George Mason reports strong student approval of health economics games

George Mason University has reported strong student approval of classroom games in its Health Economics and Policy course, in an account published October 7 and republished by Phys.org on October 8. The exercises make insurance, competition and fairness tangible for health administration students, although the reported evaluations do not establish how much their knowledge improved.

Associate professor Phillip Zane developed the approach in the university’s Department of Health Administration, Policy, and Informatics. Many students arrived with little background or interest in economics, according to the university, making engagement a central teaching challenge.

What the student evaluations show

Course evaluations covering 129 students between 2022 and 2025 found that about 89% considered the classroom environment engaging, while 85% said the teaching methods enhanced their learning. Written feedback said the games clarified difficult concepts and introduced students to classmates’ different approaches.

Those percentages describe students’ assessments of their experience. They are not improvements in examination scores, and the rounded figures do not establish exactly how many students answered each question. The university account provides no controlled comparison, before-and-after test scores, retention results or workplace outcomes.

How skydiving, chocolate and juice teach economics

The approach began during online teaching in summer 2022, when most students kept their cameras off. “It’s a topic that I love, but they didn’t seem to get it,” Zane said in the university account. A former antitrust lawyer, he had previously used game-theory principles to help clients consider lawsuit settlements.

One exercise asks students to consider a free skydiving lesson and jump. The imaginary scenario assumes no risk of death, but an injury could bring $10,000 in medical expenses and $1,000 in lost wages. Some participants have insurance and others do not. Their decisions provide a way to discuss how insurance can influence willingness to take risks; the exercise does not measure actual patient behaviour.

Zane started with an ultimatum game in which Kit Kats replace money. One student proposes a division and another accepts or rejects it. Rejection leaves both empty-handed. Some students prefer receiving nothing to accepting an allocation they consider unfair, opening a discussion about why fairness can outweigh personal gain.

An orange-juice game explores competition. Groups operate under conditions ranging from a single monopoly seller to a crowded market. Zane offers to pay up to $5 per bottle. A monopolist can keep the price near that ceiling, while competing sellers undercut each other; in the most crowded group, prices can approach zero.

Discussion follows the games. Students explain their choices and compare their reasoning with classmates. Zane used those reflections to judge whether the economic ideas were understood, and adjusted exercises in response to student feedback. These observations provide the instructor’s perspective on learning, alongside the students’ evaluations.

What wider simulation research has found

Independent research offers broader context. A 2020 meta-analysis by Olga Chernikova and colleagues pooled 145 empirical studies involving 10,532 participants to examine simulation-based learning of complex skills in higher education. Medical education accounted for 126 of the studies. This was earlier research, not an assessment of Zane’s course.

The review estimated an overall positive standardized effect of g=0.85, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.69–1.02. That statistic is an effect-size measure, not an 85% increase in learning. Results varied substantially across studies, with heterogeneity of I²=95.86%, so the pooled estimate should not be treated as the expected benefit of the George Mason course.

Instructional support also mattered in the review: learners with more prior knowledge benefited more from reflection, while those with less prior knowledge benefited more from examples. That finding provides context for discussing choices after games, but does not independently validate this particular classroom implementation.

What remains unknown about learning gains

The full methods and any additional outcome measures in “More Than a Game” remain unverified here. The limits of the university announcement therefore should not be read as proof that the paper contains no objective assessments. Long-term retention and transfer to professional decisions are not established by the accessible account, which announces no dated expansion or follow-up trial.