Metro-Apex as a Course

Rosen, David

doi:10.1177/104687818101200102

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted earlier, there is a substantial body of testimonial and impressionistic evidence in support of these claims (see Bredemeier, 1978Bredemeier, , 1981Rosen, 1981;Tiene, 1981); but the &dquo;hard&dquo; evidence favors simulation-gaming over conventional methods only with respect to retention of what is learned. Approximately as many comparative studies report superior subject matter learning from simulation-gaming over conventional classroom methods as report the reverse; the majority of studies to date have found no significant differences.…”

Section: Cognitive Subject Matter Learningmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Boydell (1976) speculates that the experiential learning that occurs in a simulation enables participants to generate ideas, to see, feel, and interact with meaningful problems, experiences which may provide a motivational link between past, present, and future cognitions and affect. Bredemeier (1978), Tiene (1981), and Rosen (1981) provide current anecdotal reports on changes in classroom structure and relations which include more relaxed atmosphere, reduced social distance, and more open and vigorous communications. Roberts (1975) compared experimentally the effects of conventional lecture and classroom games formats in the introductory American government course, and reported more relaxed social relationships among students and between students and instructor as a major positive outcome.…”

Section: Motivation To Learnmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Learning About the Self _ Game directors and researchers often find that participants in a simulation/game report a variety of self-integrating outcomes, including tension release, receipt of valuable affective feedback from others or from the experience of the game, increased self-awareness, and greater sense of personal power or selfconfidence (Bligh, 1972;Bredemeier, 1978Bredemeier, , 1981Rosen, 1981;Tiene, 1981). Lee and O'Leary (1971) found students reporting more confidence in their decision-making abilities and tolerance for ambiguity after a simulation experience.…”

Section: Affective Subject Matter Learningmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Educational Effectiveness of Simulation Games

1981

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In considering what we know about evaluating the effectiveness of simulation games, we need to supplement the old joke: &dquo;So how's your wife, Sam?&dquo; &dquo;Compared to what?&dquo; We need to add, &dquo;For what purpose, under what conditions, and how can we be sure?&dquo; CONDITIONSThe most important recent clarification of assessment efforts has been recognition of the many complex ways in which a given game is not the same experience for everyone and may not be the Downloaded from 308 same experience for anyone (for a discussion of the &dquo;multiple realities&dquo; possible in games, see Greenblat and Gagnon, 1979). The tendency to think and write about the learning from the experience of a game must give way, in the first place, to recognition that what anyone learns from any experience depends on a host of circumstances: what the person is looking for; the detailed &dquo;shape&dquo; of the experience (a term explicated below); the nature of the person; opportunities to practice; similarities of that experience to other experiences; the intrinsic pleasantness / unpleasantness of the experience. Such variables obviously affect what we all learn from any experience, whether it be a lecture, a cocktail party, or a movie; and it should be clear that they affect what people learn from a simulation game, not to mention &dquo;simulation-gaming.&dquo;WHAT IS BEING LOOKED FOR In most formal or purposive instruction-learning situations, the standard formula is to say, in effect, &dquo;Here is what you are supposed to learn; now learn it; now display that you have learned it.&dquo; Chartier (1973) feels that the simulation-gaming experience has more satisfactory outcomes when a learning &dquo;set&dquo; is established through specification for students of why they are playing, what is expected of them, and what they can expect to learn. However, it is just at this point that some philosophies of simulation-gaming complicate assessment efforts, insisting that part of the special nature of simulation-gaming instruction is not to make clear in advance what is to be looked for. Indeed, from this view, much if not all of the point of the simulation-gaming experience would be lost if participants knew the point in advance.Simulation-gamers are by no means of one mind on this issue, as our discussion of &dquo;the shape of the experience&dquo; makes clear. However, the existence of this point of view distinguishes simulation-gaming learning from much other learning at the outset, and leaves (purposely, perhaps) the question of what will be learned up to variables outside the instructor's control, except at The University of Iowa Libraries on June 21, 2015 sag.sagepub.com Downloaded from 309 to the extent that he or she can control them during the debriefing session. In comparing simulation-gaming learning with learning from more conventional pedagogies, this perspective complicates the problem of defining the dependent variables.Even if the 4'point&dquo; of a simulation-gaming experience werelost if it were discussed in a...

show abstract

Section: Cognitive Subject Matter Learningmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Motivation To Learnmentioning

confidence: 96%