Applying Design Cognition in a Game-Based Learning Context to

Develop Entrepreneurial Competencies

Wilian Gatti Junior
Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada
wilian.gattijunior@ucalgary.ca

Abstract: In my research, I will answer in what ways design cognitive acts (such as framing, analogical reasoning, abductive
reasoning, and mental simulation) in a game-based learning context, can support developing competence in
entrepreneurship education. These cognitive acts will be required in an experiential learning intervention comprising three
interrelated stages: play, design and make. In the first stage, the students will play a board game designed to provide an
introductory experience in entrepreneurship. Through this gameplay experience, they will learn about game mechanics and
market rules to work on them in the next stage. At the same time, the students will develop critical skills for entrepreneurs,
such as systems thinking and problem-solving. In the second stage, the students will be invited to redesign the game played.
The students will reframe the original game applying different perspectives not addressed on it and using analogical
reasoning to identify the mechanisms and elements from the real market to use and adapt in their design. Finally, during the
make stage, the students will present their game prototype (including a company logo, a box, etc.) and a feasible business
plan to produce and sell their redesigned games. For this last step, they will use abductive reasoning to analyze the board-
game market and even develop a new business model, and the mental simulation to validate the design and business
solutions. I will evaluate different models (e.g., reflective essay, online diary, final report) to assess the competencies
developed by the proposed intervention. I will conduct my research in freshman context grounded in Design-Based Research
(DBR) methodology. This method is based on cycles of iterations (with instructors and students) and reflective analysis and
data collection. The first iteration will start as tutorial session as a way to complement the lecture in collaboration with an
instructor or professor. During this time, I will collaborate with the instructor to plan the second iteration. The second
iteration will have a classroom implementation. I will collect data through observations, interviews, video/audio recordings,
and student assignments.

Keywords: game-based learning, board games, design cognition, entrepreneurship education, design-based research

1. Introduction
Entrepreneurial education (EE) has been studied by many theoretical perspectives. As Wang and Chugh (2014)
pointed out, two of them plays a dominant role in the literature. First, there is experiential learning perspective
(Kolb et al., 1986; Cope and Watts, 2000). Second, the theories of organizational learning such as exploratory
and exploitative learning (March, 1991), single- and double-loop learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978),
organizational learning built on four constructs: knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information
interpretation and organizational memory (Huber, 1991), absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) and
information process and decision making (March, 1978).

I will focus on the individual level of analysis rather than the organization level due to my interest to enhance
entrepreneurial thinking among young-adults. Moreover, I support the idea that the EE is an experiential
process. It means that previous experience plays a critical role in the entrepreneurial knowledge (Politis, 2005).
Based on that, much of the EE is learning by doing oriented (Cope and Watts, 2000). However, entrepreneurs
should be viewed as reflective practitioners (Schön, 1983) rather than merely “doers” (Cope and Watts, 2000;
Cope, 2005).

In this sense, I argue that the entrepreneurial activity is intrinsically related to designers’ work. The mental
process employed by designers in their objects, services or systems designs resembles the entrepreneurs’ skills
needed in the current worldwide, informational and networked market environment (Castells, 2010). Designers
and entrepreneurs lead the innovation trends in products, services, processes and business models (Garbuio et
al., 2018) designing artifacts and solving problems which challenge the established technological regimes. A
technological regime embodies cognitive routines that lead a community of practitioners in their research and
development (R&D) activities (Geels, 2005). Even new products and/or services, in their early stages, can carry
the cognitive routines from the previous technological regime. See, for example, the first cars models that were
designed as carts. The novelty, therefore, emerges from changes in these cognitive routines.

In my research, I will answer in what ways design cognitive acts (such as framing, analogical reasoning, abductive
reasoning, and mental simulation) can support developing competence in EE and design thinking. These

773
 Wilian Gatti Junior

cognitive acts will be required in an experiential learning in a game-based learning (GBL) context comprising
three interrelated stages that I call play, design and make.

Business games have a long tradition in business education and cover simulation applications for decision in
different levels from top management until business operations level (Faria et al., 2009). Recently GBL has been
incorporated into this framework as active based methodology to EE (Romero, 2013), allowing players to deal
with complex scenarios through learning by doing (Allegra et al., 2013) and to foster entrepreneur mindset (La
Guardia et al., 2014; Sidhu et al., 2015). Games can be defined as “a system in which players engage in an artificial
conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome” (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 80). They also
represents a a simplification of reality (Shaffer et al., 2005). Games embody the vision of something fun providing
opportunities for “reflectively exploring phenomena, testing hypotheses and constructing objects” (Kiili, 2005,
p. 14).

Before the explanation of the proposed intervention, I revisited the concept of system thinking and how
designers and entrepreneurs deal with complexity and the implications for current teaching and learning
practices. Then, I provided an overview of my research nested in GBL and the method that I will employ. Finally,
I presented a brief conclusion describing the expected findings and the educational importance of this study.

2. Background
Designers and entrepreneurs must have systems thinking to integrate products, technologies, and business
partners to create meaning for their products and ideas to address customers and users’ divergent and complex
needs. Systems thinking is a concept developed by Richmond (1994) that defined it as “the art and science of
making reliable inferences about behavior by developing an increasingly deep understanding of underlying
structure” (p. 6). Later, Arnold and Wade (2015) examined Richmond’s definition and others to interpret systems
thinking as a system itself. For them systems thinking is as “a set of synergistic analytic skills used to improve the
capability of identifying and understanding systems, predicting their behaviors, and devising modifications to
them in order to produce desired effects. These skills work together as a system” (p. 675).

Decomposition is a strategy employed by designers to deal with complexity (Visser, 2009). In this sense, to
understand and make manageable the complexity of systems, Baldwin and Clark (2000) developed an idea based
upon an advanced market economy. They described a multilevel system that encompassed artifacts, designs
and tasks in the lowest level, firms and markets in the middle level, and capital markets, financial and
governmental institutions in the highest level. Thus, Baldwin and Clark (2000) proposed an interactive
hierarchical organization in levels where each level requires specific knowledge and technology. Build on this
concept, Murmann and Frenken (2006) described the structure of complex systems (small or large ones)
regarding levels of subsystems (more or less hierarchical levels) and the configuration of each subsystem
(homogeneous or heterogeneous in terms of components constitution).

In an entrepreneurial context, thinking in hierarchical levels or subsystems was useful to understand and tackle
complex problems. Thomas Edison approach to deal with an incumbent technological regime is a remarkable
example. When Edison started his project to create an electric lighting system in 1878, he had to design beyond
his incandescent light bulb (first level). Edison added and designed multiple levels integrating components that
must be compatible one another to overcome the gas lighting system and create meaning for his famous
invention (Basalla, 1988). However, the design in levels is not exclusively convenient for large technological
systems. It could be found and applied in an “ordinary” business idea as well.

In 1883, when George Eastman failed in developing a professional photography camera, the amateur segment
was insignificant due to the difficulties to handle the heavy cameras and their dry plates and furthermore the
cost and the technical knowledge involved in the revelation process. Five years later, in 1888, Eastman made
photography a popular hobby, designed in levels (products, a service, and a business model) to remove the
constraints that impeded the emergence of this new market. First, Eastman developed not just the roll-film (first
level), but also a lighter and cheaper camera (the Kodak camera) that could be easily handled (second level).
Finally, he designed a service (third level) to conveniently reveal the films since there was not an infrastructure
to provide this amenity at that time. After one hundred shots, the customers sent the roll-film to the company
by mail to reveal their photos for just two dollars (Jenkins, 1987).

774
 Wilian Gatti Junior

Recently, Steve Jobs employed the same rationality (thinking in levels) to develop not just a mp3 device, but a
mp3 device with an original design, the iPod, integrated with a system (iTunes Music Store) where customers
could buy music in a very innovative way. Many examples can also illustrate when entrepreneurs and companies
have failed when they do not apply the design in levels. Nokia that focused on design just reliable mobile phones
ignoring the system which smartphones created (the Apple’s iPhone in 2007) combining the phone device with
a software architecture that supports many innovations based on apps and Michelin that developed the PAX
System, a run-flat tire allowing to drive 200 km at up to 90 km/h after a puncture has occurred, but did not allow
customers repaired their punctured tire (they need to replace for a new pair to keep them balanced) (Adner,
2012).

These examples evidence that design and the entrepreneurial activity were intrinsically interrelated since, at
least, the 19th century. The extensive production and use of technology in modern society push the necessity
to understand the design which emerged in the business context as a powerful source to deal with ill-defined
(Stewart, 2011) and wicked problems (Buchanan, 1992). At the beginning of this century, calls were made for
managers and business schools incorporate a design perspective (cognitive approach, methods, techniques, and
sensibilities) for solving problems and be more innovative (Martin, 2005; Dunne and Martin, 2006; Glen, Suciu
and Baughn, 2014). However, as Johansson-Skoldberg, Woodilla, and Cetinkaya (2013) argued, solving problems
and be more innovative, are just part of the competence and practice embraced in design thinking.

Although design thinking became the new managerial Holy Grail, just a few business schools applied their
concepts in their curricula (Matthews and Wrigley, 2017). Especially in EE where teaching methods varied
extensively, and they are usually centered in business plans writing, speakers, readings, simulations and
(successful) cases (Gartner and Vesper, 1994; Sirelkhatim and Gangi, 2015). When applied, design thinking
remains in teaching and learning practices as a tool and a process (Glen, Suciu and Baughn, 2014; Garbuio et al.,
2018) like in the business model canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010) and the lean startup approaches (Lies,
2011). As observed by Johansson-Skoldberg, Woodilla, and Cetinkaya (2013), very often design thinking is
interpreted as a toolbox ready to be used. Designer’s methods are taken out of the context to be used by a
person without any previous training, knowledge, and skill.

3. Method
It is well-known that business games and simulations have been applied to provide an experiential learning
experience (Herz and Merz, 1998). Since the 1950s, when Monopologs, a logistic game, and The Top
Management Decision Simulation were created (Avedon and Sutton-Smith, 1971) lots of games and simulations
have been developed to players experiencing and acting as an executive and a decision maker. Although the
debate in education fields was not conclusive about game and simulation effectiveness as learning tools
(Steinkuehler and Squire, 2014), previous research has showed their benefits supporting productive and useful
results in students learning (Sauvé, Renaud and Kaufman, 2010; Bell and Loon, 2015; Zulfiqar et al., 2018).

My research will apply design cognitive acts in a GBL context to develop design thinking and entrepreneurial
mindset through a gameplay and game design activity. I consider game-based approaches flexible enough to
encompass the cognitive perspective proposed to develop the competencies needed to address the increased
level of uncertainty and complexity experienced in the market (Garbuio et al., 2018). Moreover, I support the
claim that games help experience deep learning in a particular context (Kim, Park and Baek, 2009).

For this GBL intervention, I will use board games since they embody design possibilities based on low-cost
resources, can be easily used in classrooms without computers, internet access or other technical devices. At
the same time, board games do not require any previous knowledge for learners to play or design (e.g., coding)
and provide an immersive learning experience in contrast to the feeling of time acceleration promoted by
technology (Rosa, 2013). Additionally, I suggest that board games and their design process, as mediated artifacts,
can support cognitive acts to be employed in EE. Furthermore, board games also challenge the designer to think
in levels to design each game element such as rules, objectives, and mechanisms and integrate all of them with
players to create a meaningful game.

The four acts of design cognition were identified and suggested by Garbuio et al. (2018) for EE as framing,
analogical reasoning, abductive reasoning, and mental simulation. According to Garbuio et al. (2018) framing is
connected with the creative aspect of the design process and can be understood as a schema to interpret a

775
 Wilian Gatti Junior

problem. This schema comes from a process of association and dissociations between the situation,
assumptions, and precedence. Analogical reasoning is the cognitive act associated with the transfer process
when a mental representation from a source domain to a target domain. In turn, abductive reasoning is a form
of logical inference that leads us to the best explanation (not exactly the correct one) for a problem. As Dorst
(2011) claimed the abductive reasoning can be related to traditional problem-solving approaches (Abduction –
1) or associated with conceptual design (Abduction – 2). Finally, mental simulation represents the capacity to
reassess past events and project future ones before any actions or even decision.

In this study, I will develop these four cognitive acts through three interrelated learning experiences, which I call
play, design and make stages. In the first stage, the students will play a board game designed to provide an
introductory experience in entrepreneurship. At this moment, they will build the knowledge about the
mechanics and market rules to work with at the design stage. In the second step, design, the students will be
invited to redesign the game played, applying different perspectives that the original game does not address
and using analogical reasoning to identify the mechanisms and elements from the real market to use and adapt
in their design. Finally, the students will present a project to produce and sell their redesigned games, the make
stage. For this last step, they will use abductive reasoning to analyze the board-game market and even develop
a new business model, and the mental simulation to validate the design and business solutions. I will evaluate
different models (Clarke, 2009; Kolb, Lublin, Spoth, & Baker, 1986; Roisin, Lynn, & Bhaird, 2015; Tiwari, Nafees,
& Krishnan, 2014; Vos, 2015) to assess the competencies developed by the proposed intervention.

To test the validity of this proposed pedagogical intervention, I will conduct my research in a business school
context grounded in Design-Based Research (DBR) methodology anchored in McKenney and Reeves (2012)
framework (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Micro-, meso- and macro-cycles in educational design-based research (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p.
78)
To manage the problem identification and diagnosis embedded in the first micro-cycle, ‘Analysis and
Exploration’, I reviewed the literature and employed my own experience. This first step was essential to design
and build a game prototype for the second micro-cycle called ‘Design and Construction’.

My game design is a work in progress. I propose a game for undergraduate courses (business and non-business)
as an opportunity for them experiencing real-world problems and developing competencies related to
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship requires an integration of diverse knowledge into a complex system of
interactions between agents (e.g., suppliers, customers, etc.). Game play and game design provide an excellent
place to simulate and test the systems that students are building.

I developed a board game (Figure 2) rather than use a commercial game due to its exclusive content and the
possibilities to redesign it. In this game, the player will role-play an owner of a small business on a given
consumer market where each player will be responsible for making decisions related to the product, price, place,
and promotion (marketing mix), to reach the customers. The entrepreneur who better combines his marketing
mix might have the opportunity to have the highest market share and get the highest incomes. However, the
market rules and its "humor" sometimes change, and the entrepreneurs will have to adapt their strategies
according to these changes. At the same time, they should be able to manage the growth of their businesses,

776
 Wilian Gatti Junior

knowing how to hire employees and allocate their talents and workforce. Then, the students will be invited to
redesign this game introducing elements from knowledge acquired in entrepreneurship course lectures.

Figure 2: Game prototype

In the third micro-cycle, ‘Evaluation and Reflection’, I will apply my intervention as tutorial session as a way to
complement the lecture in collaboration with an instructor or professor. During this time, I will collaborate with
the instructor to plan the second iteration. The second iteration will have a classroom implementation. I will
collect data through observations, interviews, video/audio recordings, and student assignments. In this cycle of
my research, I will have the necessary input/feedback to understand the strengths and weakness of my
intervention.

After these first impressions collected, I will follow analysis procedure in the fourth micro-cycle, ‘Analysis and
Exploration’. Here, I will transcribe and analyze the interviews, study the videos, and, if necessary, I revisit the
literature to clarify my assumptions versus my findings to go further to ‘Design and Construction’. In this micro-
cycle, I will address the concerns that emerged from the third micro-cycle, ‘Evaluation and Reflection’. Finally, a
new ‘Evaluation and Reflection’ micro-cycle to evaluate the success of the new design will be built on changes
promoted after the iterations with students and professors. From this point, I will be able to reach some (partial)
conclusions to the effectiveness of the intervention design. Before addressing conclusions, tentatively, the
fourth, fifth, and sixth micro-cycles will be repeated as many times as possible.

4. Conclusions
This work might contribute to the recent research stream which analyzes the design cognition in EE (Garbuio et
al., 2018) in addition to competency development theory and game-based and entrepreneurship education
literature. Although the focus is on higher education, findings can also provide implications for public policies
related to entrepreneurship education in schools (K-12) with long-term impact on economic growth.

4.1 Expected findings

From the analysis of the interactions, the interviews, and the artifacts, I expect to see a deep understanding of
the entrepreneur activity through students’ actions and decisions to win the game. This understanding can
emerge especially after students play the game when the instructor will have the opportunity to gather all the
students for discussion in class.

From the game design, it will be possible to perceive the students' systems and design thinking enhancement by
the analysis and discussion regarding their game designs. Especially through the examination of the designer
rationality noticed by the design complexity and the way of the game elements are articulated.

777
 Wilian Gatti Junior

4.2 Educational importance of the study

I support the argument that a reinterpretation of design thinking in teaching and learning practices in business
discourse is needed (Johansson-Skoldberg, Woodilla and Cetinkaya, 2013), mainly for young and undergraduate
students who have either no, or very limited, business experience. I build on Garbuio et al. (2018) argument that
teaching cognition as the explicit teaching content instead of tools and processes emerges as a pedagogical
perspective. Oxman (2001) made the same claim, describing the necessity to reoriented the design education
to a cognition-based approach rather than the production of design artifacts. In this sense, this research aims to
contribute to the discussion of the design cognition implications to teaching and learning practices in the EE.

References
Adner, R. (2012) The wide lens: A new strategy for innovation. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Allegra, M. et al. (2013) ‘A serious game to promote and facilitate entrepreneurship education for young students’, Recent
Advances in Education and Educational Technologies, pp. 256–263.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. (1978) Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arnold, R. D. and Wade, J. P. (2015) ‘A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach’, Procedia Computer Science.
Elsevier Masson SAS, 44(C), pp. 669–678. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050.
Avedon, E. M. and Sutton-Smith, B. (1971) The study of games. New York, NY: John Willey & Sons.
Baldwin, C. Y. and Clark, K. B. (2000) Design rules: The power of modularity (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Basalla, G. (1988) The evolution of technology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, R. and Loon, M. (2015) ‘Reprint: The impact of critical thinking disposition on learning using business simulations’,
International Journal of Management Education. Elsevier Ltd, 13(3), pp. 362–370. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2015.10.003.
Buchanan, R. (1992) ‘Wicked problems in design thinking’, Design Issues, 8(2), pp. 5–21. doi: 10.2307/1511637.
Castells, M. (2010) The rise of the network society. 2nd edn. Chichester, UK: John Willey & Sons.
Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990) ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), pp. 128–152.
Cope, J. (2005) ‘Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(4),
pp. 373–397. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00090.x.
Cope, J. and Watts, G. (2000) ‘Learning by doing: An exploration of experience, critical incidents and reflection in
entrepreneurial learning’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 6(3), pp. 104–124. doi:
10.1108/13552550010346208.
Dorst, K. (2011) ‘The core of “design thinking” and its application’, Design Studies. Elsevier Ltd, 32(6), pp. 521–532. doi:
10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006.
Dunne, D. and Martin, R. (2006) ‘Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and
discussion’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(4), pp. 512–523. doi:
10.5465/AMLE.2006.23473212.
Faria, A. J. et al. (2009) ‘Developments in business gaming: A review of the past 40 years’, Simulation & Gaming, 40(4), pp.
464–487. doi: 10.1177/1046878108327585.
Garbuio, M. et al. (2018) ‘Demystifying the genius of entrepreneurship: How design cognition can help create the next
generation of entrepreneurs’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17(1), pp. 41–61. doi:
10.5465/amle.2016.0040.
Gartner, W. B. and Vesper, K. H. (1994) ‘Experiments in entrepreneurship education: Successes and failures’, Journal of
Business Venturing, 9(3), pp. 179–187. doi: 10.1016/0883-9026(94)90028-0.
Geels, F. W. (2005) ‘The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway
from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930)’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(4), pp.
445–476. doi: 10.1080/09537320500357319.
Glen, R., Suciu, C. and Baughn, C. (2014) ‘The need for design thinking in business schools’, Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 13(4), pp. 653–667. doi: 10.5465/amle.2012.0308.
La Guardia, D. et al. (2014) ‘A game based learning model for entrepreneurship education’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences. Elsevier B.V., 141, pp. 195–199. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.034.
Herz, B. and Merz, W. (1998) ‘Experiential learning and the effectiveness of economic simulation games’, Simulation &
Gaming, 29(2), pp. 238–250. doi: 10.1177/1046878198292007.
Huber, G. P. (1991) ‘Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures’, Organization Science, 2(1), pp.
88–115. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.88.
Jenkins, R. V. (1987) Images and enterprise: Technology and the American photographic industry, 1839-1925. Baltimore,
MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
Johansson-Skoldberg, U., Woodilla, J. and Cetinkaya, M. (2013) ‘Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures’,
Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), pp. 121–146. doi: 10.1111/caim.12023.
Kiili, K. (2005) ‘Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model’, Internet and Higher Education, 8(1),
pp. 13–24. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.001.
Kim, B., Park, H. and Baek, Y. (2009) ‘Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using meta-cognitive strategies in game-based
learning’, Computers & Education. Elsevier Ltd, 52(4), pp. 800–810. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.004.

778
 Wilian Gatti Junior

Kolb, D. et al. (1986) ‘Strategic management development: Using experiential learning theory to assess and develop
managerial competencies’, Journal of Management Development, 5(3), pp. 13–24. doi: 10.1108/eb051612.
Lies, E. (2011) The lean startup. New York, NY: Crown Business.
March, J. G. (1978) ‘Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice’, The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), pp.
587–608. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2013.10.028.
March, J. G. (1991) ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science, 2(1), pp. 71–87.
Martin, R. (2005) ‘Embedding design into business’, Rotman Magazine, Fall. Available at:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Embedding+Design+into+Business#0%5Cnhttp://w
ww-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/rogermartin/EmbeddingDesign.pdf.
Matthews, J. H. and Wrigley, C. (2017) ‘Design and design thinking in business and management education and
development’, Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), pp. 41–54. doi: 10.5204/jld.v9i3.294.
McKenney, S. and Reeves, T. C. (2012) Conducting educational design research. New York: Routledge.
Murmann, J. P. and Frenken, K. (2006) ‘Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological
innovations, and industrial change’, Research Policy, 35(7), pp. 925–952. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.011.
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010) Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and
challengers. Hoboken, NJ: John Willey & Sons.
Oxman, R. (2001) ‘The mind in design: A conceptual framework for cognition in design education’, in Eastman, C. M.,
McCracken, W. M., and Newstetter, W. C. (eds) Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education.
Kidlington, UK: Elsevier, pp. 269–295. doi: 10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50012-7.
Politis, D. (2005) ‘The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
29(4), pp. 399–424. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00091.x.
Richmond, B. (1994) ‘System dynamics/systems thinking: Let’s just get on with It’, in International Systems Dynamics
Conference. Sterling, Scotland.
Romero, M. (2013) ‘Game based learning MOOC. Promoting entrepreneurship education’, eLearning Papers, 33, pp. 1–5.
Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2004) Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sauvé, L., Renaud, L. and Kaufman, D. (2010) ‘The efficacy of games and simulations for learning’, in Kaufman, D. and
Louise (eds) Educational gameplay and simulation environments: Case studies and lessons learned. Hershey: IGI
Global, pp. 252–270.
Schön, D. A. (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Shaffer, D. W. et al. (2005) Video games and the future of learning. Working paper 2005-4. University of Wisconsin–
Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research (NJ1). doi: 10.1002/piq.20020.
Sidhu, I. et al. (2015) ‘A game-based method for teaching entrepreneurship’, Applied Innovation Review, (1), pp. 51–65.
Sirelkhatim, F. and Gangi, Y. (2015) ‘Entrepreneurship education: A systematic literature review of curricula contents and
teaching methods’, Cogent Business & Management. Cogent, 2(1), pp. 1–11. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2015.1052034.
Steinkuehler, C. and Squire, K. (2014) ‘Videogames and learning’, in Sawyer, R. K. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the
Learning Sciences. 2. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, S. C. (2011) ‘Interpreting design thinking’, Design Studies, 32(6), pp. 515–520. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2011.08.001.
Visser, W. (2009) ‘Design: one, but in different forms’, Design Studies. Elsevier Ltd, 30(3), pp. 187–223. doi:
10.1016/j.destud.2008.11.004.
Wang, C. L. and Chugh, H. (2014) ‘Entrepreneurial learning: Past research and future challenges’, International Journal of
Management Reviews, 16(1), pp. 24–61. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12007.
Zulfiqar, S. et al. (2018) ‘An analysis of influence of business simulation games on business school students’ attitude and
intention toward entrepreneurial activities’, Journal of Educational Computing Research, pp. 1–25. doi:
10.1177/0735633117746746.

779
Copyright of Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning is the
property of Academic Conferences & Publishing International Ltd. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.