Educational Simulations
From ElateWiki
Educational simulations have been around for some five decades, but these have come to the fore again with the popularization of immersive and persistent digital spaces and games adapted for simulation learning. Simulations may exist anywhere along Milgrim and Kishino's "Virtuality Continuum," which progresses from the Real Environment to Augmented Reality to Augmented Virtuality and to the Virtual Environment (Milgram & Kishino, 1994, as cited in Christian, 2006, p. 2).
Contents |
What are Educational Simulations?
Simulations emulate the real world by echoing some parts or selected functions of the world. Simulations (as models or representations) are never full fidelity ones but rather "selective fidelity" in terms of their choices of details. Simulations are all necessarily contrivances, in that generally there are no real-life consequences of one's actions in the simulation.
Educational simulations involve defined learning objectives. They often include some narrative or storytelling element.
Types of Educational Simulations
Simulations may involve what-if scenarios, or what Prensky (2004) calls "interactive pretending." Alessi and Trollip (1991) divide simulations into those that teach about something (including physical and process simulations) and those that teach how to do something (such as procedural and situational simulations). C. Aldrich (2005) identifies four genres of computer-based simulations: "branching stories, interactive spreadsheets, virtual labs / virtual products, and game-based models" (Kreiger, 2006).
Online labs (in the hard sciences and engineering) portray particular experiments with different potential outcomes. Labs may be fully virtual. Or, they may be remote labs that are accessed virtually, from afar.
Some simulations may be case-based, where learners take on different roles based on the re-creation of a real-world event or case or a theoretical, imaginary case. These may involve constructivist elements with co-learners co-creating the learning context (Orngreen, 2004).
Some simulations are designed for once-through learning; others are iterative and require practice in the simulation system.
Applicable Pedagogical Theories
Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle (1994) is often cited as one theory underpinning educational simulations. This suggests that people learn through experiencing an event, observing and reflecting on that, formulating abstract concepts and generalizations around that, and then testing their implications of their concepts in new situations.
Thomas (2001) offered a structure of an eSim as one that involves a model with code controlling the system behavior. The learner's view of the system is the visualization. Input variables come from the model, and output variables return from the user back into the computerized system.
Sims may promote so-called "transfer knowledge" as well as "higher learning, such procedures, principles, and problem-solving" (Kapp, 2007, pp. 84 - 85).
Applications to Learning
Simulations may help people in various areas of training: "internalising processes, understanding systems, decision-making, perspective-shifting, team-building / cooperation" (Galarneau, 2004, p. 5). Some simulations are built for goal-based learning, with scenarios that are designed to place learners in authentic situations in which they may make mistakes in a safe environment (Naidu, Oliver, & Koronios, 1999, as cited in Ip & Naidu, 2001).
Simulations may help learners train for hard skills or task-specific, equipment-specific, software-specific skills. They may help learners train for soft-skills or social skills, problem-solving, sales process simulations, and cultural trainings.
Facilitation: Effectively Using Virtual Simulations
The set-up work leading up to the use of a sim and the related debriefing afterwards are considered critical elements to learning from simulations.
The lead-up may help focus learner attention by setting the scene, providing objectives, and offering guidance.
Debriefing often involves walking learners through Kolb's experiential learning cycle. Generally, there are two theoretical approaches to debriefing: The Lewinian model focuses on drawing out generalizations from the learners' experiences and observations. The Piagetian model focuses on the cognitive conflicts that have arisen from the learners naive mental models in contrast to the conceptual model. Post-sim debriefing may also involve addressing unintended or negative learning or misconceptions.
Kriz & Nöbauer (2002) suggests that there may be different types of debriefing such as "plenary debriefing, individual debriefing, team debriefing, and small group debriefing" (as cited in Schönwald, Euler, Angehrn, and Seufert, 2006, p. 23).
Facilitators may also have roles during the simulation, depending on the circumstances.
Simulation Efficacy in the Research
Various research has been done on multimedia effects, on human perception in immersive spaces, in the perception of reality with digital avatars, and other aspects of educational technologies used in sims. Much more research will be necessary to determine the efficacies of respective sims in unique learning circumstances.
The Kirkpatrick (1998) evaluation model has sometimes been used to evaluate the efficacy of a simulation. D. L. Kirkpatrick suggested a four-tiered evaluation process:
Level 1: Reaction
Level 2: Learning
Level 3: Behavior
Level 4: Results
This model focuses on user perceptions and experiences. (Kreiger, 2006, p. 6; Ahdell & Andresen, 2001, p. 28; Radcliff, 2005, p. 9).
Kenworthy has a model on "Building a Standard Evaluation Framework" (for Simulations) that offers a range of measures (2006, p. 155).
See Also
Educational Network Simulator: http://tetcos.com/software.html
Q&A: Dr. Roger McHaney: Avoiding “Negative Learning” in Online Simulations (IGI-Global Blog Entry): http://www.igi-global.com/blogs/main/10-11-19/Q_A_Dr_Roger_McHaney_Avoiding_%E2%80%9CNegative_Learning%E2%80%9D_in_Online_Simulations.aspx
References
Ahdell, R. & Andresen, G. (2001). Games and simulations in workplace elearning: How to align eLearning content with learner needs. Master of Science Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 1 - 158.
Christian, J. (2006). Augmented reality in corporate pervasive e-education: Novel ways to support aviation maintenance training. Leeds Metropolitan University: Innovation North Research Conference 2006. pp. 1 – 10.
Galarneau, L. (2004). The eLearning edge: Leveraging interactive technologies In the design of engaging, effective learning experiences. Proceedings of e-Fest 2004, Wellington, New Zealand. 1 – 10.
Ip, A. & Naidu, S. (2001) Experienced (sic)-based pedagogical designs for elearning. Education Technology: XLI(5). 53 – 58.
Kapp, K.M. (2007). Gadgets, Games and Gizmos for Learning. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. 84 – 85.
Kenworthy, J. (2006). Simulations—Bridging from thwarted innovation to disruptive technology. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: 33. 149 – 158.
Kreiger, H. (2006). Simulation-based learning content: How might simulation-based learning contribute to performance-based, meaningful employee learning? INN Faculty Research Conference 2006. 1 – 9.
Orngreen, R. (n.d.) CaseMaker: An environment for case-based e-learning. Academic Conferences Limited. 167 – 180.
Radcliff, J.B. (2005). Executive Viewpoint: Why soft-skills simulation makes a hard case for sales training. CompeteNet Publications. 1 – 13.
Schönwald, I., Euler, D., Angehrn, A., & Seufert, S. (2006). EduChallenge Learning Scenarios: Designing and evaluating learning scenarios with a team-based simulation on change management in higher education. SCIL Report 8. 1 – 39.
Thomas, R. (2001). Interactivity & simulations in e-learning. MultiVerse Publications. 1 – 16.