Debriefing is an important phase in using simulation games. Participants are invited to make a connection between experiences gained from playing the game and experiences in real-life situations. Thus, debriefing is the phase meant to encourage learning fromthe simulation game. Although design and practice of debriefing sessions should be aligned to this aim, it is necessary to distinguish different forms or modes of learning. The authors’central argument is that the shape of debriefing will have to meet the learning objectives being pursued in a concrete simulation game. They propose a general classification of learning objectives that allows a distinction to be made between types of use of simulation games. In each of the four types distinguished, the debriefing serves different purposes for which specific requirements can be formulated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bobrow, W.,& Leonards, J. S. (1997). Development and validation of an assessment center during organizational change. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12, 217-236.
2.
Bolk, H. (1989). Organizing, changing, simulating. Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
3.
Crookall, D. (1992). Debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 141-142.
4.
Dearborn, D. C.,& Simon, H. A. (1958). Selective perception: A note on the departmental identifications of executives. Sociometry, 21(2), 140-144.
5.
Everly, G. S., Flannery, R. B., & Mitchell, J. T. (2000). Critical incident stress management (CISM): A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(1), 23-40.
6.
Garratt, P. W. (1995). The software management game. Simulation & Gaming, 26(1), 105-108.
7.
Holmes, D. S. (1976). Debriefing after psychological experiments: I. Effectiveness of postdeception dehoaxing. American Psychologist, 31, 858-867.
8.
Joiner, D. A. (2000). Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations. Public Personnel Management, 29, 315-331.
9.
Lane, D. C. (1995). On a resurgence of simulations and games. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(5), 604-625.
10.
Lederman, L. C. (1992). Debriefing: Toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 145-160.
11.
Mastik, H. (2002). Responsief simuleren: De speelruimte voor leren en sturen in meerduidige context [Responsive simulation: The playground for learning and steering in multiple context]. Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
12.
Miner, A. S., & Anderson, P. (1999). Industry and population-level learning: Organizational, interorganizational, and collective learning processes. Advances in Strategic Management, 16, 1-30.
13.
Percival, F., Lodge, S., & Saunders, D. (1993). The simulation and gaming yearbook (Vol. 1). London: Kagan Page.
14.
Perry, L. B., & Abramson, P. R. (1980). Debriefing: A gratuitous procedure? American Psychologist, 35, 298-298.
15.
Petranek, C., Corey, S.,& Black, R. (1992). Three levels of learning in simulations: Participating, debriefing and journal writing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 174-185.
16.
Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
18.
Spychalski, A. C., Quinones, M. A., Gaugler B. B.,& Pohley, K. (1997). Asurvey of assessment center practices in organizations in the United States. Personnel Psychology, 50, 71-90.
19.
Steinwachs, B. (1992). How to facilitate a debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 186-195.
20.
Thiagarajan, S. (1992). Using games for debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 161-173.
21.
Thornton, G. C. III,& Morris, D. M. (2001). The application of assessment center technology to the evaluation of personnel records. Public Personnel Management, 30, 55-66.
22.
Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 289-297.
23.
Van der Meer, F.-B. (1983). Organisatie als spel: Sociale simulatie als methode in onderzoek naar organisaties [Organization as a game: Social simulation as a method in research on organisations]. Enschede, the Netherlands: Twente University.
24.
Vissers, G., Heyne, G.,& Peters, V. (1995). Spelsimulatie in bestuurskundig onderzoek [Simulation gaming in research on public administration]. Bestuurskunde, 4(4), 178-187.
25.
Vissers, G., Heijne, G., Peters, V., & Geurts, J. (2001). The validity of laboratory research in social and behavioral science. Quality and Quantity, 35, 129-145.
26.
Wolfe, J., & Chanin, M. (1993). The integration of functional and strategic management skills in a business game learning environment. Simulation & Gaming, 24(1), 34-46.
