Research Article

Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy

Simulations in 2018, Vol. 1(1) 61–89

! The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
Entrepreneurship sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2515127417737285
Education: Serious journals.sagepub.com/home/eex

Games and Learning

Through Play

Joe Fox1, Luke Pittaway1,

and Ikenna Uzuegbunam1

Abstract
Entrepreneurship education continues to grow and develop worldwide. This article
seeks to expand knowledge and understanding of educational practice in entrepre-
neurship by focusing on serious games, specifically computer simulations which
model entrepreneurship. This paper begins by reviewing the entrepreneurship edu-
cation literature to consider the role of simulations, explores the nature of serious
games, and assesses the role of such games in simulating entrepreneurial learning.
This research uses systematic literature review techniques to collect data on serious
games, analyzes these games and provides five detailed case studies on the games.
The paper concludes with a discussion of what serious games currently simulate in
entrepreneurial learning, and directions for future research.

Keywords
serious games, simulations, education, learning

1
College of Business, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Joe Fox, Entrepreneurship and Instructional Technology, College of Business, Ohio University, Athens,
OH 45701, USA.
Email: jf496715@ohio.edu
62 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

Introduction
The rapid pace of growth in entrepreneurship education has been well docu-
mented (Fayolle, Verzat, & Wapshott, 2016; Katz, 2003; Pittaway & Cope,
2007b).1 From a subject matter focused principally on small business manage-
ment in the United States, the field has grown to cover many contexts and most
countries. In addition, the scope of entrepreneurship education has broadened,
rapidly spreading across disciplines in the university setting and permeating
different levels within educational systems (Morris, Kuratko, & Cornwell,
2013; Neck & Greene, 2011). Despite this landscape of increasing demand and
diversification, the intellectual foundations of educational practice in the field
remain underdeveloped (Loi, Castriotta, & Chiara Di Guardo, 2016; Pittaway &
Cope, 2007b). There is a void between current theoretical understanding of the
entrepreneurship process as it applies to opportunity recognition, evaluation,
and exploitation, and its simulation2 in educational practice.
Prior reviews of the literature suggest that the field of entrepreneurship educa-
tion is becoming increasingly fragmented, where little is known and incorpo-
rated about actual practices and their veracity (Ge & Peng, 2012; Gorman,
Hanlon, & King, 1997; Naia, Rui, Januario, & Trigo, 2014; Pittaway & Cope,
2007b). Fayolle (2013) argues that what is known in the entrepreneurship
educational environment is often considered to be anecdotal and lacking in
rigor. Concluding a recent special issue in entrepreneurship education, Fayolle
et al. (2016) highlight that entrepreneurship education needs to (a) reflect a
better understanding of the skills and competencies it aims to create; (b) provide
more effective methods for evaluating educational pedagogies; and (c) undertake
more rigorous studies of educational effectiveness.
The purpose of this article is to consider the extent to which current educa-
tional practices in the field of entrepreneurship are consistent with current
understanding of the entrepreneurial process, and associated skills and compe-
tencies. We focus on whether serious games, in the form of computer simula-
tions, are in fact simulating the process of entrepreneurial learning as part of the
practice contributing to the overall advancement of entrepreneurship education.
We evaluate whether serious games used in the context of entrepreneurship
education fulfill the dimensions of fidelity, verification, and validation. While
previous research has proven the perceived effectiveness of serious games of the
players, specifically entrepreneurship simulation games in learning environments
(Kriz & Auchter, 2016), additional research is required to better understand
what the games contain to further education of entrepreneurs.
The article will begin by considering entrepreneurship education and the role
of simulations as part of that ecosystem. Here, we introduce the concept of
serious games and then consider its treatment in the entrepreneurship education
literature, in terms of its role in the educational process. We then consider what
specific skills and competencies games might aim to simulate and relate those
Fox et al. 63

back to entrepreneurial learning. Then, we review this method of learning by

exploring existing practices and highlighting current games in the market.
Finally, we undertake a rigorous evaluation of a sample of these games through
five case studies, with the view to highlight potential avenues for future improve-
ments. By utilizing a well-established theoretical framework in our analysis of
serious games in the entrepreneurship context, our work develops better under-
standing of the current gaming landscape in entrepreneurship education. Thus,
the article concludes by highlighting the potential gaps in the current gaming
landscape, the reasons for the gaps, and recommendations for educational
practice and theory.

Computer Simulations and Serious Games in

Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship education has a complicated pedagogic history that includes
many innovations and much variety in teaching methods (Pittaway & Cope,
2007b). Methods reviewed in the literature have varied extensively, have generally
been descriptive, and have lacked rigorous evaluation of effectiveness (Fayolle
et al., 2016). In this literature, scholars have described the following methods:
action learning (Leitch & Harrison, 1999), new venture role plays (Clouse, 1990;
Kelmar, 1992), serious games (Hindle, 2002; Low, Venkataraman, & Srivatsan,
1994), the development of actual ventures (Haines, 1988), skills-based courses
(Ulijn, Duill, & Robertson, 2004), video role plays (Robertson & Collins,
2003), experiential learning (Daly, 2001; Sexton & Upton, 1987), and mentoring
(Stewart & Knowles, 2003) among many others. Specifically, simulations in entre-
preneurship education come in a number of forms depending on their purpose for
existence, and the most popular appear to be role-playing simulations and
computer simulations. Deviating from a pure computer simulation are in-class
role plays, serious games mediated by technology, and experiential learning where
students create and run ‘‘real’’ ventures in the classroom.
In this article, we are interested in serious games within the context of
educational practice in entrepreneurship. These can be defined as computer-
based learning simulations that engage players in realistic activities designed
to increase knowledge, improve skills, and enable positive learning outcomes
(Prensky, 2001). While such simulations are not always ‘‘games’’ per se, the main
focus is the use of a digital game-based learning environment to support ‘‘ser-
ious’’ outcomes. Despite having an entertainment component, these simulations
are designed to promote learning, primarily by leveraging a narrative or
story centered in an entrepreneurial setting. Serious games also differ from enter-
tainment games as they focus on problem-solving tasks and incorporate the
imperfect nature of interactions with the real world (Susi, Johannesson, &
Backlund, 2007), an especially useful concept in approaching entrepreneurial
opportunities. Previous empirical research on the use of serious games in
64 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

entrepreneurship education suggests that students perceive simulation gameplay

as a useful education exercise that extends their knowledge about entrepreneur-
ial decision variables (Huebscher & Lendner, 2010). Serious games have some
definable characteristics as highlighted by Prensky (2001), which includes fun,
play, rules, goals, interactivity, outcomes or feedback, win states, conflict, and
problem solving. Games also require a narrative and adapt as a player moves
through the game.
When using serious gaming to simulate entrepreneurship, important discip-
linary questions arise, especially when considering Fayolle et al.’s (2016) first
didactic challenge. How do we define entrepreneurship and what is being simu-
lated? What is the correct level of complexity and uncertainty? And, within what
problems and sequence? How does the structure of the simulation map against
practical or scientific knowledge of the subject matter of entrepreneurship? What
implicit assumptions bind the learning process? The simulation and gaming
literature provides a theoretical framework for anchoring these considerations.
This framework suggests that serious games are often evaluated using three
criteria: fidelity, verification, and validity (Feinstein & Cannon, 2002).

Fidelity
Fidelity refers to the amount of realism in a simulation (Pellegrino & Scott,
2004). Though some amount of fidelity is essential in serious games, prior
research suggests that excessive fidelity can be problematic (Billhardt, 2004).
In entrepreneurship simulations, for example, Hindle (2002, p. 238) argues
that students need ‘‘adequate suspension of disbelief.’’ That is, students need
credible scenarios that will provide enough challenge, without overwhelming the
player with detail, since actions need to be executed within an appropriate time-
frame (Hindle, 2002).
Creating the right blend of fidelity ensures that learners enjoy the game and
remain engaged (Maguire, Van Lent, Prensky, & Tarr, 2003). Relaxing the fidel-
ity of a game does not negatively impact learning outcomes, and doing so can
enhance fun and engagement (Vogel et al., 2006). Being too realistic, therefore, is
not necessarily the aim of a serious game, for example, Low et al. (1994) argue
that, ‘‘the ideal game will be rich enough to capture critical aspects of the entre-
preneurial process, but sufficiently simple to minimize the danger of confounding
factors’’ (p. 384). This statement highlights the important opportunity for entre-
preneurship simulations as they can assist learners in avoiding some of the most
painful life lessons one might encounter launching a real company.

Verification
Verification focuses on ensuring whether the simulation is working, and model-
ing the scenario and variables as intended. Verification ensures technical
Fox et al. 65

reliability, and in the gaming context, it is often focused on testing and retesting,
as well as, upgrades, updates, and patches. Prior research in entrepreneurship
education has found technical reliability to be essential for effective student
engagement within the classroom setting (Hindle, 2002). Technical reliability
can be impeded or enhanced by the trainer. Thus, verification also includes
factors, such as, intuitiveness of the game interface and the prior training of
the trainer (Low et al., 1994).
As research is sparse on the technical aspects of such games, it is important to
inject the idea of uncertainty into this discussion as it can be a difficult concept to
model. As McMullen and Shepherd (2006) note, actions taken by entrepreneurs
involving innovative new ideas are inherently uncertain, often creating situations
with unknown outcomes. This appears to confound some of the ideas in both
verification and validation, yet reconciliation is possible upon relaxing certain
aspects of each. Simulations should provide players with the tools they need to
create uncertainty, yet also the same power to react to uncertainty caused by the
game purposefully or through other circumstances.

Validation
Validation is the third criteria used in assessing serious games. It aims to ensure
that the simulation is designed to correctly model the processes that exist in reality
(Pegden, Sadowski, & Shannon, 1995). In this criterion, there are many issues in
entrepreneurship education. First, what definition of entrepreneurship is applied?
Entrepreneurship might be small business management, venture creation, or ven-
ture growth (Carland, Hoy, Boulton, & Carland, 1984; Shane & Venkataraman,
2000). It could be opportunity recognition or creation (Shepherd, 2015; Thrane,
Blenker, Korsgaard, & Neergaard, 2016) or innovation (Drucker, 2002;
Schumpeter, 1934), as well as, a number of other alternatives (Gartner &
Vesper, 1994). Shane and Venkataraman (2000) note that entrepreneurship
does not require creation of new organizations, and it is the role of innovation
which sets this apart from small business management (Carland et al., 1984).
Fayolle et al. (2016) emphasize that the nature of the ‘‘reality’’ the simulation
seeks to emulate has much scope for variation due to the underlying didactic
challenges. This is because of the need to account for the constraint of simulat-
ing reality where the outcomes are unknown due to innovative actions under-
taken by entrepreneurs (see McMullen & Shepherd, 2006). Thus, it appears that
the preponderance of uncertainty in the reality of entrepreneurship will compli-
cate the idea of creating a valid simulation. Nevertheless, it is possible to inject
uncertain situations, aligned with the current context a user is focused on,
through user controls and decisions. In doing so, the need to adequately
model the reality of uncertainty in entrepreneurship should be balanced with
the need to measure skills and competences, which is often enhanced by a more
standardized, set narrative.
66 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

Table 1. Effective Gaming Design Review Criteria.

Criteria Description Relevant factors for entrepreneurship

Fidelity Amount of realism Level of reality present in the game. Is this game
present in the game simulating a facet of the entrepreneurial process?
design Balance of reality and challenge appropriateness for
target learner. Can learners understand the
boundaries enough to perceive inherent
challenges?
Fun and potential for engagement
Verification Quality of the game’s Technical reliability, absence of technical or user
technical design glitches
Interface design, intuitiveness, and usability
Level of instructor training and involvement for
implementation
Validation Game’s coherence and Existence of an underlying narrative. Does the lear-
alignment with the ner impact this narrative?
simulated reality Underlying theory guiding the narrative.
Competence and skills focus of the game design.
What should entrepreneurs get out of playing a
simulation?
Note. Adapted from Feinstein and Cannon, 2002.

Prior research in entrepreneurship education has focused on games designed

to enhance deal making, negotiation skills, networking, and ethics. In doing so,
entrepreneurship is seen ‘‘as a tournament between competing entrepreneurs’’
(Low et al., 1994, p. 386) and has focused on decision-making simulating ‘‘a
managerial in-basket exercise’’ (Hindle, 2002, p. 237). Evidently, within the
existing gaming landscape, the skills and competencies simulated could vary,
the entrepreneurial context might vary, as might the underpinning conceptual-
ization of entrepreneurship itself (Pittaway & Cope, 2007b). For the purposes of
this research, we form these key questions and criteria into a review framework
(see Table 1).
The field research used the review criteria in Table 1 to consider contempor-
ary examples of serious games and help attend to Fayolle et al.’s (2016) first
didactic challenge. Before reporting this research, however, we must also address
Fayolle et al.’s (2016) second and third didactic challenges. We address the
second by considering current research about how entrepreneurs learn and use
this to establish a framework for considering the serious games reviewed.
Finally, we address the third by conducting a rigorous review of existing edu-
cational practices (i.e., serious games currently in the market), and our research
findings are reported in the final part of the article.
Fox et al. 67

Entrepreneurial Learning Review Framework

Research on entrepreneurial learning (and the accompanying technology) has
advanced considerably, since Low et al. (1994) and Hindle (2002) first con-
sidered serious games in entrepreneurship education. We contend that current
research in entrepreneurial learning provides a valid framework through which
to evaluate the current gaming landscape. Games, as a pedagogic approach,
seem to align well with the socioconstructivist educational paradigm (Gibb,
1987, 2002). They respect the learner’s need for self-determination (Ryan &
Deci, 2000), apply the concept of ‘‘flow’’ to ensure pleasure and engagement
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), can support cooperative learning (Hattie, 2009), and
provide timely feedback to the learner. An entrepreneurial learning framework
that is likewise based on similar philosophies about learning, therefore, seems a
good basis on which to evaluate existing practice.
Entrepreneurial learning has been recently reviewed as a subject (Pittaway &
Thorpe, 2012; Wang & Chugh, 2014). There are many contributing concepts
that provide this study with a framework to review the practice of serious games
in entrepreneurship education. As these are reviewed elsewhere, we introduce
them briefly to illustrate how they are used within the context of the current
study (Harrison & Leitch, 2005, 2008; Jones, Macpherson, & Thorpe, 2010).

Active Learning or Learning by Doing

Active learning or learning by doing is widely perceived to be a key way in which
entrepreneurs develop understanding, learning as they go while working on the
job (Gartner, 1988; Jones, Macpherson, & Woollard, 2008; Watts, Cope, &
Hulme, 1998). In serious gaming, Low et al. (1994) point out, ‘‘in a field
where much learning occurs through doing, games and simulations that provide
realistic entrepreneurial experiences have the potential to be of enormous
benefit’’ (p. 384). Games, by definition, are experiential and engage players in
interaction, problem-solving, choices, and narratives. As such, they can be
considered to model learning-by-doing in the entrepreneurial domain. It must
be noted, however, that they are unlikely to simulate all aspects of the experi-
ence. For instance, prior research suggests that they would be expected to leave
out emotional, financial, and social exposure, which are known to heighten an
entrepreneur’s learning engagement (Pittaway & Thorpe, 2012).
Learning-by-doing is considered to lead to the acquisition of a ‘‘stock of
experience’’ (Cope, 2005). Cope (2005), for example, details the sequence and
learning processes that occur upon entrepreneur’s involvement in critical events
or episodes (Cope, 2005). This also helps contribute to one’s entrepreneurial
identity through personal and social emergence (Rae, 2005). Learning processes
can also occur in nonlinear patterns and can vary based on the individual
moving through the game. Stock of experience and ‘‘entrepreneurial
68 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

preparedness’’ are placeholders for modification of existing thoughts and stra-

tegies and can also represent new cognitive processes that arise as outcomes of
learning (Chen, Yao, & Kotha, 2009; Cope, 2011; Reuber & Fischer, 1993;
Smilor, 1997). Cope (2005) links this stock of knowledge to ‘‘entrepreneurial
preparedness’’ (Politis, 2005; Smilor, 1997). The relationship establishes that
prior experiences can have an impact on individual’s preparedness to take entre-
preneurial actions. Within the gaming context, this relationship demonstrates
that repetitive practice through well-designed serious games could help prepare
players for future entrepreneurial acts. It also illustrates that game designers
need to be cognizant of the existing prior experience of players. A game designed
for undergraduate students may not, for example, have enough fidelity for more
experienced entrepreneurs, thus highlighting the importance of the intended
audience.
Experience alone though has been recognized as insufficient (Cope & Watts,
2000). Other forms of learning have been shown to play an important role in
the entrepreneurial learning process. These forms include: reflective learning
(Cope, 2005); situated learning (Hamilton, 2004), learning through crises
events (Cope, 2011), and vicarious learning (Baron & Henry, 2010; Holcomb,
Ireland, Holmes, & Hitt, 2009). Each form has important ramifications for
assessing serious games in the subject.

Reflective Learning
Reflective learning, for example, has been shown to be important in the consoli-
dation of outcomes from experiences and it comes in a number of different
forms. Games, if well designed, should encourage reflection. Decisions and
choices are made, the narrative progresses, and leads to performance outcomes
including win states. Decision stages are also likely to be more rapid from how
they might occur in reality and so feedback on outcomes is often instantaneous.
How well designed the links are between a game’s goals, outcomes, and feedback
will clearly impact on the value of the reflective outcomes for the learner. The
immediacy of feedback in games also offers some limitations for reflective prac-
tice. Too much immediacy may not allow space for ‘‘deeper’’ reflective learning
that often requires space away from the action (Cope, 2011; Tseng, 2013).

Situated Learning
Situated learning likewise offers considerations for game designers in entrepre-
neurship education. It is broadly recognized that learning in the entrepreneurial
context is an individual, team, and organizational phenomenon (karataş-Özkan,
2011; Taylor & Thorpe, 2004). Entrepreneurs learn from other stakeholders and
family members (Cruz, Howorth, & Hamilton, 2012; Hamilton, 2004).
Entrepreneurial processes are often team based and learning as a venture
Fox et al. 69

grows is considered an organizational phenomenon (Jones & Macpherson,

2006). While players of the game have individual learning experiences that
have value, a game may fail to simulate entrepreneurial learning if it does not
engage the computer, nonplayable characters, and other players fully into the
game in order to build effective interactivity. Interaction with family, stake-
holders in the venture process, and competitors in the market place seem like
essential components of effective game design (Low et al., 1994). The presence of
unforeseen events, market disruptions, and institutional changes (such as
changes in government policy) might also be important aspects of the situated
nature of a game. Vicarious learning offers similar considerations (Holcomb
et al., 2009). For example, to what extent does the game provide access to
‘‘real life’’ responses to similar problems and challenges and to what extent is
engagement individual or team-based? Each of these items will impact the fidel-
ity of the game. The opportunity to engage in vicarious or symbolic learning
(through others’ experiences) might further enhance the potential outcomes for
the learner (Baron & Henry, 2010).

Learning From Crises

Learning through crises events is another identifiable aspect of the entrepreneur-
ial learning literature (Cope, 2011; Politis & Gabrielsson, 2009; Shepherd, 2003).
Here, it has been noted that critical episodes and failure events can have heigh-
tened learning outcomes when compared with regular operational activities
(Shepherd, 2003). A focus on such events has also led researchers to consider
more deeply the emotional aspects of learning within the entrepreneurial context
(Cardon, Foo, Shepherd, & Wiklund, 2012; Cardon, Wincent, Singh, &
Drnovsek, 2009). Passion, enthusiasm, and emotional engagement with the sub-
ject are increasingly viewed to be both enablers and inhibitors in the learning
process (Shepherd & Kuratko, 2009; Ucbasaran, Shepherd, Lockett, & Lyon,
2013). These aspects of the field highlight further considerations for evaluating
serious games. To what extent do game designs build in unforeseen crises and
events? Many in the entrepreneurial ecosystem contend that one of the most
effective ways to learn how to be an entrepreneur is through failure (Pittaway &
Cope, 2007b) and one of the most common adages in practice is ‘‘fail fast’’ or
even ‘‘fail fast, fail often, and cheaply.’’ Game designs offer the potential to
allow learners to fail and do so in a controlled way limiting downside risk.
Constant practice through game scenarios can also help learners prepare for
such challenging episodes. So, an obvious criterion to consider is how current
game designs simulate and engage the learner in failure, mistakes, and crises,
recognizing that there is a continuum between smaller mistakes and catastrophic
failure (Mellahi & Wilkinson, 2004). Failure in entrepreneurial contexts brings
emotional consequences that are seen to heighten learning, and a review of the
gaming landscape must also consider the extent to which games engage learners
70 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

Table 2. Entrepreneurial Learning Review Criteria.

Type of learning Relevant features in game environments

Active learning Engaging learning by doing, by making decisions, solving problems,

acting ‘‘as if’’ and implementing choices within the game context.
Entrepreneurial Extent to which the game draws on and adds to the learner’s existing
preparedness stock of experience.
Reflective learning Level of reflective practice built into the game and the nature and
forms of reflection encouraged.
Situated learning Whether the game places learners within situational contexts via
interaction with nonplayable characters, the computer, and other
players.
Vicarious learning Level and involvement of others in the learning process including
peers, mentors, and instructors.
Affective learning Evidence of emotional engagement with the game, likely level of
absorption, emotional simulation, and other emotional outcomes.

in emotional aspects of learning. Here, games, if well designed, should enhance

engagement through fun and play. This aspect of design it contended should
heighten learners’ passion and enthusiasm and in doing so may impact the qual-
ity of learning outcomes. As noted though, it is unlikely that more extreme
emotional aspects (such as, emotional exposure) are likely to be simulated
through serious games (Pittaway & Cope, 2007a; Pittaway, Gazzard, Shore, &
Williamson, 2015).
For the purposes of this research, we applied this entrepreneurial learning
framework (see Table 2) to review existing serious games in entrepreneurship
education. The review also used criteria from the gaming literature (fidelity,
verification, and validation) to further consider the educational value of
games. In doing so, we have addressed Fayolle et al.’s (2016) second didactic
challenge and have presented an effective method for evaluating practices. Next,
we address the third didactic challenge by undertaking a rigorous analysis of
serious games in entrepreneurship education. Before introducing the results of
this analysis, we explain our methodology.

Methodology
The research method applied elements of a systematic literature review (SLR),
case study research, and playing serious games. We reviewed the gaming land-
scape using these elements of the SLR method to ensure transparency through-
out the process, used initial reviews to identify five case studies, and played the
five games in detail. During each step of the process, the conceptual review
criteria developed was applied to assess the games being evaluated.
Fox et al. 71

SLR methods have been developed in social science and management inquiry to
develop thematic reviews of particular subjects (Denyer & Neely, 2004;
Tranfield, Denyer, Marcos, & Burr, 2004). The emphasis in SLRs has been to
develop reviews that enable transparent, evidence-based evaluations of a field
that both abstract and synthesize a subject (Thorpe, Holt, Macpherson, &
Pittaway, 2005). The method was applied in this research to enable the system-
atic collection of serious games in entrepreneurship education. The steps that the
review conducted are as follows:

1. Search strings—a number of key words and search strings were developed
and tested to undertake searches. Key words such as ‘‘game,’’ ‘‘simulation,’’
‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘new venture,’’ and ‘‘entrepreneur’’ were identified and
constructed into common search strings.
2. Search strings were used in common search engines (e.g., Google) to seek out
an initial sample of serious games. Common search engines were preferred to
literature databases (e.g., Business Source Complete) due to the focus of the
search on games rather than literature.
3. During initial searches for games, a large number of results were identified.
These were reviewed by filtering in only web pages that had been updated in
the last year (2016). This approach was used as a means to uncover ‘‘active’’
products. Forty-one serious games were identified during this stage and these
are reported in Appendix 1.
4. Web pages for each game were reviewed in detail. As is common for SLRs,
inclusion and exclusion criteria (Pittaway, Holt, & Broad, 2014) were applied
to assess the relevance of the games in entrepreneurship education. Criteria
included aspects such as, topical fit, technical efficacy, misleading or false
advertising, and obsolescence (i.e., games were not being sold or updated).
At this stage, 17 of the games were excluded from the sample.
5. Of the 23 remaining games, 15 were excluded for definitional or scoping
reasons. They did not meet our definition as highlighted earlier in the article.
In most cases, these were true games focused on entertainment and were not
serious games focused on education. Other cases included the scope of what
the game facilitated—if the game’s scope included only a very narrow skill or
process useful to entrepreneurs, it was excluded as well. At this stage, one
game was excluded due to its lack of availability to the researchers.
6. The remaining eight games were analyzed more deeply using the review
criteria established and five of these were played in depth for additional ana-
lysis based on access.

Following the use of an SLR-like method to select the games for review, the
research conducted case studies. These case studies are assisted by ‘‘gaming play-
ing’’ as a method of data analysis. Case studies are a recognized and accepted
method in management research (Yin, 2014). Mayer, Bekebrede, et al. (2014)
72 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

suggest that this methodology is one of many beneficial ways to explore the
functionality and purpose of serious games. In this study, the serious game
reviewed represents the ‘‘case,’’ and there are five such cases evaluated. The
case in this research is the ‘‘product’’ itself rather than a particular intervention
using the game (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Evidence on cases was collected by
review of secondary information, analysis of product design, and through
active engagement (play) with the products; therefore, multiple sources of evi-
dence were applied to our evaluation (Eisenhardt, 1989). We undertook a
purposeful sampling method as outlined by applying the SLR method to
our selection process (Gerring, 2005). These case studies represent illustrations
of the games available and are thus illustrative cases (Stacks, 2013). Our data
analysis incorporated using the review criteria established to evaluate games,
involved reviews and assessments of game design, and direct interaction with
the games through game playing. Aarseth (2003) suggests that failing to play
games under analysis leaves the researcher at risk for misunderstanding various
components and processes. Participating in games allows for mapping of the
various rules, win-states, and other critical mechanics that makeup a game
(Aarseth, 2003).
While this research uses a method common in instructional technology, there
are some limitations to be considered. Our cases formed around the ‘‘product’’
rather than around an ‘‘instructional intervention using the product.’’ We exam-
ined a large number of serious games, looked in detail at eight games, and
provided five cases studies but we did not observe how the game was used in
the classroom by an instructor. It is possible that some variations in our assess-
ment could be influenced by this mode of investigation, in particular, vicarious
and affective learning assessment may have been influenced. Future researchers
of this subject could expand our work by observing instructional practices and
technologies in the context of the classroom experience. From our literature
review work, however, it is recommended that such work uses multiple rather
than single case studies. In this study, our method of interrater reliability is
somewhat limited. The lead researcher undertook the SLR, conducted the
review using the method as outlined, and played the case study games. Given
the nature of the process, and its labor-intensive nature (i.e., game playing), the
use of multiple researchers and the creation of interrater reliability in the assess-
ment process was not deemed feasible. Instead the researchers engaged the
supporting researcher in ‘‘checks and balances.’’ This involved a step by step
reporting and reviewing procedure designed to ensure transparency and validity
of the data collection and analysis process. The nature of the initial search pro-
cess also leaves the potential that games are left out of the evaluation set, as
they are not discovered. Despite these limitations, we contend that the research
carried out was rigorously conducted and presents the most comprehensive
understanding of serious games in entrepreneurship education currently
available.
Fox et al. 73

Next, we introduce each of the five cases and explain the general results of the
review. Then, we discuss serious games in entrepreneurship education and high-
light findings from both the case studies and the wider sample. Finally, the
conclusions are highlighted.

Case Studies
Interpretive Solutions offers a well-known and widely used set of entrepreneur-
ship simulations focused on retail entrepreneurship. Key learning areas include
strategy, analysis, marketing, accounting, and other facets of operating a small
business. This round-based simulation allows faculty to cover important topics
at the end of each round students play. Players take the role of founder and at
the end of the game, the team with the highest net income wins.
GoVenture hosts two serious games focused on entrepreneurs: GoVenture
World and GoVenture Entrepreneur. GoVenture World allows players to make
entrepreneurial decisions about a variety of topics when starting a business and
players operate that business in an environment where other companies are
controlled by other players in real time. Topics covered include business man-
agement, strategy, planning, communication, marketing, and more. Players take
the role of a founder; however, they can also be investors. The game is a free,
open-ended, massive multiplayer online role playing game. GoVenture
Entrepreneur allows players to make turn-based decisions in managing a retail
store. Topics covered include strategy, planning, marketing, as well as some of
the personal choices which entrepreneurs must make. Players take the role of a
founder and there is a fee charged per student for playing the game.
SimVenture Classic represents a business simulation that incorporates startup
components as part of gameplay. Players take the role of a manager and play
against computer competition to make tactical decisions in starting a business.
This game can also be loaded with custom scenarios built by instructors to better
fit course content.
Entrepreneurship Simulation: The Startup Game is a mixed computer-based
and real-life game designed to assist students in understanding the startup
process from a variety of limited roles. Players can take the role of founder,
financier, or employee as they attempt to get their business off the ground.
Players take investments from investor players, hire employee players, and com-
pete with other founders and their companies.

General Results
The results of the initial detailed review of the eight games are highlighted in
Table 3. The games reviewed had a range of prices, free to $45 per seat for
academic users. Some simulations charged significantly more for corporate
users. Most were not free and payment models tended toward short-term
74
Table 3. Serious Games Review Results.

Interpretive Entrepreneurship
GoVenture: GoVenture solutions: Simulation: The Innovative Venture
Entrepreneur World Entrepreneur Startup Game SimVenture HipsterCEO Dutch Strategy

Fidelity Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Low

Verification High Moderate High Unknown High Low High Moderate
Validation Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate
Examples
encountered?
Active learning x x x x x x x x
Situated learning x x x x x x x
Vicarious learning x x
Affective learning x x
Reflective learning x x x x x x
Learning via crisis x
Note.Low, Moderate, and High ratings refer to evaluator opinion for each game in that category related to definitions. An ‘‘x’’ represents the evaluators opinion
on whether the example was encountered in the game, while blank cells indicate no encounter. The first five games were played.
Fox et al. 75

licensing centered on a semester’s use for undergraduate students. Games

designed for the undergraduate marketplace were focused on embedding the
game within a course, as an aspect designed to assist overall course delivery as
many of the publishers include a variety of supporting resources to assist the
learner. One game that was in beta testing was free with the intention to use a
similar model following the testing period. Three of the simulations evaluated
were single player games only; the remaining games constructed multiple player
games designed to allow for player versus player competition. Roles within
games varied, some games allowed for the selection of multiple roles but most
placed the player in the role of ‘‘founder,’’ and in some games, this was the only
role available. Similarly, players could rarely switch roles once the game had
started. Only one of the games allowed the role of ‘‘venture capitalist,’’ one
allowed the role of ‘‘employee,’’ one allowed ‘‘angel investor,’’ and two allowed
for ‘‘other investors,’’ which typically meant a loan officer of a bank or friend/
family member with wealth.
Games generally did not include other stakeholders, such as, family members
in the roles a player can play. Games varied considerably regarding the ‘‘reality’’
being simulated and the context of the simulation. A common context was
‘‘retail entrepreneur’’ (e.g., clothing goods store, sporting goods store, or seller
of physical goods) while ‘‘software entrepreneur’’ also featured in two products.
Most products tended toward simulating small business management while there
were venture growth aspects to the software games. No games focused directly
on other contexts such as hyper growth, failure and liquidation, nondisclosure
processes for venture finance, IPO, and trade sales, although there may have
been scattered references to such concepts in material supporting such games.
So, games tend only to simulate new venture creation and small business man-
agement, and in most cases, the venture creation process was superficial in the
sense that a small fraction of the total time spent playing was dedicated to this
task and more time directed to financial decisions for an operating small
business.
Temporal controls were implemented in the form of round-based play in four
games. The remaining game was open-ended with no theoretical end. A majority
of the games include feedback and reflection periods where the game offers
feedback to help hone in on better decision-making based on the variables
users have control over. Every game in the sample includes trial and error
experimentation and attempt to model learning by doing (Gartner, 1988;
Watts et al., 1998). They do this by modeling actual decisions a player would
have to take when starting or managing a venture. Only two games had any
sense of ‘‘crises’’ and so learning through mistakes, errors, and failures seemed
to be very lightly modeled (Cope, 2011; Politis & Gabrielsson, 2009). Crises were
sometimes built-in, one-time events occurring in a simulated period. An example
of a crisis scenario would be an accusation of theft by current employees. Other
crises were a function of temporal controls of the game, like the company burn
76 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

rate creating dire conditions for business operations (Shepherd, 2003).

Emotional components of learning, as expected, were not simulated by the
games outside of short descriptions of events which might residually impact a
founder’s emotions. Each of the games included financial decision-making but
most did not model financial exposure as might be experienced by an entrepre-
neur. Other emotional components, such as social and emotional exposure, were
essentially absent from the games. Only one game included situations at ‘‘home’’
that spilled over into the player’s decision-making.
Generally, catastrophic failure was modeled poorly (Shepherd, 2003). The
ability of the business to fail completely was almost absent and only in two
games could the player reach this state. Other games allowed the business to
continue operation and, in some cases, losing money into infinity. This weakness
occurs in the artificial framework created in the games related to financing where
the allowable boundary conditions make it impossible to fail. Incremental and
microscopic mistakes could occur allowing the player to learn and reflect but this
did not add up to the critical failure of the venture and closure with its various
ramifications (Cope, 2011; Politis & Gabrielsson, 2009). It is likely that failure
prevention is closely linked to the disallowance of uncertainty to creep into game
elements. Instead of purely uncertain situations, many of the games are coaxing
players to practice their behavior under situations of information asymmetry.
While there exists an element of perceived uncertainty from that of the player,
outcomes are still somewhat fixed to help ensure learning objectives are met.

Discussion
Games in general provide valuable learning by doing tools and are effective ways
that educators can enhance experiential learning in and outside of the classroom
(Low et al., 1994). In most cases, the games simulate decision, choice, and action
frameworks well, and have a good level of fidelity for the chosen audience.
Learners gain access to appropriate processes and have an opportunity
to have fun and play ‘‘as if’’ they were the founder of a business. At present,
the reviewed games have a very narrow definition of the ‘‘reality’’ they seek to
simulate. The games are mainly focused on small business management as their
underlying definition of entrepreneurship and ignore other conceptualizations.
Venture creation processes are often included but were found to be superficial,
and innovation in business models is not possible. Most players were boxed in to
decisions open to a small business owner and were not able to provide more
innovative responses because they were forced into pursuing a win state dictated
by an underlying small business management framework. This relegates players
to seeking optimization functions between various variables within the game.
Meanwhile, many other important venture constructs are ignored, for example,
opportunity recognition, rapid venture growth, and venture investment
Fox et al. 77

processes. While these concepts could be introduced through instructor

resources, they were not incorporated into most simulations due to the difficulty
to simulate such scenarios.
Reflection was encouraged in the majority of the games (Cope, 2005), both by
the setup of round-based decisions and instructor reactions to player decisions.
It is important for learners in games to make different decisions with the same
sets of criteria that were available in the previous round and most of the games
allowed for this. Some of the games did not include time for reflection and feed-
back loops were not always setup to help coach players through more optimal
decisions. When a game leaves this out, it does not encourage ‘‘self-monitoring’’
as described in the research (Tseng, 2013). Reflection though was somewhat
superficial in nature. Most reflective learning was focused on immediate changes
to decisions and choices in the search for the optimal response to presupposed
outcomes. Such reflection, while valuable in the context of these games, does not
mirror the critical reflection described by Cope (2005, 2011). Future research
may investigate the deeper role of the instructor in enhancing such reflection, as
well as additional features included in each game to encourage noninstructor
mandated reflection.
Situated learning and vicarious learning were simulated in part in these games
(karataş-Özkan, 2011; Taylor & Thorpe, 2004). In most cases, however, the
interactivity between players, the computer, nonplayable characters, and other
players was limited and not immersive enough to enhance learning in a deeper
way. Most simulations did not have cofounder pairs with more experienced
players, did not allow players to switch roles and play from different positions
in the relationship (e.g., the investor), and decision making in some of the games
lacked transparency depriving players of a better view of cause and effect when
engaging in interaction. Some games did encourage team-based learning but
most were individual learning based that happened to occur in a space with
teams being controlled by other players, depriving learners of the ability to
learn vicariously from their peers. An exception to this was the single mixed
simulation which took place in both the classroom and virtually—students were
required to interact to proceed and had to react based on choices of other
players. Within the games, some important situated roles were simulated, such
as, employees, investors, customers, and suppliers. There was some variation but
very few examples of the impact of wider stakeholders, such as, family members,
mentors, and cofounders. These were also rarely played by other players in
the games and tended to be facilitated by nonplayable characters. Likewise,
the simulation of exogenous factors, for example, unexpected and disruptive
changes in the market or changes in government policy, was rarely included.
A focus on win states, as required by normal gaming design, does present
unintended consequences for learning from failure (Cope, 2011; Politis &
Gabrielsson, 2009; Shepherd, 2003). Only in two of the simulations was failure
78 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

a normal experience. In most of the games, failure could be implied by profit

declines or money lost, but absolute and catastrophic company losses were not
allowed. This aspect is a major deficiency in the fidelity of most of the games
reviewed. Failure is a hallmark of risk and a critical component of the entrepre-
neurial learning context (Cope, 2011) for it not to be included risks setting
unrealistic expectations for players that might have negative implications and
lead to overconfidence (Giacomin, Janssen, & Shinnar, 2016). Allowing players
to experience failure within safe environments, such as games and simulating the
failure process, is an important recommendation and thus a major contribution
of this study.
Finally, it was evident from this work that many aspects of entrepreneurial
learning are absent from game designs. Lack of chaos, uncertainty, and ambigu-
ity was evident across the sample. No games incorporate rapid decision-making
in chaotic circumstances or required decisions that had multiple unintended
outcomes aside from impact on operational variables. This lack of risk, uncer-
tainty, and ambiguity as experienced in realistic entrepreneurial endeavor
seemed to be another major deficiency of the games reviewed (Politis &
Gabrielsson, 2009). For example, disruptive innovation is recognized as a
major theory underlying entrepreneurship thinking and nowhere in these
games were such disruptions to markets either created by the player or experi-
enced as an outcome of changes in a marketplace (Schumpeter, 1934). While this
could be a limitation for game developers, it also presents an opportunity to
simulate uncertainty through introduction of randomized elements, pathways to
fail, artificially intelligent enhanced nonplayable characters, and even giving
opposing players differing goals to create more irrational environments. Doing
such creates a new challenge for educators in evaluating the effectiveness of such
games, as uncertain outcomes do not always allow for traditional methods
of evaluation to take place. Emotional aspects of learning were also absent.
While one simulation did bring in a spouse as a nonplayable character, there
is very little connection between the family and the venture in these games.
No nonplayable characters engaged in irrational behavior that had negative
implications for the business as often happens in reality, and in general, the
games did not seek to engage the players in a deep enough way to lead to
much emotional engagement.

Conclusions
In this article, we used Fayolle et al.’s (2016) didactic challenges to construct an
analysis of entrepreneurship education practice. The review focused on serious
games used to simulate entrepreneurial learning. We addressed the first didactic
challenge by reviewing best practice in serious game design and by seeking to
explore what entrepreneurial ‘‘reality’’ games were simulating. The second
Fox et al. 79

didactic challenge was attended to by constructing a detailed systematic method,

using well-established entrepreneurial learning methods, for reviewing serious
games in the entrepreneurship education marketplace. The final didactic chal-
lenge was tackled by undertaking a rigorous assessment of games, using a
detailed review methodology, undertaking five case studies, and through game
playing as a method.
From this work, we can draw some conclusions about the serious gaming
landscape in entrepreneurship education. First, games do provide much value in
the education process. They allow students to engage in experiential learning
that is fun and engaging, and in doing so, they provide an excellent support
mechanism for student education in the subject. Well-designed games seem to be
of particular value in allowing students to learn-by-doing (Low et al., 1994).
Games place students in interactive virtual environments that can be immersive,
and the consequential serious play that follows allows students to test out
decisions and build entrepreneurial preparedness in a safe and risk-free
environment.
Games have strong problem-solving aspects, and the outcomes feedback
loops within these problem-solving situations do encourage forms of reflective
learning. They also engage students in narratives providing insights into speci-
fied entrepreneurial contexts (mainly small business management) and do so in a
dynamic way, allowing students to navigate through virtual situations, decisions,
and choices. We, therefore, concur with prior researchers who have concluded
that serious games are an important and significant tool in the entrepreneurship
education toolbox (Hindle, 2002; Kriz & Auchter, 2016; Low et al., 1994).
The gaming landscape also continues to progress with many more products
on the market covering different entrepreneurial contexts and technological
advancements, such as virtual reality and artificial intelligence offering many
opportunities for improvements in technological and learning sophistication.
Second, our review of serious games in entrepreneurship education does,
however, highlight many considerations regarding fidelity, verification, and
validation. Current games on the market have a tendency to coalesce around
small business management as their underpinning conceptual framework for the
‘‘reality’’ they simulate. The challenges of fidelity in simulations are widely noted
(Hindle, 2002; Vogel et al., 2006), and thus it is not surprising to note the lack of
realism in most simulations that we evaluated. Mixed serious games, combining
computer simulations and classroom activities, appear to be one outlier which
approaches simulation fidelity differently than most of the other simulations.
Consistent with Hindle (2002), we confirm that most entrepreneurship simula-
tions rely on the assumption that students will relax the fidelity constraint while
gameplay commences. Venture creation processes are treated superficially and
other important contexts, such as, venture growth, finance, liquidation, and
divestment are overlooked. The validity of the gaming landscape in
80 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

entrepreneurship as a whole, in terms of its ability to simulate entrepreneurial

endeavor, is thus questionable. While reflective learning does occur within game
design, it is focused on immediate feedback loops to problem-choice decisions,
and so, many games do not involve the learner in deeper critical reflection to any
major degree; although instructor engagement in the classroom may somewhat
alleviate this problem.
Third, gaming is also generally poor at simulating other aspects of entrepre-
neurial learning. In particular, affective learning and vicarious learning did not
have high degrees of fidelity. Likewise, some games are better than others at
offering a range of roles, thus encouraging interactivity and engagement with the
computer, other players, and nonplayable characters. Many of the games pro-
vide very limited situated contexts for the learners. Disruptive events, learning
from mistakes, and the ability to act in disruptive ways are largely ignored in
game design. While this is inherently difficult to simulate, it also possibly
explains the reason many simulations focus on decision variables related to
finances in the management of an entrepreneurial venture. Linear and predict-
able functions based on relationships between finances and decision variables
can be modeled and verified to interact correctly with one another. A departure
from the verification criteria may create nonlinear situations with uncertain
outcomes; thus risking the validity of a simulation as a player pursues an uncom-
mon vector when playing the game. Running a disruptive startup company,
however, typically requires nonlinear decision-making, so there must be some
balance struck to incorporate unknown phenomenon and their impact on deci-
sion-making. Finally, most of the games do not allow catastrophic failure.
A player cannot bankrupt the venture, go out of business, and navigate an
insolvency process. We viewed this deficit as a significant oversight in the
design of existing games.
Our research has implications for entrepreneurship education and research.
For educators, it is clear that serious games do add value to the educational
experience, consistent with previous explorations of learning outcomes (Kriz &
Auchter, 2016). The gaming landscape, however, is becoming more complex and
there are more choices and so educators need to make careful choices and val-
idate their choices before implementing serious games in the classroom. Poor
verification (technical efficacy) is particularly damaging once a game is intro-
duced into the educational context and educators need to spend time to test and
verify a product before they adopt it (Hindle, 2002). Educators also need to
think carefully about the learning outcomes they seek to accomplish and how
well the particular game assists with these learning outcomes. Games tend to
overwhelmingly focus on small business management and the types of skills and
competencies desirable from these games (e.g., venture creation) may not always
be simulated as well as the educator would like. A focus on modeling linear
processes and predictable relationships presents a unique challenge to educators
Fox et al. 81

as it can create difficulties in pinpointing skills and competencies that are neces-
sary in the entrepreneurial realm. This compounded by the challenges presented
by a strict adherence to effective assessment. While longitudinal research has
shown support for the positive effect of using entrepreneurship simulations in
the classroom (Kriz & Auchter, 2016), it also uncovers that motivations may
remain unchanged or even drop after playing a simulation. This presents an
opportunity for educators, researchers, and game developers to work together
to identify which skills acquired through serious games might also have a posi-
tive impact on motivation.
For researchers, it is quite clear that this subject is underresearched. While
there have been previous studies on entrepreneurial personality, motivation, and
intentions in relation to simulations (Mayer, Kortmann, Wenzler, Wetters, &
Spaans, 2014; Newbery, Lean, & Moizer, 2016), we found very few dated papers
directly addressing this topic. While we cannot rule out omitting papers or fail-
ing to account for papers more broadly focused on business simulations, it is
evident that there are many opportunities for more research. In particular,
multicase study efforts that observe the use of serious games in the classroom
environment seem very promising because they can offer deeper insights into the
different components of the learning experience. Specifically, studies that
observe emotional responses of learners to gaming, review, and expand our
appreciation of the value of new technologies in this context (e.g., virtual reality
and artificial intelligence), and that go deeper into particular learning processes
and forms are likely to produce significant insights for the literature; all appear
to have potential and merit attention.
The research also has implications for game designers. It seems clear that
designers are focused predominantly on a very narrow niche ‘‘small business
management for undergraduate students’’ and so have many more opportunities
open to them than they currently exploit including other customer segments and
other underlying entrepreneurial processes. While it is important for designers to
get the right balance about the fidelity of a game (ease, fun, and engagement
while modeling reality), the research concludes that current games have some
significant deficits in terms of the types of learning they promote. Designers also
may need to fragment games into smaller pieces to accurately address skills
needed for particular scenarios entrepreneurs face, including uncertainty, as
well as, varying skills simulated as they relate to different venture stages and
contexts.
Ultimately, the contribution of this study is to provide a renewed impetus for
considering the role of serious games in entrepreneurship education. These
games have pragmatic value, and play is a fun way to engage students. While
the current gaming landscape could improve, we conclude that games provide a
safe and risk-free pedagogy for learners to enhance their entrepreneurial pre-
paredness before they launch or join a new venture.
82 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

Appendix 1. Serious Games Identified From the SLR

Review Process

Name Status

GoVenture: Entrepreneur Evaluated

GoVenture world Evaluated
Interpretive solutions: Entrepreneur Evaluated
Entrepreneurship simulation: The startup game Evaluated
Entrepreneurship in action: A retail store simulation Filtered
Hot shot business Filtered
Junior achievement club simulation Filtered
Lemonade stand game Filtered
Lemonade stand Filtered
Venture strategy Evaluated
EquitySim Definitional/scope issues
Venture capital game Filtered
Venture capital simulation Filtered
VC game Filtered
Mike’s bikes Definitional/scope issues
Music2go Definitional/scope issues
Threshold entrepreneur business venture simulation Filtered
Innov8 Filtered
Clean start Definitional/scope issues
Solar simulation Definitional/scope issues
Salt simulation Definitional/scope issues
Fishbanks simulation Definitional/scope issues
EIS Definitional/scope issues
SimCEO Definitional/scope issues
HipsterCEO Evaluated
Virtonomics Filtered
Gazillionaire Filtered
Zapitalism Filtered
Profitania Filtered
The startup heroes Filtered
Experiential simulations Definitional/scope issues
Forio venture capital Filtered
(continued)
Fox et al. 83

Continued

Name Status

RealityWorks Definitional/scope issues

Innovative Dutch Evaluated
Mashauri Definitional/scope issues
Oaktree sim Definitional/scope issues
Toggl Definitional/scope issues
Lavamind Definitional/scope issues
SimVenture Evaluated
VentureBlocks Definitional/scope issues
Note. SLR ¼ systematic literature review. Filtered indicates a game was left out due to quality, purpose,
status of an active game. Definitional issues indicate games that may not exactly fit our definition of
entrepreneurship or the game simulates extremely narrow facets of entrepreneurship. Evaluated indicates
games which were evaluated further.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

Notes
1. A 2013 Kauffman Foundation report shows a steady increase in entrepreneurship
education programs offered at U.S. colleges and universities. According to the
report, by 2006, U.S. colleges and universities offered 500 formal programs (majors,
minors, and certificates) compared with 250 programs in 1985, and 100 programs in
1975 (http://www.kauffman.org//media/kauffman_org/research%20reports%
20and%20covers/2013/08/eshipedcomesofage_report.pdf).
2. In this first instance, we use simulation in educational practice loosely to include all
types of educational activity that are focused on reproducing realistic entrepreneurial
experience for students in educational settings.

References
Aarseth, E. (2003). Playing research: Methodological approaches to game analysis.
Proceedings of the digital arts and culture conference (pp. 28–29). Melbourne, VIC:
RMIT University.
Baron, R. A., & Henry, R. A. (2010). How entrepreneurs acquire the capacity to excel:
Insights from research on expert performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4,
49–65.
84 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
Billhardt, B. (2004). The promise of online simulations. Chief Learning Officer, 3,
38–41.
Cardon, M. S., Foo, M., Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. (2012). Exploring the heart:
Emotion is a hot topic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 1–11.
Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience
of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511–532.
Carland, J., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. A. C. (1984). Differentiating entre-
preneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management
Review, 9(2), 354–359.
Chen, X.-P., Yao, X., & Kotha, S. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in
business plan presentations: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding deci-
sions. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 199–214.
Clouse, V. G. H. (1990). A controlled experiment relating entrepreneurial education to
students’ start-up decisions. Journal of Small Business Management, 28(2), 45–53.
Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 373–397.
Cope, J. (2011). Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomeno-
logical analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 604–623.
Cope, J., & Watts, G. (2000). Learning by doing: An exploration of experience, critical
incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 6(3), 104–124.
Cruz, A. D., Howorth, C., & Hamilton, E. (2012). Intrafamily entrepreneurship: The
formation and membership of family entrepreneurial teams. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 37(1), 17–46.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow, the psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:
Harper and Row.
Daly, S. (2001). Student-operated internet businesses: True experiential learning in entre-
preneurship and retail management. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 204–215.
Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Introduction to special issue: Innovation and product-
ivity performance in the UK. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(3, 4),
131–135.
Drucker, P. (2002, August). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review,
95–103.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25(7–8), 692–701.
Fayolle, A., Verzat, C., & Wapshott, R. (2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical
and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International
Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895–904.
Feinstein, A. H., & Cannon, H. M. (2002). Constructs of simulation evaluation.
Simulation and Gaming, 33(4), 425–440.
Gartner, W. B. (1988). ‘Who is an entrepreneur?’ Is the wrong question. American Journal
of Small Business, 12(4), 11–32.
Fox et al. 85

Gartner, W. B., & Vesper, K. H. (1994). Experiments in entrepreneurship education:

Successes and failures. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), 179–187.
Ge, L., & Peng, X. M. (2012). Research fronts of international entrepreneurship educa-
tion in the visual threshold of knowmetrics. Journal of Knowledge-Based Innovation in
China, 4(1), 55–65.
Gerring, J. (2005). Case study research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., & Shinnar, R. S. (2016). Student entrepreneurial optimism and
overconfidence across cultures. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 925–947.
Gibb, A. (1987). Designing effective programmes for encouraging the business start-up pro-
cess: Lessons from UK experience. Journal of European Industrial Training, 11(4), 24–32.
Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new enterprise and entrepreneurship paradigm for learn-
ing: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations
of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 213–232.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepre-
neurship education, enterprise education and education for small business manage-
ment: A ten-year literature review. International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 56–78.
Haines, G. H. Jr. (1988). The ombudsman: Teaching entrepreneurship. Interfaces, 18(5),
23–30.
Hamilton, E. (2004 November). Socially situated entrepreneurial learning in family busi-
ness. Proceedings of the 27th ISBA National Small Firms Policy and Research
Conference, Newcastle.
Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (2005). Entrepreneurial learning: Researching the inter-
face between learning and the entrepreneurial context. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 29(4), 351–371.
Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (2008). Entrepreneurial learning: Conceptual frameworks
and applications. London, England: Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achieve-
ment. London, England: Routledge.
Hindle, K. (2002). A grounded theory for teaching entrepreneurship using simulation
games. Simulation and Gaming, 33(2), 236–241.
Holcomb, T. R., Ireland, R. D., Holmes, R. M. Jr., & Hitt, M. A. (2009). Architecture of
entrepreneurial learning: Exploring the link among heuristics, knowledge, and action.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 167–192.
Huebscher, J., & Lendner, C. (2010). Effects of entrepreneurship simulation game sem-
inars on entrepreneurs’ and students’ learning. Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, 23(4), 543–554.
Jones, O., & Macpherson, A. (2006). Inter-organizational learning and strategic renewal
in SMEs: Extending the 4I framework. Long Range Planning, 39(2), 155–175.
Jones, O., Macpherson, A., & Thorpe, R. (2010). Learning in owner-managed small
firms: Mediating artefacts and strategic space. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, 22(7–8), 649–673.
Jones, O., Macpherson, A., & Woollard, D. (2008). Entrepreneurial ventures in Higher
Education: Analysing organisational growth. International Small Business Journal,
26(6), 683–708.
Karataş-Özkan, M. (2011). Understanding relational qualities of entrepreneurial learn-
ing: Towards a multi-layered approach. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
23(9–10), 877–906.
86 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneur-

ship education 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283–300.
Kelmar, J. H. (1992). Business plans for teaching entrepreneurial behavior. Education and
Training, 34(1), 30–42.
Kriz, W., & Auchter, E. (2016). 10 years of evaluation research into gaming simulation
for German entrepreneurship and a new study on its long-term effects. Simulation and
Gaming, 47(2), 179–205.
Leitch, C., & Harrison, R. (1999). A process model for entrepreneurship education and
development. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 5(3),
83–109.
Loi, M., Castriotta, M., & Chiara Di Guardo, M. (2016). The theoretical foundations of
entrepreneurship education: How co-citations are shaping the field. International
Small Business Journal, 34(7), 948–973.
Low, M., Venkataraman, S., & Srivatsan, V. (1994). Developing an entrepreneurship
game for teaching and research. Simulation and Gaming, 25(3), 383–401.
Maguire, F., Van Lent, M., Prensky, M., & Tarr, R. (2002). Defense combat sim olym-
pics–Methodologies incorporating the cyber gaming culture. Paper Presented at
I/ITSEC Conference, Orlando, FL.
Mayer, I., Kortmann, R., Wenzler, I., Wetters, Á., & Spaans, J. (2014). Game-based
entrepreneurship education: Identifying enterprising personality, motivation and
intentions amongst engineering students. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,
17(2), 217.
Mayer, I., Bekebrede, G., Harteveld, C., Warmelink, H., Zhou, Q., van Ruijven,
T., . . . Wenzler, I. (2014). The research and evaluation of serious games: Toward
a comprehensive methodology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45,
502–527.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncer-
tainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1),
132–152.
Mellahi, K., & Wilkinson, A. (2004). Organizational failure: A critique of recent research
and a proposed integrative framework. International Journal of Management Reviews,
5(1), 21–41.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Cornwell, J. R. (2013). Entrepreneurship programs and
the modern university. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
Naia, A., Rui, B., Januario, C., & Trigo, V. (2014). A systematization of the literature on
entrepreneurship education in higher education: Challenges and emerging solutions in
the entrepreneurial classroom. Industry and Higher Education, 28(2), 79–96.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and
new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.
Newbery, R., Lean, J., & Moizer, J. (2016). Evaluating the impact of serious games: The
effect of gaming on entrepreneurial intent. Information Technology and People, 29(4),
733–749.
Pegden, C. D., Sadowski, R. P., & Shannon, R. E. (1995). Introduction to simulation using
SIMAN. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Pellegrino, J., & Scott, A. (2004). The transition from simulation to game-based learning.
In Proceedings of the interservice/industry training, simulation and education conference
Fox et al. 87

(I/ITSEC), Orlando, FL, 6-9 December, 2004. National Training and Simulation
Association.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007a). Simulating entrepreneurial learning: Integrating experi-
ential and collaborative approaches to learning. Management Learning, 38(2), 211–233.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007b). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the
evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 477–506.
Pittaway, L., Gazzard, J., Shore, A., & Williamson, T. (2015). Student clubs: Experiences
in entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 27(3–4),
127–153.
Pittaway, L., Holt, R., & Broad, J. (2014). Synthesising knowledge in entrepreneurship
research: The role of systematic literature reviews. In E. Chell & M. Karataş-Özkan
(Eds.), Handbook of research on small business and entrepreneurship (pp. 83–105).
London, England: Edward Elgar.
Pittaway, L., & Thorpe, R. (2012). A framework for entrepreneurial learning: A tribute to
Jason Cope. Entrepreneurship and regional development, 24(9/10), 837–859.
Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 399–424.
Politis, D., & Gabrielsson, J. (2009). Entrepreneurs’ attitudes towards failure: An experi-
ential learning approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research, 15(4), 364–383.
Prensky, M. (2001). Fun play and games: What makes games engaging. Digital Game-
Based Learning, 5, 1–5.
Rae, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial learning: A narrative-based conceptual model. Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(3), 323–335.
Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. M. (1993). The learning experiences of entrepreneurs. In N.
C. Churchill, S. Birley, W. D. Bygrave, J. Doutriaux, E. J. Gatewood, F. S. Hoy & W.
E. Wetzel. (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesby, MA: Babson
Centre for Entrepreneurial Studies.
Robertson, M., & Collins, A. (2003). The video role model as an enterprise teaching aid.
Education and Training, 45(6), 331–340.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68–78.
Sexton, D. L., & Upton, N. B. (1987). Evaluation of an innovative approach to teaching
entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 25(1), 35–43.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development (R. Opie, Trans.).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Learning from business failure: Propositions of grief recovery for
the self-employed. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 318–328.
Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Party On! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more
interactive, activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of
Business Venturing, 30(4), 489–507.
Shepherd, D. A., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). The death of an innovative project: How grief
recovery enhances learning. Business Horizons, 52(5), 451–458.
88 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

Smilor, R. W. (1997). Entrepreneurship: Reflections on a subversive activity. Journal of

Business Venturing, 12(5), 341–346.
Stacks, D. W. (2013). Case study. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations
(p. 99). London, England: SAGE Publications.
Stewart, J., & Knowles, V. (2003). Mentoring in undergraduate business management
programmes. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27(2–4), 147–159.
Susi, T., Johannesson, M., & Backlund, P. (2007). Serious games: An overview. Skovde,
Sweden: University of Skovde.
Taylor, D. W., & Thorpe, R. (2004). Entrepreneurial learning: A process of co-participa-
tion. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(2), 203–211.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Knowledge within small
and medium sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 7(4), 257–281.
Thrane, C., Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., & Neergaard, H. (2016). The promise of entre-
preneurship education: Reconceptualizing the individual-opportunity nexus as a con-
ceptual framework for entrepreneurship education. International Small Business
Journal, 34(7), 905–924.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Marcos, J., & Burr, M. (2004). Co-producing management
knowledge. Management Decision, 42(3/4), 375–386.
Tseng, C. (2013). Connecting self-directed learning with entrepreneurial learning to entre-
preneurial performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research, 19(4), 425–446.
Ucbasaran, D., Shepherd, D. A., Lockett, A., & Lyon, S. J. (2013). Life after business
failure: The process and consequences of business failure for entrepreneurs. Journal of
Management, 39(1), 163–202.
Ulijn, J., Duill, M., & Robertson, S. (2004). Teaching business plan negotiation:
Fostering entrepreneurship among business and engineering students. Business
Communication Quarterly, 67(1), 41–57.
Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M.
(2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229–243.
Wang, C. L., & Chugh, H. (2014). Entrepreneurial learning: Past research and future
challenges. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1), 24–61.
Watts, G., Cope, J., & Hulme, M. (1998). Ansoff’s matrix, pain and gain: Growth
strategies and adaptive learning among small food producers. International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 4(2), 101–111.
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Author Biographies
Joe Fox is a doctoral student at Ohio University studying Entrepreneurship and
Instructional Technology and is a visiting assistant professor of practice in the
Department of Management at the University of Akron. His research focuses on
entrepreneurial learning through computer simulations, the interactions between
Fox et al. 89

entrepreneurs and angel investors, physiological behaviors, as well as artificial

intelligence in entrepreneurship.

Luke Pittaway is the chair of the Management Department and copeland pro-
fessor of Entrepreneurship at Ohio University. He was previously the director of
the Center for Entrepreneurship. Dr. Pittaway’s research focuses on entrepre-
neurship education and learning and he has a range of other interests including:
entrepreneurial behavior; networking; entrepreneurial failure; business growth;
and, corporate venturing.

Ikenna Uzuegbunam is an assistant professor of Strategy, Entrepreneurship and

International Business at the College of Business, Ohio University. His research
focuses on the resource-based and socio-cultural factors that influence innova-
tion and entrepreneurship, in developed and emerging market countries.