Virtual Economy Simulation Model (VESM): Interactive Learning Innovation in Introductory Economics Courses

Endah Andayani; Della Rulita Nurfaizana; Udik Yudiono; Lilik Sri Hariani; Fonny Dameaty Hutagalung

doi:10.62794/je3s.v7i1.21

Authors

Endah Andayani Universitas PGRI Kanjuruhan Malang, Indonesia
Della Rulita Nurfaizana Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
Udik Yudiono Universitas PGRI Kanjuruhan Malang, Indonesia
Lilik Sri Hariani Universitas PGRI Kanjuruhan Malang, Indonesia
Fonny Dameaty Hutagalung Universiti Malaya, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62794/je3s.v7i1.21

Keywords:

virtual economy simulation model, interactive learning, market analysis, higher education, scenario-based learning

Abstract

The development of digital technology has driven learning innovation in the Introduction to Economics course, especially in vocational education. This study aims to develop a Virtual Economy Simulation Model (VESM) as an interactive learning medium based on scenario-based learning designed to improve the market analysis skills of 70 students of Office Administration Education, Offering A and E, class of 2024. The research method uses the Borg & Gall Research and Development (R&D) model modified into seven stages, including needs analysis, design, prototype development, expert validation, limited trials, field trials, and product revisions. The research instruments include economic knowledge tests, market analysis task performance, and a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire. The content validity results show a CVI of 0.89 (high category). The field trial resulted in a significant increase in pre-test to post-test scores in both groups with an N-gain of Offering A of 0.63 while Offering E was 0.66 with an effect size of Cohen's d = 1.59. The average SUS score reached 86.2 (excellent), while qualitative data showed that 92% of students considered VESM to be helpful in understanding economic concepts realistically. These findings indicate that VESM is effective in improving market analysis skills, learning engagement, and theory-practice integration. This model has the potential to be widely adopted in economics teaching in higher education.

References

Alalwan, AA, Dwivedi, YK, & Rana, NP (2020). Digital transformation and smart technology adoption: Challenges and future research directions. International Journal of Information Management, 54, 102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102168

Anderson, P. H., & Lawton, L. (2020). Business simulations and cognitive learning: Developments, desires, and future directions. Simulation & Gaming, 51(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120904638

Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 114–123.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at universities (4th ed.). Open University Press.

Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, BA Weerdmeester, & IL McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis.

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (2020). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier.

Faria, A. J., & Wellington, W. J. (2020). Validating business simulation performance measures. Simulation & Gaming, 51(2), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120911208

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607

Hamari, J., Shernoff, D.J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow, and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045

Hew, K. F., Huang, B., Chu, K. W., & Chiu, D. K. (2019). Engaging students in blended courses through gamification: Improving learning motivation, cognitive engagement, and academic performance. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(2), 220–236.

Huang, R. H., Spector, J. M., & Yang, J. (2021). Educational technology: A primer for the 21st century. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4947-6

Huang, Y., Backman, S. J., & Backman, K. F. (2022). Student engagement in immersive virtual reality learning environments: The role of learning challenges and outcomes. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 30, 100363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100363

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2019). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (12th ed.). Pearson.

Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., & Cummins, M. (2021). The NMC horizon report: 2021 higher education edition. EDUCAUSE Review.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2020). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2), 146–153.

Martinez, R., Gonzalez, C., & Velazquez, J. (2021). The impact of active learning methodologies in economics education. Educational Economics, 29(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2021.1879274

Nguyen, T., Netto, C.L., Wilkins, J.F., Bröker, P., Vargas, E.E., Sealfon, C.D., & Puthipiroj, P. (2020). Insights into students' experiences and perceptions of remote learning methods: From the COVID-19 pandemic to best practice in the future. Frontiers in Education, 5, 583077. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.583077

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

Purwanto, E., & Santoso, HB (2022). Technology acceptance model for e-learning adoption in Indonesia. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 2163–2185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10705-8

Salas, E., Cooke, N.J., & Rosen, M.A. (2015). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 57(3), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815578265

Sauro, J. (2018). Measuring usability with the System Usability Scale (SUS). MeasuringU. https://measuringu.com/sus/

Zhang, L., & Xu, B. (2021). Role-based simulations in economics education: Effects on learning outcomes and engagement. Journal of Economic Education, 52(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2020.1850185