Research

ORIGINAL AND APPLIED RESEARCH

Stock market trading simulations: Assessing the impact on student learning

C. Michael Smith and Sharon C. Gibbs

Business Administration & Economics, Roanoke College, Salem, VA, USA

ABSTRACT In higher education, business students with different learning styles may not all respond successfully to a straight lecture format. The authors analyze the impact that an experiential learning activity (an optional stock market trading simulation) has demonstrated on student success in a college investments course. Findings suggest that students who engage in the experiential learning component earn higher overall grades and demonstrate substantially higher grade improvements over the course of the semester than do those who do not par- ticipate in the simulation. This study reinforces the existing literature and supports the hypothesis that experiential learning components do aid in student learning.

KEYWORDS Experiential learning; investments courses; simulations; stock market

Introduction

In college classrooms around the country, many busi- ness and finance professors have a tradition of teach- ing in the manner in which they, themselves, were taught—the traditional lecture (Becker & Watts, 1995; Siegfried, Saunders, Stinar, & Zhang, 1996). There is no denying that “lecture” is a popular and efficient method of delivering information to a group of stu- dents. In fact, the relative efficiency and the degree of comfort that many professors feel toward the lecture format may partially explain the continued popularity of the college lecture despite an increasing portfolio of criticism as to its effectiveness (Renner, 1993). It has been argued that while lectures have some strengths, they are overly passive and often do not provide for an appropriate level of student feedback. In addition, according to Cashin (1985), they may not be appro- priate for the complex material often covered in col- lege finance classrooms, as “the more difficult the material becomes, the more individual differences among students are going to influence the pace and level of students’ learning” (p. 2).

Perhaps due to the expanding body of knowledge surrounding more student-focused teaching methodol- ogies, the preference for many professors to only utilize lectures in their classrooms has been changing. In fact, there is much research that demonstrates an increase in the effectiveness of student learning when instructors incorporate experiential learning components into an otherwise lecture-intensive course (Kolb, Boyatzis, &

Mainemelis, 2001; Ramaswamy & Ramaswamy, 2016). While the traditional lecture is likely to remain as the core pedagogy for many professors teaching finance, some are finding ways to incorporate additional experi- ential teaching elements that may significantly increase student learning opportunities (Brau, Nelson, & Sudweeks, 2015; Egbert & Mertins, 2010; Hawtrey, 2007; Marriott, Tan, & Marriott, 2015; McNamara & McNamara, 2019; Park, 2010). In fact, some educators even suggest that all finance faculty should attempt to incorporate student-focused elements into their cur- riculum because of the ability of experiential activities to significantly enhance the skills of future finance graduates (Black, 2000), but the literature available on the effectiveness of incorporating experiential activities into finance-related courses remains relatively minimal (Akimov & Malin, 2017).

Despite the lack of literature on the effectiveness of experiential activities in finance, the reasoning behind the increased use of experiential learning components in college coursework may be due to several reasons. First and foremost, there is some research that dem- onstrates that students do learn business and finance better when experiential components are included in the class (Branch, 1975; Brau et al., 2015; Marriott et al., 2015; Park, 2010). In addition to the potential for improved learning opportunities, this increased interest by college business professors may also be partially due to the fact that faculty, students, and classrooms are becoming more technology capable

CONTACT C. Michael Smith [email protected] Roanoke College, Business Administration & Economics Department, 221 College Lane, Salem, VA 24153, USA. � 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 2020, VOL. 95, NO. 4, 234–241 https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1643279

(Shaw, 2001). The proliferation of technology and media is likely aiding college instructors in finding that they are able to add experiential components to their courses without sacrificing contact time or important material.

Another consideration for the inclusion of experi- ential activities into the classroom is due to the chang- ing nature of today’s student learner. Every generation has its own value systems, which will likely differ from those of previous generations (Bengtson & Kuypers, 1971). The current generation of students is no exception. College students today are considered part of Generation Y, or the millennial generation. According to Black (2010), this generation learns bet- ter in an active environment and by experimenting to apply concepts. “Today’s students simply plunge in and learn through experimentation and active partic- ipation” (Black, 2010, p. 99). One of the interesting reasons for the trend to this more active learning style is that, more than any other generation, the millennial generation grew up playing video games. They have always been able to actively engage themselves into a game and receive instant feedback based on their decisions and actions (Oblinger, 2003). Therefore, it may be that utilizing experiential learning activities (e.g., a game or simulation) in the classroom provides millennial learners with a learning design in which they are already quite familiar. They are able to learn concepts in a controlled environment and receive instant feedback based on their decisions; much like that of a video game.

Given the increasing opportunities and interest by college faculty to include experiential elements into their curriculum, it is important to consider the meth- ods and goals of experiential learning before attempt- ing to introduce a suboptimal experiential component. The premise of experiential learning is that students are best able to learn and retain new information when they are provided with the opportunity to tac- tilely engage and experience the underlying subject matter. This can be accomplished in numerous ways, but some of the most popular methods associated with experiential learning include case studies, intern- ships, research, simulations, and other methods that allow students to personally involve themselves in the learning experience. However, it is important for fac- ulty interested in incorporating experiential classroom components to recognize that not every experiential activity is met with immediate success. In fact, minim- ally guided efforts to incorporate experiences into the classroom can be a waste of time and result in abstract failure (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). By

following several guidelines, college instructors may increase their chances of successful implementation.

Fortunately, there is a relative abundance of infor- mation available that can aid business and economics faculty in developing successful experiential elements, as the concept of experiential learning is not new (Cassidy, 2004). John Dewey (1938) first introduced the idea that learning might be enhanced by active engagement in the late 1930s. However, the concept of experiential learning began to gain significant traction in the 1980s, when David Kolb (1984) laid the founda- tion for the impact that experiential learning might have on different student learning styles. Building on the work of Dewey (and others), Kolb suggested that learning is most successful when the learner is able to cycle through four distinct processes. The cycle begins when the learner is able to experience something con- crete and then given time to reflect on the experience in an attempt to find its meaning. The learner is then able to use this knowledge to conceptualize abstractly and draw conclusions from the experience. The last stage of the learning process occurs when the learner begins to test and experiment the conclusions that then lead to new experiences—and the cycle continues once again (see Figure 1).

For an experiential exercise to be successful in the classroom, it is important for instructors to consider the student’s opportunity to progress through all four of Kolb’s processes. According to Svinicki and Dixon (1987), “by constructing learning sequences that lead students through the full cycle, an instructor should be able to foster a more complete learning than can be gained from a single perspective” (p. 142).

Research question

The purpose of this study is to provide an assessment of the results obtained from the inclusion of a specific experiential learning activity in a college investments class. The experiential learning activity utilized in this research is one that many faculty in investments

1. Concrete Experience

2. Reflective Observation

3. Abstract Conceptualization

4. Active Experimentation

Figure 1. Kolb’s experiential learning cycle.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 235

already use—the stock market simulation. To increase the reliability of the findings, the implantation of the course’s experiential activity has been tailored to fol- low the guidelines provided by Kolb’s model as care- fully as possible. In summary:

� Students are provided with a concrete experience as the simulation provides a real-life trading experience. While the concept of a brokerage account is described in detail before the start of the simulation, the simulation is designed to behave just like a standard online brokerage account in which students can actively engage.

� The simulation is conducted over a 10-week period. Students must stay engaged from start to finish and each student is incented to earn a posi- tive return by the conclusion of the simulation. Each week a “leaderboard” is discussed by the course professor in class and students are encour- aged to describe their successes and failures. Students can reflect on their decisions (as well as the decisions of their classmates) and revise their buy-sell-hold strategies as they learn what works, and does not work, for them.

� As the student is rewarded or punished for tak- ing on risk with positive and negative returns, these lessons can then be reflected upon and revised as the simulation continues. Students learn more and more effective methods to capit- alize on the risk-return relationship over the course of the semester, and they are able to apply their own risk tolerance, investing style, and return goals to their asset allocation and security selection decisions.

� Over the course of the semester, more and more investing strategies are covered in-class (including modern portfolio theory, behavioral economics, fundamental and technical analysis). In addition, futures and options are discussed toward the con- clusion of the simulation. Students can experiment with new strategies as they learn them or stick with their own personal strategy. Experimentation is encouraged in class by the course professor, as “this is only a learning experience and taking big risks may pay off.”

Given these parameters, does a properly conducted experiential activity included with classroom lecture increase overall student learning? This study assesses the impact that student participation in the online trading simulation has on performance in a college investments class.

Method

To test the impact that the experiential exercise has on student success, a sophomore/junior-level invest- ments course is examined in the Business Administration and Economics Department at Roanoke College, a small private college in Virginia. In this course, the learning objectives are stated as follows:

� Gain an improved understanding of financial securities and markets;

� Develop the ability to analyze investment compa- nies, common stocks, and bonds for invest- ment decisions;

� Understand how option and futures contracts are used in hedging and speculating;

� Understand stock/bond indexes and how they are used by investment advisors;

� Understand how to apply security analysis techni- ques in relatively efficient capital markets; and

� Gain practical experience in trading securities and in presenting investment analysis recommendations.

These course objectives are primarily addressed through a lecture/discussion format utilizing Investments: Fundamental Theory & Practice (Smith, 2017) as the primary reading text and A Random Walk Down Wall Street (Malkiel, 2015) as a supple- mental text.

As stated previously, the experiential activity uti- lized in this course is a security trading simulation that students set up online using their own computer or device. While several simulation options are avail- able, StockTrak (StockTrak Global Portfolio Solutions, Montreal, Canada) is the simulation software package used in this course. StockTrak provides students with a virtual trading platform that simulates a real online brokerage. The course instructor has some flexibility to be able to set the parameters of the simulation before the beginning of the semester. Therefore, the instructor can create some trading limitations or increase the package’s optionality based on the desired material to be covered over the course of the semester. Upon registration for the simulation in this particular investing course, each student’s portfolio begins with $500,000 in cash (as set by the professor) that can be invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, exchange- traded funds, options, and futures.

Since the spring of 2011, the Stock Trak trading simulation has been provided to students as an extra- credit opportunity each semester. Students are not

236 C. M. SMITH AND S. C. GIBBS

required to compete in the 10-week trading simula- tion, but may choose to participate. To entice student participation in the simulation, students are informed in the syllabus that if they are able to successfully meet the stated guidelines before the trading period ends, they may receive an extra 10 points that will be added to their final exam score. In addition, the class “winner” (the one student with the largest portfolio value at the end of the semester) receives an add- itional 10 points on the final exam. To receive the extra credit, students must stay engaged over the course of the semester (by participating in weekly class discussions) and meet the following guidelines:

� Register with Stock Trak and purchase a portfolio of at least five securities no later than [start date].

� Make at least two trades each week during the game.

� Complete a minimum of 20 total trades before [end date].

� Each position taken in an asset should be a min- imum of 5% of total assets.

� Cash should not exceed 20% of the total portfolio at any time.

� Over the course of the semester—at some point, each student must: � Buy a minimum of one call option or one

put option � Write a minimum of one call option or one

put option � Buy or sell a futures contract � Shorting stocks is optional (but allowed—and

count as trades … )

Sample description

The trading simulation has been a component of the Investments course at Roanoke College from 2011 to 2017. Over the six-year period, 129 students met the previous requirements and received the extra credit. Seventy students either decided against participating in the simulation or otherwise failed to meet the stated requirements. Of those, 58 students had no exposure to the course’s experiential trading simula- tion as they never registered to participate in the simulation. An additional five students also missed out on the entire experiential component as they reg- istered for, but then never signed back on to, the simulation to place any trades.

Of the 129 students who participated in the simula- tion, 97% were between the ages of 19 and 22 years old, and 76% were men. The course is not a core

requirement of the business administration major, so it can be inferred that most students taking the course, and participating in the simulation, have a genuine desire to learn about investing. Informal poll- ing at the beginning of the semester suggests that almost all students taking the course do not believe that they will receive Social Security (at least in its current form) and feel that they will not have their retirement years as “financially easy” as their parents without investing for themselves. Because of this, approximately half of the students in the course state that they keep up with the stock market on (close to) a daily basis.

The Investments course at Roanoke College has several prerequisites, including courses in accounting and economics. Therefore, every student who takes the investing course should have a basic understand- ing of equity and fixed-income markets before signing up for it. In fact, approximately 10% of students in the course have had significant exposure to the stock market and keep up daily with specific news items that impact stock prices as they are also enrolled (or have previously been enrolled in) Roanoke College’s Student-Managed Fund. In this course, students are responsible for investing a portion of the college’s endowment in the stock market. These students must consistently keep up to date with investment markets and make real-world decisions regarding the buying and selling of securities. Interestingly, every student who had been exposed to the Student-Managed Fund also made the decision to compete in the StockTrak simulation.

Other than those students who trade for the Student-Managed Fund, almost no students trade using a brokerage account of their own (less than 5% on average). However, this percentage has been grow- ing. Recent classes have self-reported greater usage of online security trading applications. In particular, Robinhood (Menlo Park, CA), a commission-free equity trading app that students can create and main- tain on their personal communication devices appears to be the most popular. This particular online broker has very low investment minimums, which may make it more appealing to students who generally have little to no discretionary income. It is again interesting to note that these students do not tend to make the same investment decisions with their own personal investing as they do in their simulation investing (per- haps due to the competitive nature of the simulation and its requirements).

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 237

Primary variable

To analyze the success of the course’s experiential component, student grades are used as the primary variable to compare those students who participated in the experiential simulation versus those who did not. By using this quantitative measurement, this study adds to the existing literature already conducted on the inclusion of stock market simulations in inves- ting courses, as student survey responses have been the popular measuring tool utilized in prior research (Marriot et al., 2015).

Hypothesis 1

Is a student’s participation in an experiential online trading simulation related to the student’s overall per- formance? To address this question, the research iden- tifies if the utilization of the trading simulation helps students gain a stronger understanding of the overall material in the investments course over those who do not participate.

To test this hypothesis, the course grades of stu- dents are collected and labeled as either with simula- tion or with no simulation. As participation in the simulation earns students extra credit, these extra points are removed before any other calculations are performed. Once the extra credit has been removed, for the purposes of this hypothesis, m1 equals the mean scores (the final course grades) of those students who have participated in the simulation, and m2 equals the mean scores of the final course grades for those students who have not participated in the simulation (or otherwise failed to meet the simulation requirements).

As it has been argued in prior research (Kirschner et al., 2006) that ill-conceived experiential components can actively detract from student success, a two-sided t test is used to compare the mean scores.

H0: m1 – m2 ¼ 0 against H1: m1 – m2 6¼ 0

Hypothesis 2

While it was determined that the results of the first hypothesis would be interesting, there is an obvious threat to the validity of the results of this hypothesis. There is a potential likelihood that students with the predilection to complete extra credit assignments may just, in fact, be stronger students (as reflected by course grades). Simply, it is possible (if not likely) that these students were going to earn higher course grades with or without participation in an optional

experiential activity because they are simply more dedicated to their studies.

To begin to address this question of validity, a second hypothesis has been devised. Does participa- tion in the experiential trading simulation positively correlate with a student’s individual improvement over the course of the semester? More specifically, does the utilization of the trading simulation help stu- dents to demonstrate improvement over the course of the investing class that is superior to those who do not participate?

To test this hypothesis, the grades for the first exam are compared with the final course grades for each student to measure the student’s individual grade improvement. It is important to note that in each tested semester, the first exam is completed before student participation in the simulation begins. The subject matter covered in this period before the simu- lation begins includes the basics of investing, using brokerage accounts, investment markets, and basic stock and bond investing. Students take the first exam on these topics before they have had the opportunity to create their online trading simulation portfolios (the course’s experiential component). The course schedule allows the trading simulation to begin shortly after the completion of the first exam. However, stu- dents are required to continue to participate in the simulation for the remainder of the semester after the first exam. While participating in the simulation, stu- dents complete two additional exams, take two quizzes based on the Malkiel text, and complete a comprehen- sive security analysis project. While the first exam rep- resents 15% of the total course grade and 5% is based on student attendance, 80% of the total course grade is earned from exams and other assignments that are completed while the students are competing in the simulation.

For the purposes of this hypothesis, m1 equals the mean scores of the difference between the course grade (the extra credit associated with successful com- pletion of the trading simulation is once again removed) and the first exam for those students who participate in the simulation. Further, m2 equals the mean scores of the difference between the course grade and the first exam for those students who do not participate in the simulation. As an example, if a student earns a 77 on the first exam and finishes the course with an 82 average, that student’s grade improvement is calculated as five points (82–77 ¼ 5). On the other hand, if a student earns an 85 on the first test, but finishes the course with an 81 average,

238 C. M. SMITH AND S. C. GIBBS

that student’s grade improvement is calculated as negative –4 points (81–85 ¼ �4).

The mean scores are then compared utilizing a t test with the same parameters as described in Hypothesis 1.

H0: m1 – m2 ¼ 0 against H1: m1 – m2 6¼ 0

Results

Before testing Hypothesis 1, descriptive statistics are run on the data to provide insight into the overall course grades for the students. The results show that students who participate in the trading simulation do earn a higher course grade (83.5%) than do those stu- dents who do not participate (77.5%). See Table 1 for more information.

When the t-test is run on the data, the p value of .00 is below the .05 level of significance; thus, the null hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that the two groups (those who participate in the simulation and those who do not) are not equal. The course grades of the students who participate in the simulation are statistically higher than the course grades of students who do not participate in the experiential activity. See Table 2 for more information.

This result does lend credence to the idea that experiential components (e.g., a simulation) may aid student learning efforts. Though, as was previously stated, this correlation may not be completely due to the potential for increased learning because of the course’s experiential component. As random assign- ment to groups is not possible, self-selection is a real risk to the validity of this finding as it can be easily argued that students with stronger dedication, will naturally gravitate toward extra-credit opportunities whereas less devoted students may choose to forego these opportunities. However, the opposite point can also be intuitively argued. Wouldn’t lower-performing students possibly be even more motivated to partici- pate in an extra-credit opportunity? Without random

assignment to groups, determining causation is not possible. Regardless, for the sake of this experiment, students who participated in the simulation performed better in the course.

To further test the significance of the finding that students who participate in the simulation perform better than those who do not, Hypothesis 2 is tested. Hypothesis 2 examines student improvement rather than an overall score. When looking at the descriptive statistics (Table 3), it is noted that students who par- ticipate in the simulation enjoy a higher mean per- formance improvement than those who do not participate. Students who participate in the online trading simulation tend to improve twice as much (from their first exam grade to their overall course grade) than do those students who do not participate. The average improvement for those students who par- ticipate in the simulation is six points, whereas those who do not participate improve by only three points. More specifically, the average first test score for stu- dents who participate in the trading simulation is 77.2% and their final course grade is 83.5% for an improvement of 6.2 points. The average test score for those students who choose not to participate in the experiential trading component is 74.5% and their final course grade is 77.5% for an improvement of only 3.0 points.

Once again, a t test is run on the data to test for significance, and once again the results indicate that the two groups are not equal. The improvement that those students who participate in the simulation exhibit is statistically higher (p ¼ .019) than that of those who do not participate. See Table 4 for more information.

As with the results of the test of Hypothesis 1, this finding also supports the research that demonstrates that experiential learning components, as a part of an otherwise lecture-intensive course, can aid student learning. In addition, this result arguably adds more power to the finding in that self-selection is removed as a significant threat. The stereotypical “good”

Table 1. Course grades: Group statistics. Student n M SD SEM

No simulation 70 77.4921 10.57414 1.26385 With simulation 129 83.4919 7.01772 0.61788

Table 2. Independent samples test on course grades. Levene’s test for equality of variances t test for equality of means

95% CI of the differenceF Sig. t df Sig. (two-tailed) Mean difference SE

Equal variance 6.689 .010 �4.8 197 .000 �5.999 1.252 [�8.47, �3.53] Not equal variance �4.3 102.8 .000 �5.999 1.407 [�8.79, �3.21]

Table 3. Grade improvements: Group statistics. Student N M SD SEM

No simulation 70 3.0257 9.85935 1.17842 With simulation 129 6.2163 7.30320 0.64301

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 239

students would be just as motivated to perform well on the first exam as they would on every other com- ponent of the course. The improvement score is the difference between the student’s overall course per- formance and their performance on the first exam. The students who participate in the simulation, per- haps due to the increased learning opportunities pro- vided by the experiential learning component (the simulation), exhibit a higher level of learning (as expressed by their grades) than do those who do not participate in the simulation.

Conclusion

While every classroom is different, this study lends support to the idea that experiential activities, when structured properly, can increase student learning and performance. As mentioned previously, the current generation of college student seems to learn and respond better to the opportunities to experience the classroom concepts than previous generations, making the inclusion of experiential activities even more bene- ficial and welcomed by students. Interestingly, this simulation assignment is conducted outside the class- room and students are voluntarily utilizing the resource to expand their learning.

In this college investments course, the inclusion of the experiential trading simulation appears to have increased student learning substantially. Students who have participated in the simulation not only earn higher overall course grades, but also appear to increase their own personal knowledge of investments at a superior level to those who do not participate in the simulation. The present study lends credence to the research that supports the idea that a well- designed experiential learning component, in addition to lecture, will increase student leaning in economics and finance.

ORCID

C. Michael Smith http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0901-9413

References

Akimov, A., & Malin, M. (2017). Are classroom games use- ful for teaching ‘sticky’ finance concepts? Evidence from a swap game. Advances in Financial Education, 15, 57–75.

Becker, W. E., & Watts, M. (1995). Teaching tools: Teaching methods in undergraduate economics. Economic Inquiry, 33(4), 692–700. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.1995.tb01889.x

Bengtson, V. L., & Kuypers, J. A. (1971). Generational dif- ference and the developmental stake. Aging and Human Development, 2(4), 249–260. doi:10.2190/AG.2.4.b

Black, A. (2010). Gen Y: Who they are and how they learn. Educational Horizons, 88(2), 92–101.

Black, C. (2000). Finance education: An experiential approach in an open learning environment. Industry and Higher Education, 14(5), 305–316. doi:10.5367/000000000101295219

Branch, B. (1975). Use of a stock market game in teaching investments. Journal of Financial Education, 4, 72–76.

Brau, J. C., Nielson, J. K., & Sudweeks, B. L. (2015). Experiential learning in personal finance: A principles and applications based approach. Journal of Financial Education, 41, 49–79.

Cashin, W. E. (1985). Improving lectures. Idea paper No. 14. Cassidy�, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theo-

ries, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419–444.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, Collier Books. doi:10.1086/ahr/70.1.96

Egbert, H., & Mertins, V. (2010). Experiential learning with experiments. International Review of Economics Education, 9(2), 59–66. doi:10.1016/S1477- 3880(15)30050-5

Hawtrey, K. (2007). Using experiential learning techniques. The Journal of Economic Education, 38(2), 143–152. doi: 10.3200/JECE.38.2.143-152

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, prob- lem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/ s15326985ep4102_1

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

Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, 1(8), 227–247.

Malkiel, B. G. (2015). A random walk down Wall Street. (11th ed.). WW Norton & Co.

Marriott, P., Tan, S. M., & Marriott, N. (2015). Experiential learning – A case study of the use of computerized stock

Table 4. Independent samples test on grade improvements. Levene’s test for equality of variances t test for equality of means

95% CI of the differenceF Sig. t df Sig. (two-tailed) Mean difference SE

Equal variance 4.472 .036 �2.6 197 0.10 �3.1906 1.230 [�5.62, �7.64] Not equal variance �2.4 110.9 0.019 �3.1906 1.324 [�5.85, �5.30]

240 C. M. SMITH AND S. C. GIBBS

market trading simulation in finance education. Accounting Education, 24(6), 480–497. doi:10.1080/ 09639284.2015.1072728

McNamara, S., & McNamara, A. (2019). Authentic simu- lated startups: Bringing the real world into the classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 94(4), 209–216. doi:10. 1080/08832323.2018.1496897

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers gen-xers millennials. EDUCAUSE Review, 500(4), 37–47.

Park, A. (2010). Experiential learning of the efficient market hypothesis: Two trading games. The Journal of Economic Education, 41(4), 353–369. doi:10.1080/00220485.2010.510391

Ramaswamy, S., & Ramaswamy, P. (2016). Global perspec- tives on experiential learning. Global Education Review, 3(4), 1–5.

Renner, P. (1993). The art of teaching adults. Vancouver, BC: Training Associates.

Shaw, L. (2001). The digital classroom: How technology is changing the way we teach and learn. Educational Technology & Society, 4(3), 161–162.

Siegfried, J. J., Saunders, P., Stinar, E., & Zhang, H. (1996). Teaching tools: How is introductory economics taught in America? Economic Inquiry, 34(1), 182–192. doi:10.1111/ j.1465-7295.1996.tb01371.x

Smith, C. M. (2017). Investments: Fundamental theory and practice. Saint Paul, MN: Textbook Media Press.

Svinicki, M. D., & Dixon, N. M. (1987). The Kolb model modified for classroom activities. College Teaching, 35(4), 141–146. doi:10.1080/87567555.1987. 9925469

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 241

Copyright of Journal of Education for Business is the property of Taylor & Francis 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.