Virginia Rodes-Paragarino, Ernesto Pacheco-Velazquez, Lucia Rabago-Mayer, Andre Bester
pp. 183 – 207, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-063-009)
Abstract
The Fourth Industrial Revolution, characterized by the integration of digital technologies into business operations, is reshaping the logistics sector, requiring the development of advanced cognitive skills. This study addresses the growing need for adaptive logistics simulators by conducting a qualitative needs analysis. Through a combination of a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interviews with six logistics experts from Latin America, the study identifies key features for simulator design that align with Industry 4.0 demands. The findings are threefold: (a) the simulator must incorporate features supporting decision-making and logistics planning in dynamic, uncertain contexts; (b) it should foster the development of complex thinking sub-competences, including systemic, critical, scientific, and innovative thinking; (c) it must provide actionable strategies for enhancing logistics education. These insights underscore the pivotal role of simulations in equipping STEM students and professionals with skills to thrive in the rapidly evolving Industry 4.0 landscape
Keywords: Simulations, Complex thinking, Educational Innovation, Higher Education, Logistics Education, STEM Education.
References
1. Pacheco-Velazquez, E.: Effects of the use of simulators and an online platform in logistics education. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 16, 439–457 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-021-00791-z
2. Minciu, M., Berar, F.-A., Dobrea, R.C.: New decision systems in the VUCA world. Manag. Mark. Chall. Knowl. Soc. 15, 236–254 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2478/mmcks-2020-0015
3. Pacheco Velazquez, E.A.: The use of business simulators in teaching logistics. In: 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative and Blended Learning (ICBL), pp. 57–60. IEEE (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBL.2015.7387634
4. LeBlanc, P.J.: Higher Education in a VUCA World. Change Mag. High. Learn. 50, 23–26 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1507370
5. Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A.J.A.M., Van Dijk, J.A.G.M., De Haan, J.: Determinants of 21st-Century Skills and 21st-Century Digital Skills for Workers: A Systematic Literature Review. SAGE Open 10, 215824401990017 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900176
6. Almeida, F., Simoes, J.: The Role of Serious Games, Gamification and Industry 4.0 Tools in the Education 4.0 Paradigm. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 10, 120–136 (2019). https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.554469
7. Tekkol, İ.A., Demirel, M.: An Investigation of Self-Directed Learning Skills of Undergraduate Students. Front. Psychol. 9, (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02324
8. Lutz, H., Birou, L.: Logistics education: a look at the current state of the art and science. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 18, 455–467 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2012-0269
9. Hubl, A., Fischer, G.: Simulation-Based Business Game for Teaching Methods in Logistics and Production. In: Chan, V., D’Ambrogio, A., Zacharewicz, G., Mustafee, N. (eds.) 2017 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pp. 4228–4239. IEEE, New York (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2017.8248129
10. Ramírez-Montoya, M.S., Álvarez-Icaza, I., Sanabria-Z, J., Lopez-Caudana, E., Alonso-Galicia, P.E., Miranda, J.: Scaling Complex Thinking for Everyone: A Conceptual and Methodological Framework. In: Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM’21), pp. 806–811. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3486011.3486562
11. Ramírez-Montoya, M.S., Castillo-Martínez, I.M., Sanabria-Z, J., Miranda, J.: Complex Thinking in the Framework of Education 4.0 and Open Innovation—A Systematic Literature Review. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 8, 4 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010004
12. Alsaleh, N.J.: Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Literature Review. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. – TOJET 19, 21–39 (2020).
13. Behar-Horenstein, L.S., Niu, L.: Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. TLC 8, (2011). https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v8i2.3554
14. Sellars, M., Fakirmohammad, R., Bui, L., Fishetti, J., Niyozov, S., Reynolds, R., Thapliyal, N., Liu-Smith, Y.-L., Ali, N.: Conversations on Critical Thinking: Can Critical Thinking Find Its Way Forward as the Skill Set and Mindset of the Century? Educ. Sci. 8, 205 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040205
15. Tambunan, H.: The Effectiveness of the Problem Solving Strategy and the Scientific Approach to Students’ Mathematical Capabilities in High Order Thinking Skills. Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 14, (2019). https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5715
16. Ahmad, J., Siew, N.M.: An entrepreneurial science thinking module based on the socioscientific issues approach with thinking wheel map for primary school students in STEM education. Probl. Educ. 21st Century 80, 30–51 (2022). https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/22.80.30
17. Koerber, S., Mayer, D., Osterhaus, C., Schwippert, K., Sodian, B.: The Development of Scientific Thinking in Elementary School: A Comprehensive Inventory. Child Dev. 86, 327–336 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12298
18. Hendarman, A.F., Cantner, U.: Soft skills, hard skills, and individual innovativeness. Eurasian Bus. Rev. 8, 139–169 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-017-0076-6
19. Eskişehir, O., Anagün, Ş.S.: Teachers’ Perceptions about the Relationship between 21st Century Skills and Managing Constructivist Learning Environments. Int. J. Instr. 11, 825–840 (2018). https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11452a
20. Kahn, K.B.: Understanding innovation. Bus. Horiz. 61, 453–460 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011
21. Mambrey, S., Timm, J., Landskron, J.J., Schmiemann, P.: The impact of system specifics on systems thinking. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 57, 1632–1651 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21649
22. Koral Kordova, S., Frank, M., Nissel Miller, A.: Systems Thinking Education—Seeing the Forest through the Trees. Systems 6, 29 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6030029
23. Miller, A.N., Kordova, S., Grinshpoun, T., Shoval, S.: To be or not to be a systems thinker: Do professional characteristics influence how students acquire systems-thinking skills? Front. Educ. 8, 1026488 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1026488
24. Oliveira, B.G., Liboni, L.B., Cezarino, L.O., Stefanelli, N.O., Miura, I.K.: Industry 4.0 in systems thinking: From a narrow to a broad spectrum. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 37, 593–606 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2703
25. Matlala, S.: Educators’ perceptions and views of problem-based learning through simulation. Curationis 44, (2021). https://doi.org/10.4102/curationis.v44i1.2094
26. Zenios, M.: Educational theory in technology enhanced learning revisited: A model for simulation-based learning in higher education. Stud. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. (2020). https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.1cf4dde8
27. Pacheco-Velazquez, E., Rodes-Paragarino, V., Rabago-Mayer, L., Bester, A.: How to create serious games? Proposal for a participatory methodology. Int. J. Serious Games 10(4), 55–73 (2023). https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v10i4.642
28. Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Seidel, T., Fischer, F.: Simulation-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 90, 499–541 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544
29. O’Flaherty, J., Costabile, M.: Using a science simulation-based learning tool to develop students’ active learning, self-confidence and critical thinking in academic writing. Nurse Educ. Pract. 47, 102839 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102839
30. Buil, I., Catalán, S., Martínez, E.: Exploring students’ flow experiences in business simulation games. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 34, 183–192 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12237
31. Cheng, X., Zhang, Q.: How to Develop the Interdisciplinary Innovation Teams Sustainably? – A Simulation Model from a Perspective of Knowledge Fission and Fusion. Sustainability 10, 3134 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093134
32. Lateef, F.: Maximizing learning and creativity: Understanding psychological safety in simulation-based learning. J. Emerg. Trauma Shock 13, 5 (2020). https://doi.org/10.4103/JETS.JETS_96_19
33. De Souza, R., William, L., Timperio, G., Abdul Rahim, Z.B.: Simulation model and simulation-based serious gaming in humanitarian logistics. In: 2018 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pp. 57–67. IEEE, Gothenburg, Sweden (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2018.8632497
34. Woschank, M., Pacher, C.: Teaching and Learning Methods in the Context of Industrial Logistics Engineering Education. Procedia Manuf. 51, 1709–1716 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.10.238
35. Despeisse, M.: Games and simulations in industrial engineering education: a review of the cognitive and affective learning outcomes. In: 2018 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pp. 4046–4057. IEEE, Gothenburg, Sweden (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2018.8632285
36. Pino, A.F.S., Ruiz, P.H., Mon, A., Collazos, C.A.: Systematic Literature Review on Mechanisms to Measure the Technological Maturity of the Internet of Things in Enterprises. Internet Things 25, 101082 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2024.101100
37. Romero, M.: Digital games and learning. Éditions JFD (2021).
38. Hsieh, H.-F., Shannon, S.E.: Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15, 1277–1288 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687