Anthony Betrus
2-27-97
Qualifying Exam - Day 2 

1. Why use computer simulations and games?  Specifically, what are the unique advantages and disadvantages of using computer simulations and games for instructional purposes?  Your answer should include a discussion of both instructional methods and learning outcomes associated with simulations and games.

I would first like to state my working definitions of the various types of simulations, games, and feedback that will be used throughout this answer and the next.  These definitions are cited from the literature on simulations and games.

Game An activity which is carried out by cooperating or competing decision makers seeking to achieve their objectives within a framework of rules. (Cudworth, 1994)

Simulation Built around a model of a system, it simulates an environment. (Watson, 1994)

Simulation-Game A combination of the attributes of simulation (role playing, a model of reality) with the attributes of a game (striving toward a goal, specific rules).(Heinich, Molenda, and Russell, 1993)

Replicable Performance (Procedural) Simulations Involves a sequence of steps and/or decisions, and is gradually acquired over time (ie. flying an airplane, driving a car, piloting a tank). (Reigeluth and Schwartz, 1989) (Dennis, 1979)

Information Retrieval (Process) Simulations Teaches naturally occurring phenomena composed of a specific sequence of events. (ie. A volcano or photosynthesis) (Reigeluth and Schwartz, 1989)(Dennis, 1979).

A Causal Simulation Teaches the law of supply and demand, or the theory of relativity. (Ibid, 1989).

Natural Feedback Part of the simulation.  This is a real-life consequence of a response.(Ibid, 1989).

Artificial Feedback Part of the instructional overlay.  This is a contrived consequence.(Ibid, 1989).

CAL Computer Assisted Learning

CBI Computer Based Instruction
The answer to this question will consist of four parts:

1) Advantages/methods for using simulations and games effectively in instructional settings.	2) Disadvantages, consequences of using methods for using simulations and games in instructional settings.	
3) Positive learning outcomes associated with using simulations and games.	4) Negative learning outcomes associated with using simulations and games.	

1) Advantages/methods for using simulations and games in instructional settings.

Advantages

Perhaps the most common advantage cited for using computer simulations and games in instructional settings is that the students enjoy it.  Heinich, Molenda, and Russel (1993) summarized a common position on simulations and games:

"Games can provide attractive and instructionally effective frameworks for learning activities.  They are attractive because they are fun!  Children and adults alike tend to react positively to an invitation to play." (HMR, 1993)

Another advantage for instructors is that the amount of instructor load during instruction is reduced, as the students are engaged actively in the game or simulation.   Of course this reduced load during instruction is paralleled by increased preparation time, which is discussed in the next section.  

Games provide "Reduced training time and instructor load" (Allen, Chatelier, Clark, and Sorenson, 1982, in Dempsey et al, 1997)

Another advantage of using simulations and games is that they can be prepared by the teacher, and do not rely on 3rd parties do develop them.  This of course implies a knowledge of computer authoring on the part of the teacher, and thus does not apply to all teachers.  Yet as the computer knowledge of teachers increase, and the simplicity of the tools increase, it becomes easier and easier to create computer simulations and games for instructional use. 

"Authoring tools has become simple and powerful" (Gibbons, Fairweather, Anderson, and Merill, 1997)

In traditional settings there is a heavy reliance on the instructor for feedback, and this often results in sporadic and insufficient feedback and reinforcement for the learner.  Computer simulations and games offer the learner a more consistent source of feedback for their actions.  

"Immediate, positive feedback, small steps, self pacing." (Hannafin and Reiber, 1989)
Methods

There are a number of methods suggested for using simulations and games in instructional settings.  Perhaps the most simple method that I have heard comes from Thiagi (presented at the IST colloquium, 1997), who suggested a simple 3 step procedure:
	a) Soften ‘em up
	b) Give them something to do
	c) Talk about it.

Compare this to Gagne’s nine events, which break down into three stages:
	a) Prepare the learner
	b) Deliver instruction
	c) Provide feedback.

And this also compares favorably with Cudworth (1994), who breaks it down specifically into:
	a) Briefing
	b) Action
	c) Debriefing

These are described in a bit more detail below:

Briefing: "Enables the tutor to distribute all the basic information that students require and which is essential for the simulation (including reports, maps, plans, legal documents, administrative procedures, or instructions.  Aims and objectives should be stated clearly here, as well as roles, duties and responsibilities of players." (Cudworth, 1994)

Action:"Tutor observes behavior and notes points for feedback.  Students can be used as observers as well." (Cudworth, 1994)

Debriefing: "Tutor plays and active role, asking questions, discussing decisions, and assessing affective skills." (Cudworth, 1994)

Heinich, Molenda, and Russel (1993), added further emphasis on debriefing when simulations and games were involved.  They state:

"During either the hurly-burly or the determined concentration of intense involvement in simulations and games, there is little opportunity to intellectualize or verbalize what one is learning or failing to learn from the activity.  The overlay of emotion inherent in these activities militates against cognitive awareness.  Because conscious awareness of the main instructional points may be very low during play, it is doubly important to plan for a thorough discussion, or debriefing, after play."

Whomever you subscribe too, Gagne, Thiagi, or Cudworth, the actual actions of the instructor using simulations and games is very similar.  The briefing stage can be modified so that the goals and objectives are negotiated between the instructor and students, a constructivist notion if you will, yet the goals and objectives are stated nonetheless.  The action stage involves playing the actual game, and this is very self explanatory.  This is usually a ‘hands-off’ time for the instructor, in which time he/she is observing the activities of the students.  And finally, the debriefing offers a chance for the student to reflect on the learning experience.  This can involve reflection of actions taken, or more complex issues such as how the actions of the players as a whole affected the environment, and how did this affect the outcome.  Experimental studies have attempted to ascertain which method is more effective, briefing-action or action-debriefing.  It is my opinion successive cycles of briefing-action-debriefing should take place, so that the students have a chance not only to reflect on what they have done, but to try out new ways of approaching the simulation of game in the next iteration.

2) Disadvantages, consequences of using methods for using simulations and games in instructional settings.

Using simulation and games in instructional settings requires a trade off: more preparation time is needed while less instructional effort is needed.  The notion of preparing the environment (often used by constructivists) implies adequate time to do this.  Preparing the simulation or gaming environment requires similar time requirements, and to put it simply, instructors often just don’t have the time to do this.  Cox stated this very clearly in the Encyclopedia of Education:

"The ethos of individual and group work that can arise from the increased use of simulation and modeling requires considerable changes to the organization of learning.  These changes to the learner’s traditional method of working challenge the more traditional roles of the teacher, as a purveyor of knowledge and as a director of learning, which in turn has significant implications for teacher training." (Cox, 1994).

And if these time requirements are not addressed, what often occurs is the improper use of simulations and games in instructional settings.  While Van den Akker et al were speaking to the use of Computer Assisted Learning, their point is also appropriate for simulations and games.  Watson (who quoted Van den Akker), also added that the environment in which the CAL is used is also essential for it to be effective.  Unfortunately, CAL (of which simulations and games are a subset) is often introduced without considering the complexity of their use.

"The disappointing experiences of using CAL are related to poor and ill-considered introduction strategies.  The failure to consider the complexity inherent in technological innovations. (Van den Akker et al, 1992, in Watson 1994)

"The main weakness of CAL is that its value critically depends on the environment in which it is used." (Watson, 1994)

Since teachers have not been trained to use simulations and games, they often misinterpret the reactions of the students involved. Both had been involved in the same experience, yet the perceptions were radically different.  The teacher though the competition to be enjoyable by all students, but the students self-reported something very different:

"But teachers who observed girls and boy playing in competitive math games believed that all children enjoyed the competitive games, when in reality the boys enjoyed it because they won, and girls did not because they lost (generally)." (Heinich et al, 1993)

A movement to remove the teacher from the instructional equation involves the use of intelligent CBI, which has the ability to understand the cognitive structure of the student.  Unfortunately (or fortunately), this is a long ways off, and intelligent CBI has a long ways to go.  I seem to remember the idea in the 1960's that programmed instruction would eventually replace the teachers roles.  Intelligent CBI strikes a familiar chord in his respect. 

"Since the computer can not understand the cognitive structure of the student (Kintsch, 1991), then it is left to the student or the teacher to monitor and control the students progress. (DeCorte et al, 1994)."

And thus we are left with the computer (and simulations and games) as a tool for the instructor to use.  This is not the worst case scenario, and in the foreseeable future, the instructor will continue to play a significant part in the use of simulations and games.

Unfortunately, CBI in general has been considered to be boring, as it relies heavily on the student’s knowledge of a correct answer as motivation to continue.  This is essentially a misuse of the reward structure, and can also be a problem with simulations and games:

"CBI has been largely affected by programmed instruction, which makes CBI boring!" (Hannafin and Reiber, 1989)

An often cited disadvantage of using computer simulations and games is that they are just poorly designed.  A study that I performed that examined The Oregon Trail, Arthur’s Teacher Trouble, and Where in the World in Carmen San Diego showed a disregard for ethical, racial, and sexists stereotypes that were imbedded in the games.  It is perhaps because the developers of these games often come from the entertainment industry, not education.  Gredler noted some criticisms of computer games that might be addressed were they to be developed by sound instructional designers.

"Often computer games have inappropriate vocabulary for young students, inadequate directions, lengthy texts, and multistep directions with no opportunity for student practice and inappropriate use of graphics. (Gredler, 1997)."

"The inability to bypass tasks that are too complex or unanswerable by the student results in students entering random answers instead of skipping, which of course is interpreted as wrong by the computer. (Gredler, 1997)."

Even when instructional designers seem to be involved, they often have serious misconceptions about what is appropriate feedback.  Gredler (1997), when she pointed out that computer games often show:

"Inadequate control of stimulus and defective reinforcement contingencies."

The example given was a student who gets an answer wrong, and then sees a small man appear and jump up and down saying wrong, wrong, wrong.  The student finds this more interesting the reinforcement for a right answer, and answers the questions wrong just to see the jumping man!) (Gredler, 1997).

Another criticism of simulation-games given by Gredler is that when an artificial competitive structure, often the strategies used to be successful in the simulation will be subverted by players attempting to win the game. An example would be if a student dumps Research and Development from the company near the end of an economic simulation to end up with more money because the simulation has an artificial end put on it.  If it were a real situation, this would cause systemic problems with the company, but since it has been turned into a game, the problems are ignored when the game is completed.

3) Positive learning outcomes associated with using simulations and games.

Some typical learning outcomes associated with simulations and games include:

"Improved practical reasoning skills (Wood and Stewart, 1987).

"Higher levels of continuing motivation (Malouf, 1988)

Learning interactions between students and simulations:
	a) Checking knowledge and understanding
	b) experimenting
	c) visualizing
	d) reasoning
	e) interpreting. (Laurillard, 1978 in Cox, 1994)

Unfortunately, there has been little research to support this claims, although there is an element of ‘intuitive rightness’ to it (doesn’t carry too much weight unfortunately)

Computer games and simulations provide a constant course of conflict for the student, which requires constant interaction between the player and the game or simulation.  In discussing CBI, Glaser (1990), also indicated this, and extended the idea, stating that:

"Failure of conflict triggers new learning." (Glaser, 1990).

Of course the difficult thing to determine is what kinds of new learning are triggered?  This is where further research is needed.  Further, interaction and active learning (vs. passive learning) in general has been noted as one of the benefits of simulations and games.  They have even been noted to have a higher order of interaction than other methods:

"A unique attribute of simulations and games is that participants are continuously responding throughout the activity. . . Learner interaction in simulation and games is of a different order than that in most other methods." (Heinich et al, 1993)

"The main attraction of CAL (of which simulations and games are a subset) for education is the direct interaction between the software and the user, thus it is an active rather than a passive resource." (Watson, 1994)

Another learning outcome related to interaction is the ability to recall ideas and relationship that actions in the simulation or game have with affecting the structure of the simulation itself.  This form of systems thinking can be a valuable learning outcome, if the student becomes aware of this during the debriefing sessions.

"In making decisions and taking actions himself, even if only in a game, the student has to recall the ideas and relationships that are part of the simulation structure and previous experience."

Motivation has been often cited as one of the primary advantages of simulations and games, and the implication is that if this motivation is channeled properly, then significant learning benefits can result.

". . . as a general principle, novelty reduces boredom for adults as well as children." (Heinich et al, 1993).

"A simulation is self motivating.  Simulations encourage cooperative skills." (Cudworth, 1994)

Social learning has also been cited as learning outcome associated with simulation and games, and can be enhanced through using methods such as cooperative tournaments (discussed more in question #2)

"Working in groups enhanced social learning" (Johnson, 1985)

"Computer simulations and modeling also promote social skills amongst pupils, which include:
	a) working in groups,
	b) communicating ideas,
	c) organizing activities,
d) experimental skills" (Cox, 1994)

On Spatial Skills 

"In the early 1990's, Purdue University psychologist Lynn Okagaki and Peter Frensch at the University of Missouri found that playing the popular game Tetris helped adolescents learn to rotate objects mentally." (Gross, 1996)

"Kids who absorb this technology early think differently from the rest of us.  They develop hypertext minds.  They leap around.  It’s as though their cognitive strategies were parallel, not sequential." (Bill Winn in Gross, 1996).

"Children who grow up on sophisticated video and computer games intuitively understand simulation and 3-D graphics.  Their brains, in a sense, are wired for it.  But just as important, they understand the systems that produce the illusions - and know what to do when things aren’t working." (Gross, 1996)

"Language learning impairment (LLI) has been treated through simple, repetitive computer games, which have (through thousands of repetitions) seemed to rewrite neural "maps" governing language processing to more closely resemble those of ‘normal’ children.  While this can be done with simple drill, the key is motivation. . . getting the children to listen to thousands of repetitions.  The kids think its fun, even though it’s extremely boring." (Paula Tallal, in Gross, 1996). 

Also, Jacobs et al, (1990), indicated that games would provide a good medium for automaticity training.

Other advantages include:

"Freedom of mind in children to explore alternative solutions" (Holt, 1970, in Cudworth, 1994)

"Games are good candidates for developing complex problem solving skills" (Hayes, 1981, in Dempsey et al, 1997).

"Opportunity to reflect without consequences of real world.  Interrelatedness of decisions is elicited." (Cudworth, 1994)

4) Negative learning outcomes associated with using simulations and games.

The most commonly cited problem with simulation and games is not necessarily that there are negative learning outcomes, but rather that there has been little evidence to show that there are positive outcomes. When these studies have taken place, they have been narrow, and ignored key aspects of the learning involved.

"A lack of comprehensive design paradigms derived from learning principles nor well-designed research studies." (Gredler, 1997)

"Most studies have ignored the way in which students interact with simulations and games." (Gredler, 1997)

Another criticism of learning outcomes is that competition is not suited to all learners.  Specifically, more often than not, boys learning outcomes are enhanced, while girls learning outcomes are depressed.  In general, boys have been found to be more competitive than girls, and thus more successful with games than girls.  Success leads to continued motivation, motivation to learning (as shown by Walberg, 1984 and Molenda, 1995), and the cycles feeds back into itself.  Of course the cycle continues in the opposite direction for girls.

Simulations might end up "dramatizing student inequalities whilst feeding the conceit of the skillful." (Cudworth, 1994)

"In recent studies researchers found that when boys participate in competitive games, they improve their achievement in lower-level math.  Such competitions seem to depress the achievement of girls because they tend to lose the games." (HMR, 1993)

"The element of competition, though, can be a two-edged sword.  It motivates some students and discourages others." (HMR, 1993)

In conclusion, while there are indeed many advantages and disadvantages to using simulations and games in instructional settings, there has been too little research in this area that shows how they have been used effectively, or what the specific learning outcomes are.  I hope to address these problems at least partly through my research efforts, and comments regarding this endeavor would be appreciated.
2. How does one optimize the design of computer simulations and games?  Specifically, how would you as a designer of computer simulations and games account for the instructional and learning outcomes you discussed in the first question?

To answer this question, I will list a set of principles that have been derived from the literature.  Based on the principles, I will give a corresponding prescription, followed by a rationale for that prescription.  While this is by no means a comprehensive prescriptive theory, it does indeed offer some rich areas of research, especially in those controversial prescriptions.  If offer these not as definitive prescriptions, but as a tentative prescriptions to be verified (or disproved) by research.

Principle #1: When objectives are known, and the content domain is structured, then the amount of learner control should be decreased.

Prescription #1: The designer should use the known objectives and structured content to form a more structured environment for the simulation or game.

Rationale #1: Efficiency is a real component of instruction, and a more structured environment yields more teacher control and greater efficiency.  It also reduces the instructional time needed to complete the game or simulation (typically).  This is especially appropriate for lower levels tasks such as discriminating or matching.

Principle #2: When objectives are unknown, and the content domain is unstructured, then the amount of learner control should be increased.

Prescription #2: The designer should match the environment of the simulation and game to the  less structured content domain, and further, so that structure can be modified and objectives created at a later time based on the experiences of the learners and/or negotiation with the instructor.

Rationale #2 :In the case of an ill-structured domain, providing learner control is effective in providing intrinsic motivation, yet without dramatically increasing the instructional time otherwise needed.  Unfortunately, to date learner control vs. system control has been debated, yet studies that address this have shown no significant difference in learning outcomes, and in some cases, decreased learning associated with more learner control (Schnackenberg, 1997).

Principle #3: Increased complexity of an environment tends to cause increased distress and confusion among the learners.

Prescription #3: If the environment is complex, then imposing a hierarchical order on the environment simplifies the interaction.  If desired, this imposed order can be designed to be turned on or off.

Rationale #3: Li (1995) indicated that increased complexity in a hypermedia system was more conducive to a high order of hierarchical order.  This does not imply linearity however, as learners can ‘jump’ levels in the hierarchy.

Principle #4: Competition yield different results depending on the players involved.

Prescription #4: The designer of the simulation or game should account for varying types of competition, including especially Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT), in which players interact in cooperative teams.

Rationale: Gredler (1997) outlined the TGT cooperative task structure.  In this structure, the more advanced students would be grouped with the less advanced (or students with more experience would be grouped with less experienced students).  Overall, groups would consist of 3-4 people, with there being as many groups as needed to accommodate all students. The point structure was designed such that the less experienced or less advanced students scored more, and the more advance students scored less.  This required that the advanced students peer tutor the less advanced students.  Thus the results were cooperation, and collaboration, vs. competition.  The reactions of the students involved showed a perceived decrease in both classroom competitiveness and course difficulty.  Gredler stated it well in her article, so I will repeat what she said regarding the implications of TGT: 
"Competition is the essence of any game.   However, the mutual dependence of students on each other reinforces cooperation, an important characteristic of a positive classroom environment."

Principle #5 Interactive learning is important.

Prescription #5 Design the environment so that the students interact with the game or simulation.  In other words, the students actions affect the structure of the simulation or game.  

Rationale #5 Programmed learning consisted of presenting a problem, having the learner react to the problem, knowledge of success or failure was given, and a new problem was given.  The learners actions had no impact on the structure of Programmed learning.  Unfortunately, the same can be said of many Computer games.  By designing the game or simulation to react and change based on the input of the user, it starts a cycle of interaction in which the learner is involved.

Principle #6: Most games require a systematic procedure for winning.

Prescription#6: Designing games that require systematic application of knowledge for success, be aware that this implies at least a concrete operational level of development, which according to Piaget starts around age 7 (from Driscoll, 1994).  

Rationale #6: If the intended audience is below this age, then revising the activities so that they less systematic, and that address matching or discriminating skills is more appropriate.

Principle #7: Understanding of complex systems require a formal operational level of development.

Prescription #7: This is for the users of simulations in instructional settings, that is, use simple simulations with 3 or fewer variables for those students who have not reached a formal operational level of development.

Rationale #7:Simulations are often models of complex systems, and an understanding of the system requires the understanding of the mutual interaction of the variables associated with the models.  If the student lacks the developmental skills to understand the complex system, then this may result in confusion, and decreased learning. 

Principle #8: Simulations often require a high level or prior knowledge.

Prescription #8: This is best done thorough alternative instructional means, not through interacting with the simulation

Rationale #8: If the student lacks the proper task knowledge, then he/she will likely be quickly overwhelmed, and this can decrease learning not only now, but in the future when dealing with the same subject area.

Principle #9 Decreased learner control and increased structure can often lead to a decrease in motivation, yet there are ways in which to compensate for this decrease.

Prescription #9 While the learner may have decreased control over the environment, adding computer character which the player acts vicariously through can be a very powerful motivator indeed.  There are a series of prescriptions related to this principle that would be best relayed thorough a model for designing such games.  I have included this on the following page.

Rationale #9 Entertainment games have incorporated a rigid structure, in which the player has had little or no impact on the structure of the environment, yet they have managed to maintain a high level of motivation.  Even the movie and film industry has been successful, and there is of course zero learner control over what is presented in this case, yet they too have been successful.