment but appreciate the
importance of specific functional skills as well.

Future research
The capstone is positioned in most business schools as an integrative experience (i.e. the
blending of all core course areas and prior learning) and online experiences should not
simply seek to copy OG methods (Watson and Sutton, 2012). Subsequent studies should
examine learning styles for OG and DL participants. Because women and men appear to
prefer different learning styles although performing similarly in simulations, exploring
the processes underlying this performance convergence would be interesting. Further, it is
possible to measure LARs over the duration of the simulation. Examining this LAR
progression in a dynamic rather that static, summative fashion would provide additional
insights. Finally, there is interesting research emerging on simulation reports predicting
LAR results (Schmeller, 2019). Examining the relative contribution of procedural elements of
the simulation (e.g. log-in reports, time spent on the simulation) may prove useful.
Future research should also include hybrid strategic management courses that are
partially on-campus and partially DL that have become popular (Arbaugh, 2014; Ross and
Rosenbloom, 2011) as well as the team teaching and the increasing use of service learning
and consultancy projects (Weber and Englehart, 2011).

Conclusion
This paper reveals several important aspects of learning assurance results for on-campus
(OG) and DL capstone strategic management courses using business simulations. Findings
indicate some LAR differences based on OG and DL, gender and academic business major.
Despite these differences the overall efficacy of both delivery modes is apparent. Indeed,
faculty should seek to ensure that all students maximize their learning potential by using
active, experiential assignments that provide timely feedback whether OG or DL. It is
tempting to see the delivery mode as an end in itself with the omnipresence of learning
management systems. However, educators must stay focused on achieving important
learning objectives through continuous improvement by examining learning assurance and
performance outcomes that contribute to rigorous program enhancement.
JIEB References
14,1 Ahn, J.-H. (2008), “Application of the experiential learning cycle in learning from a business simulation
game”, E-Learning and Digital Media, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 146-156.
Ali, S., Uppal, M.A. and Gulliver, S.R. (2018), “A conceptual framework highlighting e-learning
implementation barriers”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 156-180.
Alstete, J.W. and Beutell, N.J. (2016), “Balancing instructional techniques and delivery formats in
90 capstone business strategy courses”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 173-193.
Alstete, J.W. and Beutell, N.J. (2019), “Business simulation and assurance of learning: gender, academic
major and business core performance”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 412-426.
Arbaugh, J.B. (2014), “What might online delivery teach us about blended management education?
Prior perspectives and future directions”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 38 No. 6,
pp. 784.
Aviles, M. and Eastman, J.K. (2012), “Utilizing technology effectively to improve millennials’
educational performance”, Journal of International Education in Business, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 96-113.
Bell, R. and Loon, M. (2015), “The impact of critical thinking disposition on learning using business
simulations”, The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 362-370.
Benecke, D.R. and Bezuidenhout, R.-M. (2011), “Experiential learning in public relations in South
Africa”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 55-69.
Bonwell, C.C. and Eison, J.A. (1991), “Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom”, ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, DC, available at: www.ed.gov/databases/
ERIC_Digests/ed340272.html (accessed 1 May 2002).
Calvo-Porral, C., Pesqueira-Sanchez, R. and Faiña Medín, A. (2019), “A clustered-based categorization of
millennials in their technology behavior”, International Journal of Human–Computer
Interaction, Vol. 35 No. 3, p. 231.
Cater, J.J., Michel, N. and Varela, O.E. (2012), “Challenges of online learning in management education: an
empirical study”, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 76-96.
Clarke, E. (2009), “Learning outcomes from business simulation exercises: challenges for the
implementation of learning technologies”, Education þ Training, Vol. 51 Nos 5/6, pp. 448-459.
Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986), “Organizational information requirements, media richness and
structural design”, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 554-571.
Dodd, E.C. (2001), An Investigation of the Learning Outcomes of Distance Learning Students versus
Traditional Classroom Students Attempting the Masters of Business Administration, 3040001
Ed., The University of TN.
Eckhaus, E., Klein, G. and Kantor, J. (2017), “Experiential learning in management education”, Business,
Management and Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 42-56.
Faria, A.J., Hutchinson, D., Wellington, W.J. and Gold, S. (2009), “Developments in business gaming: a
review of the past 40 years”, Simulation and Gaming, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 464-487.
Freeman, M. and Capper, J. (1999), “Exploiting the web for education: an anonymous asynchronous role
simulation”, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 95-116.
Garber, L.L. Jr (2017), “Gender differences in learning preferences among participants of serious
business games”, The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 11-29.
Gerlach, J.D. and Reinagel, T.P. (2016), “Experiential learning in MPA programs: a case for
complementarity between internship and service learning requirements”, PS: Political Science
and Politics, No. 1, pp. 132-138.
Hale, F.A., Mann, S. and Corsun, D.L. (2002), “Charting the experiential territory: clarifying definitions
and uses of computer simulation, games, and role play”, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 21 Nos 9/10, pp. 732-744.
Hatcher, M., Henson, J. and Larosa, P. (2013), “Determinants of success in an online management Delivery mode
information systems course: the significant of grade point average as a performance indicator”,
International Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 129-132. and strategic
Haughton, J. and Kelly, A. (2015), “Student performance in an introductory business statistics course: man
does delivery mode matter?”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 90 No. 1, p. 31.
Hernández-Lara, A.B., Serradell-Lopez, E. and Fito-Bertran, À. (2019), “Students’ perception of the
impact of competences on learning: an analysis with business simulations”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 101, pp. 311-319. 91
Jha, N., Sareen, P. and Rama Krishna Gupta, P. (2019), “Employee engagement for millennials:
considering technology as an enabler”, Development and Learning in Organizations: An
International Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 9-11.
Kachra, A. and Schnietz, K. (2008), “The capstone strategy course: what might real integration look
like?”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 32 No. 4, p. 476.
Karriker, J.H. and Aaron, J.R. (2014), “More than just fun and games: BSG and GLO-BUS as strategic
education instruments”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 768-775.
Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Latta, M., Clark, P. and Wathen, S. (2016), “A gender based examination of assurance of learning in a
marketing capstone course”, Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 75-83.
Levant, Y., Coulmont, M. and Sandu, R. (2016), “Business simulation as an active learning activity for
developing soft skills”, Accounting Education, Vol. 25 No. 4, p. 368.
Mayer, B.W., Dale, K.M., Fraccastoro, K.A. and Moss, G. (2011), “Improving transfer of learning:
relationship to methods of using business simulation”, Simulation and Gaming, Vol. 42 No. 1,
pp. 64-84.
Meola, C.C. (2016), “Addressing the needs of the millennial workforce through equine assisted
learning”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 294-303.
Montiel, I., Delgado-Ceballos, J., Ortiz-De-Mandojana, N. and Antolin-Lopez, R. (2019), “New ways of
teaching: using technology and mobile apps to educate on societal grand challenges”, Journal of
Business Ethics, available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-019-04184-x
(accessed May 2019).
Mullens, D. (2017), “When do students learn? A comparison of face to face, online with intervention, and
online student outcomes”, Academy of Business Research Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 29-38.
Ord, J. and Leather, M. (2011), “The substance beneath the labels of experiential learning: the
importance of John Dewey for outdoor educators”, Journal of Outdoor and Environmental
Education, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 13-23.
Parks, D.M. and Lindstrom, G.L. (1995), “Achieving higher levels of learning in the business policy and
strategy course through integration of a business simulation”, Journal of Management
Education, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 219-227.
Penger, S., Znidarsic, J. and Dimovski, V. (2011), “Experiential learning and management education:
empirical research and implications for practice in higher education in Slovenia”, International
Journal of Management and Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 23-34.
Postolov, K., Sopova, M.M. and Iliev, A.J. (2017), “E-Learning in the hands of generation Y and Z”,
Poslovna Izvrsnost - Business Excellence, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 107-120.
Riley, J.M., Ellegood, W.A., Solomon, S. and Baker, J. (2017), “How mode of delivery affects
comprehension of an operations management simulation”, Journal of International Education in
Business, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 183-200.
Ritchie, W.J., Fornaciari, C.J., Drew, S. A W. and Marlin, D. (2013), “Team culture and business strategy
simulation performance”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 37 No. 5, p. 601.
JIEB Ross, S.M. (2019), “Slack it to me: complementing LMS with student-centric communications for the
millennial/Post-Millennial student”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 91-108.
14,1
Ross, D.N. and Rosenbloom, A. (2011), “Reflections on building and teaching an undergraduate
strategic management course in a blended format”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 351-376.
Sack, K. (1996), “Post-tenure review implementation timetable”, available at: http://ate.cc.vt.edu/
PROVOST/sched.html
92
Schmeller, R. (2019), “In strategy simulations, data analysis matters most (more than number of log ins
and more than time spent logged in)”, Simulation and Gaming, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 62-75.
Seaman, J.E., Allen, E.I. and Seaman, J. (2018), Grading Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the
United States, Babson Survey Research Group, Oakland, CA.
Stephen, J., Parente, D.H. and Brown, R.C. (2002), “Seeing the Forest and the trees: balancing functional
and integrative knowledge using large-scale simulations in capstone business strategy classes”,
Journal of Management Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 164-193.
Stewart, A.C., Houghton, S.M. and Rogers, P.R. (2012), “Instructional design, active learning, and
student performance: using a trading room to teach strategy”, Journal of Management
Education, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 753-776.
Thompson, A.A., Peteraf, M.A., Gamble, J.E. and Strickland Iii, A.J. (2018), Crafting and Executing
Strategy: The Quest for Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases, McGraw-Hill Education,
New York, NY.
Watson, S. and Sutton, J.M. (2012), “An examination of the effectiveness of case method teaching online:
does the technology matter?”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 802-821.
Weber, J.W. and Englehart, S.W. (2011), “Enhancing business education through integrated curriculum
delivery”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 558-568.
Woodham, O.P. (2018), “Testing the effectiveness of a marketing simulation to improve course
performance”, Marketing Education Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 203-216.

About the authors

Jeffrey W. Alstete is a Professor of Management and Business Administration, School of Business,
Iona College, New Rochelle, New York, USA. He earned his doctorate from Seton Hall University,
South Orange, New Jersey, USA, as well as an MBA and MS from Iona College. Dr. Alstete is the
author of books, book chapters, journal articles and conference papers on business administration,
management and higher education. His areas of research interest include benchmarking, business
strategy, entrepreneurship, small business management, managerial decision-making, knowledge
management and higher education administration. Jeffrey W. Alstete is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: jalstete@iona.edu
Nicholas J. Beutell is Professor of Management, School of Business, Iona College, New Rochelle,
New York, USA. He received his PhD in Management, with focus on Human Resource Management,
from Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. His major research interests
include the work–family interface, small business and international human resource management.
His research has appeared in the Academy of Management Review, International Journal of
Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Journal of Small
Business and Entrepreneurship and Journal of Vocational Behavior, among others. Dr. Beutell is a
Fellow of the Eastern Academy of Management and a Member of the Academy of Management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com