THE “METHODOLOGY OF EDUCATIONAL
SIMULATION AND DESIGN OF A
SIMULATED INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL
FOR OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
OMOTOSHO OGUNNIYI
1 96 9

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
THE METHODOLOGY OF

EDUCATIONAL SIMULATION AND
DESIGN OF A SIMULATED INSTRUCTIONAL.
MODEL FOR OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION

presented by

Omotosho Ogunniyi

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph.D. degree in Education"

 

 

I
Maior professor

Date May 15, 1969

 

0-169 ‘

__.._

u-I'I.

m; M
& SUNS'
on INOfIIT INC. 1

I IIRL' .xv nmnrm

 

 

ABSTRACT
THE METHODOLOGY OF EDUCATIONAL
SIMULATION AND DESIGN OF A

SIMULATED INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL
FOR OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION

by

Omotosho Ogunniyi

The Problem

Although educational simulation has been widely used in civilian
education within the past ten years, the theoretical principles under-
girding the application of the technique in education are still obscure
or at best fragmentary and scattered. Practitioners have no guiding
principles for designing educational simulations and the teachers who
use them possess no clear-cut criteria for planning, executing, and
evaluating instructional simulation.

The problem, therefore, in this study was (I) to synthesize, analyze,
and evaluate critically, all kinds of simulations: simulators, computer-
ized games, in-basket simulation, for example, and (2) to derive integrative
theoretical principles which explain and clarify the methodology of educa-
tional simulation, particularly as it relates to (a) the design and (b)
instructional application of educational simulation, (c) the operational
criteria for instructional simulation, and (d) the design of an instruc-
tional model for occupational education.

Methodology,gj_thg_§£gng

The procedure for the research included an extensive and critical

review of literature on educational simulation, observation of educational

simulations, discussions with users, designers, and proponents of

Omotosho Ogunniyi

educational simulation, and deductive abstraction. One educational
simulation was observed under laboratory conditions during the learning
and teaching situations. The literature on related psychological studies
was reviewed also. Educational simulations (from computer to iconic
models) were arbitrarily classified under four rationales: philosophical,
mechanistic, psychological, and sociological.

From the analysis of the theoretical principles, six major criteria
for administering a simulated instruction were derived and the extent to
which five selected educational simulations conform with these criteria
was investigated. These criteria are: (I) the selection of a model,

(2) the orientation of students to the objectives and performance standard
of the simulation, (3) simulated curriculum plan, (4) simulated instruc-
tional process, (5) simulated practice, and (6) simulated environment.

The criteria were found to be operationally essential for simulated
instruction but there was no agreement on evaluation procedure.

The six criteria were modified and a seven-process simulated instruc-
tional model for occupational education was designed. The functions of
each of the processes were described and guidelines provided for utilizing
the model and for rectifying dysfunctionality that may arise.

Maigr Findings

The study showed that the focus of all educational simulations, no
matter the orientation of the designer, was the provision of realistic
instruction. Simulation offers laboratory-type experience to the learner
under conditions that replicate the operational situations of real-life.
Gaming is a useful technique for indicating interactive processes but it

is not the sine gua non of simulation.

 

Omotosho Ogunniyi

As far as the design of educational simulation is concerned, a net-
work of interrelationships color the methodology in design irrespective
of the field of application. Transfer of training is the main criterion
for deciding what to include in a simulation design. All simulations
are represented by animated or synthetic materials to depict real-life
characteristics. However, simulation devices are chosen by designers
largely on the basis of the designer's sophistication, knowledge of the
model, the resources available to I1hn, and the suitability of the
synthetic or animated materials for representing the abstracted charac-
teristics. A simulation design needs to incorporate at least five
criteria: a stimulus situation, a response situation, a consequence
situation representing the interaction of stimulus-response, a feedback
sequence, and a control. Thus the S-R theory is basic to all educational
simulation designs. The importance of terms such as fidelity of simulation,
degree of simulation, games, verisimilitude, simulated evaluation was
clarified.

It was found that every simulated instruction is a pragmatic peda-
gogical approach which gives realism, meaningfulness, and utility to
knowledge through the provision of participative experiences which are
offered the students in the microcosm of the real-life. Simulated

instruction can be described as learning by doing., It demands the appli-
cation of integrated knowledge in meaningful and realistic exercises
which test the application of procedure, motor-skills, identification,
concepts, principles, and strategies, or the combination of any of these.
In simulated instruction, terms like orientation, simulation objective,

briefing, play, debriefing, feedback, simulated practice, transfer and

simulated evaluation are relevant.

THE METHODOLOGY OF
EDUCATIONAL SIMULATION AND
DESIGN OF A SIMULATED INSTRUCTIONAL
MODEL FOR OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION

by

Omotosho Ogunniyi

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Business and Distributive Teacher Education
College of Education

I969

©Copy right by
OMOTOSHO OGUNNIYI
1969

Dedicated to my parents, Akebaje and
Towobade, my uncles, Ola and Otunla,
and my aunt, Mojirade, for their
love and responsibilities for my

early education.

AC KNOWLEDGME NTS

First of all, since he was a faculty member of the University of
Nigeria from l96l through 1966, the author wishes to acknowledge his
debt to the University of Nigeria and the United States Agency for
International Development for two years of sponsorship (1965 through
1967) at Michigan State University, and to all those who encouraged
and supported him to complete his doctoral study in the United States.
He is appreciative of the friendly and moral support received from
Dr. Irvin Wyeth and Mr. Charles Doane, Jr., Coordinator and Assistant
Coordinator, Nigerian PrOgram, respectively. To Dr. Melvin C. Buschman,
Director of University Extension, the author is greatly indebted for
his friendship and understanding. Both he and Dr. Charles McKee of
University Extension proved to be a pillar of strength to the author
during the writing of this thesis. The University Baptist Church and
Pastor Gerard Phillips provided the cherished spiritual needs and
fellowship.

Secondly, the author wishes to thank all those who provided him
specialized intellectual stimulation in the area of this study. The
gestation of the author's educational simulation theory was influenced
by his close association with Dr. Peter G. Haines, Director, and
Dr. Jean M. Hollingsworth, Research Specialist, under whom he worked
as Senior Research Assistant in the Research and DevelOpment Program
in Vocational-Technical Education at Michigan State University, and by

a series of exposures to brainstorming sessions at workshops and

conferences connected with simulation of vocational-technical education.
The author is especially indebted to Dr. Haines, who, for four years
served as academic adviser, chairman of guidance and thesis committees
and director of this thesis, and to Dr. Jean M. Hollingsworth for her
constructive criticisms on this study and for serving as a ready and
resourceful consultant on all matters including her own specialty,
educational psychology and research.

To Dr. Ted Ward, Director of the Human Learning Research Institute,
for his suggestions, encouragement, and helpfulness inside and outside
the classroom, the author is thankful. Three proponents of educational
simulation, Dr. Cleo Cherryholmes, a member of the author's thesis
committee, Dr. Paul Twelker, Oregon State System of Higher Education
Teaching Research, and Dr. Richard Anderson, School of Urban Planning,
Michigan State University, offered scholarly suggestions, criticisms,
and placed innumerable resource materials at the disposal of the author.
Special appreciation is given to Dr. Anderson for providing the labora-

tory facilities for the study of the Communiterand Use Game and for

 

the time he generously spent with the researcher on this project.

The researcher's thanks also go to Dr. George Ferns for serving on
both the guidance and thesis committees, and to Professors John Hanson
(social and philosophical foundation), John Henderson (economics), and
Donald Taylor (marketing) for serving on the guidance committee that
formulated and approved his program.

To Fred and Laura Davies, very close family friends, for their
personal relationships and kindness to the researcher and his family,

very great thanks. The unstinted support and devotion of my wife,

Adejoke, in spite of her own triangular responsibilities as a wife,
mother of two, and graduate student, inspired me in completing this
study. The pleasantness of my children, Abiola and Akintayo, their
tolerance and forebearance in having a part-time daddy, and their sense
of humor made this study a joyful one to undertake. Finally, I am
appreciative of the excellent and cheerful services of Miss Cheryl

Manina who typed the manuscript and the final copy of this thesis.

CHAPTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE PROBLEM, OBJECTIVES, AND PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . .

The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Status of Simulation Art in Education . . . . . . . . .
The Design Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Problem of Utilization of Instructional Simulation. . .
Assumptions and Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . .
Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Possible Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedure of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF EDUCATIONAL SIMULATION . . . . . . .

The Philosophical School. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Game as the Theoretical Rationale of Educational Simulation
Problems in Philosophical School of Simulation. . . . . . .
Some Examples of Simulation Designs Based on Philosophical
Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leading Theoretical Principles of the PhiIOSOphical School.
Mechanistic School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Computer Simulation for Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cognitive Process Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Design . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Instructional Application.
Some Examples of Computer Simulation of Cognitive Processes
Computerized Games for Decision-making. . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Design . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Instructional Application.
Some Examples of Decision-making Games. . . . . . . . . . .
Operational Game Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Design . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Instructional Application.
Issues and Problems in Computer Simulation for Learning . .
Non-computer Mechanistic Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Design . . . . . . . . . .

Theoretical Principles Affecting Instructional Application. .
Some Examples of Non-computer Mechanistic Simulation. . . . .
Factors Guiding the Choice of Mechanistic Devices for Simulation

Leading Theoretical Principles of the Mechanistic School. .

PAGE

\lUTN“

ll
I3

15
19

22

23
23
28

3O
3O
32
33
3h

35
36

37

AC
#2

AS

49
#9
SO
51
52
53

CHAPTER

IV.

AN

The Psychological School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Framework of Psychological Rationale of Educational Simulation
Psychological Rationales for Simulation Design . . . . . . .
Psychological Rationales for Instructional Application of
Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Some Examples of Educational Simulation Based on Psychological
Rationales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leading Theoretical Principles of Psychological School . . . .
Sociological School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Framework of Simulations Based on Sociological Rationales. . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Design. . . . . . . . . . . .
Some Examples of “Role” Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Role- ~Playing Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Role Simulation Design. . . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Instructional Application of
Role Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In-basket Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Design of In- basket Tests . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Instructional Application of
ln-basket Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leading Theoretical Principles--Sociological School. . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTEGRATIVE THEORY OF EDUCATIONAL SIMULATION . . . . . . . . .

Theoretical Principles for Design of Educational Simulation. .
Fidelity of Simulation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simulation and Game. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Objectives of Educational Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Representations in Simulation Designs. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Steps in Designing Educational Simulation. . . . . . . . . .
Simulation Design Evaluation Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Principles in Instructional Application of
Educational Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instructional Simulation as Laboratory Learning. . . . . . .
Features of Instructional Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Criteria of Instructional Simulation Model . . . . . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF INSTRUCTIONAL SIMULATION . . . . . . . . .

Operational Criteria for Instructional Simulation. . . . . . .
Selection of the Educational Simulation Model. . . . . . . . .
Orientation of Participants to Simulation Objectives . . . . .
Simulated Instructional Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simulated Instructional Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simulated Instructional Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE

101
102
103
10h
105

108

109
109
110
llO
III
112

CHAPTER

Analysis of Operational Criteria of Specific Simulated

Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . .

Community Land Use Game (CLUG). . . . . . .
Other Simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Findings. . . . . . . . . . .
Teachers as Designers or Vice Versa. . . . . .
sma ry. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O

V. A SIMULATED
Assumptions about Occupational Education . .

Assumptions about Occupational Instruction .
Simulation Design for Occupational Education .

INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL FOR OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION.

The Design of A Simulated Instructional Model for Occupational

Education. 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0

Occupational System Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selection of A Simulated Occupational Model. .
Orientation to Specific Occupational
Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simulated Occupation Curriculum Plan . . . . .
Simulated Occupational Practice. . . . . . . .
Simulated Instructional Process. . . . . . . .
Simulated Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Guidelines for the Use
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Nature and Rationale

Instructional Simulation Criteria. . . . . .

of Simulated Instructional Model. .

of Educational Simulation . . . .

Theoretical Principles Affecting Design of Educational

Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Principles Affecting Instructional

Educational Simulation . . . . . . . . . .
Implications of the Study. . . . . . . . . . .
Implications for General Education . . . . . .
Implications for Occupational Education. . .
Implications for Instructional Technology. . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Application

Objectives and Performance

viii

PAGE

11A
115
119
120
123
12A

126

127
128
129

130
130
133

135
138
IhO
IAZ
144
1A8
148

151
152

152
15A
154
157

158

161
162
162
I63
16“
16H
I66

167
177

TABLE

LIST OF TABLE

An Evaluation of Simulation Criteria in Five Selected

Instructional Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE
1. A Flow Chart of Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2. A Computer Simulation Game Design Procedure. . . . . . . . 38
3. A Flow Chart Illustrating An Approach to Designing
Educational Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
A. A Simulated Instructional Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
S. The Structure of Occupational Environment. . . . . . . . . 132
6. A Simulated Instructional Model (SIM-INST) for Occupational

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A9

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM, OBJECTIVES, AND PROCEDURE

I. THE PROBLEM

Although educational simulation has been widely used in civilian edu-
cation within the past ten years,1 the theoretical principles undergirding
the application of the technique in education are still obscure or at best
fragmentary and scattered. Practitioners have no guiding principles for
designing educational simulations and the teachers who use them possess no
clear-cut principles for planning, executing, and evaluating instructional
simulation.

The problem, therefore, in this study is (I) to synthesize, analyze,
and critically evaluate all kinds of simulations: simulators, computerized
games, in-basket simulation, role-playing simulation, and operational gaming,
and (2) to derive integrative theoretical principles which explain and
clarify the methodology of educational simulation, particularly as it re-
lates to (a) the design and (b) instructional application of educational
simulation, (c) the operational criteria for instructional simulation, and

(d) the design of an instructional model for occupational education.

In order to present a clear understanding of the problem, it is

 

IIncreased popularity of simulation in civilian education began after
Neumann and Morgenstern's Theory. C. J. Thomas, ”The Genesis and Practice
of Operational Gaming," Proceeding of the First Conference on Operational
Research, Baltimore, ORSA, 1957, pp. 6h-81. The American Management Asso-
ciation began the trend in business administration.

essential to provide an overview of the status of simulation in education
and discuss briefly the dimension of the methodological problems. This
overview will summarize the status of the field and the lack of theoreti-
cal rationale for its application. Also, the theoretical problems as they
relate to design and utilization of instructional simulation will be
reviewed.

The Status of the Simulation Art in Education: Educational simulation
has ceased to be a super-science and has crossed the traditional boundary
of military training, where it was once thought to be exclusive. Its
application has now spread across all levels of education-~elementary,
secondary, college, business and industry. It is being used for training
hospital administrators,2 doctors,3 and business executives."I Universi-
ties and teacher training institutions apply simulation to the training
of teachers.5 Urban planning educators see its usefulness in developing
understanding of urban affairs concepts.6 In political science, simulation

has been found to be a useful technique for stimulating the learning of

 

2Karl G. Bartscht. Hospital Administration Decision Simulation.
(Ann Arbor: Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Michigan,
June, 1962).

3The American Orthopaedic Association is using in-basket simulation
as part of its total educational program for orthopaedic surgeons.

”Many Graduate Schools of Business, including Harvard, Cornell,
Stanford, UCLA, MIT, NYU, and Carnegie Institute of TechnOIOgy, to name
a few, use simulation.

5The Oregon State System of Higher Education has developed a class-
room simulator which is being used for training elementary school teachers.
Also, Michigan State University has a brand called Professional Decision
Simulator for training pre-service teachers.

6Cornell, Michigan State University, University of Michigan, and a
few other universities use simulation in urban planning programs at gradu-
ate and undergraduate levels.

theoretical concepts associated with international relations.7 Even in
academic subjects the use of simulation in subjects like history, logic,
mathematics and economics is becoming more and more popular.8 A most
recent application to an academic subject is the High School Geography
Project (HSGP) sponsored by the Association of American Geographers. This
simulation is being field-tested in 22 states and is drawing the attention
of about 20,000 educators.9 The non-school use of simulation is spreading

also.‘0

This growing popularity has been accompanied by the lack of a clear

 

and succint theoretical exposition of simulation technigue which can guide

 

instructional designers, teachers, and other users in the design and the
application of instructional simulations. Also, despite the evidence of
a number of studies pointing to the effectiveness of simulations in given

instructional programs, the contribution of instructional simulation to

 

total learning has been inconclusive.ll Thus it would appear that simu-

 

lation, as an instructional tool, in the absence of a clear enunciation

 

7Northwestern University and Kansas State Teachers College pioneered
the application of simulation in political science.

8See Appendix A for a listing of designers and distributors of these
games.

9Education U.S.A. A Special Report on Educational Affairs, Washington,
D. C., September 9, 1968, p. 7.

 

loOver 3,000 designs are available now. Twelker, Paul A.: "Simula-
tion: Status of the Field.” Paper presented at the Conference sponsored
by the Commission of Educational Media for ASCD, NEA, Boston, October, 1968.

llCleo H. Cherryholmes. “Some Current Research on Effectiveness of
Educational Simulations: Implications for Alternative Strategies,”
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. X, No. 2, October, 1966, pp. 4-7.

of its theoretical principles, has nothing to recommend it as a defensible
pedagogical approach. Therefore, to have a defensible position for its
judicious use in the classroom, there is a need to clarify the framework
of its operation and evaluation.

There is a need to bridge the gap in the knowledge about simulation

 

design and the process of optimizing instructional simulation. Because

 

practice in this instructional approach is hitherto varied and complicated
by divergences, there is a need to systematize and integrate the basic
principles for educational simulation methodology.

Pronouncements by knowledgeable educators and psychologists support
the belief that simulation is effective for professional development in
many occupations.‘2 While it is believed that simulation may not be the
panacea to learning, it is believed that it has the potential of proving
to be the most effective teaching technique of converting “knowledge” or
”theory” into practical action in a situation which approximates real-

life.‘3 Therefore, there is a need for “developing a sound professional

Operational doctrinenllI which could become an important part of the ”trick

of the trade” which educators can apply to solve some of the pressing

 

12R, n. Gagne. ”Simulators” in Robert Glaser (ed.). TrainingfiResearch
and Education, (New York: John Wiley 5 Sons, Inc., 1965), pp. 239-243;
Paul A. Twelker, “Simulation: Status of the Field”, op. cit.; James S.
Coleman, ”More Games Urged”, Education U.S.A.: A Special Report on Edu-
cational Affairs, Washington, D.C., November 6, 1967, p. 57. Indeed
simulations have been applied to professional development of teachers,
nurses, dental and orthopaedic surgeons, and technicians. (Full references
given in the bibliography).

 

 

lBGagne, op. cit., p. 2A1.
“*Ibid.

problems of education, particularly of bringing relevance into the

classroom learning.‘5

Methodological Problems of Educational Simulation

In order to understand the nature of methodological problems with
which this Study is concerned, it is essential to discuss at some length
the crucial issues relative to the theoretical principles undergirding
the design and utilization of educational simulation. This discourse
represents an assessment of the nature of the problems as seen by leading
proponents of educational simulation.

A. The Design Problem. Cherryholmes considers simulation design as

 

one of the major problems in educational simulation. He specifically
refers to the problem of constructing or designing a simulation and
”building an explicit theory about a referent system.”16 He goes on to
say that: ”constructing a good simulation is not easy.. .The subject
matter of the course must be arranged to present basic facts and features
of the referent systemi}..'”7’ He suggests an alternative to designing
good programs by advocating a strategy which enables the students to
validate theory embedded in a simulation by a variety of comparisons
with the real-life referent system. He is of the opinion that students
should be encouraged to construct their own simulations. His view is
supported by Herron who holds that students can learn a lot more about

a subject if they are given an opportunity to have a close study and

 

ISIbid.

‘6Cherryholmes, op. cit., p. 7.

l7Ibid.

evaluate the design of the simulation.‘8 Such a step will establish
students' confidence in the objectivity of the simulation. Useful as
these declarations are, their shortcoming lies in the lack of explicit
clarification of the approach to the desirable objectives they advocate.

Guetzkow notes there is a need in giving the specification of
educational simulation. In presenting some guideposts for constructing
simulation models, he suggests: "Simulation must be grounded in explicit
specification of a basic set of variables and programmed relations among
them?19 He argues that in constructing a simulation model in education
there is a need to build into the design the ”isomorphism of the environ-
ment”, the “prototypic variables” and other ”core variables” that under-
gird the nature of reality being simulated.20

Vance is concerned with the problem of establishing procedure in

21

 

simulation. He contends that establishing the procedure for simulation

 

is a paramount desideratum if such a ”make-belief” is to become a useful

learning process. To Vance, certain ”strategic variables” must be built

 

into a simulation game before its conclusion can be valid. He suggests

that there must be basic planning in designing simulation and ”.. .in the

 

application of pertinent concepts and the requisite sequence. .."if the

participants are to benefit in using simulation and games as ”an extremely

 

laiowell W. Herron. Executive Action Simulation. (Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960), p. iv.

 

19Harold Guetzkow (ed.). Simulation in International Relations.
(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), pp. 104-106.

 

20mm.

2Istanley Vance. Management Decision Simulation, (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co., Inc., 1960), p. 3.

useful workshop” in which they can gain experience in decision-making.22

B. The Problem of Utilization of Instructional Simulation. There

 

is no agreement on when and how to use simulation for instructional
purposes. Some educators believe that simulation is only a ”blender”

to learning. It is useful only after the learner has gone through some
initial learning. Gagne argues that simulation is most useful for
advanced learning, for consolidation of skill, and for maintenance of
proficiency. He contends that ”Simulation has its greatest and most L/’/
obvious usefulness in application to second stage of the process of
acquiring skill.”23 He thinks that application of simulation to initial
stages of learning is both highly expensive and inefficient. To Gagne,
the initial knowledge is the ”raw materials” which simulated instruction
uses to build performance knowledge.2LI

Some simulation designers consider the problem of class size in a

 

simulated instruction. Both teachers and designers of simulation are

 

concerned about clarifying the structure of learning and teaching in a
simulated environment. Cohen, Cyert, Dill, Kuehn, Miller, Van Wormer,

and Winters25 stress the importance of the process of simulated instruction
and emphasize the need to pay attention to such factors as team structure,

time per move, spacing of moves, information flows, and stability of

 

22_l_b_i_<_:l_., p. 7.

23Gagne, op. cit., pp. 233-243.

241319., p. 235.

25K. J. Cohen, et al., ’The Carnegie Tech Management Games”, in

Harold Guetzkow (ed.), Simulation in Social Science: Readings. (Engle-
wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962), pp. 118-121.

team membership in administering management simulation games.26
Inbar too has indicated that a crucial variable in instructional

simulation is the size of the playing group. He observes that: he”

 

In overcrowded groups the players learn the rules of the games

less efficiently, interact less, are less interested in the

session and participate less actively in it; as a consequence,

they tend to play a lesser number of moves and the impact of

the game is weaker.27

In using games in management decision simulation, Vance finds that
an important step in playing a simulation game is setting out the funda- p,,a
mental objectives of the game and also providing ”an organizational
structure for each team” playing it. This reference points to the impor-
tance of setting the size of an ideal class for simulation instruction.28

Twelker poses a more fundamental problem in instructional simulation.
He holds the position that educators cannot optimize the advantages
inherent in instructional simulation unless they develop a philosophy of
simulation which describes its nature in education and which systematizes
the procedure for its application. He challenges educators to think in
terms of bridging the gap between theory and practice in simulation. He
calls upon them to give consideration to enunciating and elucidating “how

simulation experience is utilized”, ”the quality of the instructor”, the

”debriefing”, and also ”the development of syllabus” for simulated

 

26Ibid.

27Michael Inbar. “The Differential Impact of Game Simulating a
Community Disaster“. American Behavioral Scientist, 1966, 10(2), p. 26.

 

28Vance, op. cit., p. 7.

instruction.29 What Twelker seems to be suggesting in this injunction
is that it is no longer an intellectual question whether simulation can
be used in education; it is now a question of how simulation can be used.

There has also been the question of the assessment of learning

 

during simulation. Most simulations have involved practices described

 

in various terms--”plays“, “runs”, ”programs”, “units”--through which

the learner passes during the simulation experience. There are either
weaknesses in evaluation or failure to evaluate pre-simulation entry-
knowledge and post-simulation terminal knowledge. In many cases, simu—
lation objectives are not clearly stated and whatever learning that takes
place is hard to evaluate. Boocock notes that because there is no guiding

theory, there has been very little empirical evidence supporting the

_..-. __._._.I_,._._
W .- v- 77--

effectiveness of simulation.30 Carter thinks that we have to develop
some reliable assessment for determining gp§£_has been learned and ppw
it has been learned.31 Criteria must be set up for assessing what has
been learned in a simulation. He suggests that performance must be
measured before the simulation and after it (several months after simu-

lation experience).32

 

29Paul A. Twelker. ”Simulation: What is it? Why is it?” (Paper
presented at the Conference, Simulation: Stimulation for Learning,
sponsored by the Commission on Educational Media of the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA, at San Diego, California,
April, 1968.)

305. S. Boocock and E. O. Schild (eds.). . Simulation Games in
Learning, (Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1968),
p. 14.

 

3lln R. Glaser, op. cit., p. 422.

32Ibid., p. 424.

10

Carter also mentions the degree of transfer from the game to real-L//’”

 

life situation. Gagne's position in this respect is persuasive. He
does not consider that simulations are designed for the purpose of pre-
dicting performance in a real operational situation as an aptitude test.33
He thinks it is an ”illegitimate” question to ask whether assessment of
performance in simulation will be valid in terms of performance in real-
life. He argues that a simulation is not real-life; it is a representation
of real-life. Therefore, the degree to which a simulation represents the
real situation can certainly be measured in a direct manner in terms of
the amount of transfer. ”To the extent that the simulator is 'real' the
performance is 'real' and one cannot define something which is 'more
real'.”34
From the foregoing it can be concluded that simulation has not
acquired nor formalized its own techniques for educational purposes. In
this regard it is unlike the conventional method of learning for which
there are theories for research. Because the procedure for instructional
simulation has neither been formalized nor clarified, there is a hiatus
in our knowledge of the concept and its application. In civilian educa-
tion, simulation has not enjoyed substantial adoption and there is the
suspicion of it being another ”methodological white elephant” in the
classroom. Indeed, while progressive adminstrators may consider simulation
”great“, there are still many teachers at operational levels who believe

its use to be the exclusive preserve of smart ”master teachers” who belong

 

33Ibid., p. 237.

11

to the ”select family of simulation experts and enthusiasts”.35 Boocock

observes36, however, that while the mass media and television have popu-

larized simulation in the classroom, there is still a considerable demand
for information on how it can be used as a teaching tool.

In conclusion, if simulation, as applied in education, is not to
become a casual technique in educational technology, a knowledge of its
theoretical parameter is desirable.37 To use Boocock and Schild's phrase,
we require ”explicit theoretical rationales” for simulation games in order
to make a defensible use of it in the classroom. As Fattu observes, even
though simulation has a great potential for improving educational practice,
”whether simulation proves useful to education depends ultimately upon the
standards set for such a practice by the profession, and upon the support

it is able to obtain from the public”.38

II. ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITION OF TERMS
A basic assumption in this study is that educational simulation (as
defined below), is a phenomenon that can be observed and analyzed syste-
matically as a set of instructional processes which are dynamically inter-

related.

 

355. s. Boocock and E. o. Schild, op. ci:c_., p. ll-I.
36IbId., p. 14.

37Boocock and Schild put the blame for lack of theoretical foundation
in simulation technology on simulation designers. They say: ”To some
degree, the designers of games are to blame for this situation. They. . .
have been so fascinated with the possibility of really changing cognitions,
attitudes, skills in real life, that they did not pause to undertake the
particular type of experimentation needed to unravel the specific variables
involved. . . .", Ibid., pp. 22-23.

38Nicholas A. Fattu. ”An Introduction to Simulation” in Nicholas A.
Fattu and Stanley Elam (eds.), Simulation Models for Education, (Blooming-
ton, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1965), p. 24.

 

Simulation39: Simulation, when used without qualification, is used

 

in its generic usage and is operationally defined as a dramatic activity,
condition, or process that involves manipulative transaction or the inter-
action of abstracted elements of real-life with a motive to induce a
phenomenal experience or state that replicates real-life.

Educational Simulationuo: Educational simulation is defined to befiv
any model, or process that is an abstraction of real-life used for
instruction to provide educational experiences that elicit life-like

behavioral responses.

 

39The term ”simulation” has been defined in many ways by many scholars
in science and technology. Thus, there are many definitions of simulation.
In spite of this, there is some consistency in its usage by people regard-
less of their academic orientation. There is, for example, an agreement
that simulation is an ”abstraction of real-life and not real-life itself”.
Since a number of scholars have reviewed the definitions of simulation, it
is not necessary to duplicate this effort in this study. Harman (1961)
perhaps does a better job than most reviewers in this connection. He offers
that ”perhaps the simplest and most direct definition of simulation is
merely the act of representing some aspect of real world by numbers or
symbols that can be easily manipulated in order to facilitate study”.
Harry H. Harman. Simulation: A Survey. Proceedings of the Western Joint
Computer Conference, Los Angeles, California, 1961. McCormick is another
person who has attempted to define somewhat precisely what simulation is.
He says: ”simulation consists of some type of reproduction or represen-
tation of an actual or conceptual physical object, system, process, or
situation, or of a theoretical construct“. E. J. McCormick., Human Factors
in Engineering, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964). Thomas and Deemer have
stated that “to simulate is to obtain the essence of, without the reality”.
C. J- Thomas and Deemer, Operational Research, January, 1957, pp. 1-27.

 

uoThe formulation of this operational definition of ”educational
simulation” is based on pioneering analysis of the nature of instructional
simulation by Twelker, particularly his reflection on ”Towards a Definition
of 'Instructional Simulation'.” Twelker argues, and this researcher agrees
with his view, that instructional simulation may be a ”model (physical,
iconic, verbal, or mathematical) of some aspects of a real or proposed
system, process, or environment”. Paul A. Twelker., Simulation: An
Overview, unpublished paper, Oregon State System of Higher Education, n/d,

pp. 8-46.

 

13

Occupational Education: Occupational education is any formal educa-
tion and traininghl (part-time or full-time) whose primary objective is

to prepare the learner for a career role in any profession or employment.

III. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The major purpose of this study is to pull together what is known
about the methodology of educational simulation and to synthesize this
into an integrative theory which can be used to build a simulated
instructional model for occupational education. Specifically, the
purpose of the study is fourfold:

1. To analyze and synthesize theoretical principles underlying
different types of educational simulation.

2. To develop an integrative theory for educational simulation
which will explain (a) the theoretical principles underlying
educational simulation designs; (b) the theoretical principles
underlying instructional application of educational simulation.

3. To develop theoretical, operational criteria for instructional
simulation strategy from the integrated theory and use these

criteria to evaluate the practice of simulated instruction in

 

“lThe term ”education and training” is used advisedly. Although a
distinction can be made between education and training, it is held that
occupational education involves both. ”Education” is seen as a process
of awakening a student's intellectual understanding of why a method or
procedure is carried out, or gpy an activity is performed. ”Training”
is seen as the application of teaching methods to the problem facing a
student to enable him to understand 59w a method, process, or a complete
activity is carried out. It includes also, imparting of a degree of skill
and competence to the student in actual performance situations. ct. Gagne
and Fleishman's definition of “training“ as “the set of conditions employed
to increase the level of performance of some human function by means of
learning". R, n, Gagne and E. A. Fleishman , Psychology and Human Perfor-
mance: An Introduction to Psychology. (New York: Henry Holt and Company,

1959). p. 394.

14

selected instructional simulations and to determine how the
theoretical propositions operate in practice.

Based on the analysis, to develop an I'optimum" simulated
instructional model (SIM-INST Model) for planning, managing,
executing, and evaluating simulated instruction for occupational

education, and to provide guidelines for utilizing it.

Possible Outcomes

This study may be described as opening the ”black box” of educational

simulation methodology and the outcomes of the study may prove to be more

far-reaching than suggested below:

1.

Because the integrative theoretical principles will essentially
be an inventory of ”a priori” routes to simulation methodology
in education, the systematic organization of the principles will
lead to a development of a taxonomy of instructional simulation.
Success in such an effort will facilitate the refinement of the
criteria of instructional simulation and the development of a
more useful taxonomy of instructional simulation.

The study will provide guidelines for reconstruction and improve-
ment of existing and future designs of educational simulations.
The guidelines provided will be useful in programming sequential
learning units either to a definite or finite level according to
the level and the needs of the learner since instructional simu-
lation possesses much flexibility. This will be most useful for
designing simulations for speedy development of any specific
occupational role that may be critically needed by the society.

The principles set out in the study for instructional simulation

15

will be a useful ”cookbook” for the design of ”home made” simu-
lations by teachers and students. The study will provide an
enlightenment for instructional simulation designs and will
uncover some of the pitfalls that characterize designs not rooted
in clear-cut theoretical principles. In addition, it will draw
the attention of curriculum designers to the importance of con-
structing simulated instructional objectives and the process of

evaluation of simulated learning outcomes.

IV. PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY

The premise on which the procedure for this study is based is that
the utilization of simulation as a viable learning methodology emerges
from certain explicit or implicit rationales and assumptions that are
embedded in educational simulations and are held by the designers and
users of educational simulations. The nature of the theoretical structure
undergirding educational simulations can be explained through critical
examinations and observations of existing simulations used in classroom
settings and by clarification of the principles adopted for the instruc-
tional procedure.

Therefore, for the purpose of deriving the general integrated theory
of educational simulation, a general survey of simulation practices in
education will be made, and a classificatory analysis of the typOIOgy of
educational simulation will be presented. The functional criteria for
all types of simulations will be described, and the underlying principles
will be clarified. From these principles describing the operational
criteria of educational simulation, an integrative theory of educational

simulation will be formulated.

16

Five educational simulations, described below, are selected for study.
Their operational criteria under instructional settings will be compared
with the theoretical operational criteria, and differences and similarities
will be discussed.

The five designs studied are:

1. Cornell Community Land Use Games (CLUG) for training and education

of Urban Planners, developed by Allan G. Feldt.Ll2

2. Integrated Simulation: An Interactive General Business Simulation

for Management Education, developed by Smith, Estey, and Vines.LI3

3. Inter-Nations Simulation (INS) designed by Cherryholmes!“i

4. Simulation in the Classroom, designed by Kersh for teacher

education.Ll5

5. Simulation for Vocational Office Education (VOB), designed by

Michigan State University and Beverly Funk, for vocational

46

education of office workers.

 

thllan Feldt. The Community Land Use Game, (Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University, 1966).

h3W. Nye Smith, Elmer E. Estey, and Ellsworth F. Vines. Integrated
Simulation: An Interactive General Business Simulation Designed for
Flexible Application in Management Education, (Cincinnati: South-Western
Publishing Company, 1968).

thleo H. Cherryholmes. ”Simulation in Internation Relations:
Development for High School Teaching”. (Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis,
Kansas State Teachers College, Emporia, Kansas, 1963).

ASBert Y. Kersh. Classroom Simulation: A New Dimension in Teacher
Education. U. S. Office of Education, NDEA Title VII, Project No. 886.
(Monmouth: Teaching Research Division, Oregon State of Higher Education,

June, 1963).

H6Michigan State University, Vocational Office Block, Project 201,
Research and Development Program in Vocational-Technical Education,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1967.

17

Appendix B gives brief information about each of the simulations.

Criteria for Selection: The criteria used for the selection of

these simulations are:

I.

All the selections fall within the framework of and satisfy the
canons of the definitions of simulation as operationally used

in this study.

The simulations selected are easily available and the materials
for providing instructions with them exist.

The simulations are used for instructional purposes and there-
fore have passed the test of experimentation in either secondary
or college or special education programs.

Each of the simulations has materials and guides that are specifi-
cally prescribed for the teacher and learner using the simulation.
The simulations are used in educational settings with the objec-
tives of teaching certain specified rules, principles, and appli-
cation of knowledge within specific disciplinary areas. Thus,
educational goals are set in terms of the learner's expected
behavior, action, respOnse, and thought in consonance with

specified real-life model.

METHODOLOGY:

The following methods of investigation were used for the purpose of

deriving the undergirding theories of educational simulation:

1.

2.

Critical survey and review of research studies on simulated
learning.

Laboratory observations of one simulated design through self-study

18

and exposure to the simulation in order to understand and identify
the functional instructional criteria of the simulation.

3. Comparative review and analysis of the other four educational
simulations. The theoretical criteria proposed were used for
evaluating the functional criteria of the instructional processes
adopted by the four simulations.

4. Personal communication and dialogues with proponents and designers
of educational simulations.

The simulation which was observed under teaching and learning condi-

tions was the CLUG. It was selected for study because of the accessi-
bility of the instructional location to the researcher and the advantage

of getting first-hand information from the designers and users.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS:

The general review of educational simulation practices was done by a
broad classification of simulation rationales in education. Four schools
of simulation rationale were identified: (1) the philosophical school,
(2) the mechanistic school, (3) the psychological school, and (4) the
sociological school. The features and principles underlying each of these
schools were discussed. The theoretical principles were Synthesized for
(a) design, and (b) instructional application of educational simulation.
These were proposed as an integrative theory of educational simulation.
The nature of this theory is described in Chapter III.

Six operational criteria for administering an instructional simula-
tion were derived from the theoretical principles. The practice of five
selected simulations were evaluated with these criteria. The results of

the analysis are discussed and tabulated in Chapter IV.

19

In order to design a model for occupational education, a number of
assumptions were made about the nature of occupational educational and
occupational instruction. Based on the theoretical structure of Chapter
IV, a simulated instructional model (described as SIM-INST Model) for
occupational education was designed comprising seven processes. The
functions and relationships of these processes are discussed in Chapter V.

A flow chart describing diagramatically the research methodOIOgy for

this study is contained in Figure 1, page 20.

V. DELIMITATIONS

In this study, the following delimitations are specified:

1. In developing the integrative theory and principles of instruc-
tional simulation, the sources of data used are limited to
simulations used in the classroom setting for educational
purposes. (See page 16 for some examples).

2. This study does not have as its purpose the development of
simulated script and scenario, although general guidelines
for designing simulated instructional materials will be given.

3. The SIM-INST Model designed for occupational education is not
one of the models that calls for validation in the nature of

stochastic, probablistic or deterministic model. It is a

heuristic model for simulated instruction.H7 The model is

 

1+7Even if this is a stochastic model, most theoretical model scholars
believe that ”models are neither true nor false; their value is judged by
the contribution they make to our understanding of the systems they repre-
sent”. McMillan and Gonzales would argue that ”the testing or validating
of a model can be done by making further observations and measurements of
the system, or by experimentation”. If a model does not confirm the
hypothesis implicit in it, it needs modification. See Claude McMillan and
Richard Gonzales: System Analysis: A Computer Approach to Decision-

A. oczmmuv
>oo;ooo:hmz zom<mmmm do H¢<zu 304d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am_tpp_to _me_paov

apq

A:o_uumcumn<v

 

  

pom w m_Lou_Lu
.mco_umcoao
aEm _mu_u

   
  

 

 

 

 

 

.E_m .Lumc_ Low 0.
Lou_Lu .mco_um
Icoao _mo_u
Iocoocu
ao_o>
Ion

>Loogp
_mco_u

Ioacumc_ .n
,

      

combos—m5 mocmecotoa ouconuom Al mcEcm—m T .33 w .250 Al co_umuco_._o
mucmrLOWLoa .mco_uuscumc_ .mco_uu:cumc_ _mco_uoscumc_ oucmELOLLod w .ucov_ o_0m
vuumpaep beam—:E_ voumbde_m pope—:5. fl? Imoum_:E_m .aauuo .E_m
a u
.
.
_
T I I I I - -
V co_umu:um _mco_umo:uoo LOm Ahmz_Iz_mv
\ .ouoz _mco_uu:cumc_ team—:E_m m cm_moo _

 

                 

Lump Low m_mmm
.mumuocoocu oN>_
Imc< w oN_m

  

Iozuc>m

 

.mu_mo_+
ono>mm .

 

   

   

.mu_;a
Iomo__;a

o_um_c
Iwzoox

 

rill .

I I I. . .

>Loock I- .. I..I. . u . _
cm_moo .m u . o ..

L . A, . .e .v .v

 

 

.ospm _mco_uma:
Iuoo Lem _ovoz .6
Ico_uuscumc. .E_w

m LOm ocsuuacum

cm_moo cum—sumo;

mco_um_:E_m
.mcowumospm emu
nob—om umc_mm< mm
ou_Lu .mco_umcoao

 

 

 

.mowuocooxk amok

m:o_um_:e_m _m

 

  

m_oo;om
\mo_mco_umm .mo
I_uocoock mco_um_:

 

 

E.m .uspm >m_mmm u

    

 

mco_um_:e_m _m
omumuavm co ocnum
Lou_4 .co 30_>o

 

Amy

Aav

ANV

A_V

           

 

IJd IEOIIauoaqi

Iau

sold

6

21

a "policy rather than a creed".l+8 It serves to suggest,

stimulate, and direct experimentation.

 

Models, (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Inuin, Inc., Revised edition,
1968), pp. 9-20. Compare also Bowman and Fetter's argument that ”the
model which usefully described a given situation is capable of prediction
in the sense that changes in the situation can be logically followed
through the model”. Edward H. Bowman and Robert B. Fetter, Analysis for
Production and Opgrations Management, (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D.
Irwin, Inc., Third edition, 1967), p. 28.

48Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral
Science, (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1964), p. 306.

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF EDUCATIONAL SIMULATION

This chapter provides a general review of the literature on educational
simulation through a process of analysis and synthesis of undergirding
simulation rationales. Attention is given to the two methodological
problems posed in Chapter I, i.e., the problem of design and the problem
of instructional application of educational simulation.

A survey of the literature on educational simulation suggests that
proponents of simulation have different orientations in the design and
process of simulation. The differences in orientation are not caused by
differences in the subject-matter fields to which simulation is being
applied. The central and major point of differences is methodological.
Critical study of the approaches used by individuals and a search for
explanation of their theoretical rationales lead to the conclusion that
at least four schools of instructional simulation can be identified:

(1) the philosophical school, (2) the mechanistic school, (3) the psycho-
logical school, and (4) the sociological school. The characteristic
features of each of these schools, and their leading theoretical frame-
work are discussed below. It must be said, however, that the classification
into these schools is only a convenient way of clarifying the thought in
this field that seems to be apparently divided on method, process, and

Practice.

I. THE PHILOSOPHICAL SCHOOL]

Educational simulation may be based on philosophical rationale.
This school uses philosophical principles to support the instructional
application of simulation in educational programs. (The philosophical
school argues that learning can be made meaningful to the individual if
its contents are gamed so that the learning situation is somewhat a
simplified representation of real-life. The main philosophical rationale
of simulation for instruction seems to be based upon the premise that
educational simulation is a ”good” pedagogic technique because it simul-
taneously links the student with the outside world through the realistic

,—

'particlpatory learning experiences in the classroom.j

A. Game as the Theoretical Rationale of Educational Simulation

The use of games in education is not new. It began with Spencer
and was continued by John Dewey. Dewey, particularly in his work, flpmpp
Nature and Conduct,2 argues that play and game provide “fresh and deeper
meaning to the usual activities of life”. Indeed, Dewey's general
philosophy of education contains most of the premises upon which simu-
lation games are built. His philosophy emphasizes learning by discovery,

active participation, and problem-solving3--all of which are epitomized

in the objectives of simulation learning.

 

ISarane Boocock discusses this rather briefly in an article in
Boocock and Schild (eds.), Simulation Games in Learning, (Beverly Hills,
California: Sage Publishing, Inc., 1968), pp. 53-64.

2John Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct, (New Haven: Henry Holt,
1922), pp. 160-162.

3John Dewey, Democracy and Education, (New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1916).

24

Dewey's concept of play and education is a usefulone in understanding
instructional simulation. However, it is important to understand the
conditions under which educational games can prove useful in education.
Abt“, an educational games designer, has recognized and stressed the
conditions under which the advantages of educational games can be achieved.
He observes that children are naturally strongly motivated towards play
and that through mimetic process, they organize much adult behavior which
when reinforced by their peers are incorporated as habits. Therefore, if
the technique of design of educational games analogizes game activities
according to student's interest and previous experience, the game approach
can develop new habits. But in this approach, Abt warns that there is a
danger of exaggerating the parameters of reality. In some cases the
parameters of reality incorporated into the game are not explicit to the
student. Sometimes essential elements of real life may be difficult,
hazardous, or dangerous to be represented. These could be ignored. It
is also possible that where the game focuses on elements that do not pay
attention to the student's interest and previous experiences, learning
outcomes of the game may be in conflict with the educational objectives.
Abt notes:

Most games provide for a uniformity of initial player resources--

in real life it is seldom 50. Most games have fixed uniform rules

clearly known by the players. In real life, the rules of the

”games” are continually (although often slowly) modified by the

players, and there is often a game over the nature of the rules
themselves.. ..Real life ”rules”, or constraints on behavior, are

 

“Clark Abt, ”Games for Learning”. In Boocock, S. S., and E. O.
Schild, op. cit., pp. 66-69.

25

often tacit rather than explicit, and sometimes not even
completely known to the player.5

Also, the assumptions which a designer may make about a game may
relate to the student's capacity to understand the nature of the analytical
model built into the simulation game. When this is an issue, the problem
of how well the simulation design communicates effectively with the
student becomes important. Abt gives very valuable suggestions in this
respect and suggests:

To communicate effectively with the student, the model must be

translated into a social drama that involves the student's interest

and enables him to experiment actively with the consequences of
various ”moves“ or changes in the system under study. . . , To achieve
an effective balance between analytical truth and dramatic communi-
cation some degree of simplification is needed to form the basic

”plot“ of this sociodrama or game. . . . Classroom time and student

capacity for abstraction are the most common limiting factors.6 /

Some designers and users of educational simulation may disagree with
Abt's prescription about simplification of the model because this can
lead to watering down of the components of knowledge which will be taught.
However, simplification need not lead to shallowness or superficiality
of knowledge. A position such as Abt has taken in this instance, calls

for some experimentation and points to the need for a theory of design

of simulation games.7 It might well mean that simplification of a complex

 

5Abt, op. cit., p. 69.
6|bid., p. 75.

7Kibbee also considers simplicity as one of the constraints in
designing educational games. He suggests four facets of simplicity: (I)
simplicity of participation, (2) simplicity of computation, (3) simplicity
of administration, and (4) simplicity of construction. Simplicity of par-
ticipation is a must in almost every game. Joel M. Kibbee , C. J. Craft,
and Burt Nanus, Mgnagement Games, (New York: Reinhold Publishing Corpora-
tion, l96l), P. 6l.

 

26

learning may, in the long run, be a desirable learning strategy which can
be applied to cater for readiness and individual differences-~a matter of
Uttermost psychological importance in sequencing learning.8

Abt recognizes that reality parameter and simplicity of the model
may be horns of a dilemma to the educators and that opponents of simula-
tion may exploit this situation. He suggests that when in conflict like
this about the design of an educational game, the designer should consider
the ”various design trade-off decisions”. He defines a trade-off as ”a
situation in which two or more characteristics interact competitively,
and their optimum mix must be determined to assign them their weight in

process”.9 Abt suggests the following trade-offsz'0

Realism Simplification

 

(at the cost of ease of playing) vs. (at the cost of intellectual
validity)

Concentration Comprehensiveness

 

(at the cost of topical coverage) vs. (at the cost of detail and realism)

Melodramatic Motivation Analytic ”Calm”

(at the cost of calm analysis) vs. (at the cost of reduced emotional
involvement and reduced motivation)

 

8J. S. Bruner, Process of Education, (New York: Vintage Books,
1960), pp. 33-54. Bruner will argue that initial simplicity may be a
useful and honest strategy designed to cope with individual readiness and
may be followed with more powerful sequence as the individual intellectually
matures.

 

9Abt, op. cit., p. 75.
”Ibid., p. 76.

‘l

5/
Abt's list may be extended to include other trade-offs not considered

by him, for example:

 

 

Sggmentation Integration
(at the cost of sequential vs. (at the cost of comprehensive
learning) meaningful learning)
Cost effectiveness Cheapness and frivolity

 

 

(at the cost of inappropriateness) vs. (at the cost of teaching economy
and relearning)

Other writers support the concept of games in educational simulation.

Ray and Duke contend that the element of gaming is essential in simulation."

12

Coleman, supporting the same position,argues that games offering oppor-

tunities to act out lifelike, decision-making roles in realistic settings,
can offer students more motivation to learn than many current teaching
devices. In another article, Coleman emphasizes:

There are apparently certain aspects of games that especially
facilitate learning, such as their ability to focus attention,

their requirement for action rather than merely passive obser-
vation, their abstraction of simple elements from the complex
confusion of reality, and the intrinsic rewards they hold for
mastery. By the combination of these properties that games

provide, they show remarkable consequences as devices for learning.13

 

1'Paul H. Ray, and Richard D. Duke, “The Environment of Decision-
Making in Urban Gaming Simulations,” in William D. Coplin (ed.), Simulation
in the Study of Politics, (Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1968),
PP. 152-160.

 

'ZEducation U.S.A.: A Special Weekly Report on Educational Affairs,
“More School Games Urged”, November, 1967, p. 57.

13James S.Coleman, ”Social Processes and Social Simulation Games”
in S. S. Boocock and E. O. Schild, Simulation Games in Learning, (Beverly
Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1968), p. 29.

28

The element of gaming suggests that educational simulation must
involve the students in meaningful participation or competition that
leads to measurable achievements. Thus there must be a role (competitive
or participatory) to play and a standard of effectiveness that the learner
will be taught to attain.

Another obiter dictum about educational games is that the game should7

 

be an accurate representation of the real-life model. This dictum has two!
implications. First, the reality parameter must be stated in specific
terms. Second, there must be a true relationship between real-life and
the situation being gamed.”i It is implied that any educational games
must have objectives and students playing them must be oriented to the
objectives specified.

8. Problems in the Philosophical School of Simulation. Before some
of the weaknesses in the philosophical rationale to educational simulation
are discussed, one other philosophical principle often advanced to support
educational slmulation--teleological system'5--should be discussed briefly.
Rudner describes the teleological system as purposive and goal-directed
behavior. It is suggested that this principle offers a persuasive argument
for simulating instruction because it implies that simulation objectives
should be goal-directed, purposive and functional. Whatever the philo-
sophical problem in setting goals, an important implication for educational

simulation methodology is that objectives for simulated instruction must be

 

lulbid., pp. 39-51. In this section, Coleman discusses the critical
question in making a judgment about the kinds of social processes that
can be simulated.

lSRichard S. Rudner , Philosophy of Social Science, (Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966), pp. 84-111.

29

well-defined and must be relevant to the model of real-life of which it
is a referent.

There are a number of weaknesses in the philosophical approach to
simulation. One of these is the methodological process of validation.
The philosophical approach is general and hard to verify. The ramifica-
tions of philosophical tenents--Iearning by experience, by participation,
and the problem-solving approach--are not the exclusive domain of simula-
tion as a method of instruction. Indeed, other teaching methods may
equally be employed to achieve the same results.

Philosophical analyses are useful only when they are well-clarified
and programmatic to the extent that each assumption made can constitute
a verifiable theory. Arguing that simulation derives from philosophical
rules without specifically indicating the nature of the theory and the
phenomenon it tests does not say much.

There is yet another problem. The phi1050phical approach also seems
to assume, if not ignore, the operation of psychological learning theory
when conditions of play are assumed to be transferred automatically to
real-life.16 The assumption, if this is the case, is that the transfer
to real-life or ”make-belief” characteristics is automatic. From what is

known of the operation of socio-psychological theory,'7 this assumption

 

16For a critique of games as a pedagogic approach see Ivor Kraft,
”Pedagogical Futility in Fun and Games?” National Education Association
Journal, Vol. 56, 1967, pp. 71-72.

'7In actual life some behaviors occur because they are reinforced,
not necessarily because they are practised. In playing conditions, what
is of consequence to learning is how habits under play are reinforced to
become internalized behaviors.

30

is not quite true. If the case is one of ignoring the conditions of
transfer, the theory is not a useful one because it does not specify
the conditions under which learning and transfer will occur.

C. Some Examples of Simulation Designs Based on Philosophical Rationale

Based on the preceding exposition of the rationales behind the
methodological approach to educational simulation, it will be fair to say'
that some games come under the category of the philosophical school. The
Nova Academic Games Project in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, can be fairly
described as falling Into this category.'8 The development of “academic
games“, as the Nova Academic Games Project prefers to describe educational
simulations, is based on the assumption that achievement of students in
academic work can be enhanced if learning is structured to engender drives
which spur from the need for ”recognition and prestige” especially held
in high esteem by peer groups. Games designed on this philosophy have
been produced by the Nova Academic Project and have been used widely at
elementary, secondary, and special education programs throughout the
country. Examples of games produced by the Nova Academic Games Project
include, The Game of Democracy, Life Career Game, Equations, The Game of
Creative Mathematics, Onsets, The Game of Set Theory, WFF'N Proof, The
Game of Modern Logic, Real Numbers, Propaganda Game, and Euro-Card, to
name just a few.

0. Lgading Theoretical Principles of the Philosophical School

In summary, the evidence in this analysis suggests that educational
simulations based on philosophical rationale hinge upon the following

principles:

 

'8Nova Academic Games Project, undated brochure published at Fort Lauder-
dale, Florida. The NAGP games are used in many states including Alabama and
California, p. 3.

31

l. The reality parameter of the simulation model must be operationalized
i.e., specified in definitive terms.

2. The creation of gaming situations must mirror real-life through
the use of socio-drama which operationalizes specific role objectives.

3.. When games are used, the competitive or cooperative objectives of
the play must be specified.

4. Rules of the game must be pre-learned or be understood to facilitate
the playing of the game, and the attainment of the stated objectives.

5. .It is necessary that achievement in the gaming situation can be
evaluated whether the situation gamed involves competition or
cooperation. This element has a feedback effect and has some implica-
tion for transfer.

6. The games need to provide opportunities for adequate practice so that
players can develop abilities to attain stated objectives. Also, the
practice of make-belief in games leads to accumulation of meaningful
experience which is organized in some way for solving future problems,
when identical situations prevail.

7. Reproduction of what is to be learned and how it is to be learned
under game conditions need to be goal-oriented and functional

("manifestly” or ”latently”).l9

 

'9Manifest functions are those objective consequences contributing to
the adjustment or adaption of a system which is intended and recognized
by the participants in the system. Latent functions are those which are
neither intended nor recognized. Rudner, op. cit., p. 110.

32

Finally, the question of “degree of simulation"20 built into the
games is the problem of good design. Simulation does not exist in vacuo.
Therefore, the designer of the simulation must operationalize his variables
within parameters that approximate the reality being modelled.

This discourse has helped in clarifying the undergirding philosophy
of simulation that a make-belief phenomenon mirrors important elements of
real-life and the responses an individual habitually elicits or emits
under such a make-belief condition may be transferred to real-life. In
addition, it can be inferred that the central idea behind the philosophical
rationale.of learning by experience, teleological system and functionalism,
points to the essence of meaningful derivation of the objectives of educa-

tional simulation.

II. THE MECHANISTIC SCHOOL
In the mind of some people, educational simulation must in essence
involve computers and machines. This school of thought can be described
as mechanistic because the proponent of educational simulation based on
this condition adhere to the necessity of applying technological devices
to simulate abstracted elements of real-life models. At least two positions
of the mechanistic school can be identified in instructional simulation.

One relies on the application of computers to simulation of instruction;

 

20Gagne defines “degree of simulation” as the I'proportion of the total
situation represented” in a simulation model. It is a rough judgment
about what is adequate and sufficient to include or exclude. R._M. Gagne,
“Simulators” in Robert Glaser, 'Training Research and Education, (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), pp. 231-233.

33

the other relies on less sophisticated mechanical devices and media.2'

Any of these two positions can be regarded as a ”simulator” depending on
the degree and ramifications of the simulation.22

A. Computer simulation for learning

At least three types of computer simulations can be distinguished
even though there is a close relationship in the design procedures and
application of all three. The three general areas are: (I) simulation
involving human cognitive processes, (2) computerized games involving
environment and decision-making, and (3) operational game simulation.

The operations of these three have implications for education and training
as will be explained in this section.

In general there is a basic assumption, regardless of the type of
simulation, that the computer, as a “giant brain”, has an amazing capability
to handle logically, multifarious problems with an alarming accuracy that
cannot be parallelled by human efficiency, speed, and accuracy. Thus in
dealing with complex learning involving thinking or decision-making,

computers can be applied to simulate the decision-maker's internal cognitive

mechanism. The inference is that if computer simulation programs can be

 

2'Twelker's distinction of categorizing simulations as either those
that are “machine-ascendant” or “media-ascendant” is a useful one.
Basically, there is no disagreement between the approach used here and
that of Twelker. The main distinction is that this study has referred
to both machine-ascendant simulation and media-ascendant simulation as
mechanistic.

22The term ”simulator as used in the literature does not necessarily
always assume ”the form of hard equipment”. A simulator can be a partial
or a total representation of a model. When a simulator represents only
a small part of a total set of activities of real life, it is a partial
simulator. Gagne defines a simulator as “a single set of equipment which
can by itself represent a large portion of the system” being modelled.

Gagne, op. cit., pp. 223-224.

34

designed to mirror the process of human thought, the same device can be
used to teach man how to learn to think.
1. Eggpitive Process Simulation

(a) Theoretical Principles Affecting Design: The major problem that
faces the designer of computer simulations for cognitive processes is the
specificity of the model, its characteristics, and the choice of appropri-
ate medium for simulating the model. In this respect, the cognitive
process of the model may be sppcial, or general.23 Once the model has
been defined and delimited, computer simulation can be made to ”behave”
like the people it has modelled within the limits of the stated variables
regarding the behavior of the model programmed. Thus, a computer simulation
may connote the typical specified behavioral repertoire of a model (say a
doctor carrying out a diagnosis) up to the degree of the model's behavioral
protocols abstracted and represented in the simulation. In this sense,
the simulation reproduces that real-life model. The abstracted elements
can be manipulated and new programs about the model's behavior can be
constructed for prediction. In every case, computer simulation program
is expressed in either ordinary natural language, or in conventional

24

mathematics or in specified computer language.

 

23Examples and designs of simulations of eneral and spgcial models
are described in Feigenbaum and Feldman (eds.l, Computers and Thought,
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963), pp. 269-325. A model is said
to be general when the abstracted elements are common to all objects or
phenomena having the same name.lt is specialized when the elements of the
abstracted characteristics are limited to a specified system or class.

lbldo, PP. 27h'275.

2“The construction of computer simulation programs is greatly facili-
tated by the use of computer language. One of the most powerful develop-
ments in this area is the algebraic language such as the FORTRAN and the
various dialects of ALGOL. Feigenbaum and Feldman describe a second class
of computer languages-~IPL, FLPL, LIST, and COMIT, which are ”list proces-
sing languages commonly used in simulation of cognitive processes”. Ibid.,
pp. 271-272.

35

(b) Theoretical Pringiples Affecting Instructional Application: As
far as instruction goes, computer simulation has great implications for
learning. The immediate feedback that is an important structural feature
of the computer simulation has an enormous resemblance to the familiar
learning paradigm. Computer problems are solved through explicit logical
gggp§_(choice, categorization, and computation), which are printed and
can be learned and verified by the student. The feedback which the
computer gives after the data has been processed is automatic and can be
assessed in terms of expected outcome. Because of the reliability of the
results, generalhrexpressed in binary form, the contingencies observed,
once verified, can be generalized for identical situations in the future.

In addition, computer simulation programs can be made flexible.
Programs can be sequenced as desired. Sequence is an important feature
of instruction because it relates to the structure of the learning task,
the amount of time available for learning, the learning conditions, the
order of presentation, and the student who is to benefit from the
instruction.25 Also, because feedback in computer simulation is automatic,
the contingencies of reinforcement26 is immediate and knowledge of results
is communicated to the learner at once. Additionally, since the machine
does not threaten the learner, particularly when reinforcement is negative,

the learner does learn more comfortably because the venon of the admonition

 

25Leslie .L.Briggs, Seqpencipgyof Instruction in Relation to Hier-
archies of Competence, (Pittsburgh, American Institutes for Research,

I 93?).

268. F} Skinner, ‘The Technology of Teaching, (New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1968), pp. 4 5 8.

36

of the real-life model does not prevail. Thus, in general, it may be said
that computer simulations allow students to solve their learning problems
in a non-threatening condition and without allowing them to experience
the agony of failure of real-life.

(c) Some Examples of Computer Simulation of Cognitive Processes
There are many examples of simulations in the literature concerned with
the rationale discussed above. Some of these are designed for instruction,
some for development, and some for research. Depending on the designer's
objective, a computer simulation can do all three. When designed for
instruction, however, the computer simulation can be applied to a wide
range of subjects. Some of the well-known computer simulations of cogni-
tive processes are those of Newell and Simon, Clarkson, Feldman, Hovland
and Feignbaum, which deal purely with cognitive and verbal learning.27
These popular models are known as the General Problem Solver (GPS). There
is also the sophisticated problem-solving program, The Elementary Perceiver
and Memorizer (EPAM), based on a pair-associates presentation for simulating
hunan thinking processes.28 The .EPAM model can "sound” in the "mind's ear"
what it ”sees” in the ”mind's eyes”.29 The GPS has been used for teaching
symbolic logic through a simulation program which uses the digital computer.
Simulation models have also been designed at the IBM Research Center in

New York by Gelernter and Rochester to solve geometrical problems and

 

27Feiger'baume Feldman, op. cit., pp. 265-325-
28lbid., pp. 297-309.

29Ibid., p. 309.

37

theorems.3o A program called SAINT, an acronym for ”Symbolic Automatic
Integrator”, has been deveIOped for solving symbolic integration problems
in Freshman Calculus.31

2. Computerized Games for Decision-making

 

(a) Theoretical Principles Affecting Design: Computer simulation

 

may be designed to simulate the environment and decision-making process.
Figure 2 represents a flow-chart which illustrates the theoretical design
procedure of this type of complex computer simulation. Usually, the
simulation designer begins with some presumptions about a system which
may be anything ranging from a marketing system to an international
relation. His perception of this system depends a great deal upon his
knowledge of the system. Assumptions are made about the environment.
These include assumptions about the value of the relevant internal and
external factors that affect the system state and functions. Similar
assumptions are made about an idealized decision-maker's cognitive
processes. These are combined to represent the parameters of the simulation.
The relevancy and/or irrelevancy of elements abstracted will represent the

degree of simulation.32 These variables are then sequenced and programmed

 

3oGelernter gives a concise description of this model in an article
entitled ”Realization of a Geometry-Theorem Proving Machine”. Ibid.,

pp. 134-152.

3'James R. Slagle, ”A Heuristic Program that Solves Symbolic Integra-
tion Problems in Freshman Calculus”. Ibid., pp. 191-203.

320esigning a game continually involves compromises, deciding what to
include and what to leave out. ”A game is a model of some segment of
reality and a model implies abstraction: the inclusion of relevant items
and the omission of irrelevant details“. Joel M. Kibbe, C.'J. Craft,
and Burt Nanus. Management Games. (New York: Reinhold Publishing
Corporation, 1961), pp. 94-95.

ITI~

"e.
.i'IP

l'
I"

ACTOR

Operationalize system
components and their
propert tel

Relevant Endogeneous
and Exoganeous variables
as Inputs: (values and
lnterrelatlonships)

   

The Pres mt ions
Real Lifet— “m“
Model The System
FEEDBACK

  
      

 

Actor's Real-l ife
Perception

INPUT

Ex Ies of S stem/Model:
Business (marketing)
School (Administratlon
Politics (International)

Urban Planning (Land Use)

 

Ismrphlc representation
of real-ll fe

 

 

 

 

 

Environment Assunptions DeciSion-
Mlniature Simulation Artificial
‘ - 1 Parameters Dec is ion-
Maker

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global Interrelationships:

physlcal - soc cial Interactions -
l

(t line to lescoped

(Selection of strategy and
pay off situation)

Heteralnrphlc variables as
inputs rzpresenting player' 5
decision

(Player's action)

Degree of Simulation

V

 

 

 

 

OUTPUT
Reproduction
Duplication
Representatlon
ofR Real- llfe
Perception

GM! '5 CONSEQLINCE

A CODI’UTER

Gained Interactions
(Computer Program
Sequence)

 

 

Computer Simulation

 

Computer
SI lmulation
Model

 

 

 

 

 

("9m

 

_F_EEDBACK

Depends on actor' 5
knowledge of the
system and functions

Inputs: Psychological
cognitive processes
of: particular gen-
eral or specific model

Isomorphic representation
of real-l ife

Sequenced and manipulated
by program or player/s
for learning purposes

 

SIMULATION ENE DESIGN PROCEDURE
1)

 

Choose
Act Ion required
Cate- during play--
gorize choose, categorize,
or compute
Compute
._ - _ ....__-_‘.E5.3£.CE.

o.——..--—--e-—-

XDVBO 333

38

39

to game a situation, while the programmer or actor determines the strategy
and at the same time makes some predictions about the consequences of the
interactions of the variables fed into the computer.

These multifarious variables are processed by the computer. The
process involves some action arising in the choice, categorization, and
computation of the variables as may be deemed fit by the computer. The
output from the computer represents the game interactions and is taken
to be the reproduction or duplication of the real-life gamed.

If the computer simulation model (the output) differs from the real-
life as evidenced by the results of the program, there is a need to modify
the computer simulation model. This will involve shifting the bases of
the presumptions and assumptions about the internal and external factors
and their variables as well as those about the decision-maker.

Ray and Duke point out that computer simulation designed to model
decision-making process need to involve gaming.33 They argue that this
is so because when computer simulation involves gaming, it has an advantage
of portraying real-life because, not only does it interface two strategies--
simulation of the relevant environment and simulation of the internal
cognitive mechanism of the decision-maker--but because it also shows that
the variables fed into the computer reflect gamed interactions. Thus, the
computer simulation game consequently becomes the nexus of two models--man
and the abstracted elements of real world brought together. This gaming
process leads to an involvement and psychologically imposes upon the

players a subtle "appearance of realism” described by Kibbee and his

 

33Paul H. Ray and Richard 0. Duke, . "The Environment of Decision-Making
in Urban Gaming Simulations,” in William D. Coplin (ed.), Simulation in the
Study of Politics, (Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1968), pp. 153-157.

 

tIo

associates as ”verisimilitude”.3“ This is an important concept because
this ”illusion of reality can sometimes be more convincing than reality
itself”.35

(b) Theoretical Principles Affecting Instructional Application: A
typical simulation game used for instruction ideally would'have three
major parts: (I) the briefing, (2) the play, and (3) the debriefing.

Briefing: The purpose of briefing is to put the educational objec-
tives of the simulation game into proper perspective. The quality of
briefing generally determines the success of the game in attaining the
stated objectives. Typically, a part of the briefing session in management
games will involve a description of the organization, a description of the
economic environment, the nature of the products to be produced, scope of
authority of players, decisions to be made, information pertinent to the
organization, and the mechanics of the play. Another part of briefing
deals with the purpose of the simulation exercises and how it relates to
the entire educational program for which the game is designed. In addition,
the briefing period lays down the rules of the game and spells out the game
strategy and how the objectives set can be attained.

The Play: The simulation game requires players. Usually these
players organize themselves into groups with a common objective or goal.
This provides a forum for the interactions in the game for the purposes
of competition or cooperation that may be built into the game. Once the
rules of the game have been espoused and learned by the players, they are

ready to begin practice. Usually the play emphasizes the time dimension

 

 

3l'IKibbee, Craft, and Nanus, op. cit., p. 12.

351bid., p. 100.

tII/

a.

which is made to anaIOgize the ”real time” in llreal-life”. Thus the
playing time in simulation game is “simulated time”, an approximation of
time which is a compressed period designed to telescope real time. One

run or a period of play may thus represent a week, a month, a quarter, or

a year, according to the design of the game. The play offers opportunities
for practice of the learned rules, and requires, for the purpose of making
moves, insights and judgement based on previous knowledge of the process

of interactions among the players. Feedback is spontaneously received

for actions taken, and players are able to feel the consequences of their

 

decisions as their actions affect the strategies of other participants in
the game. Learning in simulation, therefore, is largely self-discovery.
The play time offers great opportunities to safely put theory into practice
to test the validity of assumptions, hypothesis, and transfer (learning
integration).

The Debriefing: A typical ”good” computer simulation game has a

 

debriefing or critique session. This post-game session is a very important
feature of a simulation game because it affords an opportunity for students
to evaluate their performances. Twelker describes this as an evaluation
period which affords an opportunity for ”cross-fertilization of ideas”.36
The debriefing period has many advantages. It serves a corrective
purpose because it puts the programmed relations of the game into proper
perspectives. The fact that the simulation is ”an appearance of reality”

and not reality can be re-emphasized during the debriefing so as to caution

 

36Twelker, ”Simulation: Status of the Field”, Paper presented at the
Conference of the Commission of Educational Media of the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association,
October, 1968. (mimeo)

what might otherwise result in a bigoted internalization of game experiences.
Also, the instructor's comments on other strategies that could have been
used, can enrich student's learning. This session presents an appropriate
and valuable learning opportunity which combines the experience of the
teacher (as an experienced administrator) and the experiences of the
students who are the neophytes in business decision-making skill. Some-
times, the advantage can be mutually beneficial because students may often
come up with ideas that do not occur to the teacher who is the umpire in
the simulation exercise.

The debriefing brings a new dimension into learning through game and
it is an essential feature of simulation games.

(c) Some Examples of Decision-making Games: In civilian education,

 

it was the American Management Association which in 195637 first adapted
the Neumann-Morgenstern Game Theory38 to the design of the ”Top Management
Decision Simulation Games”.39 This led to greater popularity and wider
interests in other disciplines--political science, psychology, sociology,

urban planning and economics.40

 

37Richard IL Duke, Gaming Simulation in Urban Research, (East Lansing,
Michigan: Institute for Community Development and Services, CES, MSU,
1964), p. 10.

38John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic
Behavior, (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1947).

39For an excellent review of these games and others used in military
operation and business management and an evaluation of their strengths
and weaknesses, see Kalman J. Cohen and Erick Rheuman, ”The Role of Manage-
ment Games in Education and Research”, Management Science, Vol. VII, (1961),
pp. 131-166. See also Elizabeth Iiartin (ed.). Top_Management Decision
Simulation. (New York: American Management Association, 1957).

 

 

HOGuetzkow has put up a volume which presents an excellent coverage of
application of simulation in social science. This volume presents articles
on application of simulation in psychology, sociology, political science,
economics and business, education, industrial engineering, and military
operations. See: 11. Guetzkow, Simulation in Social Science: Reading_.
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962).

43

Guetzkow has described the methodOIOgy of simulation model in inter-
national relations. He develops simulations for international relations
for instruction, development and research. His simulations have been used
at Northwestern University for graduate and undergraduate courses. It has
been reported that the results are satisfactory.“' Cherryholmes and
Guetzkow have also produced a simulation in international relations which
has the high school as its target audience, although the simulation can
be used at any level of education."2

In the field of urban planning, Duke has produced the Metropolis
Simulation (M.E.T.R.O.) which is an excellent example of simulation gaming
in urban affairs.‘+3 M.E.T.R.O. has been used at Michigan State University
and the University of Michigan. At MSU it has been used to supplement
requirements in graduate courses in Urban Planning and Urban SociOIOQy."'LI
This simulation program has attracted also professional urban planners,
politicians and laymen.

Cohen and others give the descriptions of the design and application

of the Carnegie Tech Management Games used in management education."'5

 

GHIII. Guetzkow, Simulation in International Relations: Development
for Research and Teaching. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1963), pp. 24-37. See also Coplin, op. cit., pp. 2—27.

'iZCIeo ,H . Cherryholmes,and Harold Guetzkow. Inter-Nation Simulation
Kit. (Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1966).

H3Duke describes the design and purposes of this simulation in his
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1964, and in a
monOgraph, Gaming Simulation in Urban Research, op. cit., pp. 13-42.

“HDiscussion with Richard Anderson, Assistant Professor, Department
of Urban Planning, Michigan State University.

ll5K.'J._Cohen, et al. In Harold Guetzkow (ed.), Simulation in Social
Science: Readings, 9p, cit., pp. 104-123.

Ll"

Balderston and HOanrt discuss the problem of models in business administra-
tion simulations and describe an approach they adopted for constructing a
simulation model for the United States West Coast Lumber Trade."6 Kibbee,
Craft, and Nanus give a comprehensive review of gaming as applied to the
business world. The issues they discuss are useful for simulation game
designs generally. These include theory and practice of simulation games,
the administration of simulation games, and game design. A part of this
work is also devoted to case studies of selected business games used in

business education training programs in colleges and industry.H7

3. Operational Game Simulation

(a) Theoretical Principles Affecting Design: A third type of
computer-based simulation is referred to as the operational game simulation.
Twelker describes this type of simulation as a simulator representing a
“sophistication of man-machine adaptive and responsive environment”."8
This type of design is ”purely mechanistic simulation“49 which calls for
a computer-controlled programmed operation that integrates a number of

parameters analogous to real-life.50 The designer of this kind of simulation

 

l'6A, c, Hoggart and F. E. Balderston. Symposium on Simulation Models
and Applications to the Behavioral Sciences. (Cincinnati: South-Western
Publishing Co., 1963), pp. 182-191.

 

H7Kibbee,Craft, and Nanus, op. cit. Note pp. 315-336 which contain
”A Directory of Management Games“.

H8Twelker, op. cit.
l+9Kibbee, Craft and Nanus, op. cit., p. 255.

SOCushen defines Operational gaming as a ”model of reality....designed
to meet as exactly as required the characteristics of an actual situation".
”Operational Gaming in Industry”, in Operations Research for Management,
Vol. II, J. F. McCloskey. and J. M. Coppinger (eds.). (Baltimore: The
John Hopkins Press, 1956), pp. 361.

45

usually spends ample time in the field to gain a really adequate knowledge
of, and insight into, the operations to be modelled. In addition, he
studies the environmental conditions and abstracts, feasible aspects of

the environment, as may be relevant to the operations. It is important
that the abstracted elements be adequate to produce that empathy and
contextual response from the operators as would be expected in real life.
Thus, in studying the environment, valid response patterns that are associ-
ated with the operations must be abstracted and should be represented in
the design. Operational game simulations are often complex and difficult
to design.

The Simutech trainer, described by Kristy,5I is an example of this
kind of sophisticated design. Simutech trainer is used for training Air
Force electronic technicians. Operational gaming design has also been
applied to management education. Robinson describes an Operational simu-
lation game called ”ASCOT” (Analogue Simulation of Competitive Operational
Tactics) which is designed to simulate the operations of five service
stations.52 The simulation provides a game which illustrates the competi-
tive interactions of the service stations in selected service station
operations. The design includes a set of instructions for the participants,
numerous photographs of the equipment and facilities of the service
stations, as well as rules for the game. Most of these details are
computer-controlled.

(b) Theoretical Principles Affecting Instructional Application: A

 

5' Norton F. Kristy, "The Simutech Trainer for Technical and Vocational
Training”. In Werner Z. Hirsch, et al., Inventing Education for the Future.
(San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1967), pp. 1T4-122.

52"ASCOT" is fully described in Kibbee, Craft and Nanus, op. cit.,
pp. 259-273.

46

brief description of the features of Simutech is pertinent because this
device provides tutorial teaching realistically as though it were on-the-
job. The simulator has the following features:
(1) A component of video-instruction on the basics of electronics.
(2) A component consisting of the clarification of instruction and
reinforcement from the computer-controlled programmed instruction
console.
(3) A practice unit providing performance learning by means of the
simulated hardware.
(4) A component providing remedial help when the student needs it,
or when the computer deems it necessary.
(5) An evaluation segment where the student can be quizzed on his
progress. I
The program is highly flexible and can be sequenced to suit the
individual's pace. The instructor can monitor it to receive information
about his student's progress and/or learning difficulties at any time.
4. Issues and Problems in Computer Simulation for Learning
Balogh and Purdman point out, computer assisted instruction is no
panacea for all ills that afflict the learning process.53 There are still
several types of subject matter areas to which the computer simulation is
unsuited according to our present knowledge of the technique.
Feigenbaum and Feldman believe that there are at least two major

unsolved problems in simulation of cognitive processes.5"l The firstthey

 

53R.' L. Balogh and .D. L. Purdman, Computer Assisted Instruction:
Feasibility Study. (Texas: Philco-Ford Corporation, NASA Contractor
Report 917, 1968), pp. 2-2 5 2-3.

 

SHFeigenbaum and Feldman, op. cit., pp. 275-276-

47

call ”the substantive problem” dealing with the areas of human cognitive
knowledge about which very little is known. Obviously, if the knowledge
of a system is limited, the simulation model will be a poor representation
of the real-life being simulated. The second problem relates to the
”procedural or methodological problem” which reflects three sets of
problems within it, namely: (1) the problem of testing models and esti-
mating reality parameters, (2) the problem of experimentation, and (3)
the problems of program organization and representation.55

Indeed, the fidelity of simulation has been a perennial problem in
simulation designs.56 Very often the characteristics of the model being
simulated is oversimplified in order to accommodate the quantification of
the data that are fed into the computer. This sometimes leads to unfortun-
ate compromises which affect the fidelity of the model in some essential
respects. Some computer simulations, instead of being oversimplified,
are complex and unmanageable. There are diversities in the author's

languages, some of which may be ambiguous if not explained.57

 

55Ibid.

56For a good review of research studies on fidelity of simulation see
Jack A. AdanIin Guetzkow, (ed.), op. cit., pp. 37-38. Adams concluded
that ''high fidelity simulation is not necessary for transfer”. Kersh has
also reached a more positive conclusion: ”Although it is an inherent
requirement that simulation be realistic, all stimulus properties of real
situation may not be relevant and need not be represented”. Bert Y. Kersh

Classroom Simulation: A New Dimension in Teacher Education. (Monmouth:
Teaching Research Division, Oregon State System of Higher Education, June,
1963, U.S. Office of Education, NDEA Title VII, Project No. 886), p. 8.

57Balogh and Purdum define ”author's languages” as ”special software
programs which enable the course author to enter curricular materials
into a central processing unit and program the sequence in which it will
be represented”. Balogh and Purdum, op. cit., p. 2-11.

-
"o

The critical issue in computer simulated instruction is not often
answered by the design. Computer simulation instruction, like any other
instruction, requires planning and preparation. Selections of subject
materials, sequencing, validation and evaluation are often neglected in
some designs. Also, the procedures for using instructional computer
simulation ought to accompany the simulation exercises as an essential
handbook for the users. Along this line, there is the need to specify
in the instructional plan the terminal behavior that the instruction
will develop.

It would appear, however, that the limitation of computer simulation
for learning will not be limited by the capacity of the computer to faith-
fully reproduce some aspects of reality, but will be limited by man's
inability to abstract the relevant elements of the real world that the
computer is required to simulate. Where man's knowledge of his real world
is limited, computers can hardly do anything. The fidelity of computer
simulation depends very much upon the fidelity of the data fed into it.
Information fed into the computer forms the basis of the data processed
and the decision made; colloquially it is said, “garbage in, garbage out.’'
Postley puts it appropriately: ”Failure to introduce good data into the
calculation can result in the more rapid reproduction of worthless results."58
But he also adds that ”quality in, quality out.”59

It is believed by systems engineers and educators that a good deal

of prospects abound in computer simulation of academic subjects.60 When

 

58John A. Postley, Computer and People (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., I957), p. lll.

59Ibid.
60Don D. Bushnell, The Automation of School Information Systems

(Washington, D.C.: Department of Audio:Visual Instruction of MEA, I964).
See particularly Part V, pp. 93-llO.

 

K5.

the potential is tapped, computers will be used for teaching subjects like
fine arts (music, drawing and art), mathematics, physics and economics.6l
B. Non-computer mechanistic simulation

1. Theoretical Principles Affecting Design

 

The application of media and machine devices, which have inherent
capacity to reproduce the isomorphism of a specific aspect of real-life
or the iconic form of a model, has dominated the orientation of a number
of educational simulation designers. The design specification often
involves the use of machines, gadgets, and other man-made devices. Recent
technOIOgical breakthroughs culminating in the invention of media, like
the filmstrips, motion pictures, phonograph records, stereophonic record-
ings, magnetic tapes, tape recorders, ratio, TV, CCTV, video tape, and
other iconic models, have greatly influenced the trend toward the simula-
tion of instruction. It must be pointed out, however, that simulated
instruction does not necessarily apply unless the design embodies the
elements of the model and the medium selected is appropriate to represent
or reproduce the elements abstracted. The impact of media in providing
specified learning experience is a concurrent requirement. This is
imperative because it is the basis of evaluation of the effectiveness
of learning that takes place. For example, if a video-tape were to be
used to model the behavioral repertoires of a skillful cash register
operator, all the relevant features of the model's behavior, essential
for effective performance on the cash register, must be reproduced on

the video-tape simulation if it is to become an effective simulation media.

 

6lEducation, U.S.A.: A Special Weekly Report on Educational Affairs,
November 27, 1967, p. 78.

m

2. Theoretical Principles Affecting Instructional Application

Like the computer simulation, non-computer mechanistic simulation,
when used for instruction, has essential structural features that are
instrumental to effective learning. These are stimulus perception,
response, vicarious experience, involvement, feedback and transfer of
learning which the use of the devices produces in instructional setting.
Media-ascendant simulations, as Twelker describes them, have much common-
ality with the psychological school theory because the use of simulation
for instruction is essentially rooted in psychOIOgical learning theory.62

The selection of an appropriate media for simulation design requires
a thorough understanding of the capacity of media to simulate what. Bruner
has classified the various instructional media into three categories,
which it is argued here should provide guidelines for the utilization of
media for simulation. Bruner's three categories are audio-visual instruc-
63

tional materials that can: (1) model, (2) dramatize, and (3) automatize.

He describes model devices as the whole range of ”aids from the laboratory

64

 

exercise through the mathematical blocks to prOgrammed sequence.” The
dramatizing devices are such instructional aids as films and other devices
that can recreate a phenomenon or an idea. Machines which respond immedi-

ately, like the teaching machines, will represent the automatizing instruc-

tional aids. Bruner argues that: ”What one teaches and how one teaches

 

2Twelker, 9p. pip.

63J. S. Bruner, The Process pf_Education (New York: Vintage Books,

1960), pp. 82-84.

“new” p. 83.

it with the aid of such devices depends upon the skill and wisdom that

65

goes into the construction of a program of problem. Therefore, when
any of these devices are used in designing simulations, adequate care
needs to be taken in the choice of a medium.
3. Some Exgmples of Non-computer Mechanistic Simulation
It is an understatement to say that all simulations use one form of
media or another. Simulations in their own right are media. Nevertheless,
simulations differ in the extent to which the media used actually simulate
the model. The guiding rule is: the media should fit the objectives of
the simulation, and not the objectives, the media.66
Kersh designed a simulation for teacher education based on the media-
ascendant simulation theory. In simulating classroom management problems,
Kersh uses motion picture films and printed materials. His design includes
an orientation to the simulation facility and to the procedure. The instruc-
tional sequence in the simulation is composed of filmed problem seguences
of actual classroom situations to which the student-teacher is supposed to
enact a response. Feedback is provided through the same device. The
unique thing about Kersh's design is the building into the simulation
design a pre-test and a post-test sequence. This feature makes possible
the evaluation of learning that has taken place within the simulation

67

program.

 

65lbld., p. 83.

66D. K. Stewart, ”A Learning-Systems Concept as Applied to Courses
in Education and Training." In R. V. Wiman and W. C. Meierhenry (eds.),
Educational Media: Theory into Practice (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E.
Merrill Publishing Company, I969), p. 160.

67Bert Y. Kersh, op. cit.

52

Another example of non-computer base media-ascendant simulation is
the Michigan State University Professional Decision Simulation (PDS-I).
The PDS-I is based on a theory that combines visual and audio devices for
the purposes of bringing realism into learning that involves the develop-
ment of teacher competence in responding promptly to classroom problems
as they arise in the classroom. Like the Kersh model, the MSU model has
a feedback sequence. Its distinctive feature is the creation of what
has been described as three essentials of simulation, namely: situation,
action, and consequences.68

The overriding point about man-machine simulation is not the gadgetry
but the effectiveness of the machine in contributing to the learning pro-
cess. Quality is important in mechanistic simulation, and this can be
controlled by isolating irrelevant elements from what is being prOgrammed
into the machine. In determining the most effective approach, the objectives
of the simulation should guide the designer in what and how the machine can
be used to simulate abstracted elements of real-life. The purpose for
which one wishes to use a simulation plays a determinant role in pp§£_and
pg! of the simulation.

4. Factors Guiding the Choice of Mechanistic Devices for Simulation

It has been noted that the choice of mechanistic simulation device

is not an easy one. This review, however, has highlighted at least four

factors that should govern the choice of mechanistic device for simulation:

 

68Professional Decision Simulator, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, 1965. (Pamphlet). Dr. Ted Ward, Director of Human
Learning Research Institute, explained the theoretical basis of the
design to the researcher and other students in a graduate seminar on
Educational Simulation (ED 982) at Michigan State University in Winter,
1969. —

 

\D
'JJ

1. The characteristic of the model which is to be simulated; the
operationalization of the elements that characterize the model,
and the specificity of the variables to be reproduced or
duplicated.

2. The characteristics of the medium used for simulating the
abstracted elements of the model, and appropriateness and ease
with which the medium can represent, reproduce, or duplicate
these elements.

3. The resources of the model designer in terms of human and
materials support for the design work.

4. The knowledge possessed by the simulation designer about the
system which is being modelled. The designer must be able to
give satisfactory explanations of the phenomena that character-
ize the model.

C. Leading Theoretical Principles of the Mechanistic School

The features of the methodology of mechanistic school to simulation

can be summarized as follows:

1. The model to be simulated must be defined in specific phenomenal
terms.

2. Before the simulation is created, critical observation of the
real-life model must be focused on the environment, functions,
and operations of the model.

3. The model that is constructed must resemble in form and functions
the real-life model. There is a need to have adequate opportunity
to predict or evaluate the consequences of the variables simulated.

4. Feedback sequence is an important feature of mechanistic simula-
tion. It is a self-regulatory control for evaluating the achieve-

ment of stated objectives.

5. Transfer of training is another feature which is consequential
to feedback and leads to generalization about the contingencies
of feedbacks.

6. The employment of the mechanistic simulation for instruction is
relatively costly in some cases. The choice of an alternative
medium of simulation depends to a great extent upon the
characteristics of the model being simulated, and the appropriate-
ness and suitability of mechanistic devices to represent the
abstracted elements of real-life being simulated.69

7. Fidelity of simulation is only important when the ”reality
parameter” is a most important issue in the purpose of the
simulation and when the exclusion of an element may lead to
negative transfer.70

8. When the mechanistic simulation is used, detailed and clear
instruction on utilizing the simulation is needed by the user.
Three features of this type of guideline are essential: the
briefing, the play, and the debriefing. When used for instruction,
simulations must have these three features.

9. The simulation model designer must possess adequate knowledge
about the system and the phenomena that characterize it before

a defensible simulation can be designed. Satisfactory explanations

 

69Suitability for learning, and not gadgetry sophistication is the
primary rationale of mechanistic simulation. It is not a ”purely mecha-
nistic synthesis” that is the object of the design. Kibbee, op. cit.,
p. 256.

70$tudies have shown that fairly radical departures from physical
similarity still produce high degrees of transfer from a simulated to
an actual task. Gagne, op. cit., p. 232.

of all elements included in the simulation must be given and
their justifications based on their contribution to transfer
of training.

10. When used for instruction, mechanistic simulation presupposes,
on the part of the learner, a certain level of initial knowledge
or learning about the nature and relationships of the elements
which are built into the simulation.

A good deal of advantages can be derived from the mechanistic
simulation theory. Many of the principles explained above are meaningful
instructionally. Theinstructional process under this method too can be
made fairly straight-forward since the learning materials are all
“programmed“. Providing the elements which represent the inputs of the
simulation are reliable, mechanistic simulation can be valid. It has
been found out that most of the programs built into the mechanistic
simulations assume some initial learning on the part of the learner
either about the nature of the elements or about their inter-relatiOnships.
So, in mechanistic simulation, attention is given to sequence of structure.
The programs can be manipulated according to the learner's capacity. The
assessment of learning in mechanistic simulation is not problematic since
it is facilitated by mechanical devices which serve not only as reinforcers
but as motivators to the learner. The learner who uses mechanistic
simulation is motivated through spontaneous knowledge of results provided
by the feedback sequence of the device. Correct reSponses are reinforced.
At the same time, diagnosis of learning difficulties is easier as learning
errors can be spontaneously located and corrected either by the teacher or

the learner himself.

56

III. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SCHOOL

Anyone interested in educational simulation cannot escape the
implications of psychological learning theories. Either on the basis of
design or on the basis of instructional application, every educational
simulation embodies certain psychological learning theories such as the
law of contiguity, the law of effect, the law of exercise, and several
other laws that have proved empirically relevant to human learning.71
However, there is no empirical evidence in the literature to support the
significance of these laws specifically for simulation, but the implica-
tion which they have for stimulating and facilitating learning are too
obvious to be denied. In this section, the ramifications of psychological
principles for design and instructional application of educational
simulation will be evaluated.

A. Framework of Ppychological Rationale of Educational Simulation

Three important points are considered to be the pivot of simulations
based on psychological rationale. These are: (1) a theory of learning
for the design, (2) simulation representation, and (3) adequacy of
representation.
1. A Theory ofypgarning for the Design.

The design of educational simulation may be based on any specified

 

7'Greenlaw, Herron and Rawdon discuss the implications of some of
these laws on business games. P. S. Greenlaw, L. W. Herron, and R. H.
Rawdon, Business Simulation in Industrial and University Education,
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962), pp. 32-67.

psychological learning theory.72 This point can be illustrated with at
least two examples. Firstly, a design may be based on the principles of
the S-R theory. In this case, the selection of the inputs into the
simulation design will be based on representation of those elements which
are relevant stimuli that can produce the responses which are relatably
relevant to specified operational situations in real-life. The whole
design thus becomes a representation which generates responses that are
contextually relevant to the specified situations. Secondly, a design
may be based on cognitive theory. In this case, COgnitive principles
that relate to perceptual or mental organization as well as cognitive
activities, will govern the representation adopted for the simulation
model. The manner in which the cognitive structure is represented provides
the concrete prop which elicits the relevant responses in terms of
specified operational situations.
2. Simulation Representation

All simulation designs are represented by some devices. These may be
animated or synthetic materials. Two major issues of psychological
importance are worthy of note in simulation representation: (1) the
medium of representation, and (2) the objective of representation. A
model can be represented in three ways: (a) enactive representation in
which the medium is action-oriented; (b) iconic representation in which
the imagery or the picture becomes the stimulus; and (c) symbolic

representation in which words and other forms of languages become the

 

72Auto-instructional simulation devices are based on ”operant condition-
ing” theory developed by Skinner and others. Symbolic stimuli simulation
devices are based on the S-R theory developed by Gagne and other behavior-
ists. Theoretically, all simulations can be classified under one learning
theory or the other.

58

dominant media of communicating with the Iearner.73 Enactive representation
often connotes action, i.e., representation by doing. Iconic representation
presents the image or picture of what the situation is. Symbolic represen-
tation focuses on symbolization through any form of language which can be
overtly or coverly understood to represent the situation. In considering
the objective of representation, it is important that the anticipated
response should occur as a result of the presentation of the stimulus.
However, it is recognized that whether this condition occurs or not depends
on a number of factors, one of which is reinforcement. For this reason,
it must be pointed out that a positive orientation to simulation is a
necessary precursor of simulated instruction.
3. Adequacy of Representation in Simulation

The adequacy of representation is the degree to which the medium of
representation guarantees the occurrence of the expected behavior. It is
an underlying assumption within the psychological school that unless the
representation is adequate the contiguity of results will not occur.
There are two dimensions of adequacy of representation: one is physical
and the other is mental. On the one hand, adequacy of representation is
a matter of representing essential elements which accurately replicate
the important characteristics of the real-life being simulated. This
may be referred to as physical fidelity. On the other hand, there is
the representation of aspects of the real-life which a self-critical
individual will judge adequate representation regardless of whether the

representation reflects any physical fidelity or similarity with the

 

73J. S. Bruner, et al. Studies in Cognitive Growth, (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), pp. 6-29.

59

real-life being simulated. This may be referred to as psychological
fidelity. Psychological fidelity is a function of individual differences,
cognitive maturity, sex, social and cultural background, intellectual
ability and psychological idiosyncracy. The representational meaning
which the stimulus acquires comes from the learner's point of view, and
may have its own peculiar behavioral effect.74 A critical study of the
methodology of designs shows that designers of educational simulations
are more apt to be concerned with physical fidelity of simulation than
they are concerned with the psychological fidelity. In fact, there is

no guideline on how to design for psychological fidelity for people of
varying ages, experience, and intellectual ability. Thus, there remains
a number of unanswered questions on simulation designs for all age groups
and it seems that we should turn to psychological principles for answers.
Some of the questions that relate to adequacy of simulation to which

answers should be sought include:75

1. Will there be differences in representations for adults and
children? What will be adequate representation for each group?

2. Will the differences in perceptual functions of adult and
children affect representation and ability to reconstruct a
model even with isolated details? What conditions of preception
will be necessary to meet each group?

3. Will differences in intellectual abilities justify differences

 

7“David P. Ausubel, The Psychology of Meaniggful Verbal Learning,
(New York: Grune and Stratton, Inc., 1963), pp. 35-36.

758runer provides the theoretical foundation upon which these questions
are raised. See Bruner, et al., Studies in Cognitive Growth, (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), pp. 1-85.

in representation: Should one simulation model be simplified
and the other complex?
Empirical findings in these directions are lacking at the moment on
educational simulation.

It can be said that the design of any educational simulation based
on psychological rationale can be viewed as the provision of instructional
media which provide enactive, iconic, and symbolic stimuli for realistic
learning. In this respect, the simulation design should incorporate:

(l) symbolic, enactive or iconic stimuli which give the learner a feeling
of ”realness” (psychological fidelity), and (2) enactive, iconic, and
symbolic stimuli (words, machines, visuals, models, artifacts in the
nature of physical representation), which aid the learner's memory and
monitor his responses so that there is a climate of realism of action,
performance, and consequences.

It is argued that the efficiency of educational simulations based on
psychological rationale can be judged on the generalizability of the
learnings that take place when the habits inculcated by the simulations
are transferred to new situations resembling the real-life types modelled.
It is a moot question that any design pp;_§p_should, on psychOIOgical
ground, fulfill any motivational function since creating motivation is
not the purpose of the design. If the design is good and the elements
of real-life on which it is constructed are valid, the use of the design
for instructional purposes should motivate the learner. An educational
simulation does not have as its purpose the fulfillment of aesthetic
satisfaction. Rather, the design is judged by what it teaches and not by

its imposing structure.

6|

B. Psychological Rationales for Simulation Design

Gagne and Twelker provide what seem to be the most logical and
consistent theoretical principles to support the design of educational
simulations on psychological rationales.76 Simulation as a learning
device can be regarded as any form of stimulus (machine, model, artifact,
visuals, word, etc.) designed to elicit from the learner responses that
are typical of real-life situations.

Gagne provides some useful guidelines for the design of simulations.
He suggests that specificity of purposes and functions are crucial to
good simulation designs. He points out: ”.. .the purposes of simulation
are of the utmost importance, not only in determining the ways in which
simulators are used, but also in establishing the criteria for their
design”.77 Gagne considers that a designer must first settle the question
of the purpose of the simulation. He identifies three purposes for which
a simulation may be designed, viz, training, assessment, and development,

all or some of which may be served by one design if preferred.78 The

 

76Gagne, op. cit., In R. Glaser, Training Research and Education, (New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), pp. 223-246; Twelker, op. cit.,
See also Instructional Simulation Newsletters, Vol. I, No. 3, November,
1968, and Vol. 2, No. 1, February, 1969, published at Monmouth by Teaching
Research, Oregon State System of Higher Education, Monmouth, Oregon.

77Gagne, op. cit., p. 227.

78The most obvious usefulness and implication of simulation for educa-
tion, argues Gagne, is for training purposes. He does not regard training
as merely being the development of psycho-motor skills but rather as
comprising of development involving: procedural skills, psychomotor skills,
identification skills, conceptual skills, team functions, or a combination
of any of the five. Ibid., p. 225.

62

designer must be explicit about his choice of purpose or purposes.79

Once the function of the simulation has been defined, the operational

 

situation which is to be represented must be specified. This will necessi-
tate defining the learning functions in specific pperational task terms,
i.e., in terms of general types of human performance they characterize--
operation, concept, identification, attitude, strategies, and the like.

In specifying the operational situation and task, the set of events
in which a man or men interact with the machines or with their environment
must again be considered.80 The designer has to identify the situation
stimuli that are pertinent to the relevant tasks to be included in the
simulation design. The situational stimuli need not be replica of real
life. Equivalent stimuli will suffice. It has been empirically proved
that a stimulus equivalence like a photograph or drawing produces high
degree of transfer from simulation to real task.81

Gagne recognizes that the question of what to omit is a vexing
problem to designers, but he grants that the omission of certain elements
of the operational situation may be justifiable when it is considered by
the designer that such inclusion will either be dangerous, or inimical
to the learner, or that such inclusion is non-feasible, expensive or

unprofitable. Most designers of educational simulation agree on this

 

79When used for training, the function of simulation may be any or
a combination of the six functions specified in foot-note 78 above.

80Gagne, op. cit., p. 230.
8lIbicI., p. 232.

63

point.82 It is generally agreed that there is no justification for loading
up a design with variables that are not originally considered as part of
the learning functions to be fulfilled by the simulation.

Twelker agrees with Gagne that it is futile to base a design upon an
exact physical duplication because this does not necessarily guarantee
maximum positive transfer of learning. A few empirical studies point to
the fact that the greatest element influencing transfer is psychological
fidelity.83 In supporting this notion, Twelker contends:

If there exists a ”credibility gap” between instruction and

the operational world, then the learner is at a disadvantage

when it comes to either performing in the gpal world, or

understandIng what the real world Is lIke.

Like Gagne, Twelker refers to the question of stimulus situation
representation. He developed the notion of contextual stimulus and
contextual response as being important in determining the relevancy of
the elements to be represented in the design. Perhaps the greatest
contribution of Twelker to the theory of the design of educational
simulation is the criteria which he developed for educationalsimulation.
He considers that an instructional simulation must embody a situation,

a stimulus, a resppnse, and a feedback sequence which interprets the
consequences of action that has taken place. put in a different way,

it may be said that every educational simulation design must answer the

following questions:

 

82Simulation designs developed by such proponents of simulation as
Guetzkow, Cherryholmes,'Duke, Feldman, Herron, Kersh, Gagne, Dill, Babbs
and Eisgruber, to mention just a few, evidently omitted some elements of
real-life. Limitation of designers knowledge about the whole system may
also account for the omission.

83Twelker, op. cit.

3"Ilbid.

I31}

1. Does the design employ appropriate symbolic stimulus for
representing the realistic situations simulated? Is the
stimulus contextually relevant?

2. Does the design specify the context of the stimulus and response?

3. Does the design provide situations demanding life-like responses
from the learner?

4. Does the design provide appropriate feedback sequence to the
learner in terms of the learning outcomes?

5. Does the design provide for evaluation and control of learning
that it offers? Can it be controlled or re-designed?

Other relevant questions may be asked about the design.

C. Psychological Rationales for Instructional Application of Simulation

 

An analysis of how people learn from simulation exercises, suggest Dill
and Doppelt, may provide some clues to improving the design and use of
simulation games.85 In general, those who are familiar with the application
of simulation games in the classroom know that a great deal of psychological
principles surround the pedagogical practice. There are research findings
now supporting the psychological implications arising from the use of
simulations in the classroom.86 Some of these implications are reviewed.

Most educational simulations provide practice for the learner. On a

psychOIOgical basis, the sequencing of learning under instructional

 

85William R. Dill and N. Doppelt, “Acquisition of Experience in a
Complex Management Game”. In Nicholas Fattu (ed.), Simulation Models for
Education. (Bloomington, Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1965), pp. 71-103.

 

86J. R. Jackson. ”Learning from Experience in Business Games“,
California Manggement Review, Winter 1959. J. L. McKenney, “An Evaluation
of a Decision Simulation as a Learning Environment”, Management Technology,
May, 1963. Babbs and Eisgruber, op. cit., Chapters IX-XII, pp. 125-158.
See also Dill and Doppelt, op. cit.

 

65

simulation must have regard for the student's level of knowledge and
relevance to the student's needs. This affects both the degree of interest
and motivation the student brings into the simulated instruction. Initially

acquired knowledge and the degree to which the simulation integrates newly

 

acquired knowledges will determine the performance of the student under
simulated learning environment. Learning provided by simulated instruction
needs to be meaningful to the learner and must, above all, be realistic.

A good simulation design provides both a briefing session and a
critique session. The critique session is an occasion when both the
individual and the group engaged in the learning activity can discover
more about their successes, failures, and inadequacies in preceeding
simulated exercises. The significance of simulated learning lies in the
opportunity for transfer of learning to other problem situations identical
to real-life.

0. Some Examples of Educational Simulation Based on Psychological

Rationales

For the reasons given at the beginning of this section, it appears
that either by design or accident any educational simulation will have
one or two types of affinity with psychological learning theories. But,
if Twelker's four criteria of educational simulation are applied in
evaluating educational simulation based on psychological theory, perhaps
most designs will fall short of the requirements for educational simulation.
If a more liberal psychological criterion were used, however, all educational
simulations will qualify either because of the principles underlying their
designs or because of their instructional application. Thus, it can be
generalized that if any educational simulation is a symbolic, iconic, or

concrete stimulus representation of real-life and if it is used for

instruction, it has embedded in it psychological learning theories.

E.

Leading Theoretical Principies of Ppychological School

In summary, the features of educational simulation based on

psychological learning theories can be briefly stated as follows:

I.

Symbolic, iconic, or enacted stimulus may be used for
eliciting responses typical of real-life.
The aspects of real-life modelled by the simulation are
specified and defined in operational task terms that describe
the nature of human performance and the interactions that
are involved.
Only relevant situational stimuli are represented.
The representation of the stimuli is equivalent.
Five criteria must be satisfied by the design:

(a) a stimulus situation

(b) a response situation

(c) a consequence situation representing the interaction

of the stimulus and response
(d) a feedback sequence, and

(e) a control and evaluation sequence.

It can be concluded therefore that the S-R theory is basic to all

simulation designs.

6.

Transfer of training is the main criterion for deciding what
to include in the simulation. If an element of an operation
will not be relevant to a stimulus situation that produces a
response that can be transferred to real-life, that stimulus
is contextually irrelevant.

Omission of dangerous, inimical, non-feasible, expensive, and

67

non-profitable elements of the situation is permissible. So
are the omissions of elements that are irrelevant to the purposes
of the simulation.
8. When used for instruction, simulation based on psychological
learning theories give adequate consideration to:
(a) the level of knowledge of the learner and his interest
(b) the sequencing of his learning experiences
(c) the provision of an orientation for the instructional
objectives
(d) the provision of adequate practice and feedback
(e) evaluation of learning outcomes in terms of real-life

standard or criterion.

IV. THE SOCIOLOGICAL SCHOOL

To a number of people the most plausible rationale for simulation
is a role theory. This Is so because educational simulation is perceived
as a planned strategy which enables the individual learner to mimic the
roles of real-life model through realistic practices which enables the
individual learner to ”act” and internalize the roles depicted by the
simulation regardless of the true personality of the learner. Therefore,
simulations are construed to have as their central feature the development
of specific roles and attitudes that replicate those of a real-life model.
Learning to act these roles are maintained by definite social constraints
or rules which condition the learner to play the roles and internalize
them. Thus, under instructional simulation, the individual learns to
perform the identified roles built into the simulation through practice

of a series of learning activities programmed to depict cooperative and/or

68

competitive interactions provided by the simulation. The transaction in
the simulation is regulated by some rules which are known to the players.

The role theory of simulation therefore hinges upon the premise that
the referent point for constructing a simulation should be the role for
which the individual is being groomed. Thus, it is argued that simulations
for instructional purposes, regardless of the field, should reflect the
roles which the learner will be required to perform in real-life, except
that the opportunity to perform is under instructional conditions.

A. Framework of Simulations Based on Sociological Rationales

Emy simulation based on a sociological rationale is characterized
by a depiction of phenomena that represent a microcosm of the social systemgg
The simulation represents a series of identifiable purposive components of
behavior repertoires. Man is the main "actor”. The main elements of social
simulation design have been discussed by Coleman87 and Garvey.88 The ”micro-
cosm of the social system'I has its own process of socializing the individual
and of molding him according to social standard through a process of reward
and punishment, sanction, reinforcement, and approval as in real-life.
Even though there may be no adequate explanation for all the theoretical
questions that may arise on social simulation games,89 it is proposed to
clarify certain basic points in the design of simulations relying on role

thew:

 

87J. S. Coleman, “Social Processes and Social Simulation Games” in
Boocock and Schild, op. cit., pp. 29-51.

880. L. Garvey, Simulation, Role-Playing and Social-Drama in Social
Studies, The Emporia State Research Studies, Vol. XVI, No. 2, December,
1967, see particularly.pp. 12-17.

89Coleman, loc. cit., p. 37.

69

1. Theoretical Principles Affecting Design

The design must show at least three major structures: (1) the act,
(2) the actor or actors, i.e., the roles which are being simulated, and
(3) the environment consisting of other people, groups, and things in
the organization. These three structures together constitute a systemic
unit with a common goal orientation or purpose. The components of each
of these and the problems involved in determining what is to be abstracted
will be discussed next.

Ihe Act and Actor: The act describes the situation ”played”. It

 

describes the nole type that is depicted by the simulation. The person
who performs the role is the actor. His action may involve active_partici-
pation that results in interactive relationships with others in the organi-
zation. It is often difficult to separate the act from the actor.

The determination of the elements of role to be included in the
simulation design is always a difficult task. It is practically impossible
for a simulation to contain all the sets of ”role behavior”90 of an
incumbent of a position. Therefore, some research focusing on a specific
model or system is necessary to ensure that valid role behavior sets are
used for the construction of a simulation. It must also be noted that
there are several forces in the society and the environment that may alter

roles. The incidence which technology may play in the role of a person

should be taken into consideration. In education, this becomes important,

because a simulation which derives from the estimation of roles of yesterday

 

90Gross, et al. define role behavior as ”an actual performance of an
incumbent of a position which can be referred to an expectation for an
incumbent of that position”. N. Gross, W. S. Mason and A. W. McEachern,
Explorations in Role Analysis, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

1965), p. 64.

70

may not be appropriate for training technicians and other personnel
needed for tomorrow.
2. Methods of Derivation of Roles

Several approaches have been used to determine the role behavior
sets that must be included in the simulation design. Some of these
are discussed.

(a) Theoretical Roles: Simulations of role behavior can be theoreti-
cally determined. Before the theoretically derived roles can be valid,
they have to be tested and proved to be generalizable. Political science
simulation roles derive from theoretical constructs.9' The specific
system to be modelled is operationalized, e.g. simulation of international
relationship, bargaining, or election.

(b) Critical Incidents: Some roles are derived from a ”critical

 

incidents analysis”.92 The elements derived are then thrown into the

simulation model. In this respect, the critical incident is considered
to be the criterion upon which the model is designed. Critical analysis
as the basis of derivation of referents for a simulation role model has

been used in the military operations and has a lot to recommend it.93

 

9'Garvey, op. cit., p. 11; Coleman, op. cit., p. 35; Waltz, ”Realities,
Assumptions, and Simulation“ in Coplin, op. cit., pp. 105-111.

92Flanagan pioneers the use of critical incident approach for developing
educational objectives. See J. C. Flanagan, "The Critical Requirements
Approach to Educational Objectives“, School and Society, Vol. 71, 1950,
pp. 321-324; also Flanagan, "The Critical Incident Technique”, Epychological
Bulletin, Vol. 51, 1954, pp. 327-358.

 

 

93Edwin A. Fleishman (.u.), Studies in Personnel and Industrial
Psychology, (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1967), pp. 84-85.

 

71

The American Orthopaedic Surgeons have also used the critical incident
approach.9ll

(c) Functional Approach: Role elements to be included in a simulation
design may be based on the functional requirements of the job position.

The use of functional scales developed for the Dictionaryyof chppational

 

11312395 may be the source of the elements abstracted for the design. The
Michigan State University Vocational Office Block Simulation is based on
this type of derivation.96

(d) Employers' Requirements: A check-list of employers'requirements
for specific positions in an organization may be the basis of the elements
of the role to be abstracted for a simulation design. Usually, this type
of check-list or requirements will also provide estimates of physical
demands, working conditions, and other types of approximations, required
for the job.

Other methods can be used for the derivation of role objectives of a
simulation, such as the competency approach, and the cluster-of-jobs
approach. Regardless of the method used, there are some problems that

plague designers of role simulation. First, the designer is faced with

 

94J. Michael Blum and Robert Fitzpatrick, Critical Performance Rpguire-
ments for Orthgpaedic Surgery - Part ii Method 1. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
American Institute for Research, 1963).

 

 

950.5. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Dictionary of
Occupational Titles,_yolume l - Definitions of Titles, and Volume II -
OccupatTonaT“CTassification and Indiptry Index, (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1965 (3rd edition).

 

 

 

96Personal knowledge as a Research Assistant at Michigan State Univer-
sity in the Research and Development Program in Vocational-Technical.
Education, and discussion with the Project Director, Dr. Peter G. HaInes.

72

the problem or the danger of concentrating on behavior or effects of
behavior.97 Second, the designer may face the problem of neglecting the
structure that molds the character and shapes the behavior. Sometimes
the situations give rise to behavior that may be ambiguous because of

the stimulus-messages they emit, in which case the designer is at a loss
of what to represent. Often the focus may be on the individual role
player when his response or action may have been determined or influenced
by a set of other persons in the organization or by the environment and
this may not be adequately represented by the design.98

Even though the problems discussed above are valid, the role theory
does not offer a solution to the problems. It seems we have to rely on
the psychological theory--the notion of contextual stimulus suggested by
Twelker--for an answer to the problems.

The Environment: The purpose of representing the environment in a
simulation is to ensure that an artificial environment reflects the
resemblance of the real-world and that the physical place of decision-
making is brought within the perception of the learner. The ecology of
the environment may provide the constraints and stimuli that play a vital
role in the behavioral response.

In social simulation, it is not essential that the physical place

be represented in all its entirety. In certain cases, when it is possible

 

97For example, a compulsive teacher-educator may consider the teacher's
ll'appropriate" classroom dress as an important element to be simulated
because it affects students learning rate or attention span in the class.
This may or may not be true significantly to make such a simulation
absolutely essential.

98Problems of this nature will fall into the affective domain and
may include such aspects as attitude, mood, and personality, diffIcult
to abstract from behavior.

73

to represent every aspect of the environment, it is always a very expensive
proposition. Garvey has suggested that often a verbal description of the
environment may be adequate in some respects.99 {Moore stipulates broader
but tighter requirements for simulating organizational environment.'00

He contends that an innumerable number of elements (eXOgeneous and endo-
geneous) form a total environment of which only a few are relevant in
specific cases. Only the sum total of all the variables that initiate
response-stimuli will constitute the relevant environment. IHe terms some
kinds of elements of the environment as ”substantive”. These are those
environmental factors that may affect operations (e.g. lighting). Time
is another aspect that is an element of the environment considered by
Moore. He argues that knowledge of the past often affects the actions of
the moment, or those of the future. Resources for acquiring information
is another factor. In decision-making situations, the facilities for
obtaining information or their lack must be taken into consideration. He
sums up by stating that above all,ithe major objective in simulation of
the environment is to develop an artificial environment that will be as
realistic as possible to elicit a real-life response.'0'i He finally
suggests that the way to test the degree of realism of environment is to
use real-life practitioners as players in the simulation. It should be

possible from their responses to determine whether there are errors of

omission or commission in the environmental simulation.

 

99Garvey, op. cit., p. 16.

100Charles G. Moore, ”Simulation of Organizational Decision-making:
A Survey”, in William D. Coplin, Simulation in the Study of Politics,
(Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1968), pp. 191-198.

‘°'Ibid., p. 195.

7].:

Whether maximum or optimal environmental simulation is what makes a
simulation effective has not been resolved. There is reason to believe,
however, that verisimilitude of the model is psychologically adequate and
is all that is essential.'02
3. Some Examples of “Role“ Simulations

Many simulations have been designed upon a rationale that relies on
the development of role competence through role simulation. Simulations

I .
of this nature have professional education and training overtones and
their major objective is the inculcation of identified performance
objectives-~skills, habits, concepts, attitudes--exhibited by individuals
occupying specific roles in real-life. The goal of such simulations, [:7L/e’
therefore, is to develop the skills, concepts, and insights needed for
the job.'03 These simulations consider not only the development of the
behavioral repertoires of the model, but they also consider the situational
settings in which sUch behavioral repertoires occur. This is important
because of the need to impart knowledge in circumstances that take COgnizance
of the environment that will facilitate transfer to future on-the-job
situations.

The gaming concept again features prominently as an important element
of sociological simulation but it is not necessarily the rule. There is a
need for the simulation to show gamed roles and social interaction to

illustrate the ways in which the roles, the rules, the relationships, the

reward and penalty structure of the simulated model truly operate. Barb

 

102This position is very much supported by the psychological and the
mechanistic schools, particularly by Gagne and Kibbee, respectively.

'03Note that often the learner or role-player in such a situation is
often not well-informed or experienced about the role he is called upon
to play.

75

and Eisgruber observe that the term game is deeply entrenched in social
science vocabulary. It connotes the concept of rules, strategies, and
maximization which help to orient the participants.'04

Unfortunately, the construction of a competitive strategy in social
studies is somewhat difficult because most of the social interactions
involve cooperation. For learning purposes, however, simulation games
need to be constructed such that they cbmbine the interactive relationships.

I
Designers have approached this problem in different ways, and tho examples
of role simulations are described below.

A. Role-Playing Simulation:

Garvey defines role-playing as the practice or experience of being
someone else.'05 It is a symbolic model designed to enable a person to
understand the situation of the model by casting the learner in the model's
situation and requiring him to solve some specified problems which the
model faces. Role-playing is an extension of the case method of teaching,
but it goes further than it, because it involves the dramatization of the
roles being depicted by the participant. Thus role-playing is not just
talking about a role, it is playing it out. The following features, when
present in the design, make role-playing an effective educational simulation:

1. when there is a model whose role can be simulated,

2. when the problems posed by the design are presented

in life-like settings,

3. when the participants roles in the role-play design actively

 

lollE..M. Babb and L. M. Eisgruber, Management Games for Teaching and
Research, (Chicago: Educational Methods, Inc., 1966), p. 16.

lOSGarvey, op. cit., p. B.

76

involve them emotionally in providing solutions to the
problems of the role-playing simulation,
4. when the role-playing provides an opportunity for the
development of interpersonal skills through practice that
offers occasions to test ideas and hypothesis about the
solutions to the problems, and
5. when feedback is continuous.
Liveright notes that certain shortcomings are inherent in roleé-playingfl06
Participants may resent it on the pretext that it is childish. Also because
the model of behavior to be role-played is not standardized, the player may
overdramatize and overact. This changes the objective of instruction from
being problem-solving to pure dramatization and entertainment. Some
participants prefer ”playing to the gallary” to solving the problems posed
by the simulation. Reinforcement is always a problem in role-playing.
Bass and Vaughan argue:
The players receive immediate feedback on the effects of their
behavior from each other and the trainee observer. The problem
arises when this feedback is in the form of approval, and the
approval is for ”acting” rather than for insight into the problem.'07
The importance of the instructor's “stage-setting” remarksl08 are crucial

in the application of role playing. Wikstrom suggests that in order to

attain the objectives, the instructor must constantly monitor the program,

 

'OPA. A. Liveright, ”Role-playing in Leadership Training”, Personnel
Journal, 1951, Vol. XIX, pp. 412-416.

1078. M. Bass and J. A. Vaughan, The Psycholggy of_Learning for Managers,
American Foundation for Management Research, Inc., 1965, pp. 86:87.

108W. A. Wikstrom, DevelopingyManagerial Competence: ChangingyConcepts,
Emerging Practices, (New York: National Industrial Conference Board, Inc.,

1964), p. 82.

77

and manipulate or control the role-playing course, otherwise it may be
difficult to attain the training objectives.'09

Cohen mentions an important limitation in effectiveness of role-
playing simulation. He refers to the concept of the ”knowledge gap”
which the student suffers from about the I'role types” of the real-life
counterpart. He doubts whether acting out necessarily implies internali-
zation of roles. He argues: ”Even if a player knows the role he is
playing...the probability that he will behave in a manner that is indicated
by the role is rather low"."0

The knowledge gap concept relates to the level of entry knowledge
which the role-player brings into the role-play and the degree of knowledge
required for effective performance of the role in real life. When students
do not have appropriate knowledge or experience about the role they have to
play, role-playing simulation has a drawback. This drawback can be off-set
if the design incorporates a coaching unit. On point of fact, a good role-
playing simulation can teach the roles and at the same time assess perfor-
mance. This makes assessment of transfer possible. Many role-playing
simulations now in use do not perform these two functions. They emphasize
human relations training mainly.

1. Theoretical Principles Affecting Role-Plgying Design

 

Maier, Solem, and Maier offer excellent suggestions in considering

 

'°9Ibid., p. 82.

l'OBernard C. Cohen, ”Politkal Gaming in the Classroom”, Journal of
Politics, Vol. XXIV, 1962, p. 376.

 

the construction of role-playing designs for instruction."' It is,

however, considered that any role-play which strictly will qualify as

a simulation should encompass the following features:

(a)

(b)

(C)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

The referents for the role-playing design must be demonstrated
and proven items that do represent conditions of a life situation.
The design should beja simple representation of the model, yet
clear and accurate with minimum amount of detail.

The role playing simulation design must typify a broad range

of problems requiring the application of integrated principles

and knowledges relevant to the problems simulated.

Problems illustrated by the design must have interest value and
the type of challenge which will produce conflict and varied
viewpoints among the participants. If it is otherwise, boredom
may set in as participants will not be involved emotionally.
Irrelevant and extraneous facts must be purged out of role-play
design as these will disrupt the progress and focus of discussion.
Feedback, objectively provided during and after the simulation
exercise, makes role-playing effective and controllable.

An evaluation of the role played is essential for developing the
proper perspective in generalizations which can be transferred

to problem-solving situations later. An evaluation control is
desirable, and this is effectively given by the teacher who

acts as the arbitrator.

 

lllN.

Executive
Wiley and

R. F. Maier, A. R. Solem, and A. A. Maier, Supervisory and
Development: A Manual for Role-Plgying. (New York: John
Sons, Inc., 1964), pp.T4-5.

 

79

2. Theoretical Principles Affecting Instructional Application of Role

Simulation

 

Maier, Solem and Maier suggest four important theoretical principles

for instructional application of role-playing.'12 These are discussed

briefly.
(a)

(b)

(C)

(d)

Focusing the Problem. This is an introductory section and a
general description of the problem illustrated in thezsimulation.
The educational objectives of the role-playing simulation must
be stated. It is helpful if the level of skill which the
participants are required to develop is specified.
Role-Playing Procedure. This represents the step by step
description of the role-playing scene. Questions relevant to
the problems as well as suggested method of analysis need to
be highlighted. It is absolutely essential that participants
familiarize themselves with the procedure.

Material Presentation. It is essential that all relevant
background information on the role-playing problem be given
beforehand to the participants. The roles to be played by
each individual should be clarified. At the same time,
specific instructiorito each participant about the situations
described in the role play must be given.

Comments and Implications. This aspect of the instructional
program is designed to serve as the “post mortem" analySis of

the roles played. However, the instructor must be prepared

 

'lzlbid., pp. 6-8.

to interrupt the procedure of the session particularly at a
time when the role-playing simulation is moving away from

the stated objectives. One of the major purposes served by
this session is to offer a critique of what has transpired
during the role-playing session. It should therefore be
focused towards the development of generalizations that can

be transferred to new situations rather than violent criticism
of the parts played by individuals in the role-play.

B. In-Basket Simulation:

 

Little has been written on the methodology of designing in-basket
simulation,"3 although there is in the literature, a fairly extensive
description of the technique as a training tool."4 The attempt by
Frederiksen, Saunders and Wand,"5 however, represent the first step
at grappling with the methodOIOgical problem in designing, administering

and evaluating in-basket simulation. Their pioneering work has influenced

 

"3Frederiksen, Saunders and Wand note: "In-basket testing presents
a novel approach to a measurement problem, and little recorded experience
was available to guide the development of the test and scoring procedure“.
N. Frederiksen, D. R. Saunders, and Barbara Wand, In-basket Tests,
Psychological Monographs, Vol. 71, No. 9, Whole No. 438, 1957, p. 22.

 

l”'Ibid. Also J. Hemphill, D. Griffiths, and N. Frederiksen,
Administrative Performance and Personality, (New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University, Bureau of Publications, 1962); N. Frederiksen, Factors
in In-basket Performance, Psychological Monographs, Vol. 76, No. 22, Whole
No. 541, 1962; University Council for Educational Administration, Simulation
in Administrative Training, (Columbus, Ohio, 1960), B. M. Bass and J. A.
Vaughan, Training in Industry; The Management of Learnipg, (Belmont,
California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1966), Charles Kepner and
Benjamin Tregoe, ”Developing Decision Makers”, Harvard Business Review,
September-October, 1960, and W. S. Wikstrom, Developing Managerial
Competence: Changing Concepps, Emerging Practices, (New York: National
Industrial Conference Board, Inc., 1964).

'lSFrederiksen, Saunders and Wand, loc. cit.

81

the trend towards the application of the device as a viable and profitable
educational tool which has a great promise for training evaluation,
116

personnel selection, placement, guidance, and for instructional purposes.

1. Framework of In-basket Simulation

 

In-basket items are collectively described as in-basket tests or
simulation because they represent the components of the work which
constitute the content of the daily work of an administrator's In-basket.
Thus, it is a prototype of an instruction used for training a student to
assume the role of the administrator whose role is simulated. It puts
the individual in a representative realistic situation which demands
that he acts the role of the administrator.

The materials for in-basket simulation consist of written items
covering aspects of the role of a personnel within an organization
setting. The simulation could represent one role or several roles. For
example, a business organization can represent in-basket items for the
General Manager, Business Manager, Advertising Manager, Controller, and
even an office boy. The materials are either fictionalized events about
the organization and its people or they may represent hypothetical models
of a real-life situation.

2. Purpose of In-basket Simulation

In-basket simulations are concerned with situational performance.
Therefore, it can be said that its major purpose is assessment of perfor-
mances that are characteristics of the holder of a position. However, in-
basket simulation can be used also for the assessment of instructional
effectiveness, specifically, how well the instructions given in the

classroom are meeting the curriculum objectives.

 

'16Ibid., pp. 1, 21-23.

82

In-basket simulation, when used for performance assessment, has been
applied for assessment of complex skills including: (1) ability to
organize discrete pieces of information, (2) ability to discover problems
implicit in a situation, (3) ability to anticipate events which may arise,
and (4) ability to offer solutions based on a number of considerations.“7

3. Features of In-basket Simulation Tests

 

In-basket simulations vary in their complexity of models. In general,
they represent a paper-and-pencil affair in which a typical rolb performer
finds himself in the day to day role of a real-life model. In an attempt
to represent a realistic model, in-basket simulations typically represent
items of varying complexity. Some items are easy and can be solved
outright or be ignored temporarily after a cursory glance. Some are
complex items difficult to solve and may require detailed study and
reflective and considerative processes. The urgency of some items, inspite
of their complexity, may also exert pressure on the decision maker and
therefore demand a top and immediate priority.

Frederiksen and associates have suggested that the best way to
structure in-basket items will be to clarify them by situations and
categorize them by functions."8 When classified by situations, the
problems are identified as to whether they characterize problems involving
interactive behavior. The former will involve inactive interaction, and

the latter interactive interactions. In categorizing the problems into

functions, any of the following may be taken into consideration:

 

"7Ibid., pp. 2-5.

113mm.

83

(l) routinized functions, (2) flexible function, requiring adaptability
and willingness to innovate, (3) foresight requiring resourceful
anticipation of developments, and (4) data evaluation requiring judgment
about what is pertinent and what is not.
4. Theoretical Principles Affecting Design of In-basket Tests

The important design features of in-basket simulation have not been
researched to warrant any generalization. PrOponents of in-basket
simulation recognize however, that the design of in-basket simulation
raises many problems among which can be mentioned the problems of modelling,
specifying objectives, devicing scorable tests for evaluation of performance
and many others."9 Also, attempts have been made to devise models which
can eliminate some of the complaints which examinees have, especially
when inadequate background information is given on in-basket problems.
Based on the works of pioneers in this field, the following is suggested
as the elements of the design of an in-basket simulation:

(a) Choose a model and clarify its purpose. Identify and specify
the roles of the incumbent. Examination of past records,
observations, interviews, and opinion survey about the scope
of the roles of model are useful sources of information about
the nature and characteristics of the model. Be specific on
the choice of model: state whether general or special. Provide
a verbal or iconic description of the model and its environment.

Be brief.

 

'19Frederiksen and his colleagues at the Educational Testing Service
have been concerned with development of a design which will have a
scoring device for assessment of performance. Ibid.

(b)

(C)

(d)

(e)

(f)

34

Develop some concept about basic situations in which the functions
are to be performed, and determine which functions require indi-
vidual behaviors primarily and which require interactive behaviors.
Focus on specific problems that relate to specific functions and
develop series of problems connected with specific situations
involving conflicts or complexities requiring solutions. Use
essays in constructing the problems stating what has arisen,

how, and what has been done or remains to be done. I
Experienced administrators who know about the roles may be asked
to describe or construct typical problems. Test for reliability
and validate. Arrange in-basket items in a manner that they

are scorable. Validate correct answers by asking several persons
who know about the system to say what they will do.

Any supporting documents representing a description of the
operational situation may be written or presented in some other
composite explanatory formats. This information must be available
to those taking the in-basket tests.

120

Provide a feedback sequence, and set a criterion for evaluation.

5. Theoretical Principies Affecting Instructional Application of In-basket

Tests

When used for instruction, a great deal of effort is made to give

in-basket simulation the highest realism possible. This requires elaborate

preparation about the physical arrangements of the decision-maker. In order

to give the participants a definitive air of realism, background materials

 

'onhis is a tenuous problem for both design and instruction.

relative to the in-basket items must be given. The particulars provided
may include a written, recorded, or verbal description of the organization,
artifacts, charts, and models which are pertinent to the in-basket items
either directly or indirectly. These particulars orient the participants
to the problems of the simulation. In addition, the participant is placed
in a ”simulated situation“ which represents his own “office” which is the
replica of the real-life model's.
In-basket simulation used instructionally provides the participant
an opportunity to play actively the role being modelled. However, the
approach as now designed by some proponents, does not include all relatively
important features which may increase realism. Interactive relationships
are not included in some in-basket simulations. Feedback sequence is a
peculiar problems. One proponent has combined a computer program with
in-basket simulation for feedback purposes. This approach described by
Bessent is used for requesting information.'2'
Wikstrom, among other things, makes the following suggestions that
are unique as his own contribution. He suggests that the solution to
the items must ”permit a variety of approaches if the purpose is to
explore concepts".'22 At the same time, if the purpose is to train in
standard procedure, the in-basket items must highlight ”the one 'right'

way“.'23 He also refers to the critique session as an important feature

12'Twelker, |'Simulation: Status of the Field”, 0 . cit. Twelker
briefly describes Bessent's model in this paper. (mimeo)

'ZZWikstrom, op. cit., p. 88.

'Z3Ibid.

of in-basket simulation. This session is used, as described in the
previous examples, for the purpose of supplying new information to the
student on the approaches which could have been taken if other assumptions
were made. It

Frederiksen and his colleagues are concerned about scoring simulation
items in in-basket tests. They suggest that the scorer must be given a
great freedom in awarding or subtracting points for exceptionally good
or poor performances. This means that students' responses to idLbasket
items must be weighed on the basis of the competences which the tests
emphasize and according to the judgment of the scorer. This does not
mean that a standard procedure will be hard to establish. Scoring
in-basket tests improves the reliability of the test.but this is achieved
through homogeneity of items which constitute the tests. High reliability
implies high homogeneity of items.

The proponents also suggest that the homogeneous parts of the tests
should be introduced sequentially and be followed by critiques of
students' performances. They mention other uses of in-basket simulation
and suggest that for instructional application, in-basket simulation can
be used to assess the quality or effectiveness of teaching, the strength
and weakness of students, and the determination of an appropriate level
for beginning instruction.'24

In-basket simulation, properly designed and utilized, is a valuable
laboratory for development and application of skills and for accumulation

of realistic experience in role performance. It must be remembered that

the items need to be revised from time to time.

 

'ZNFrederiksen, Saunders and Wand, op. cit., pp. 21-22.

C.

87

Leading Theoretical Principles--Sociological School

 

The theoretical principles underlying role theory to simulation

design may be briefly summarized as follows:

1.

There mustlxaa model that epitomizes the roles simulated, e.g.

an occupation, a system, or a person.

The role types built into the simulation design must be valid
prototypes of the model. The derivation of roles must be based
on some systematic observation of behavioral characteristics of
the model in his environment. The roles must be proven before
they can represent those of the model.

Inasmuch as the environment is part of what determines the
individual behavior or group behavior, the relevant substantive
elements of the environment need to be represented in the
simulation design in order to give effect to active and interactive
responses of the model.

When used for instructional purposes, the simulation must involve
life-like activities which provide practices (plays) of the roles
of the model.

Individuals who are to play these roles must be oriented realisti-
cally to the objectives of the roles and be appraised of the
acceptable standard of performance essential for effectiveness.
Life-like situations need to be provided for the practice, so
that the reward and punishment constraints of real-life can be
brought to play.

Rules and constraints must be stipulated to condition the role

behavior of the learner when he is engaged in the practice

(play) thereby leading to the enforcement and internalization
of the values imposed by the rules of the game.

8. The social interactions or actions represented in the simulation
may be man-machine or man-man operations manually controlled or

computer-controlled.

SUMMARY

It has been suggested and supported by examples from the literature
that educational simulation is characterized by four rationales--philosophi-
cal, mechanistic, psychological and soci01091cal. The philosophical
position emphasizes the realistic, pragmatic, functional, goal-directed,
participatory aspects of learning in which the learner plays the dominant
role. The mechanistic position supports the utilization of technological
devices, (synthetic and animated), for faithfully representing real-life.
The devices facilitate learning. The psychological school regards the
physical and psychOIOgical fidelity of the operational situations as
important issues which engender realistic responses on the part of the
learner. Such considerations facilitate transfer to real-life situations
under practice conditions. The sociological position emanates from the
abstraction of relevant human and physical environment relatable to the
role sets of the real-life model. Role behavior is inculcated through
a process of normative practice.

It is clear from the exploration of each theoretical position that
the focus of all educational simulation is for instruction of a realistic
type which presents laboratory-type experiences to the learner under

conditions that replicate the operational situations of real-life. This

89

representation is not real-life itself. Gaming is a useful concept in
most educational simulations but it is not the gipp_ggg ppp_of simulation.
As far as the design of educational simulation is concerned, it has
been noted that the main difference that arises in each of the schools is
basically one of approach. The goal is the same. It can be said, therefore,
that any variation noted in the instructional approach is caused by the
main difference in approach to design. Indeed, it has been foudd out
that a network of interrelationships color the methodology in design and
application for instructional purposes. Terms like games, fidelity of
simulation, feedback, verisimilitude, practice, play, actor, sequence
appear in almost every section throughout the review. These findings
strongly support the position that is taken, that an integrative theoryle
can be prOposed for educational simulation regardless of the orientation

of the designer.

 

125Theory as used here is in its simplest sense--as a set of logical
principles or propositions which provide explanations that lead to an
understanding of a complex phenomenon. As Kaplan suggests, theory is an
explanation which “sets forth some ideas of the rules of the game, by
which the moves become intelligible.” It is an effort ”to make sense of
what would otherwise be inscrutable or unmeaning empirical findings”.

Kaplan, 0p. cit., p. 302.

CHAPTER III

AN INTEGRATIVE THEORY OF EDUCATIONAL SIMULATION

The classificatory approach used in Chapter II in reviewing the
theoretical rationales underlying educational simulation is only a
convenient rubric for investigating the nature of the phenomenon. It
has been seen that none of the four classes of educational simulation
has theoretical principles which are mutually exclusive. From the
analyses of the four categories, it is clear that a network of objective
theoretical relationships exist between the different schools, both in
design postulates and in the application of simulation for instructional
purposes.

In this section, an endeavor will be made to synthesize the
principles that have been identified as common to the four schools and
are considered as those theoretical principles which give significance
to educational simulation as a phenomenal knowledge. It is hoped that
the integration of the theoretical principles will serve as a connecting
bridge between the four rationales, and that a unified basis will be
found for interpreting and criticizing established principles on
educational simulation. At the same time, the integrative theory can

serve as a useful device for generating and modifying new principles

9i

which may be discovered for more powerful generalizations about

educational simulation.1
In order to relate this analysis to the problems posed by this

study, the theoretical principles unravelled will be discussed under

two headings: (I) theoretical principles related to educational

simulation design, and (2) theoretical principles related to instructional

application of educational simulation. These integrated principles will

be presented as tentative theoretical principles that bind tOgether all

educational simulations.

I. THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES FOR THE DESIGN OF EDUCATIONAL SIMULATION
A. Nature of Simulation. There is a general agreement that
simulation is a model of reality and not reality itself. It is not
the aim of educational simulation, therefore, to reproduce reality in
all its complexity, but only to select certain essential elements that
are adequate to afford an understanding, prediction, or control of the
real-life situation. However, a real-life model needs to reflect the
essential internal and external variables that are substantively
relevant contextually to the model.
B. Fidelity of Simulation Model. All the four schools are concerned

with fidelity of simulation model but with varying degrees of preoccupation.

 

1This approach can be regarded as a step towards a theory of
educational simulation. Kaplan argues that “a theory is a way of
making sense of a disturbing situation so as to allow us most effectively
to bring to bear our repertoire of habits, and even more important, to
modify habits or discard them altogether, replacing them by new ones as
the situation demands.. . Theory will appear as the device for interpreting,
criticizing, and unifying established laws, modifying them to fit data
unanticipated in their formulation, and guiding the enterprise of discover-
ing new and more powerful generalization”. Kaplan, op. cit., p. 295.

92

Fidelity of simulation may be physical or psychological. Physical
fidelity is the representation of essential elements of a real-life

model which accurately replicate the important characteristics of the
real-life being simulated. It is the approximation of the real-life
model through a process of selective omission of irrelevant elements

and the inclusion of relevant elements that provide stimulus equivalence
that elicits life-like responses transferrable to real-life. Psychologi-
cal fidelity is a mental process which leaves a self-critical individual
in a feeling of ”realness“ whether or not there is a physical similarity
between the real-life model and the simulation model. The fidelity of

a simulation design is not affected if the designer omits dangerous,
inimical, and non-feasible features of the real-life model. Fidelity

of simulation is not attained by physical duplication of the model alone,
but also by verisimilitude, a psychological state which gives an appear-
ance of reality. However, fidelity could be in a continuum (high or low)
to reflect the degree of realism of simulation. Simulation can also be
partial or total.2

C. Simulation and Game. These two terms are used sometimes inter-

 

changeably by designers and users of educational simulation. Computer
simulations are generally oriented towards games when used for instruction,
as in management or business games.

Although simulation and game are both useful terms in educational

 

2When a simulation does not represent all the task elements of an
operational simulation, it is partial simulation. When it represents
all the referent task elements important for successful outcomes, it is
total simulation. Jack A. Adams, ”Some considerations in the design and
use of dynamic flights simulators”. In Harold Guetzkow, Simulation in
Social Science: Readings, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1962), p. 35.

 

93

simulation, they do not always mean the same thing.3 Shubik's distinction
clarifies the application of the two terms. He suggests:

Gaming is an experimental, Operational, or training technique

which may or may not make use of simulated environment but is

invariably concerned with studying human behavior or teaching

individuals. In simulation, the behavior of the components

is taken as given. The actual presence of individuals is not

necessary to a simulation, but it is to a gaming exercise.“

It is important to clarify the usage of the term ”game'I as applied
to educational simulation. There are two possible technical uses of the
word in educational simulation. The first, and the more common usage is
the notion of game as an instructional approach in a manner suggested by
Shubik. In this respect, game is used as a device which provides mimicry
and interactiveness between man and other men, between man and machines,
or between man and his environment or between all of these. The purpose
is to dramatize conflict, competition, or interaction between variables
that represent real-life. When gaming involves men, participation results.
Thus, simulation game sessions are exercises which provide realism by
depiction of interactions in real-life. A simulation device which
utilizes the game strategy is effective for generating involvement and
motivation on the part of the learner and it is the degree of verisimilitude
more than anything else which gives the participants a feeling of realism.

In this sense, game is a means of providing “clinical experience“ about

a model's behavior.

 

3Cherryholmes argues that all games are not simulations nor are all
simulations games. A game becomes a simulation when it attempts to model
a referent system. Cleo H. Cherryholmes, “Simulating Inter-Nation Relations
in the Classroom”, in Becker and Mehlinger (eds.), Inter-Nation Dimensions
in Social Studies. 38th Yearbook, National Council for Social Studies,
Washington, D.C., I968, p. 176.

 

l+Martin Shubik (ed.), Game Theory and Related Approaches to Social
Behavior, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, I96h), p. 71.

94

It must be pointed out, however, that gaming is not the sine gya non

 

of educational simulation.S Some types of simulated instruction are not
based on game theory because competitive or conflicting strategies are
not illustrated conspicuously in the learning exercises. Such simulation
exercises provide activities of the “non-zero-sum“ type where there is no
winner or loser in the learning ”game“. Yet the exercises provided are
the prototypes of the real-life model, but it is only the individual

that reacts to the situation by himself, or cooperatively with other
group members (when this is part of the design).

For gaming, the computer is used when the operational strategy is
complex and requires the manipulation of heteromorphic variables. This
facilitates computation and provides feedback. The computer has no rival
when the model designed requires multiple responses of either deterministic
or stochastic model.

The second usage of game is concerned with the implication of game
theory as the rationale of modelling a referent system. Shubik mentions

the importance of games in social science process.6 In real lIfe. no

individual is in complete control of the processes in his environment
because of the influences of various elements. Certain variables related

to social interactions therefore can be selected and gamed to depict

 

5Robinson has, however, reported that “games may prove superior to
other methods of instruction”. See J. Robinson, “A Research Design for
Comparing Simulation with Case Studies and Problem Papers in Teaching
Political Science”. Jackson and Sweeney (eds.), Proceedings of the
Conference on Business Games as Teaching Devices, School of Business
Administration, Tulane University, I962, pp. 123-129.

 

 

6Shubik, op. cit., pp. 8—9.

95

problems involving conflict, contest, or cooperation in real-life in

order to simulate a set of situations about human processes, be it

politics, psychology, sociology, or economics. Thus the elements of

game theory, as developed by Neumann and Morgenstern,7 are useful for

building simulation games that attempt to model real-life.

It will be necessary to summarize the characteristics of games

when used for instructional purposes:

1.

Players are oriented towards the educational objectives of the
game. It is the explicit statement of educational objectives
of simulation games, and the specificity of the model, that
distinguish educational games from parlor games.

Games are used primarily for training purposes, but they may
also be used for research and development. Usually they are
simpler than the model they represent.

They always involve man-machine operations (generally computers)
requiring sometimes rigid or flexible rules controlled by an
umpire or programmer. Some games may be manually operated or
scored.

Time is always simulated, i. e., ”real time” is compressed
under basic assumptions of the program, e.g. one cycle of

play may represent a three months operation or a year.

A simulated environment is always designed either symbolically
by a representation of those relevant aspects of real-life or
through verisimilitude representation which gives a cognitive

appearance of real-life.

 

7John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, Theory of Games and
Economic Behavior, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, I9A7).

96

6. Games progress on the basis of I'plays“, ”runs”, or ”cycles“,

each representing a sequence and period of real-life operational
situation.

7. Every participant in the game has a rOle in the play demanding

the exercise of decision or judgment as required by the cycles
of the game.

D. Objectives of Educational Simulation. In the four categories
of simulation rationale, it has been found out that designers are
concerned with objectives of simulations. Sometimes these objectives
are stated explicitly in the design. In some cases they are not quite
spelled out. .

An important stage in the design of educational simulation is the
specification of the learning objectives that the simulation will provide.
The learning objectives must be stated in specific observable behavioral
terms, and the operational situation under which the behavior will occur
must be specified.

In detennining the parameters of the objectives of any simulation,
attention needs to be given to specific aspects of the real-life model.
When performance is the major objective of the educational simulation,
the referents for simulation objectives need to be valid in terms of
the operational roles of that model. Also, the behavior of the model in
his environment must be considered. In general, behaviors may be
characterized by their relationships--whether they are primarily individual
behavior without interaction with other people, or whether they are inter-
active behavior. The notion of endogeneous and exogeneous variables,
which may affect the nature of the operational situations, is very useful.

For example, time may be an important variable in a situation, or action,

97

or consequence of an operational task simulated. Substantive elements
that affect the time factor need to be represented in the simulation.
Invariably, time is drastically compressed in a simulation: a month's
activity of real-life may be compressed into thirty minutes of simulated
instruction.

E. RepreSentations in Simulation Designs. In every type of simulation,
theoretically, it is the nature of the model and the simulation objectives
that dictate the choice of symbolic representation of the model. To some
extent this rule has guided some designers. The selection of appropriate
media should be based on the suitability for the model and its educational

objectives. Certain devices, or media can model, dramatize, or automate,

 

but a simulation design may adopt the integration of many media for the
purposes of a design. Generally it is the objectives and not the media
that determines the choice of modelling devices. By the same token, it
is not the gadgetry of simulation but the efficiency of the simulation
model for instructional purposes that matters. Machines may be the most
appropriate in representing some elements in the model, e.g. no verbal
description of a model's voice is as real as the tape-recorder's voice.
Sometimes machines are most effective for providing feedback, e.g. there
is nothing better than the contingency of reward as provided through a
teaching machine.

F. Steps in Designing Educational Simulation. The mechanistic
school and the psychological school are concerned with the need to
systematize design steps. However, their methodology breaks down when

they are applied to design of instructional simulation. Validation and

98

experimentation with designs are often not done with some models. For
example, no one knows a procedure for evaluating a design of role-playing
simulation.

It is crucial that a simulation design which is to be used for
instructional purposes be a valid model of the real-life it represents.
All designers of educational simulation zealously watch this. The need
for a systematic approach in developing simulation games for education
is all the more critical because of the need to provide quality and
content for the learner.8 Indeed, there is no evidence in the literature
as reviewed in this study to reflect the existence of any clear-cut
systematic guidelines for designing and validating education simulations.9
It Is therefore considered essential in this section to provide some
general guidelines for designing and validating educational simulation.
The flow-chart that is presented in Figure 3, summarizes fourteen steps
involved in the development of a simulation device from the time it is
conceptualized until it is ready to be used for instructional simulation.

G. Simulation Design Evaluation Criteria. Abt has made several

 

8But this concern is too often a mere sacred cow that is wantonly
defiled by most designers. Business games, however, have enjoyed the
tradition of extensive field testing before widespread instructional
application.

9The first comprehensive attempt to present any clear basic rules
for designing educational simulation is now being carried out by
Crawford and Twelker of the Oregon System of Higher Education. The
authors prescribe a 13-step approach in designing ”instructional
simulation". See Appendix C for a chart summarizing these 13 steps.
Twelker, Instructional Simulation Newsletter, Oregon State System of
Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. I, February, I969.

START

 

 

 

 

‘1. Determine System to be 1)
Simulated I I
AnalyzeModJ; Function 2)

6 Processes

 

['

 

 
  
    
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
    

  

. Abstract Processes 3)
. 5 Operations
, to
r—-’ . Determine Specific 7+)
. Operational ‘ ,
Situation '
___ LL z.
5)
Specify pecu y Be-
Behavioral havioral Cri—

 
 

eria/Standard

 

ec ives

 

 

 

 

Design Sequence )
7

Specification
Li”

De te rmi ne Egfia IT I

 

Select Appropriate
Simulation
Media

_ f

_‘

 

 

    

 

99

What is the simulation
going to model?

What are the major pro-
cesses in this system
and how do they function
and interrelate?

Which of the functions
or operations are to
be simulated?

How does each of the spe-
cific operations abstrac-
ted work?

What are the sim. objs.
5 can the specific be-
havioral objectives be
learned by simulation?

How can the behavior to
be simulated be measured?

Can the design represent
all the objectives to be
simulated in logical se-
quences?

What will be the appro-
priate simulated media
for this design?

 

 
 

 

 
  

    

 
   
    

9, 10, ii, 12)
Has the model been

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’. Design . Try-Out Ii. Modify ‘
Simulation Simulation Design
Remdify 13. ‘ Field Test 12.
— If Necessary Design
L iii. Apply for
Regular Simula- _E__D

O

validated?

The simulation
needs to be mo-
dified from time
to time.

FLOW-CHART ILLUSTRATING AN APPROACH TO DESIGNING

EDUCATIONAL SIMULATION

(Figure 3)

lOO

suggestions about quality of design in education simulation,10 but it is
desirable that all these and other suggestions made by other proponents
be pulled together as criteria for simulation designs.

It has been discovered that the strongest common heritage of
educational simulation is the fact that all designs represent a real-life
model. But, this criterion alone is nc>t adequate for evaluating educa-
tional simulation for instruction. It has been reported that the
mechanistic school and the psychological school give consideration to
certain elements like response, feedback, and control. It is believed
that these are some of the logical criteria for evaluating any simulation
design. But, in order to establish a more comprehensive basis for
evaluating simulation designs, it is proposed that all educational
simulations should answer the following six design questions:

I. Does the design represent a real-life model? What kind-~special

or general?

2. Does the design serve specified functions? Which?

3. Does the design employ suitable synthetic or animated media

for representation and integration of selected operational
situations that characterize the model? Which?

4. Does the design provide the sequential context of life-like

active or interactive processes within the system modelled?
In what way?
5. Does the design provide appropriate feedbacks to the learner

in terms of stated learning experiences simulated? How?

 

loAbt, op. cit.

lOl

6. Does the design provide for evaluation and control of learning

that it offers in terms of the real-life model?

There are other relevant questions that may be asked. The question
of whether or not the design should be simple or complex depends on a
number of factors, one of which may be the nature of the simulated real-
life. The question of cost-effectiveness may be an important considera-
tion for which no dogmatic answer can be given.*

Finally, it has been seen that the psychological S-R theory is
basic to all simulation designs. While synthetic or animated devices
may be utilized in construction of the simulation model, it is important
that the simulation design incorporates five features: a stimulus ix;
situation, a response situation, a consequence situation, a feedback

sequence and a control.

II. THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES IN INSTRUCTIONAL APPLICATION
OF EDUCATIONAL SIMULATION
It can be inferred from the evidence contained in the review of the
theoretical foundation of educational simulation, that instructional
simulation, no matter the orientation of its proponent or user, has as
its main objective the creation of a learning laboratory which provides
clinical experiences for a learner in order to bridge the gap between

theoretical bookwork and actual practice.‘1

 

11Jones says: ”The use of the term'laboratory' as an instructional
organization denotes a situation in which each leaner has the opportunity
to pursue investigations and study according to his own particular
interests--to try out previous learnings on his own--to derive conclusions
based on his own particular style of study of a problem”. Adaline Jones,
'The Engimatic Intensive Office Laboratory”. The Balance Sheet, Vol. XLIX,
April, I968, p. 3AA.

*See pages 26 and 27 for a detailed discussion of other considerations
termed ”design trade-off decisions”.

1 9.2»

From the review of the literature, it has been noted that there is
a trend towards systematization of learning processes in instructional
simulation although no consistent methodology has yet emerged. Some of
the evidences that support this assertion may be reiterated. Designers
of computer simulations, particularly those for business games, have
regarded briefing and debriefing essential elements of instructional
simulation process. Practice features in every simulated instruction.
Also the Importance of seguence of instruction has been underscored by
various designers in varying terms: Play, runs, units, sequence, and
the like. Evaluation of simulated instructional outcome is considered
an unquestioned process in instructional simulation although it is some-
what treated as a supererOgatory obligation in some respects since this
is often times done perfunctorily or not at all because of lack of
clear-cut evaluation instruments.

A. Instructional Simulation as Laboratorszearning. Instructional k”/i
simulation is a pragmatic pedagogic approach, directed towards a goal
that gives realism, meaningfulness and utility to knowledge. It is the
integration of initial and new knowledge in a purposeful, relevant, and
functional manner that is goal-directed. Instructional simulation is
not "talking about” but learning;by doing. It is an instructional
approach which helps students to have a ”feel” of reality in using the
knowledge acquired in a practical manner that gives credence to integration
and sequencing of knowledges and skills so that participants in this
learning experience, are forced to apply integrated knowledge in problem-
solving situations, which may involve one but does not exclude any of

the following:

103

I. realistic routine functions that relate to specific
operational situations;
2. realistic flexible functions that require adaptability and
insights on specific operational situations;
3. realistic functions requiring foresight and resourceful
anticipation about specific operational situations;
A. realistic functions involving data evaluation and adjudication
about specific operational situations; and
5. realistic functions involving any combination of the above.
To this extent, simulated instruction is problem-solving in the microcosm
of real-life environment. It is providing realistic problems which could
be solved by integration of knowledge and it requires the application of
procedural skills, motor skills, identification skills, conceptual skills,
principles and strategies.12
Instructional simulation begins with the specification of learning
objectives. The learning environment must give realism to the students
and the goals must be objectivized in behavioral terms that specify the
type of action or interaction that the simulated instruction will fulfill.
B. Features of Instructional Simulation. It is therefore logical
to conclude that to this extent an instructional simulation design
should incorporate the following features:
I. The identification of simulation learning objectives and an

orientation of learners to these objectives as well as the

specific outcomes of the educational experience.

 

12Robert M. Gagne, ”SimulatorsN In R. Glaser, Training Research and
Education, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 196g), pp. 230-231.

C.

10h

The identification and integration of knowledge, skills and
attitude and the creation of simulated learning problems which
call for Integrated application of knowledge.

The planning of simulated learning sequence and the provision
of appropriate and adequate simulated practices to test the
application and transfer of acquired learning to identical
situations. i

The clarification of the nature of simulated instructional
process, the identification of the learner's and instructor's
tasks In the process, the briefing and debriefing on purposes
and goal of simulation instruction, and the evaluation of
simulated practices.

Simulated evaluation of the total simulated instructional
objectives through the administration of situational tests.

Criteria of Instructional Simulation Model. In general, every

instructional simulation design or model must answer the following

relevant theoretical questions:

I.

3.

Does the instructional model present adequate introductory
materials relevant to the real-life model in a manner that
will motivate the students?

Does the instructional simulation have objectives that aim at
the development of specific behavioral repertoires of a model?
Does the simulated Instructional model set out relevant
experiences which must be mastered by the student in a lagical
sequence? What is the measure of effectiveness?

Does it provide learning sequence which integrates the whole

IOS

behavior repertoires of the learner--his attitude, skills,
and ability about an operational situation?

5. Is the simulated learning process carried out in a manner
that evokes a feeling of realism on the part of the students
physically and psychOIOgically? Can students practice their
learning habits in a laboratory setting?

6. Is the simulated learning outcome evaluated in a realistic
manner that replicates real-life standards? Who is controlling
the learning and monitoring the progress--the teacher, the
student, or the device, or all of these?

The question often asked about the simulated instruction is what

its evaluation evaluates. Simulated instruction is not a reproduction

 

of, nor is it an evaluation of the on-the-job performance. It is an
evaluation of a representation of on-the-job performance. The effect
of simulated instruction, however, can be tested by an investigation
of how it has helped students to adjust to their educational goal. The
flow chart on pagelO6,Figure h, summarizes the theoretical processes of

simulated instruction.

SUMMARY
It is logically defensible to propose an integrative theory of

educational simulation because all educational simulations have the same
goal orientation: they all tend to evolve a pragmatic pedagogic approach
which gives realism, meaningfulness and utility to knowledge by providing
the participants experiences in an environment which is a microcosm of
the real-life. The goal of simulation in education is the provision of
laboratory experiences which offer the students participatory practices

which are transferrable to real-life.

 

 

Evaluation
- Performance
test
e Situational
test
- Post-test

 

 

IF-

 

 

 

FL

Provide Simula-
ted Practice

- Individual
(Active be-
havior)

- Interactive
(Group be-
havior)

- Transfer

 

 

 

1. Orient Student
To Simulation
Model Selected

- General
- Special

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simulated
Model
Representing
System

 

 

 

l‘

 

Iv

 

 

 

4. Provide Simula-
ted Instruction
- Briefing
- Debriefing
- Feedback
(Coaching 5 Reme-
dial learning).

 

 

 
  
 

BEGIN HERE

Q

   

106

 

 
  

. Spec

Standard
sites

ledge

 

iy Sim.
Objectives 5
Performance

- Prerequi-

- Entry know-

(Pre-test)

 

 

 

I.

 

dule

ials

 

A SIMULATED INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL (Figure LI)

3. Plan SimulafEdW
Instruction
Subject mix

- Sequence
- Timed sche-

Sim. mater-

Sim. class-

 

107

Theoretical principles on designs of educational simulation, the
nature of simulation, fidelity of simulation, degree of simulation,
game representations in simulation designs, and the criteria of simulation
designs, are discussed. It is found out that while synthetic or animated
devices may be utilized in building a simulation model, it is important
that every educational simulation design should incorporate five
features: (I) a stimulus situation, (2) a response situation, (3) a
consequence situation representing the interaction of stimulus-response,
(A) a feedback sequence, and (5) a control. This indicates that the S-R
theory is basic to all educational simulation designs.

Gaming Is a useful concept in education but it is not the sing_gg§'
Egg of educational simulation. Educational games are used for training
purposes but they can also be used for development and research. In
general, the distinction between educational games and parlor games is
that educational games have educational objectives to which the students
are oriented. Briefing and debriefing are unique features of educational
games.

Simulated instruction is described as learning by doing. It demands
application of integrated knowledge in meaningful and realistic exercises.
Simulated instruction, therefore, is problem-solving, demanding application
of procedures, motor skills, identification, concepts, principles, and
strategies or the combination of any of these. There are a number of
principles such as orientation, briefing, debriefing, simulated practice,
and simulated evaluation which are theoretically important for instructional
simulation. All of these principles may be pulled together to calibrate

what may be regarded as a tentative theory of educational simulation.

CHAPTER IV

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF INSTRUCTIONAL SIMULATION

While it may be feasible to design a simulated instructional model
on the integrated theoretical principles espoused in Chapter III, it has
been discovered that simulated instructions do not follow the same step-
by-step pattern of instructional procedures. There are three practical
considerations to explain this condition. First, all instructional
procedures must be flexible. Secondly, some educational simulation
designs impose their own procedures through “the rules of the game”
stipulated by the simulation model. In this case, the handbook which
accompanies the simulation package becomes the instructional cookbook.
Thirdly, instructional simulation procedures, when not stipulated by
the designer, are to a large extent, affected by other instructional
factors which may or may not have anything to do with simulation theory.
Constraints of this nature fall into the category of sound pedagogic
or psychological concepts. These concepts may include such factors as
the student's ability and capacity, his entry or initial knowledge, his
social and cultural background, his motivational disposition; the teacher's
teaching style, his motivational strategies and contingencies of rewards;
the instructional environment, scheduling, instructional facilities and
the like. These are not irrelevant to instructional simulation but they

could not be branded a general simulated instruction theory.

[-109

However, it has been found from the review of the literature, that'ii
in spite of these considerations, instructional simulation procedures
converge on certain principles which can be said to represent what may
be called the operational criteria of simulated instruction. It is,
therefore, proposed in this chapter: (I) to outline these principles
in some detail, and (2) to examine them in relation with the operational
criteria of selected simulations that have been reviewed or observed in

teaching and learning situations.

I. OPERATIONAL CRITERIA FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SIMULATION

At least six major operational criteria are considered theoretically
essential in administering a simulated instruction: (1) the selection of
the educational simulation model, (2) the orientation of students to the
objectives and standards of the simulation, (3) simulated curriculum
plan, (4) simulated instructional process, (5) simulated instructional
practice, and (6) simulated instructional evaluation. Each of these is
described briefly below:

A. Selection of the Educational Simulation Model. The choice of
education simulation design to be used for instruction depends on the
purpose and objectives of the instruction. For example, if the simulated
instruction is geared towards training general accounts clerks, the model
should reflect the generalized functions of accounts clerks in every
sector of the industry. If the specific objective is to train insurance
clerks for a particular company, e.g. the United Brothers' Insurance
Company, the simulation should reflect the office functions within that

specified company. Some simulation designs are intended to provide

ll0

all-purpose knowledge. In any case, the choice of the simulation
package to be used for instruction must be taken into consideration
in determining the strategy of instruction.

B. Orientation of Participants to Simulation Objectives. Partici-
pants in instructional simulation must be oriented towards the curriculum
objectives and the standard of performance anticipated from the instruction.
The skills, knowledge, and attitude to be developed by the simulated
instruction must be stated and intimated to the students. This is done
primarily for motivational reasons. It is a matter of bringing congruity
of perception about the learning objectives. This serves the purpose of
generating the participant's interests in the learning enterprise.

Several methods can be used to orient students to the simulated
instructional objectives. These include the use of artifacts, symbolic
models, photOQraphs, films, recordings, video-tapes, written descriptions
of background information, and sometimes a verbal description by the
teacher just before the beginning of the simulated instruction.

C. Simulated Instructional Plan. In using simulated instruction
in the classroom, a considerable amount of instructional programming is
involved. A simulated instructional plan includes each of the following
instructional activities:

1. Determining the prerequisites for the simulated instruction in
terms of student's entry knowledge and ability and the instruc-
tional goal.

2. Detenmining the subject mix for the simulated instruction, i.e.
what types of subject matter mastery are required for the
integrated simulation. It has been said that simulated

instructionls blending together of previously acquired knowledge.

Ill

3. Determining the sequence and integration of subject mix.

A. Timing and scheduling the instruction, i.e. determining when
new subject matters are to be introduced, reviewed, or
relearned.

5. Determining the simulated instructional facilities, e.g.
appropriate simulated environment, simulated materials,
equipment and kits.

6. Determining what extra-classroom knowledge will be required
for the simulation, e.g. field trips, assignments, outside
lectures, projects, and the like.

In some cases, these activities may be embodied in the design. When
they are not, there is a need to synchronize classroom instruction,
lectures and reviews, with the sequence of instructional simulation.

For example, the student's experience in a simulated practice may be
frustrating if the enabling knowledge that will provide a meaningful

and rewarding simulated practice has not been taught or provided.
However, some simulation models deliberately do this to enable the
student to discover the knowledge himself. The economy of this approach
is debatable.

0. Simulated Instructional Process. It is essential that
simulated instructional procedures remove learning roadblocks as much
as possible If simulated instruction is to be maximized. This is done
through a motivational instructional process which involves:

1. systematic orientation of the learner towards the learning

objectives according to the sequences of the simulation;

2. appropriate briefing and debriefing on simulated learning

experience. The procedure for these have been elaborated

ll2

upon in several sections in Chapter II. (Compare procedure
for instructional simulation under computerized games, pages
#0 tolI3).
3. Provision of feedback. The contingencies of reward must be
given adequate attention. This has been touched upon earlier.
The need to sequentially present learning units according to the levels
of difficulty of the units cannot be over-emphasized.

E. Simulated Instructional Practice. Students must be given the
opportunity to perform in laboratory-type situations, operations which
involve active and interactive activities so that they are exposed to
situational dynamics which provide them I'clinical" experiences to:

1. gpplx.integrated knowledge by doing,

2. practice integrated knowledge to acquire mastery,

3. evaluate performance to validate the mastery of acquired,

fragmentized and integrated knowledges.
The simulated practice is carried out in a situation which replicates
the microcosm of the real-life environment. This facilitates transfer
of learning.

It must be remembered that simulated practice should be preceded
by a briefing session and a debriefing session. The rules of the game ”’TH’
imposed by the simulation are learned by the participants before the
simulation practice begins. Usually, the teacher serves as the umpire
or game administrator, who makes decisions about the reward and punish-
ment system (according to the rules of the game).

F. Simulated Instructional Evaluation. The major purpose of the
evaluation is the assessment of the degree to which the simulated

learning objectives have been achieved. This is a vital part of the

ll3

instructional process. The evaluation of any simulated instruction
needs to be a simulated evaluation. That is to say, the evaluation of
the knowledge that has come out of the simulated learning must be
realistically evaluated in terms of real-life standards. This is often
overlooked in simulated instruction. Therefore, this means that using
any other method is defeating the objective of instructional simulation.
To meet simulated evaluation requirements, simulated instruction must

be evaluated through either or both of the following, depending on the
purpose of the evaluation:

1. Administering of situational tests. This may be the appropriate
test at the end of the simulated instruction and it may be the
terminal test upon which the final grade is given. The situational
test is analogous to performance requirement on the job.

2. Administering the performance tests which are designed only to
cover primarily the contents of the instruction presented during
the simulation. This test helps in testing transfer of previously
learned materials, rules, concepts and attitudes.

It is feasible that the two tests could be combined to award the final

grade for the course. New York University offers a Business Games

simulation sequence which graduate students in the MBA program may take

in lieu of a thesis requirement.1
Another method of evaluation adopted by some teachers is report

writing. At the end of the simulation exercise, the students are required

 

1New York Times, Sunday, November 24, 1968, ”Students Play Management
In a Computerized Game”. Story by Robert A. Wright.

llh

to write a comprehensive report of what has happened to them during the
simulation and the contents of the course they feel they have learned
or not learned. This is a salutory practice.

The six propositions summarized above, represent the tradition of
simulated instruction. It will, therefore, be used to analyze the
operational features of selected simulations discussed below. It must
be emphasized, that the purpose of this analysis is not to criticize
any practice on the ground that it does not conform to a theory. Rather,
the purpose of the analysis is to see how the theory works in action,
and to see how those who hold to a theoretical concept select and
manipulate their principles for designing experiments that endeavor to
present, interpret, and analyze a phenomenon that is epitomized by the

concept.2

II. ANALYSIS OF OPERATIONAL CRITERIA OF SPECIFIC
SIMULATED INSTRUCTIONS

In order to understand how the theoretical positions described in
Section I above operate in practice, the researcher observed one
instructional simulation under teaching and learning conditions. Because
a detailed description of this simulation will be outside the scope of
this study, only the findings which are pertinent to the theoretical
principles outlined herein will be presented in a general descriptive
manner. The simulation observed was the Community Land Use Game (CLUG),

developed by Allan Feldt.3 Other simulations whose literature were

 

2Kaplan, op. cit., pp. 294-326.
3Allan Feldt, op. cit.

ll5

reviewed and which will be included in the tabulated findings are:

(1) Vocational Office Block Simulation, Research and Development Program
in Vocational-Technical Education, Michigan State University“, which was
designed by Beverly FunkS, (2) Inter-Nations Simulation (INS) designed
by Cleo CherryholmesP, (3) Simulation in the Classroom, designed by
Kersh for teacher education7; and (A) Integrated Simulation developed

by Smith, Estey, and Vines.8 Only the CLUG was observed under labora-
tory conditions in teaching and learning situations.

A. The Community Land Use Game (CLUG). This simulation was
developed by Allan G. Feldt of Cornell University. Michigan State
University devel0ped the accompanying video-tape and single concept
film to present it as an educational kit. The information which was
contained in these devices was considered by the participants as adequate
introductory background for the game.

1. Objective of the simulation: The CLUG was used to supplement
instruction in a graduate course on Research Methods (Urban Planning 820)9
in the school of Urban Planning at Michigan State University. The game

was used to enable students to understand the application in realistic

 

“Michigan State University, R s 0 Program, op. ci .
5Beverly Funk was one of the Research Associates connected with the

Michigan State University R 8 0 Program project in the Vocational Office
Block. At the time of the project she was a teacher at Mount-Lake Terrace

Senior High, Mount-Lake, Washington.
6Cleo Cherryholmes, op. cit.
7Bert Kersh, op. ci .
3v. N. Smith, E. E. Estey and E. F. Vines, op. cit.

9CLUG is also being used for the course, Urban Planning 812: Appli-
cation of Social Sciences to Urban Planning, at Michigan State University.

ll6

situations, of concepts such as urbanization, land use, housing, business
facilities, industrial development, traffic, recreation, and other
critical aspects of community structure.

2. Students: Students enrolled for this course had similar career
objectives. They were all master's degree candidates preparing for
professional careers in urban planning.

3. Level of previous learning and knowledge: The students had
taken several related courses in urban planning, either at undergraduate
or graduate levels, during the master's program and before involvement
in the CLUG simulation. They were presumed to have the same level of
knowledge (for practical purposes) at the time they enrolled for the
Urban Planningg820 course. HOwever, no tests were administered to assess
their entry or pre-simulation knowledge.

A. Lecture: Before the students entered the CLUG simulation they
received a series of lectures on transportation, urbanization, land use,
housing, business facilities, industrial development, traffic, recreation
and other community facilities.

5. Orientation: In addition to viewing individually the single

 

concept film and the video-tape, the students were collectively given
a thorough step-by-step introduction to the game, its components, the.
parameter of reality, and other operational details.

6. The game: The game was played by three teams of at least three
persons per team. The game began by providing Situations which required
students to demonstrate application of knowledge and skills about the
concepts covered in the course particularly as they related to urbanization,
transportation, and land use. Students determined their own strategies in

the game, aiming at beating opposing teams by careful calculations in

ll7

situations requiring decisions about land use, locations of industrial
facilities, business and housing. Decisions involving a variety of
concepts were built into the simulation, and the game administrator
always directed the game in the direction of the concepts to be mastered
by the students.

There were six cycles of the game. The materials of each cycle
were carefully sequenced and tied to the next one to present a total
picture that was analogous to real-life. Each circle of the simulation
corresponded to one year of urban development for the community in
real-life.

7. The game administrator: The instructor was an important agent
in the game. His role was one of an observer, although he was the
person who directed the manner in which things were to go in the game.
He followed the handbook of the game, and sometimes had to use his
discretion to ensure that things did not get out of hand. For example,
the administrator usually decided what the borrowing rate from the bank
should be whenever a financial crisis arose among the players.

8. Motivation and feedback: Token money was used in playing the

 

game. Money and competition between the groups appeared to be the
substantial motivational factors in this game. The ”winner“ in the game
was defined as that group or team that: (a) generated the highest net
income from their selection and arrangement of land use types, (b) had
the ”best” configuration of land use activities in terms of sound
accepted urban planning principles and practices, and (c) contributed
more substantially to the financial welfare of the community. The game

administrator made decisions on these issues.

ll8

Typically, there was an intensive competition among the groups.
Sometimes alliances were freely entered into and broken. When a
particular cooperation did not ”pay off” with one group, alliances
would be shifted. Sometimes students got so carried away with their
involvement in the game that they preferred to forego their meals.

9. Evaluation: The debriefing session was used for evaluation of

 

performance in the game. No final grade was given on the basis of the
simulation. One method which the instructor used for evaluating the

extent of transfer of and mastery of the concepts was to have students

play the game several times. Students' performances at different

sessions were recorded and compared with previous performances. It was
then possible to notice favorable improvement and progress in understanding
planning concepts on the part of the students.

10. Conclusion:'0 The operational criteria adopted for the CLUG

 

simulation included a large proportion of the elements of the theoretical
principles discussed earlier in Section I of this Chapter." This is
shown clearly in the table on pages 12] and 122,
In addition, the following points stand out in this example:
(a) Determination of the concepts to be taught within the
abstracted parameters of reality of urban affairs.
(b) Determination of who should be taught and for what

specific function.

 

10From the researcher's observations and discussions with the
Professor in charge of the simulation, and from the participants'
comments, it can be said that the simulation was effective.

1'See pages 108 to 113.

(C)

(d)

(e)

(f)
(9)

(h)

8.

ll9

Determination of, or assumption about, the level of
pre-simulation knowledge.

A further learning process for additional knowledge

to be tested through a self-discovery approach.

Integrated application of knowledge, attitudes, skills,

newly or previously learned.

Dramatic involvement of students during the simulated practices.
Students were made to engage in meaningful activities for
which they received feedback.

A mental state of reality was generated in every student

during the simulation runs, so that there was a transfer

of attitudes and/or emotions that typify real world situations.
In one of the games observed, it was reported that two good
friends refused to talk to each other for a period of two
weeks because of a ”ruthless strategy“ that one had employed

against the other in achieving an advantage in the game.

Other Simulations. In order to evaluate the degree of

confonmity of selected instructional simulations with the theoretical

criteria discussed here, the research reports or texts which contain

empirical findings or general information on four other simulations,

were reviewed. Only the findings pertinent to the theoretical criteria

will be presented. These are summarized in Table l on pages 121 and 122

to offer comparative analysis with others.

l20

Summary of Findings:

 

The analysis contained in Table I, page 121, shows how each of the
simulations fared when evaluated on the basis of the criteria discussed
in this chapter. All the five simulations consider the six criteria
relevant to their instructional strategies. Each one of the five
simulations give considerations to (1) the choice of a model, (2) determi-
nation of instructional process, (3) the provision of simulated practice,
and (A) the need for simulated evaluation. The criterion that relates
to instructional plan is weak for the CLUG, and INT. This may be an
error in judgment on the part of the researcher, but there is no other
evidence available to him to reach a different decision from the one
summarized in the table. Simulated evaluation is somewhat weak for
CLUG and INTEGRATED SIMULATION on the basis of available information.
Every three or four weeks there are ratings for students on INTEGRATED
SIMULATION. Oral reports are also given.‘2 (Both the VOB Simulation
and Kersh's classroom simulation rate very well on all the criteria.)

However, it has been found out that generally the evaluation of

 

educational simulation is a tenuous problem. One of the major problems
in evaluating the effectiveness of educational simulation is lack of
appropriate instruments for the measurement of simulated instruction.
Because the purpose of educational simulation is realistic life-like
performance, an evaluation of simulation instruction should be nothing
short of simulated assessment of performance. This will require the

construction of appropriate tests designed to measure terminal behavior

 

12W. Nye Smith, "Objectives in Educational Simulation”, Collegiate
News and Views, Vol. XXII, 1968, p. 23.

AN EVALUATION OF SIMULATION CRITERIA

TABLE I

IN FIVE SELECTED INSTRUCTIONAL SIMULATIONS

l2l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONFORMITY OF SELECTED
EDUCATIONAL SIMULATIONS
Theoretical WITH THEORETICAL CRITERIA
Instructional Operation Criteriajgfl
CLUG* VOB* INT* CLASS- INTEGRA-
ROOM* TED*
1. Simulation Model: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Generalized X X X
Specialized X X
2. Orientation: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Curriculum Objectives X X X X X
Performance Standard X X
Introductory & Back-
ground Information X X X X X
3. Simulated Instruction Plan: Not Yes Yes Yes Yes
specified
Prerequisites X X ? X X
Subject Mix X X ? X X
Sequence ? X ? X X
Timing 8 Scheduling X X X X X
Simulated Facilities
and Materials X X X X X
Simulated Classroom
(Microcosm of
real-life) ? X ? X X
Extra-curricular
activities ? X X ? X
A. Simulated Instructional
Process: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Briefing X X X X X
Debriefing x X X X X
Feedback x x x x x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l22

 

CLASS-i

 

 

 

 

CLUG VOB INT INTEGRA1
ROOM TED
5. Simulated Instructional

Practice: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Active behavior ? X X X X
Interactive behavior X ? X ? X
Integration (transfer) X X X X X

6. Simulated Evaluation: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Pre-test No ? X X ?
Situational Test No X No X X
Performance Test No X X X X
Post-test No ? X X ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*CLUG means Community Land Use Game designed by Allan Feldt; VOB means
Vocational Office Education; INT means International Simulation designed by
Cleo Cherryholmes; CLASSROOM means classroom simulation for elementary
teacher education, designed by Bert Kersh; and INTEGRATED means Integrated
Simulation for management education, designed by Nye Smith and associates.

l23
after the simulated instruction. Educational simulation designers do
not give attention to the construction of this type of test, although
there are some kinds of simulation like the In-basket simulations which
are specifically designed to measure performance.

The proponents or users of the simulation designs reviewed in this
section, however, have all regarded evaluation an important process in
instructional simulation. Perhaps, it is fair to expect that the objectives
of the simulation should dictate the type of test to be administered.
However, it is the opinion of the researcher that all users of instruc-
tional simulation are committed to administer a situational test. If
this is done, the other types of tests (if the user believe in the efficacy
of these tests) like essay tests (recommended by Cherryholmes), simulation
reports (adhered to by many users of business games) may also be used.

The unanswered question is what 952g; should be given for a simulated
learning? Should only winners of games be given A's and losers - what?

. How about games where there are no losers? The results of the review in
this study do not provide answers to these questions. It seem that the
expediency of the situation should be taken into consideration in resolving
the problem. It is the opinion of the researcher that everyone who goes
through a simulated instruction learns something and should never have a
failing grade in that course. The teacher who is in charge of the
simulation should have the freedom of assigning students grades based

on his judgment of their performance in the simulation.

Teachers as Desjggers or Vice Versa. It has been noted that four of
the simulations reviewed in this section have been used by their designers

O

In instructional situations Inaon which these analyses are made.

l2A

There may be much to be said in favor of designers being also users
of their simulation designs. One advantage is that the designer can
bridge the ”credibility gap“ when errors of omission or commission are
found in the simulation design and when assumptions made by the design
are far-fetched to be acceptable to the students. The designer can
- easily and more readily correct these errors without allowing students'
fussiness to disorganize the instructional process. If the designer
is excessively defensive about the flaws discovered from the design,
some students may get disappointed and apathetic. This can destroy
simulated instruction.

As Cherryholmes points out, whoever uses the design for instruction,
it is important that meaningful learning should come out of it, and this
will be derived only if the events of simulation are discussed, interpreted

and related to principles and concepts used in the study.'3

SUMMARY

In this chapter, the six operational criteria essential for
administering a simulated instruction have been proposed: (1) the
selection of a model, (2) the orientation of students to the objectives
and perfonmance standards of the simulation, (3) simulated curriculum
plan, (A) simulated instructional process, (5) simulated instructional
practice, and (6) simulated instructional evaluation.

One instructional simulation (CLUG) is observed under learning

and teaching conditions, and it is concluded that the simulated

 

13Cleo H. Cherryholmes, ”Simulation in International Relations:
Development for High School Teaching”. (Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis,
Kansas State Teachers College, Emporia, Kansas, 1963).

l25

instructional approach adopted for its instructional strategy conforms
in essential details with the operational criteria proposed.

When four other simulations are evaluated on the same basis, it
is also found out that each of them has the same basic concepts but
they all differ in some essential details as specified by each criterion.
The five simulations all have evaluation as one of the criteria for
instructional simulation but their procedural practices differ.

It can be concluded that the six criteria are operationally
essential for simulated instruction. While it is logical to expect
differences to occur in evaluation process (as this is largely dictated
by simulated instructional objectives), there is an obvious commitment

that all simulated instruction should consider a situational test as

“simulation warranty”.

CHAPTER V

A SIMULATED INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL FOR OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION

It is essential in a study like this to demonstrate how theoretical
propositions can have a practical utility in real-life education. There-
fore, in this chapter, the theoretical principles and the criteria of
simulated instruction developed in Chapters III and IV will be applied
to one of society's pressing problems, namely, occupational education.1
After a brief description of design methodology in occupational education,
a simulated instructional model, called SIM-INST, will be designed2 and
guidelines will be provided for its use.

As an introduction, however, it is necessary to clarify what is
meant by occupational education and to present some basic assumptions

that are made about it as a system. Occupational education is any formal

education and training* (part-time or full-time) whose primary objective

 

IRobert M. Gagne, "Simulators'I in Robert Glaser, Training Research
and Education, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965), p. 2A2.

 

th must be understood from the beginning that designing a model is
not necessarily normalizing a practice. Designs are not formula. They
result from inventiveness and innovation relative to identifying some
functions or activities to be performed by a system and then inventing
procedures or strategies to accomplish these functions or activities.
R. B. Miller, ”Task Description and Analysis“. In R. M. Gagne (ed.),
Psychological Principles in System Develppment. (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1965), p. 189.

*See footnote on page 13 , Chapter I-

127

is to prepare the learner for a career role in any profession or employment.
Therefore, any career that has ”specific vocational preparation"3 plan will
qualify. By “specific vocational preparation” is meant any education and
training acquired in a school, work, or avocational environment, requiring
an amount of time for learning the techniques, acquire information, and
develop facility needed to average performance in specific job-worker
situation. It may also come from experience and self-study.“

I. Assumptions about Occupational Education

 

A. Occupational education includes a study of the occupation
and the occupational environment.

8. Occupational education is the integration of general education
with technical and specialized education.S General education
is education of a general academic nature, ordinarily obtained
in elementary school, high school, or college, which does NOT
have a recognized, fairly specific occupational objective even
though it may have application in an occupation. Technical
and specialized education includes specific knowledge of theory
and knowledge of practice required for a specific occupation.

C. The basic goals of occupational education are:

 

“Ibid., p. 77.

5Towers, Lux, and Ray will describe ”technical and specialized
education“ in one word--”praxiology” - meaning ”knowledge of theory
and knowledge of practice” - two essential elements for occupational
education. New Dimensions in Industrial Arts Curriculum Development.
(Industrial Arts Curriculum Project, Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio), pp. 7-8.

128

1. To develop specific skills, concepts, and insights
needed for the performance of job roles.

2. To develop individual characteristics as a human to
desirable levels that satisfy self-concept, self-respect,
self-fulfillment, aspiration, social and occupational
adjustment.

II. Assumptions about Occupational Instruction
A. The goal of occupational instruction is the development of
acceptable performance proficiency. Employability is the
objective.
B. Occupational instruction involves practice that is indicative
of the specific tasks and jobs of an identifiable position

for which the occupational instruction is given. The

instructional practices6 consist of:

1. A feature that specifies the experiences which must be
effectively imparted to the learner in a manner that
motivates.

2. A feature that integrates the essential knowledges--skills,
principles, concepts, and attitudes in a manner that is
meaningfully related to jobs, tasks, or other relationships

within the occupational environment.

 

6The four points that follow are adapted from Bruner's theory of
instruction. See J. S. Bruner, Toward A Theory of Instruction,
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1966), pp. 37-53.

129

3. A feature that presents the simulation sequence in a
manner dictated by the nature of instructional task
and student's learning capacity.

A. A feature of instructional motivation with appropriate
sequencing of rewards and punishment in learning-teaching
process.

III. SIMULATION.DESLGN FOR OCCUPATIONAL.EDUCATjQy

Designing a simulation for occupational education is an act which
involves the identification of the functions and activities of occupa-
tional education and the invention or selection of procedures and
strategies which will accomplish these functions and activities. It is
not an easy task because it is an inventive, creative, and innovative
act, and not all people are all of these. Besides, the design of a
simulation for occupational education is a task that is confronted with
many dynamic variables including changes in jobs, functions, persons,
activities, and even the occupational environment itself. All these
changes can be represented in mathematic symbols but not the design.7
Therefore, one cannot impose a rigid or rigorous procedure about the
design of occupational education. A rule of the thumb, however, may
be given: an occupational education design must prove effective for
its functions. Since the functions of a simulation design for an
occupational education and a simulated instruction are inextricably

linked, and since more is known about the conditions under which learning

 

7See Robert B. Miller, “Task Description and Analysis”. In R. M.
Gagne and Arthur M. Melton, Psychological Principles in System Development,
(New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965), pp. 1T8¥202. In this
section Miller discusses the problem, mechanics and objectification of
system designs.

130

is effective than is known of the laws that make a design effective, it

is more defensible to design a simulated instructional model that can

be validated than to design an occupational education simulation whose
validation may not only prove expensive, but sometimes prove non-feasible.
Therefore, this chapter will be primarily concerned with the methodology

of applying simulated instruction in occupational education. In this
respect, the simulation design is assumed to be an input into occupational
education instruction. The primary objective of the simulated instructional
model is to invent strategies (based on proven psychological theories)
which will accomplish the functions of occupational education instructional
goals.

IV. IHE DESIGN OF SIMULATED INSTRUCTJDNA MODE 5F 0Q§UEAILQNAL_EQUCAILQN

Chapter IV supplies the theoretical framework for the design of a
simulated instructional model. However, the six operational criteria
are considered inadequate for the design of an instructional model for
occupational education. Therefore the following seven features of the
design are proposed:

A. Occupational System Analysis

8. Selection of a Simulated Occupational Model

C. Orientation to Specific Occupational Objectives

and Performance Standards

D. Simulated Occupation Curriculum Plan

E. Simulated Instructional Process

F. Simulated Occupational Practice

G. Simulated Evaluation
A. Occgpational System Analysis

A necessary starting point in the design of a simulated instruction

131

model for occupational education is an analysis of the occupational
environment and the familiarization of students with the characteristics
and functions of the various components of the environment. This is
important in order to attain congruity between what the occupation is in
reality and what students think it is. There are three major factors of
an occupational environment: (I) the individual and his occupational
roles, (2) the human environment of the occupation, and (3) the physical
environment. An understanding of the characteristics of these three
factors facilitates an intelligent appreciation of the importance of
functional interactions which exist within the organization. Analyzing
the occupation system also includes the determination of the characteristics
of the occupation and the essential hardware and human components that
characterize it. The situational stimuli of the operational tasks, i.e.,
relevant elements of the environment that give context to actions, should
be analyzed. The chart, Figure 5, on pagel32 summarizes some of the
essential elements of the three factors of the occupational environment.
Needless to emphasize that these factors have their internal and external
counterparts. Sometimes the factors Show up in formal and informal forms.
For example, one relevant internal physical environment of an employee
may be his office within a departmental organization; part of his external
but relevant environment is his home and family relations. As part of
occupational education, students must understand their relationships, as
job-holders, with other relevant environments of the occupation like the
human environment, (organizational hierarchy, interactions and relation-
ships), and the physical environment (tools, materials, machines and
facilities) with which they have to come in contact in the course of

the performance of their jobs. Regardless of the occupational simulation

I32

 

   
 

  
  
   

 

 

 

PERSON AND JOB

-- Age, maturity

-- Physical

-- Psychological

-- Economic

-- Social and
cultural

Internal, external

 

NOTE:

Personal
Qualities

 

   
 
    
   
   
   
    
       
 
   
   
 

 

 
 

 
 

(Affective)
Psychomotor
3. PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENT
Occupational
Roles -- TOOIS
-- Position -- Materials
-- Machines
5°"°"' -- Facilities
Education -- Time
Requirements
(Cognitive,
Psychomotor)

 

 

 

2. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

-- Organizational
hierarchy

-- Interaction levels:
formal, Informal

-- Relationshipsz
direct, Indirect

-- Clientele

 

The big triangle represents the occupation with the small triangles
as its components. The two square shapes and the rectangular one
represent the environmental factors. The arrows show the inter-
relationships between these environmentai factors.

THE STRUCTURE OF OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
(Figure 5)

I33

model, these matters should be communicated to the students in a
realistic manner. This part of the simulated instruction is not attained
in a day. In fact, this is sequenced along with other instructional
components. The point that is being made is that somewhere along the
line, these aspects must be communicated to the students before the
end of the occupational education. The intensity or relevance of these
factors will vary in accordance with students' level of knowledge of
the occupational environment.
Methods of familiarizing students with the Occupational Environment:
Several methods can be used to broaden students' knowledge of the
occupational environment among which may be field-trips, guest-speakers
from the occupation, exhibitions, films, slides, work observation, and
work-study. A ”feeling'I of what the occupation is like is the main
goal of this type of activity.

Evaluation: Without a doubt, the level of students' knowledge

 

about the occupational environment can be evaluated if there is some
specificity about the essential things which students must know about
the occupational environment. It must be pointed out, however, that

it is unrealistic to attempt to familiarize students with every element
of the occupational environment. In actual fact, the teacher does not
possess all the essential knowledge. Nor do the students. Knowledges
that are simulated are subject to constant changes having regard for
the dynamic nature of the occupation. Therefore, at best, what should
be aimed at is acquaintanceship with the characteristics of the environ-
ment and the consequences that inhere in such characteristics.

B. Selection of a Simulated Occupational Model

The specificity of the occupational model is an important matter

13A

in focusing the goal of the educational prOgram. A simulation model for
occupational education can be specialized or general. A general simula-
tion model is one that aims at developing occupational competency of a
general nature for a broad field. For example, a simulated occupational
education may seek to provide simulated experiences for marketing majors
of an MBA program, generally. In this case the simulation will be an
integration of general competencies that presumably make competent
marketing managers. On the other hand, the simulated experience may
seek to provide a specialized simulation in which case the objective
may be, for example, to prepare a marketing executive in the detergent
industry. In this case, the particular firm that specializes in this
field may be fictionalized.

1. Rppresenting the Model: The choice of a model is as important

 

as the selection or representation of the compentencies to be developed
through the simulated experience. Some of the ways in which a valid
representation or selection of model competencies are achieved may be
reiterated.

2. Functional Criterion: A checklist of the functions of an
idealized model may be constructed. Thus the total items on the checklist
represent the model being selected and therefore the simulated instruc-
tional objective.

3. Competency Criterion: A norm-based competency criterion may
be used in modelling. In this case the competency criterion contains
a list of proficiencies that are anticipated at the end of simulated
instruction. This criterion generally is derived from performance
evaluation of persons within the occupation and the norm of the employees

is used as the model. These become the focus of the simulated instruction.

135

A. Dictionggy of Occppational Terms Criterion: The Dictionary
of Occupational Terms criterion can be used as the model.8 To a great
extent this model is reliable because of its national validity and
therefore may be considered a suitable model for public education.
Other models can arise from the critical incident analysis, the training
needs evaluation, and the behavioral objectives criteria.9

C. Orientation to Specific Occgpational Objectives and Performance
Standards '

 

One of the main purposes of orientation,is motivational. It is
designed to give the student more specific information about the
particular occupation for which he is being educated. Part of the
information comes from the initial introduction to the occupational
environment, if this is considered part of the picture. The student
is oriented to the conditions under which he is to respond realistically.
He is informed of the types of equipment, materials, informational
sources, and other matters that are germane to the specific occupation
for which he is being trained. The information is simulated. Assuming
that the simulation design takes cognizance of this need, there will be
no problem of the order in which the items of information suggested
above is presented to the student. Some information may be withheld
temporarily for the student to discover himself. Some are so self-
evident that no real orientation is required.

1. ijectives: However, when a simulation unit is designed to develop

 

8U. S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, op. cit.

9See B. S. Bloom (ed.), Taxonomy_of Educational Objectives: A
Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, (New York: McKay, 1956).

136

a new skill, knowledge, or attitude, it is essential for the students
to be oriented towards the curriculum objectives.

Although there are many approaches in derivation of instructional
objectives, the objectives of occupational education are better described
in tasks taxonomy because this method describes task behaviors in a
manner that is ”standardized, efficient, directly teachable and reliable”.10
The taxonomy of performance is concerned with activities in terms of
whether they are jobs, or tasks, and whether the performance can be
described in behavior of an individual or that of a team or group.

2. Pre-test: Another purpose of orientation to simulated instruc-
tional objectives is to assess students' readiness for the learning
experience. Students entry-knowledge must be evaluated in terms of the
prerequisites set for the simulated experience. Students with inadequate
preparation must be given remedial coaching which will enable them to
derive an optimum advantage from the simulated learning.

Homogeneous vs. heterpgeneous grouping: Ideally it is preferable and

 

more efficient to have students with the same ability level enter a
simulated instruction. However, this is not usually possible. Yet it

must be said that heterOgeneous composition of a class is not ideal for

 

'oMiller, who has done an extensive work on job analysis in military
and industrial settings, considers this approach as being ideal. To
paraphrase him, a job is a component of activities that make up the roles
of a position. A task is a component of a job mutually related to it
because of a common purpose. A task therefore is a series of activities
that are part of a job-cycle. Miller, op. cit., pp. 198-202. Examples:
One of the items of the Job Description of a lawyer may be “To prepare
a brief to defend a client”. This is a 192. One of the task components
of this job is: Referring to the statutory requirement in the statute
book. Activities involved in this includes referring to the index,
turning over the pages, etc., while the appropriate reference is found
and the brief is written.

137

a simulation in which the development of team behavior is an objective.
Unless the simulated learning affords individualized tutoring, it may
be advisable to group the class according to their levels of ability
so that there is no great disparity in ability grouping and achievement.

3. Specificity of simulated instructional functions: A simulated

 

instruction can be designed to train in procedural ability, psychomotor
skills, concepts, insights, judgment, Synthesis, or a combination of

any of these. The specific occupational proficiency to be achieved

by the simulation must be specified in behavior or performance taxonomy.
For example, one of the functions of a vocational business education
program may be: To provide instruction which will enable the students

to transcribe a maflable letter dictated at a speed of 100 words a minute.

A. _£andard of_performangg: In some performance objectives where

 

the perfonmance can be quantified, there may be no problem in specifying
what the performance standard will be. ”Students will be able to
transcribe a mailable letter dictated at a speed of 100 words a minute”

is a goal at least broadly measurable. When there is an objective in
which performance is not easily quantifiable, measures need to be devised
for assessing performance. If it is critical to have just “one right way”
of performance, the determination of this standard must be based on the
opinion of experts in the occupation. Sometimes it is unrealistic to

have just one right answer, in which case a series of alternatives will
have to be specified in which the answer given will be acceptable. For
example, performance requiring decision-making may be rated: (1) excellent,
(2) good, (3) effective, (A) ineffective, and (5) poor. Each of these can
now be quantified by assigning points for the responses. A pre-simulation

evaluation of where the student is in relation to instruction objective

138

will facilitate measurement of effects of simulated instruction. To
facilitate total evaluation of simulation experience, a pre-test is

a desideratum. At the end of the simulated instruction, a post-test
is administered to measure the achievement of students during the
simulated instruction. More of this will be discussed under simulated
evaluation.

D. Simulated Occupation Curriculum Plan

 

Simulated occupation curriculum plan involves making detailed plans
on what has to be learned in a simulation, when it has to be learned,

where, how, and by whom. Therefore, this process is the programming,

 

managing and coordinating simulated instructional activities. The
components of the activities include, determining the structure of
subject matter mix essential in the development of skills, attitudes
and concepts for carrying out specific activities such as jobs and
position of an occupation. This is logically sequencing materials
with the following important issues in mind: (1) time required for
simulated learning by an average student, (2) the relative difficulty
of topics to be covered, (3) the optimum order of subject matter, and
(A) the allocation of time for practice, drill, testing, and review,

and (5) individual differences of the students.11

1. Simulated Environment: The motivational techniques that will

 

be used for this process should be dictated by what is known about the
students' needs, the nature of the occupation, and the incentives, and

reward patterns that characterize it. For example, “promotion” and

 

11M. P. Crawford. ”Concept of Training” in R. M. Gagne and Arthur
W. Melton, Psycholpgical Principles in System Development. (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), p. 333.

139

salary raises may be appropriate rewards in a prOgram training secretaries.
Since it is required that the learning situation should have an appearance
of real-life situation, the need to have a simulated learning environment
is important. In occupational education, the need for realism of the
environment cannot be over-emphasized. The important point is that the
stimulus situation created must be such that it is contextually similar

to the real-life so that positive transfer occurs after the training or

in the process of using or integrating learning to solve similar problems
encountered in learning situations.

2. Simulated Materials: An essential, and no doubt the most
important instructional plan decision to be made by the teacher, is the
development or use of simulated materials. If an occupational education
uses an exiSting simulated model, probably the simulated materials will
come with the package. If the instructor has to develop these materials
for himself, then a problem of greater dimension occurs. In this respect,
the simulated materials developed should be the prototype of real-life
materials. For example, if exercises in decision-making are to be given,
the materials developed for these exercises must be realistic. In this
respect, the relevance of the materials as the equivalence of the real-
life is important. Tools, machines, work space and other equipment
essential for simulated instruction must be provided. The physical
learning conditions--lights, sitting arrangements--need to be appropriate
and be, as far as possible, the prototypes of real-life models.

The fidelity of the learning environment is essential only to the
degree that it is environmentally or physically relevant and adequate
to elicit the life-like response that can be transferred to real-life.

Exact duplication of real-life conditions is not essential. Thus, a

1A0

model office is not absolutely essential for training secretaries and
office managers. The contribution of realism should be made clear:
it stimulates interest which facilitates acquisition of knowledge and
skill.
E. Simulated Occupational Practice

An important element of ”learning by doing” is practice. Thus,
simulated practice should provide laboratory experience in the occupation.
It is impossible for mastery of a performance to occur without practice,
because it is practice that enables assessments to be made between
stimulation and response. The theoretical principle underlying practice
and habit formation should guide the teacher in arranging simulated
practice. It is accepted as a truism that ”practice makes perfect“.
Since the goal of simulated instruction in occupational education is
development of effectiveness in a chosen occupation, it is important
that the simulated practice should develop occupational effectiveness
and efficiency. Several factors will determine the effectiveness of
practice in a simulation. Some of these may be mentioned.

1. Speed and Accuracy: The teacher in charge of a simulated

 

instruction should consider the importance of speed and accuracy of
practice according to the nature of operational situation being simulated.
In some real-life situations, time and accuracy are correlated with the
execution of an operational task. For example, in training cash register
operators, speed and accuracy are important. However, it can be said
that, in general, time is a critical element in every task performance.
Therefore simulated practice Should take cognizance of Spggg_and accuracy.
The emphasis of one over the other should be based absolutely on the

nature of the operation as seen in the market place. It has been shown

lAl
in several practical examples that speed will come after repetitive
practice. Accuracy should be stressed not as an alternative to speed but
as an element of what goes with it.

2. Simulated Practice Continuum: Practice in occupational training

 

has a natural division. Assuming that the initial learning is effective
and efficient, simulation in occupational education may be planned in a
continuum. Thus, the first part of the simulated practice will deal with
simulation of tasks; and when these have been thoroughly mastered, simu-
lated practice of job may be added, and then lastly, a simulation of
position. To illustrate how this may be done, this example will suffice.
Suppose one of the items in the job description of an accounts clerk is:
'To prepare employees monthly salaries from time card record.” This

job is composed of these tasks: (a) checking employees lists by section,
(b) calculating time card hours, (c) multiplying this by rate per hour
per employees, etc., until the form, and check is prepared. The practice
continuum process will break down practice into all the activities
sequentially until the whole job activities are simulated.

The complexity of the task or job and the l09ic of activity flow
should determine the sequencing of practice. Simulated practices should
be distributed properly to cover the proportion of interactive and active
behaviors associated with the operational tasks. The nature of the occu-
pation should determine how these are balanced. For example, if the
temperament of a job is self-centered, self-centered activities should
predominate in the simulated practice.

3. Recycling of practice is essential for two purposes: (l) correct
response building for effective response generalization, and (2) oppor-

tunity to integrate or transfer previously acquired generalizations.

lA2

A. Flexibility inppractice: A number of variables may dictate what
type of practice and what method should be used by the teacher. In some
cases, the teacher has no choice on what the practice should be. For
example, if a simulated game is to be used, the Simulated practice is
already written up. It is a question of the teacher following and adopting
the practice procedures specified. It can be said, however, that in gene-
ral, simulated practice needs to be meaningful. Active responses by the
students to a stimulus situation is important. The same material need
not be used over and over again for practice (except when the goal is to
over-learn). Thus, it is necessary to vary stimulus materials. Immediate
knowledge of results (KOR) is important as it is related to the rate of
learning and motivational drive. The instructor must be around to give
guidance.

5. Progress Records: Progress of students during simulated practice

 

needs to be kept. It is wise to chart this if the learning involves
measurable psychomotor skills. A lot of information about the student
and the effectiveness of practice and/or instruction could be gotten from
records of students' progress kept.

F. Simulated Instructional Process

This process is the stage at which the teacher's function is pri-
marily that of a “back-seat driver'h The teacher may not come in at all
if the simulation design includes a debriefing program. The students are
involved in the action. The teacher simply gives direction. This process
is linked with the proceeding process of simulated practice. The two
processes actually function together. Three instructional activities
are involved in simulated instruction method: (I) briefing, (2) direct-

ing, and (3) debriefing.

IA3

l. Briefing: The briefing session for a simulation exercise
intimates the students with the objectives of the simulated practice. It
provides some useful directions that can make the practice meaningful and
effective. This is extremely important in occupational education. The
explicit purpose of each practice and the method of practice need to be
clarified to the student.

2. Directing: This is the intentional coaching which the simulation
process may demand, particularly when the directions given for conducting
the practice is not followed by students or when wrong responses are
made all the way. The amount of guidance will depend on the needs of
each student. In auto-instruction simulation, the Student may be bran-
ched to a coaching track when wrong responses are made. The simulation
program in such a case prescribes appropriate remedial instruction. In
some cases, this may require outside reading, projects, and other
activities. The instructional plan, it is possible, may program activi-
ties like these in such a way that they supplement student's knowledge at
the appropriate times and at such levels that will enable him to function
or respond more effectively and efficiently.

3. Debriefing: The debriefing session relates to the conduct of a
review and a summarycf post-practice session. It deals with removing
any misconception about the situations that may have arisen during the
practice. Also new ideas which the student may not have thought about
are given. It can be summarized that debriefing accomplished one imp-
ortant objective: it puts the simulated practice in proper perspective
by under-scoring important points that might have been overlooked or
overemphasized unnecessarily. It might be said also that the debriefing

session is an evaluation session: it offers an opportunity to assess

lAA

the extent to which the stated objective, as expressed during briefing,
has been achieved. An analysis of students' weak points should guide the
teacher in programming any subsequent practice and coaching.

In occupational education, the articulation of the teacher in
motivating students occupationally is very important. The effect which
this has on the process of instruction is evidenced by the type of
behavior which the students cultivate. If the teacher is not profes-
sional in the manner he handles the simulation process, he can hardly
sensitize the students to be. The goal of simulated instructional process
should be (I) to develop the potentiality of the student as completely as
possible, and (2) to promote desirable personal-group relationships, and
an awareness of the welfare of others.

G. Simulated Evaluation

 

The evaluation of simulation learning has been beset with a number
of problems chief among which is the question of qualitative and quanti-
tative evaluation. Evaluation of occupational education may become a
complex task if there is no clear-cut procedure for translating the
obserVable behavior of persons in job situations to numerical scales.
The major problem is that the bulk of behavior repertoires in occupational
education result in performances that are describable more accurately as
qualitative than quantitative.

The first step in approaching this problem is a definition of the
behavior to be evaluated. Two approaches are possible under an instruc-
tional setting: (l) the behavior to be evaluated may be defined in terms

of a norm-reference, in which case the norm of a group is the standard of

evaluation. This is grading on a curve. (2) The behavior may be evalua-

ted in terms of a market place criterion-reference, e.g. ”At the end of

1A5

the simulated instruction, student will be able to transcribe from short-
hand notes at the rate of I00 words a minute." Thus, every student is
graded on this criterion-reference. This approach is preferred because
it can show what progress, if any, that is being made in terms of an
“absolute” standard.

In occupational education, a logical standard of assessment is
competency assessment. Evaluation of this nature is based on the occur-
rence of desired response. This may be expressed in terms of degree of
accuracy or the speed at which the function is performed or the behavior
is exhibited.

l. Types of Simulated Evaluation: In any program of occupational
education, at least two categories of evaluation are relevant. The first
is concerned with evaluation during the process of simulation. The
second type of evaluation is correlated-behavior measure which is post-

simulation evaluation.

(a) simulated Evaluation; The fundamental criterion for evaluating

 

a simulation-based instruction is the extent of transfer to life situation.'2

Thus, simulated evaluation is a logical process in evaluation of occupa-
tional education. Simulated evaluation relates to any type of test or
measurement that is given in a job-like situation which contrives the
effects of real-life environment. It is a test given in the microcosm of

the job-situation. Types of these tests may be discussed.

 

leillian C. Biel, "Training Programs and Devices”, in R. M. Gagne,
and Arthur W. Melton, (eds.) Psychological Principles in System Development,
(New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1965), pp.377-378.

'BGlaser and Klaus refer to these tests as ”Simulated Performance.
Measures”. Glaser and Klaus, ”Proficiency Measurement: Assessment of
Human Performance”. Ibid., pp.A57-A60.

IA6

(i) Situational Tests: These are tests which ”stage” job situation

problems. Students act the roles of job-holders depicted by the test.
A situational problem, for example, in medical education may relate to
a specific problem, say, in diagnosis which doctors face in real life.

(ii) Eguipment Operation Measure: In some occupational tasks the use
of machines and equipment is inextricably linked with efficiency and
effectiveness on the job. The proficiency of a typist, for example, may
be evaluated by having her manipulate the typewriter to accomplish a set
of tasks in display, or letter-style.

(iii) In-basket Tests: In-basket test simulation is an excellent
performance test which evaluates the student's ability to cope with pro-
blems that are representative of those faced by real-life counter-part.
In-basket simulation items may focus on specific functional roles, e.g.
discipline problems in the classroom.

(iv) Role-play simulation: Role-play simulation can be used as a

 

method of evaluating the simulated occupational instruction. Role-play
then becomes the test. To be effectively used, the role-play simulation
must contain elements of problems that characterize the occupational role
within the parameters of the instructional objectives. A check list of
behavior or responses expected must be part of the evaluation tool. Also,
a rating scale showing the record of performance must be prepared. Group
discussion can be used in the same way.
(v) Simulation Game: Games may be used to evaluate performance.

To be effective, a record of performance during the game situation must be
kept by using a rating scale and a check list for the behavior repertoires

expected or unbecoming.

(vi) Reports, committee assignment and task force are other kinds of

simulated evaluations that can be used.

lA7

2. Grade assignment: Grades may be assigned in accordance with

 

the rating scales adopted by the teacher. As discussed earlier, this may
be norm-referenced, or criterion-referenced. The teacher should have
absolute freedom in assigning grades. No one can usurp this responsibility
but she has also the professional obligation of ensuring that the stand-
ards used are realistically defensible.

3. Correlated-behavior Measures: Correlated-behavior measures are

 

measurement of related events in the sense that the post-simulation events
suggest a relationship between the events that occur and the incidence of
simulated instruction. Thus if there are immediate promotions, salary
raises, and increased responsibilities for the graduates of a simulated
program, in recognition of skill levels attained in their work, these
events may be regarded as correlated-behavior measures. However, before
any such a claim is made, there must be adequate evidence to support it.
This may be done by comparing the graduates of simulated program with those
of non-simulated program. It is recognized, however, that the relationship
between job performance proficiency and associated events is not always
clear.

In occupational education, a correlated-behavior evaluation can be

conducted through a follow-up study of graduates. Such a survey should

 

measure occupational mobility, promotability, job knowledge, occupational
adjustment and job behavior (e.g. punctuality, absenteeism, occupational
housekeeping), and the extent to which the simulated instruction can be
said to have helped the student to attain all or any of these. The
results of these may not be evident in a one-shot study. Therefore, a

longitudinal study, covering, say a period of five years may be desirable.

1A8

Other examples of correlated-behavior measures that can be used are:
(1) objective observation on-the-job, and (2) verbal or paper-and-pencil
test on technical knowledge. Results from both the situational tests
and the correlated-behavior measures can provide some feedback on the
effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the simulated instruction.

H. Redesign

If the objectives of simulation are not attained, several factors may
be responsible. Two probable causes in the dysfunctionality of the model
may be suggested. First, the assumptions made about the simulation model
may be wrong, in which case the inputs of the simulation design are either
inadequate or are invalid. Secondly, there may be dysfunctional coordina-
tions in the processes of the model. Errors in functional process may be
located if this is the case. Thus, in such a case, the correction of the
errors, and not the re-design of the whole simulation model, will be the
logical action. In any case, the model should be reviewed from time to
time to make it functional for whatever the simulated occupational
objectives may be.

V. GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF SIMULATED INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL

Figure 6, page 1A9, summarizes the procedures for the simulated
instructional model, described herein as SIM-INST Model. The figure
also describes the processes and essential guidelines for the teacher.
At the risk of repeating some of what has been included in the flow
chart, the following additional guidelines are given:

A. Design Guideline: Choose an occupation model and identify

specific occupational goal.

1. Determine what type of model to use--generalized or specialized.

Elm—AM?

 

 

 

 

 

OCCUPATIONAL
SYSTEN ANALYSIS
-- Occupational

 

   

 

Environment
NOTE: Each of the seven F tors:
processes fmction a); ""00 c 1°“
towards the same '“I'“ '
systemo-goal. Focus ’ (3) PHYSICN
of all activities is
on c.|| (3). ‘t’, Other external
é. factors
5”
a!
I“ - — - .-
/ Feedback I
Eric J I
7. How do students perfona 7, SIMULATED '
during and after sImu- EVALUATION |
lated Instruction? __ _ I
Can they perform the $31.33: '_ee2ac_§
jobs, tasks s activities __ Correlated
similar to those of a Behavior tes,’
real-life model? _- Post-test
is transfer of learning
possible?
is ' follow-up of (Performance Test)
graduates contemplated?
SPECIFIC
OCCUPATIONAL
OBJECTIVES S
STANDARDS
-- Express objec-
tives In task
behavioral
terms--jobs,
tasks and
activities
-- Attitudes, etc
6. is the practice in a microcosm
of real-world?

 

 

 

is it meaningful? 6.

Any competitive, cooperative,
or interact ive process?

What Is the most efficient
number in a group?

  

 

    

OCCUPATIONAL
PRACTICE
Practice Con-
tinuum: task,
job a position
individual and
group practice
Student progress
Transfer and
nte pation of

 
  
   

.— _.--.

 

II

 

 

IA9

Formal and informal Instruction;
guidance, guest speakers, work
observation. Goal: gain acquain-
tanceship with occupational world.

 

  

3.

  
 
 

SPECIFIC

2. Is Instruction
OCCUPATIONAL going to be for
NOOEL specialised po-

sition In a
particular fine
or organization,
or Is It a gen-
eral preparation
for any organi-
zational sector?

-- Specialized

-- Generalized

 

 

      

Specify jobs, tasks, activities for
which training Is being offered.
Objectives can be derived from:

D.O.T.

Functional Criteria

Competency

Critical Incident Approach
Orient students to simulation
objectives--skills, concepts s
attitudes to be developed.
Pro-test entry knowledge.

A. Are there adequate organizational

and administrative support?

 

 

 

 

OCCUPATIONAL
INSTRUCTIONAL
PROCESS
-- Briefing
-- Debriefing
-- Feedback
(Coaching,
remedial and
extra class
learnings)

 

 

 

Is a profeslonaliy

OCCUPATIONAL qualified teacher

CURRICULUM available?

PLAN

-- Subject mix Are the facilities,

-- Sequence 8 materials, right?
Integration

00 students need
any remedial or
revisional learning?

-- Scheduling

-- Prerequisites

-- Simulated
Classroom

 

 

   
 

Are reward and punishI-nt system
appropriate?

What motivational strategy is
being used?

What new knowledge has to be
learned and how will this be
provided?

A SIMULATED INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL (SIM-INST) FOR OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION

(Figure 6)

8.

ISO

2. Is a suitable commercialized simulation available? Or
can a ”home-made” model be designed to do the same job?

Administrative Guideline: Obtain institutional commitment

and support for running the simulated occupational program.

I. Can the simulation be financed?

2. Can scheduling be arranged without disrupting other
school hours?

3. Is the administration favorable to its use?

A. Are simulated facilities available?

5. is an occupationally competent teacher available
to conduct the simulated instruction?

Professional Guideline: Be professionally prepared to

conduct the simulated instructional program.

i. For what group of students is the simulated instruction
designed? (Heterogeneity of student input may be a
burden on the instructional process. State pre-
requisites for the simulation).

2. Determine other instructional inputs for the simulation:

What are the objectives of the simulated instruction?
Are objectives stated in task behavioral terms--job,
task, and position? What attitudes, skills, concepts
are to be developed?
(a) Subject mix; (b) lesson plans; (c) texts required;
(d) Manuals for the simulation; (e) simulated package
and materials-~Are these tried out before? (f) EXtra-
curricular activities required, e.g. projects, field

trips, assignments, etc.; (9) simulated environment.

lSI
3. Determine instructional process: (a) Are remedial learn-
ing essential for any student? (b) What kinds of prac-
tices should the student have--individual or group? (c)
00 problems reflect integrated knowledge? (d) Are
students briefed for simulation exercises? Are they
debriefed? (e) What additional coaching is necessary?
A. How are students to be motivated?
0. Evaluation Guidelines: Determine how the simulated instruction
is to be evaluated.
1. How will the simulation be evaluated--norm-referenced or
criterion-referenced?
2. Pre-test to evaluate entry knowledge.
3. Performance test--evaluate instructional objectives.
This may be used as post-test.
A. Situational tests--simulated evaluation administration.
5. Correlated-behavior measures, e.g. conduct a follow-up
study.
SUMMARY
In this chapter, the nature of occupational education has been discussed.
Assumptions are made also about the objectives of occupational instruction.
A seven-process simulated instructional model is designed to meet these
objectives. The seven processes are (1) occupational system analysis, (2)
selection of a simulated occupational model, (3) orientation to specific
occupational objectives and performance standards, (A) a Simulated occupa-
tional curriculum plan, (5) a simulated instructional process, (6) a simu-
lated occupational practice, and (7) a simulated evaluation. The activities

of each of the seven processes are discussed. Guidelines for using the

model and rectifying any dysfunctionality are provided.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

I. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY

This study was a venture to derive some thoeretical generalizations
about the methodology of educational simulation, particularly on design
and methods of instructional simulation. It attempted to open the ”black
box” of educational simulation and unfold the theoretical principles that
undergird the practice in all kinds of simulations used for educational
purposes including simulators, computerized and non-computerized games,
operational gaming, in-basket simulation, and role-play simulation.
Specifically, the study was concerned with the synthesis, analysis, and
critical evaluation of all kinds of theoretical rationales on educational
simulation in order to derive an integrative theory which explained and
clarified the methodology as it related to: (1) the design of educational
Simulation, (2) the instructional application of educational simulation,
(3) the operational criteria for instructional simulation, and (A) the
method of designing an instructional model for occupational education.

The procedure of the research included an extensive review and
critical analysis of literature, observation of educational simulations
in classrooms, discussions with users, designers, and proponents of

educational simulation, and deductive abstraction.

153

The literature of educational simulation and related psychological
rationales were reviewed. From this broad view, four schools of
simulation rationales were identified. These were: the philosophical,
mechanistic, psychological and sociological schools. The simulations
reviewed covered all types of presentations including computer and
non-computer simulation games, in-basket simulation, role-playing
simulations, Simulators, and other iconic models.

The classificatory approach adopted in investigating the methodology
of educational simulation. although arbitrary, was used to analyze the
theoretical principles relative to the design and application of
instructional simulation.

An integrative theory which covered all the theoretical principles
analyzed was proposed and criteria were developed for the design of
educational simulations. Also, six major operational criteria for
administering instructional simulation were derived.

The extent to which the theory conformed with practice was evaluated
by comparing the operational criteria of five selected simulation designs
used for instructional purposes with the six theoretical instructional
criteria derived. One of the simulations, Community Land Use Game, was
observed under laboratory conditions.

In order to design a simulated instructional model for occupational
education, some basic assumptions were made about the nature of
occupational education and occupational instruction.1 The six operational
criteria of instructional simulation were modified because of their

inadequacies for occupational education. A seven-process simulated

 

1See pages 127 and 128.

l5A

instructional model called the SIM-INST Model2 was derived. The functions
of each of the seven processes of the SIM-INST Model were described and
guidelines were developed for utilizing the model and for rectifying any

dysfunctionality that might arise.

II. MAJOR FINDINGS

The major findings of the study are discussed under four headings:

(1) the nature and rationale of educational simulation, (2) theoretical
instructional simulation criteria, (3) theoretical principles affecting
the design of educational simulation, and (A) theoretical principles
affecting instructional application of educational simulation.

A. The Nature and Rationale of Educational Simulation

The following major findings are pertinent to the nature and rationale
of educational simulation:

1. The focus of all educational simulations is the provision of
realistic instruction. This approach relies on laboratory-type experiences
which are provided the learner under conditions that replicate the opera-
tional situations of real-life. The simulated environment in which the
laboratory experience is given is a microcosm of the real-life situation.
Simulation therefore bridges the gap between theoretical bookwork and
practical application of knowledge in real-life situations.

2. The classificatory approach, philosophical, psychological,

mechanistic and sociological, used in analyzing all types of educational

 

ZSIM-INST is an acronym for the author's model for simulated
Occupational Simulation proposed in Chapter V. See pages 130 to 151.

155

simulation are useful rubrics for investigating and understanding the
rationale of educational simulation.

a) The philosophical position emphasizes the realistic,
pragmatic, functional, goal-directed, and participatory aspects of
learning in which the learner plays the dominate role.

b) The mechanistic position supports the utilization of
technological devices (synthetic and animated) for faithfully representing
real-life. The devices facilitate representation of abstracted elements
of real-life and make presentation of realistic instruction understandable
and meaningful.

c) The psychological school regards the physical and psycho-
logical fidelity of the operational situations as important issues which
engender realistic responses on the part of the learner. Such considera-
tions facilitate transfer to real-life situations if they are accompanied
with reinforced goal-directed practices.

d) The sociological position emanates from abstraction of ele-
ments of human and physical environment relatable to the role sets of
the real-life model. Role behavior is inculcated through a process of
reinforced normative practice.

However, it was noted that in spite of these different classifications,
a network of interrelationships in methodology of design and instructional
application exist within the schools. For example, it was noted that
all the schools of educational simulation had to make specific assumptions
about the characteristics of the real-life model which was being simulated.
The four schools of educational simulation use synthetic or animated
devices for representing simulation models. However, it was concluded

that the differences in method of representation could be explained by

156

differences in levels of sophistication of designers. A sophisticated
designer might prefer the computer for simulating abstracted elements

of real-life model while a less sophisticated designer might prefer a

simpler artifact, symbol, or iconic representation.

3. Contrary to existing opinion which some people have that simu-
lation is useful only for developing psychomotor skills, it was determined
that simulation could be used for all types of learnings and subject-matter
fields. Simulations are being designed and found effective for tradition-
ally “hard” subjects like mathematics, logic, economics, as well as for
subjects like political science, geography, and vocational subjects. It
was found out that whether a Simulation is computerized or non-computerized,
the function of educational simulation is to integrate knowledges which an
individual may possess and to put these knowledges into meaningful forms
by presenting the learner with problem-solving situations which require
the application of procedures, principles, concepts, psychomotor skills,
identification, and strategies or a combination of any of these. This
learning experience is a synthesis of the cognitive, affective and psycho-
motor knowledges which an individual has previously acquired or may
acquire during the simulation.

A. Gaming and simulation are two terms used in educational simula-
tion. The game concept is a useful one, but it is not a sine qua non of
educational simulation. The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably
by some designers and users. Computer simulations are generally oriented
towards games, as in management games. The game concept as used in edu-
cational simulation means a model which provides stimulating mimetic
practice for students about gamed situations of real-life. What distinguishes

an educational game from a parlor game is that an educational game has

157

specific instructional objectives to which the student must be oriented
at the beginning of the game. Also educational games and with debriefing.

a) The purpose of gaming is to illustrate in mimetic manner the
social or physical interactions that occur in real-life and to provide a
miniature of real-life in which participants can practice and respond
realistically. Games illustrate the application of concepts, rules and
principles in specific situations.

b) The rationale behind the use of games in educationis to
motivate the learner by providing him learning experiences that will
stimulate his drives to attain Standards that are normatively rewarded
by the rules of the game. Games always have built-in motivation. Rewards
in games are assured and because of contingencies of rewards with behavi-
oral responses, it is assumed that the process of reinforcement which
exists in a game will enhance the internalization and transfer of learning.

B. Instructional Simulation Criteria

The following major findings are noted:

1. The five selected instructional simulations conformed in essential
details with the six theoretical operational criteria for administering
simulated instruction, namely, (a) the selection of a model, (b) the
orientation of the student to the objectives and performance standards
of the simulation, (c) simulated curriculum plan, (d) simulated instruc-
tional process, (e) simulated instructional practice, and (f) simulated
instructional evaluation. However, it was discovered that there was no
agreement in the procedural practices on simulated evaluation. Some
have pre-test and post-test. Some have none of these.

2. In general, evaluation of simulated instruction proved to be a

tenuous operation. Consequently, it was considered desirable to establish

158

a systematic process of evaluation comprising a pre-test, a post-test,
and finally a situational test. The situational test is a prototype of
situational problem which a person faces in a real-life situation and its
major objective is the assessment of the amount of transfer of training.
Performance test, which may assess mastery of important concepts, rules,
and application, may also be administered if considered essential.

3. The assignment of a grade for simulated instruction was in cases
studied not based on any consistent principle. It was concluded that
generally the final responsibility for assigning a final grade should
rest with the instructor who should take cognizance of the student's
performance in simulated practices and the levels of improvement and
progress he has made over a reasonable trial period during the simulated
instruction. The objectives of the simulation should determine the weight
given to any criteria of evaluation that might be adopted.

C. Theoretical Princjples Affecting Design of Educational Simulation

As far as the theoretical principles affecting designs of educational
simulations are concerned, the following findings are considered major:

1. While synthetic and animated devices have been utilized in
constructing simulation models, every simulation design should incorpor-
ate five features: (a) a stimulus situation, (b) a response situation,
(c) a consequence situation representing the interaction of stimulus-
response, (d) a feedback sequence, and (e) a control. The nature of
these criteria suggests that the S-R theory is basic to all educational
simulation designs.

2. Simulation devices are chosen by designers largely on the basis
of their own sophistication, knowledge of the model, the resources

available to the designers, and the suitability of the synthetic or

I

l
I_
I

159 \
animated devices for representing the abstracted characteristics of the .
model. Thus, even though there were different types of simulations, such
as those utilizing cybernetics and “giant brains” in computerized games,
and those using simple non-mechanistic devices as in role-playing
simulations, all simulations accomplish the same objective, i.e., the
provision of laboratory-type education in which the learner is actively
involved.

3. The concept of simulation does not imply exact duplication of

 

real-life but rather is a [ppresentation of real-life based on the

 

individual designer's presumptions and assumptions of the state and
characteristics of that real-life.

A. Fidelity of simulation is important in design because it incor-
porates the degree of realism the designer has represented. Fidelity
can be physical or mental or both. Physical fidelity applies when the
representation is based on physical resemblence between the real-life
model and the simulation model. Mental fidelity is a psychological
state of perception. It makes the user of a simulation acquire a feeling
of l'realness“ because of the verisimilitude of the model. The ultimate
test of fidelity is the extent to which the representation leads to the
elicitation of responses that are transferrable positively to real-life
situations. Fidelity of simulation is (a) omission of situational
stimuli that are irrelevant to contextual responses, and (b) the inclusion
of those stimuli that are relevant and at the same time vital to positive
transfer and integration.

5. Degree of realism relates to the extent to which operational
situational stimuli of real-life model are represented in the simulation

model in a way which stimulates positive responses. In the final analysis,

I60 \

the extent to which the degree of realism stimulates learning is the
important touchstone. The degree of realism may be psychological or
physiCal. Degree of simulation can also be total or partial. It is not
essential to have absolute realism if a minimal-response type of stimulus
representation will lead to the inculcation of desirable behavior that

is transferrable to real-life.

6. Omission of elements which are relevant but dangerous, inimiCal,
non-feasible, expensive, and non-profitable, is permissible and does not
do any violence to the validity of a simulation model. In this way,
irrelevant elements (those that are not vital and situational stimulus-
response elements) may be omitted.

7. What counts most in representation is the contribution of
simulation designs to educational objectives in terms of suitability
for development of transferrable behaviors. Sophisticated gadgetry is
a minor item.

8. Transfer of training is the main criterion for deciding what
to include in the simulation. Thus, an element which does not produce
a positive response which can be transferred to real-life is contextually
irrelevant and must be omitted.

9. The specificity of the model being simulated is the first step
towards the development of a good simulation. The objectives of the
simulation must be consistent with the characteristics of the real-life
model.

10. Educational simulation designers do not give sufficient attention
to the construction of realistic achievement tests, particularly realistic

situational tests. With the exception of the in-basket simulation in which

I61

Frederiksen's pioneering work offered grassroot guidelines for designing
a type of a simulated test, the procedures for constructing and validating
simulated tests are not clearly known.

0. Theoretical Principles Affecting Instructional Application of

Educational Simulation

The following findings are considered major:

1. Instructional simulation procedures in all kinds of educational
simulation are to a great extent similar.

2. Initial learning is a necessary ”raw material“ for instructional
simulation. It is the initial knowledges which simulation integrates to
develop performance skills.

3. The instructional objectives of any Simulated instruction should
be stated in performance terms, i.e., in behavioral goals. The standard
of acceptable performance which reflects acceptable real-life performance
standard should be clearly specified.

A. The sequencing of learning under instructional simulation must
have regard for the student's level of knowledge and relevance to his
needs. It is not clear from this study how designers and users should
determine what this level should be.

5. Realism and meaningfulness of practice stimulate learning and
involvement in simulated exercises. This is achieved by simulated
environment and the use of simulated materials.

6. Orientation, briefing, and debriefing sessions need to be
conducted in such a way that brings congruity of learning objectives
with the perspectives of the simulated instruction. Debriefing sessions

are sometimes omitted in some simulations. They should be regarded as

162

problem-solving sessions in which the group uses the occasion for diag-
nosing difficulties and for exploring new procedures for solving problems.

7. Feedback is essential for effective learning through simulations
and must be prompt, relevant, accurate, unambiguous as well as given so
that association with antecedent actions can be formed without difficulty.
Contingency of reward is motivating and leads to internalization of values.

8. Evaluation in simulation must include situational tests. The
basic criterion for evaluating a simulation-based educational program
is the extent of transfer of training to the life situation.

9. In simulated instruction, time is usually altered. ”Simulated
time” may telescope the events of real time so that an hour of instruc-
tion may represent a period of one month or even a quarter in real-life;
or ”simulated time” may allow a momentary real-life task to be expanded

into a long series of events.

III. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

The findings of this study support three major implications for
education: (1) the implication for general education, (2) the implica-
tions for occupational education, and (3) the implications for instruc-
tional technology.

A. implications for General Education

1. Theoretical exposition of educational simulation has revealed

that simulated learning is learning by doing; it is a chain of meaningful
deliberations which offer realistic practices to the student. This may
well be the technique which will assist in breaking the passive reaction
to learning that occurs under non-simulated instruction. Simulation may
be a major answer for motivating those who find puzzlement and threat in

learning without action.

163

2. Theory for simulated instruction emphasizes the importance
of immediacy of feedback and its implies that the instructional applica-
tion of designs with appropriate feedback sequences may remove the present
conventional reliance on the teacher for reinforcement and may satisy the
student's motivational needs in terms of contingency of rewards which the
teacher typically is unable to match.

3. Clarification of the the6retical principles on design and
application of instructional simulation opens the door widely for possible
experimentation in many subject-matter fields that may wish to develop
educational simulations for instruction. innovation in this direction
may emerge.

8. Implications for Occupational Education

1. The concept of occupational system and environment as part
of the total program of simulated occupational education (as proposed
in this study) can affect the structure of occupational education by
bringing a new approach to occupational curriculum design.

2. The description of instructional objectives in occupational
education in terms of a task taxonomy, i.e., task and job behaviors, can
be a meaningful and appropriate approach for occupational education
because the concept naturally fits into the simulation practice continuum,
whereby practice is progressively sequenced for task, job, and position.

3. The simulation model designed through this study may assist
in providing a better evaluation of simulated instruction than the non-
simulated approach conventionally used in occupational education. The
assessment of Simulated learning through situational test administration
and correlated-behavior assessments, e.g. follow-up study, is a responsible

approach to evaluating the outcomes of occupational education.

16A

A. The simulated instructional model for occupational education
safeguards the installation of quality occupational education program
that can serve specific needs because it offers a systematic approach
to instructional design.

C. Implications for Instructional Technology

 

1. Clarification of the theoretical principles on design and
instructional application of educational simulation can lead to better
understanding of the nature of design decisions that designers may have
to make, and hopefully, this can lead to quality in production of educa-
tional simulation designs in every area of learning.

2. Persuasive interest in simulation among all concerned with
educational enterprise can result in the emergence of a class of instruc-
tional technologists who may probably prefer to be referred to as
“simulationists”. The individuals probably can champion the cause of
”evolution of this deviant form of academic enterprise”3 and protect
”fair standard and quality in simulation”. Some of these individuals
may be known as “computer simulationists“, “physical simulationists” and
”media simulationists” as the market becomes diversified. Simulation
technology may be a big instructional market, particularly in vocational-

technical education.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
This study was an attempt to arrive at a systematic theory-building
in educational simulation and as such, it supports at least six recommen-

dations that are pertinent to this study as follows:

 

3Allan Feldt, op. cit., ”Introduction”, (mimeo).

I65

A. Future research in this area should concentrate on the refine-
ment of the theoretical principles discussed in chapters III, IV, and V
of this study and on deveIOpment of testable hypotheses based on these
principles. As an example, one of the questions that may be considered
is what effect will pre-learning level of knowledge have on simulated
learning competence? is pre-learning realry an essential step in
instructional simulation?

B. The extent to which the theoretical SIM-INST Model is usable
for instructional purposes in occupational education should be investi-
gated through clinical testing in classrooms, and the extent to which
the model can be refined after several years of testing in practice,
Should be reported.

C. The effectiveness of simulated learning using simulated instruc-
tional materials (e.g. ln-basket simulation), developed according to the
design criteria suggested in this study, should be compared with learning
effectiveness of any other non-simulated instruction.

0. Where ”good” simulation designs are available for use in any
professional or vocational-technical education programs, a comparison
of the effectiveness of simulated design should be made with other
methods of instruction. For example, in the high school cooperative
occupational training program, comparative Study of simulation with
cooperative programs and/or the project laboratory methods, should be
undertaken.

E. There is a need to do additional work on the psychological
factors affecting the design and use of educational simulation. For

lexample, what psychological factors will determine what is an adequate

166

representation of a simulation design for adults and children, or for
people from different socio-economic backgrounds?

F. There is a need to devote research efforts to the mechanism of
construction and validation of simulated achievement tests including
situational tests and/or performance tests. It is suggested that every
simulation designed for educational purposes should have accompanying
it specific simulated performance tests and/or simulated Situational

tests appropriate for the simulation objectives.

V. GENERAL CONCLUSION

The importance of sound theoretical principles for designing and
applying educational simulation cannot be over-emphasized. The aura of
technology that surrounds the society, and the breakthrough in space
exploration, tell the success Story of simulation in industrial and
military science (as in the training of the astronauts that circled the
moon) and educators and other scholars should be reminded that the
breakthrough of educational simulation in civilian education, (particu-
larly public K-IA schools) may not arrive until the theoretical rela-
tionships between the technique and learning are clarified and tested

in the crucible of the classroom.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and Monographs

 

Ausubel, David P. The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New
York: Grune and Stratton, Inc., 1963.

Babb, E. M. and L. M. Eisgruber. Management Games for Teachingpand
Research. Chicago: Educational Methods, Inc., 1966.

Balogh, Richard H. and Don L. Purdum. Computer Assisted Instruction.
NASA Contractor Report CR-917, Washington, D.C.: National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, January, 1968.

Barlow, Melvin L. (ed.). Vocational Education. The Sixty-fourth
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education,
Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965.

Barson, John. Instructional Systems Development: A Demonstration and
Evaluation Project. Contract No. OE-S-l6-025, East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, June, 1967.

 

Bartsch, Karl G. Hospital Administration Decision Simulation. Ann
Arbor: Department of Industrial Engineering, University of
Michigan, June, 1962.

Bass, Bernard M. and James A. Vaughan. The Psyghologypof Learning for
Managers. American Foundation for Management Research, Inc., 1965.

Bass, Bernard M. and James A. Vaughan. Training in Industry: The
Management of Learning. Belmon, California: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Inc., 1966.

 

Bessent, Wailand. A Feedback Procedure for Simulation of Administrative
In-basket Problems. Paper delivered at 1967 AERA Symposium on
Feedback in Simulation Techniques, New York, 1967.

Bloom, Benjamin 5. (ed.). Taxonomy of Educational Opjectives: Handbook I:
Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1956.
207 PP-

 

Blum, J. Michael and Robert Fitzpatrick. Critical Performance Require-
ments for Orthopedic SuggeryJ Part I,gMethod. Pittsburgh, Pa.:
American Institute for Research, 1965.

I68

Boocock, Sarane S. and E. 0. Schild (eds.). Simulation Games in Learning.
Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1968.

 

Bouguslaw, Robert. Ibp New Utopians: A Study of System Design and
Social Change. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.

 

 

Bowman, Edward H. and Robert Fetter. Analysis of Production andygperations
Manpgement. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Third Edition,

1967 .

 

Briggs, Leslie J. Squencing of Instruction in Relation to Hierarchies
of Competence. Pittsburgh, Pa.:; American Institutes for Research,

1968.

 

 

Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, l96l.

 

Bruner, Jerome S. Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, Mass.:
Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1966.

 

Bruner, Jerome S., et. al. Studies in Cognitive Growth. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.

 

Bushnell, Don 0. (ed.). The Automation of School Information Systems:
Monograph I. Washington, D.C.: Department of Audio-Visual
Instruction of NEA, 196A.

 

 

Byram, Harold M. Evaluating Vocational Education in the Public Schools.
East Lansing, Mich.: Bureau of Educational Research Services,
College of Education, Michigan State University, October, 1965.

Cherryholmes, Cleo H. Simulation INTER-NATION Relations in the Classroom.
In James M. Becker and Howard D. Mehlinger (eds.). International
Dimensions in Social Studies. 38th Yearbook. Washington, D.C.:
National Council for Social Studies, 1968.

 

 

Cook, Fred S. and Frank W. Lanham. Opportunities and Requirements for
Initial Employment of School Leavers with Emphasis on Office and
Retail Job. Detroit: U. S. Office of Education Cooperative Research
Project No. 2378, College of Education, Wayne State University, 1966.

 

Coplin, William 0. (ed.). Simulation in the Study of Politics. Chicago:
Markham Publishing Company, 1968.

 

Crawford, Meredith P. Simulation in Training and Education. Alexandria,
Va.: Human Resources Research Office, July, 1967, 18Tpp.

 

Dill, W. R., James R. Jackson and James W. Sweeney (eds.). Proceeding§_
on the Conference on Business Games. New Orleans, La.: Tulane
University, April, 1961.

 

 

169

Duke, Richard 0. Gaming Simulation in Urban Research. East Lansing:
Institute for Community Development and Services, Continuing
Education Service, Michigan State University, I96A.

Duke, Richard D. and Barton R. Burkhalter. The Application of Heuristic
Gaming to Urban Problems. Technical Bulletin B-SZ. East Lansing,
Mich.: Institute for Community Development and Services, Continuing
Education Service, Michigan State University, 1966.

 

Duryea, E. D. Management of Learning (New Dimensions in Higher Education
Number 5). Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1960.

 

Fattu, Nicholas A. and Stanley Elam. "Simulation Models for Education.
Fourth Annual Phi Delta Kappa Symposium on Education Research.
Bloomington, Inc.: Phi Delta Kappa, 1965.

 

Feigenbaum, Edward A. and Julian Feldman. Comppters and Thought. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1963.

 

Feldt, Allan G. The Community_Land Use Game. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University, 1966.

 

Fleishman, Edwin A. (ed.). Studies in Personnel and Industrial PSychology.
Revised Edition. Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 1967.

Frederiksen, Norman. “Proficiency Tests for Training Evaluation.” In
Training Research and Education (edited by Robert Glaser). Pitts-
burgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1962.

French, Will, et. al. Behavioral Goals of General Education in High
School. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1957.

Gagne, Robert M. (ed.). Learning and Individual Differences. Columbus,
Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1967.

Gagne, Robert M. The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, Inc., 1965.

Gagne, Robert M. and Arthur W. Melton. Psychological Principles in System
Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965.

Gagne, Robert M. and Edwin A. Fleishman. PSychology and Human Performance:
An Introduction to Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company,

1959.

Garvey, Dale M. and William H. Seiler. A Stugy of Effectiveness of
Different Methods of Teaching International Relations to ngh School
Students. Emporia, Kansas: Kansas State Teachers College, February,
1966. (Research Project No. 5-270)

Garvey, Dale M. Simulation, Rolg:playjng and Socio-drama in the Social
Studies. The Emporia State Research Studies, 1967, 16, 5-22.

I70

Gerberich, J. Raymond. Specimen Objective Test Items: A Guide to
Achievement Test Construction. New York: Longmans, Green and
Company, 1956.

 

 

Glaser, Robert (ed.). Traininngesearch and Education. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965.

 

Greene, Jay R. and Roger L. Sisson. Qynamic Management Decision: Games.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

Greenlaw, P. 5., Lowell W. Herron and Richard H. Rawdon. Business
Simulation in Industrial and Univerpjty Education. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962.

 

Gross, Neal, Ward S. Mason and Alexander W. McEachern. Explorations in
Role Analysis: Studies of the School Sgperintendency Role. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

 

Guetzkow, H., et. al. Simulation in International Relations: DeveIOp-
nents for Research agd Teachi_g. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1962.

Haines, Peter G., Kenneth L. Rowe, and Edward T. Ferguson. Readings in
Distributive Education: The Prpject Plan of Instruction and Related
Teacher Education. East Lansing: Research and Development Program
in Vocational-Technical Education, Michigan State University, 1968.

 

Harman, Harry H. ”Simulation: A Survey.“ ProceedingS of the Western
Joint Computer Conference, Los Angeles, California, 1961.

Hempel, Carl G. Philospphy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.

Hemphill, J., D. Griffiths, and N. Fredericksen. Administrative Perfogme
ance and Personality. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University, Bureau of Publications, 1962.

 

Herron, Lowell W. Executive Action Simulation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960.

Hilgard, Ernest R. Theories of Learning and Instructigp, The Sixty-third
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 196A.

Hilgard, Ernest R. and Gordon H. Bower. Theories of Learniyg. Third
edition. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.

 

Hoggart, Austin C. and Frederick E. Balderston (eds.). Symposium on
Simulation Models: Methodology and Applications to the Behavioral
Sciences. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Company, 1963.

Holding, 0. H. Principles of Training. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press,

1965.

l7l

Hyman, Ronald T. (ed.). Teaching; Vantage Points for Study, New York:
J. B. Lippincott Company, 1968.

 

Kahn, Robert L., et. al. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict
and Ambigui_y. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 196A.

Kaplan, Abraham. The Conduct pf_lnquiry: Methodolpgy for Behavioral
Science. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 196A.

 

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967.

 

V//Kersh, Bert Y. Classroom Simulation: A New Dimension in Teacher
Education. U. S. Office of Education, NDEA Title VII, Project No.
886. Monmouth: Teaching Research Division, Oregon State System
of Higher Education, June, 1963.

Kibbee, Joel H., Clifford J. Craft and Burt Nanus. Management Games.
New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1961.

Klausmeier, Herbert J. and William Goodwin. Learning and Human Abilitipg,
New York: McMillan Company, 1957.

Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin 5. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia. Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New
York: David McKay Company, 196A.

.vKristy, Norton F. “The Simutech Trainer for Technical and Vocational
Training.” In Werner Z. Hirsch, et. al., Inventing Education for
the Future. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1967.

 

Lawson, Chester A. Brain Mechanisms and Human Learni_g, New York:
Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1967.

Levine, Harold G. The Evaluation of Complex Educational OutcomgS. A
Study supported in part by USPHS Grant CH 00081-01 from the Bureau
of State Services (Community Health). Prepared by the Department
of Educational Research, Division of Planning and Development,
Illinois, 1968.

Litterer, Joseph A. The Analysis of Organizations. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965.

Mager, Robert F. Preparipg Instructional Objectives. Palo Alto,
California: Fearon Publishers, 1962.

Mager, Robert F. and Kenneth M. Beach, Jr. Developing Vocational
Instruction. Palo Alto, California: Fearon Publishers, 1967.

Maier, Norman R., Allen R. Solem, Ayesha A. Maier. Sppervisory and
Executive Develppment: A Manual fgr Role Playing. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 196A.

172

McCloskey, J. F. and J. M. Coppinger (eds.). gperations Research f9:
Management, Vol. 11. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1956f

 

b/McKenney, James L. Simulation Gaming for Management Development.
Boston: Harvard University, 1967.

McMillan, Claude and Richard Gonzales. Sysgem Analysis: A Computer
Approach to Decision Models. Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin,
Inc., Revised edition, 1968.

 

Miller, George A., Eugene Galanter, and Karl H. Pribram. Plans and
Structure of Behavior. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1960.

Morgan, Robert M. and David S. Bushnall, ”Designing an Organic Curriculum,”
National Business Education Quarterly, Vol. 35, Spring 1967, pp. S-IA.

Munsterberg, Hugo. Vocation and Learning. St. Louis, Missouri: The
Lewis Publishing Company, 1910.

 

National Education Association, Council on Instruction. Toward Better
Evaluation of Learning: A Brief Guide for Teachers and Administrators
and Others Concerned with Testing and Evaluation in Our Schools.
Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1962.

(//Naylor, Thomas H. and Joseph L. Balinffy. Computer Simulation Techniques.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966.

v/Nesbitt, William A. Simulation Games for the Social Studies Classroom.
New York: The Foreign Policy Association, 1968.

Perkins, Edward A. and Ross F. Byrd. A Research Model for Identification
of Task and Knowledge Cluster Associated with Performance of Major
Iypes of Office Employees' Work. Washington, D.C.: U. 5. Government
Printing Office, December, 1966.

 

Pfeiffer, John. New Look at Education Systems Analysis in Our Schools
and College_. New York: The Odyssey Press, 1968.

 

Postley, John A. Computer and People. New York: McGraw-Hili Book
Company, Inc., 1957.

Pula, Fred J. Application and Operation of Audio-Visual Equipment in
Education. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968.

Research and Development Program in Vocational-Technical Education. Case
Problems for Vocational Office Block Project. East Lansing, Mich.,

1967.

 

Rudner, Richard S. Philosophy of Social Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.

Shubik, Martin (ed.). Game Theory and Related Appgoaches to Social
Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 196A:

173

Shubik, Martin (ed.). Readings in Game Theory_and Political Behavior.
(Doubleday Short Studies in Political Science--SSPS9). Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 195A.

 

Shulman, Lee 5., Michael J. Loupe, and Richard Piper. Studies on the
Inquiry Process. East Lansing: Educational Publication Services,
College of Education, Michigan State University, July, 1968.

 

 

Skinner, B. F. The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, 1968.

 

Smith, Robert G. The Design of Instructional Systems, Technical Report
66-18. The George Washington University, Human Resources Research
Office, November, 1966.

 

V/Smith, W. Nye, Elmer E. Estey and Ellsworth F. Vines. Integrated

Simulation: An Interactive General Business Simulation Designed
for Flexible Application in Management Education. Cincinnati:
South-Western Publishing Company, 1968:

*‘Smith, W. Nye, Elmer E. Estey and Ellsworth F. Vines. Manual of

integrated Simulation: An Interactive General Business Simulation
Designed for Flexible Application in Management Education. Cincinnati:
South-Western Publishing Company, 1968.

Teaching Research, Oregon State System of Higher Education. The Contribu-
tion of Behavioral Science to Instructional Technology. A Resource
Book for Media Specialists. TiNo date).

United States Civil Service Commission. Training the Supervisor.
Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1956.

United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of
Education. Determining Reggirements for Development of Technical
Abilities Through Extension Courses. Washington, D.C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1961.

United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of
Education. Occppational Criteria and Preparatory Curriculum
Patterns in Technical Programs. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1962.

 

University Council for Educational Administration. Simulation in
Administrative Training. UCEA, Columbus, Ohio, 1960.

Vajda, S. Ineopy of Games and Linear Programming. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 19§6.

Vance, Stanley. Management Decision Simulation. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 196D.

17A

Venn, Grant. Man, Education and Work: Post Secondary Vocational and
Technical Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education, 196A.

 

 

Vollmer, Howard M. and Donald L. Mills. Professionalization. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.

 

Von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. Theoryyof Games and Economic Behavior.
Third edition. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1953.

 

Wiman, Raymond V. and Wesley C. Meierhenry. Educational Media: Theory
Into Practice. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing
Company, 1969.

 

 

Wikstrom, Walter S. Developing Managerial Competence: Changjng_Concepts,
Emerging Practices. New York: National Industrial Conference Board,

Inc., 196A.

 

Articles and Papers

 

Briggs, George E. and James C. Naylor. ”Team versus individual training,
training task fidelity, and task organization effect on transfer
performance by three-man teams.” Journal of Applied Psyehology.

1965. A9(6) . 387-392.

Canfield, Albert A., Walter J. Fightmaster, and Alvin Ugelow. ”A Learner-
centered Instructional Systems Approach.” Paper presented at the
Programmed Instruction Association of New York City, December 13, 1963.

Cherryholmes, Cleo H. ”Some Current Research on Effectiveness of Educa-
tional Simulations: Implications for Alternative Strategies.”
American Behavioral Scientist, 1966, 10(2), A-7.

Cohen, Kalman J. and Eric Rhenman. ”The Role of Management Games in
Education and Research.” Management Science, Vol. 7, January,

1961, pp. 131-166.

Coleman, James S. ”In Defense of Games.“ American Behavioral Scientist,

10(2), 3-A.

 

Cruickshank, Donald E. ”Simulation: New Direction in Teacher Preparation.”
Phi Qeita Kappan, 1966, A8, 23-2A.

Dill, W. R. and Neil Doppelt. ”Acquisition of Experience in a Complex
Management Game.“ Management Science, Vol. 10, No. 1, October, 1963,

pp. 30-A6.

 

Educationy_U.S.A. A special weekly Report on Educational Affairs,
November 27, 1967.

175

Education, U.S.A. A special Weekly Report on Educational Affairs,
September 9, I968.

Eiken, Shirley A. ”Theory Aversion in Business Education.” Delta Pi
Spsilon Journal, Vol. XI, November, 1968, pp. 1-8.

Feldt, Allan G. “Operational Gaming in Planning Education.” Journal of
the American Institute of Planners, 1966, 22(1), 17-2A.

 

 

Flanagan, J. C. I'The Critical Requirements Approach to Education
Objectives.” School and Sociepy, Vol. 71, 1950, pp. 321-32A.

Flanagan, J. C. "The Critical Incident Technique." Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 51, 195A, pp. 327-358.

Frederiksen, N., D. R. Saunders, and Barbara Wand. “The In-basket Test.”
Psychological Monpgrapn, 1957, 71, No. 9, Whole No. A38.

 

Frederiksen, N. “Factors in In-basket Performance.” Egychologjcel
Monograph, Vol. 76, No. 22, Whole No. 5A1, 1962.

 

Garvey, Dale M. ”A Preliminary Evaluation of Simulation.“ (Paper pre-
sented at the A6th Annual Meeting of the National Council for the
Social Studies, Cleveland, Ohio, November 23-26, 1966).

Haines, Peter G. “A Model Instructional Materials File for Coordinates
of Cooperative Occupational Education.” East Lansing, Mich.:
Bureau of Educational Research Services, College of Education,
Michigan State University, May, 1965.

Haines, Peter G. “The Impact of Research and Development Pregram Upon
Instruction.“ East Lansing, Mich.: Research and Development
Program in Vocational-Technical Education, Michigan State University,

1967.

Jacobson, Arnold and Bruno Zachary. ”Office Occupations Laboratory.”
Ine Balance Sheet, Vol. L, January, 1969, pp. 209-210.

Jones, Adaline D. ”The Enigmatic Intensive Office Laboratory.” IDS.
Balance Sheet, Vol. XLIX, April, 1968.

Kersh, Bert Y. ”The Classroom Simulator: An Audio-Visual Environment
for Practice Teaching.” Agdio-Visual Instruction, 6(9), pp. AA7-AA8,
1961.

 

Kraft, Ivor. ”Pedagogical Futility in Fun and Games?” National Education
Association Jopgnal SS. pp. 71-72, 1967.

 

Levine, Harold G. and Christine McGuire. ”Role-playing as an Evaluative
Technique.” In Richard E. Schutz (ed.), Journal of Educational
Measurement, 1968, 5(1), 1-8.

 

176
Liveright, A. A. “Role-playing in Leadership Training.‘I Personnel
Journal, 1951, Vol. XIX, pp. AIZ-A16.

Mager, R. F. ”On Sequencing of Instructional Content.” Psychological

Repgrts, 1961, Vol. IX, pp. A05-A13.

 

McBeth, John. ”A Study of A Block-Time Schedule for Teaching Vocational
Office Practice.” Final Report under U.S.O.E. Contract No. OE-5-85-111,
Project 201. East Lansing, Mich.: Research and Development Program
in Vocational-Technical Education, Michigan State University, 1967.

McKenney, J. R. ”An Evaluation of Business Games as a Learning Experience.”
Journal of Business, Vol. 35, 1962, pp. 278-286.

Meir, Richard L. “Teaching Through Participation in Micro-Simulation of
Social Systems.” Denver, Colorado: Society for General Systems
Research, December 29, 1961. Convention paper, Symposiun on lh_e_
Teaching of Systems Thinking, sponsored by the Society of General
Systems Research.

Michigan State University, College of Education, ”Professional Decision
Simulator.” East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, N/D.

Michigan State University, Research and Development Program in Vocational-
Technical Education. “Employment Orientation.” East Lansing, Mich.:
Michigan State University, N/D.

Rapport, Anatol. ”The Use and Misuse of Game Theory.” ngentifjg
American. December, 1962, pp. 108-118.

Smith, W. Nye. ”Objectives in Educational Simulation.“ lelegiate News
and Views, Vol. XXII, December, 1968, pp. 23-2A.

Twelker, Paul A. ”Classroom Simulation and Teacher Preparation.” The
School Review, 1967, 75.

Twelker, Paul A. ”Simulation: What is it? Why is it?” Monmouth,
Oregon: Teaching Research Division, Oregon State System of
Higher Education, April, 1968.

Twelker, Paul A. ”Simulation: An Overview." Monmouth, Oregon: Teaching
Research Division, Oregon State System of Higher Education, July,

1968, (mimeo).

Twelker, Paul A. “Simulation: Status of the Field.” Paper presented at
the Conference of Commission of Educational Media of the Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education
Association, October, 1968.

APPENDIX A

177

A LIST OF MAJOR DESIGNERS/DISTRIBUTORS OF EDUCATIONAL SIMULATION

DESIGNER/DISTRIBUTORS

1. Abt Associates, Inc.

ADDRESS

55 Wheeler Street
Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02138

MAJOR INTEREST AREA

Games of all descrip-
tions for elementary
levels, junior and
senior high, college
students: graduate
and undergraduate.

 

2. Board of Cooperative
Educational Services

Center for Educational
Services and Research
8A5 Fox Meadow Road
Yorktown Heights,

New York 10598

Development of com-
puterized games for
individual instruc-
tion.

 

3. Carnegie Tech Manage-
ment Game

Carnegie Institute of
Technology, Graduate
School of Industrial
Administration

Schenley Park, Pittsburgh,

15213

Pennsylvania

Computer simulation
games for business
administration
curriculum (graduate
level).

 

A. John Hopkins Univer-
sity

Department of Social
Relations, Charles and
3Ath Street

Baltimore,

Maryland 21218

Social studies simu-
lation games in areas
such as career, parent-
child, economic systems,
etc., for high school
level; also suitable

for adults and younger
people.

 

5. Northwestern Univer-
sity International
Relations Program

Department of Political
Science, Northwestern
University

Evanston, Illinois.

Computerized and
non-computerized
games in political
science.

 

6. Nova Academic Games

Academic Games Director
Nova High School

3600 Southwest 70th Ave.
Fort Lauderdale,

Florida 3331A

Variety of academic
games for all levels
including special
games for disadvan-
taged and special
educational programs.

 

7. Project SIMILE
Western Behavioral
Sciences Institute

1150 Silverado
La Jolla,

California 92037

Clearing House for all
types of educational
simulations; research
and development.

 

178

 

com:
;u_3 co_mm:o

Im_u “mucouoc

xcau >_co>om

 

 

 

o_nm__m>m com. 0.: >n oo_m_voe
mo co_um:_m>o coumc_;mm3 :0 an :E m .mc memo.umm co_umu:om
uncocm_moo :u_3 .oxMJIucaoz uo_mm_Ic_ _ .. . .m .mo_c;uoh mxco_u Amo>v
mcozmmsum_u .;m_: . up x a o_ . a m z -_mco_amuo> oucmtsmc_ co_ua_:e_m
mucmum_mm< co_com ooocco» .A _mmo . boxy co_umu:ou c. Emcmocm Lem xoo_m
cucmomox mm exam-acne: .ovoz .mu_ccooh acosao_o>oo co_umo:oo ou_wmo
Emcmoca ;u_3 ”ounce eu~_ .mcm_unoo> c_ one nutmomox ou_wmo .mco_umuo> .N
co_uuoccoo 5mm: Lo_com Emc 0cm a w x >u_mco>_c: _oco_umoo>
.chmcom oumum cmm_cu_z
om__ to.
LOmmomOLQ can :0
mucovaum\co_um_ mc~ccm_d oo~_cou:qeou
i:e_m one mo coat: on
neon: ecu :u_3 oumzomcmcouc: o_:ou xco> zoz Aonbuv
co_mmaum_o vcm mm_oooe .muosu. oo_ou mc_eem_e oEmo
vcm .mucoa obesoecc can >u_mco>_c: .u cm._< cent: on:
set cocmomoc muoom_uc< __occ0u one;
co m_m>_mcm >u_c:EEou .—
.mco_um>comoo
>c0umconm4
co_u:u_ume_
m_m>_nc< ecu mo oEmz
mo can co_umocomocaoxb co_um_:e_m co_um_:e_m
co_uma_m>u pom: 50.5} $0 cozm__nam Loam—moo mo we
no «.mmm um Eocmocd oa>h m300u co_ua_comoo
co _o>oq

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANN— 0» m__ nommqv >_ mmbm<xu z. omN>4<z< mzo_h<4:z_m omhumbmm zo m¢<4:u_h¢<m uw.¢m

m x_ozu¢m<

 

179

 

Aco_um—:E_m

 

 

 

 

 

molho>ob

 

 

 

 

 

xooooem; mmoc_m:n
ocm mu_x xco> 302 .mcocoov
co_um_:s_m .Emumuom oocmc_m co.umosvm
mo co_uma_m>o .>mo_0c;ooh moc.> co mc_uc:ouum ueqummcm:
.cocm__naa mo emu—.0u .umcc.ucmu .m .co_uu:o0ca c.
:u_3 co_u acmxcm.u comum_:e_m .>cmaeao sucosm__m .mc_uoxcme co_um_:e.m
two—cseeoo mo .co_umcum_c_e vo~_couaaeoQ mc_:m__nad one .>oumm .moc._a_om_o ooumcmoum_ .m
omcmeuxo mucoa Io< mmoc_m:m ccoumozizu30m .m cos—m ucoeommeme
not uocm__n:a mo .ooeum. .:u_Em o>z .3 mmoc_m:n
m.;u_Em o>z..3 u_o>o_ emu—.00 mo co_omcmouc.
eucmomom
mc_;umok
.co_umoaom Ammo—u
Lozm_: m.vcm4 .cz o_em mew—note
mo Ecum>m m:o_u_uo_uv 5—.» ___um _m_0ceeeoo acosommcmz
ounum eomoco >u_mco>_c= new venom com Latex soccmmn_u
>o oboe—aeou oumum comoco “co_uoucomocaoe_ vocommo .> co_uoo:vm co_um_:e_m
>vaum .>o:um .mcecomou owcou. no: atom Logbook soccmmm_o .:
.mucoe_coaxo oo_>comioca .mucoemcooxu >cmucoEo—u
use no m_m>.meo memo—.00
ucoaoc cocmomoc
ammo—cu ..00mm<
co_umEcocc_ sucmomox
wee—05>ccoeu vasecm oocomum
.co no.3 mmmcmx ixoma couu_c3 >3 Aomcaou
co_mm:om_o ._oonom cm_: .o_cmcoom voem__oaa ucoEcco>ou fiasco
.mom_ m_moeh oococzmb .um .mo_am_cm> mz. mos—05>ccoeu cmo_coe< oucocznb .umv
.om.znimoe_0c ounce eu~_ cu oocm_m noon use oo_u mo acmav :o_um_:e_m
i>ccozu 00—0 no.1 Lo_com Imm moa_m> oe_u one on mco_um_oc .mco_umccouc_
>n zucmomom .mo_umeoeume vozm__oaa .mco_uoccouc. .m
.mo_c_o5m “co—umucomOL ubc
toot u. .omim 2355235
co_u:u_umc_
m_m>_mc< one mo oEmz co_uoucomoca04 co_ua_:e_m co_uo_:e_m
no can mo co;m__n:m cocm_moo mo mo
co_ums_m>m pom: ;u_;3 oa>p maoou eo_ua_cumoa
co m_mmm um Emuman

 

 

180
APPENDIX C

OREGON STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION MODEL

0' ""

 

to Define
I Instruction
1-..-.. P suntan”;

(27‘ Describe the I
' Operational
TO TEACH ' ' Educational
System 3

{3. Relate operational

DETERMINING NEAT

 

 

 

System to Instruc-
.. ”slime-l firemen... ..

 

a...“

 

............._1::--. .._.__..v_.___.__...
. 6. Specify 5. Generate
l i Behavioral t:j— Criterion l
f Objgggiyes” Measures
1

- - ‘ - - - - - - - - - - - - - C. d - C. A *— = “ - ' - - - - .0 - .l - -

, \I/

'6. Determine Appropriateness‘
- ' 0f Simulation
DETERMINING now ' “.1.“ III _
" ‘ 7. Determine Type of
Simulation Requireg

 

BEST IT MIGHT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’BT‘Develop Specifications”
BE TAUGHT For
l__§imglgtion Experience_fl__
. I
9. Deve10p Simulation a, 10. Try-out Simulation 2.. ll. Modify
l System Prototype :21 System Prototype L Simulation
' ~ System
Pretotype
, i Y ‘
VALIDATING THE J12. Conduct Field
. Trial
_ “J
SYSTEM li3. Make Further
Modifications

 

 

.~--—~—-—_——-“—-—~—-"-~’*---M~”u———--“-_.

Steps in the nesign of an Tbstructional Simulation System

Source: Instructional Simulatiqn Newsletter, Vol. 2, Nunber 1, February,

1969. p. 3