A growing body of evidence suggests that relevant, well-designed simulations can make a valuable contribution to students' experiences in training and education and go some way toward meeting the expectations of students who have grown up with immersive, computer-mediated games. Within universities, many barriers exist that may prevent the effective development of this work, in part because of the nature of the traditional roles of both academics and developers who undertake these activities. Through a discussion of the experiences of working within a successful cross-functional team, the authors discuss the practice of developing an innovative eLearning simulation tool for an undergraduate course and how the challenges of combining the developer and educationalist roles were overcome. By synthesizing theories in educational philosophy and game design processes, a conceptual framework for ensuring quality in creative education projects is outlined that may be applied to the development of eLearning and adaptive game projects.
Aldrich, C. (2004). Simulations and the future of learning: An innovative (and perhaps revolutionary) approach to e-learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
2.
Alessi, S., & Trollip, S. (2001). Multimedia for learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
Bonk, C., Kim, K., & Zeng, T. (2006). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 550-567). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
4.
Brandon Hall Research. (2006). Online simulations 2006: A KnowledgeBase of 100+ simulation development tools and services. Retrieved December 20, 2007, from http://www.brandon-hall.com/publications/simkb/simkb_method.shtml
5.
Burgoyne, J., & Mumford, A. (2001). Learning from the case method: A report to the European Case Clearing House. Henley, UK: European Case Clearing House.
6.
Chin-Lung, H., & Hsi-Peng, L. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management, 41(7), 853-868.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
9.
Facer, K. (2004). Computer games and learning: Why do we think it's worth talking about computer games and learning in the same breath? Retrieved December 20, 2007, from http://www.nestafuturelab.org/research/discuss/02discuss01.htm
10.
Feinstein, A., & Cannon, H. (2002). Constructs of simulation evaluation. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 425-440.
11.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. (2002). Games, motivation and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 441-467.
12.
Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new "enterprise" and "entrepreneurship" paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4, 213-231.
13.
Gilley, J.W., Dean, P., & Bierema, L. (2001). Philosophy and practice of organizational learning, performance, and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
14.
Habgood, M.P.J., Ainsworth, S.E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games . Simulation & Gaming, 36, 483-498.
15.
Hannon, P. (2005). Philosophies of enterprise and entrepreneurship education and challenges for higher education in the UK. International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Innovation, 6(2), 105-114.
16.
Hardless, C., Nilsson, M., & Nulden, U. (2005). "Copernicus": Experiencing a failing project for reflection and learning. Management Learning, 36, 181-217.
17.
Kellermann, P. (2001). PAEI online inventory. Retrieved December 20, 2007, from http://www.25.brinkster.com/educ605/paei_howtouse.htm#interpretation
18.
Kelly, A. (2004). The curriculum: Theory & practice (5th ed.). London: Sage Ltd.
19.
Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review in games and learning: Report 8. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/download/pdfs/research/lit_reviews/Games_Review1.pdf
20.
Krise, W., & Hense, J. (2006). Theory-oriented evaluation for the design of and research in gaming and simulation. Simulation & Gaming , 37, 268-283.
21.
Light, G., & Cox, R. (2001). Learning & teaching in higher education. London: Sage Ltd.
22.
Malone, T., & Lepper, M. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. Snow & M. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instructions, Vol. 3: Conative and affective process analysis (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Martin, A. (2000). The design and evolution of a simulation/game for teaching information systems development. Simulation & Gaming, 31, 445-463.
24.
Nelson, W.A., & Bueno, K.A. (1999). If you build it, they will come. But how will they use it? Journal of Research on Computing in Education , 32, 270-287.
25.
Peters, V., Vissers, G., & Heijne, G. (1998). The validity of games. Simulation & Gaming, 29, 31-43.
26.
Race, P. (2001). The lecturer's toolkit. Abingdon , UK: Kogan Page.
27.
Raser, J. (1969). Simulations and society: An exploration of scientific gaming. Boston: Allyn & Bacon .
28.
Rushby, N. (2005). Editorial. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 359-360.
29.
Summers, G. (2004) Today's business simulation industry. Simulation & Gaming, 35, 208-241.
30.
TILEWORLD. (2005). Lynch, M.A. & Tunstall R.J. [Online] Retrieved December 20, 2007 from http://e-st.glam.ac.uk/simulationgames/
31.
Zinn, L. (1990). Identifying your philosophical orientation. In M. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction (pp. 39-77). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
32.
Zinn, L. (1999). The Philosophy of Adult Education Inventory. Boulder, CO: Lifelong Learning Options.
