Background. During the last decades, the use of simulations for training purposes has sparked wide interest. However, it is unclear how training format characteristics may affect learning, resulting in a lack of evidence-based guidelines for training developers and organizations.
Aim. We explore to what extent variation in the situations presented during a simulation training may improve learning outcomes. We test this research question in the context of a simulation-based training for improving innovation knowledge.
Methods. A sample of 131 business students was invited to participate in a study with a pretest and two posttests (within 48 hours after and 4 weeks later) and three conditions: a control group without training, an experimental training group with low situational variation, and an experimental training group with high situational variation.
Results and Conclusion. Compared to the control group, high but not low situational variation improved innovation knowledge. Participants’ prior innovation knowledge did not moderate the results. Hence, our findings indicate that ideally a simulation training includes multiple situations that offer learners various opportunities to practice innovation challenges.
AndersonN.De DreuC. K.NijstadB. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 147–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.236
3.
AndersonN.PotočnikK.ZhouJ. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
4.
AndersonP. H.LawtonL. (2009). Business simulations and cognitive learning: Developments, desires, and future directions. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108321624
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201
7.
BanduraA. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
8.
BealS. A.ChristR. E. (2004). Training effectiveness evaluation of the Full Spectrum Command game (Technical Report No. 1140). U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
9.
BedwellW. L.PavlasD.HeyneK.LazzaraE. H.SalasE. (2012). Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning an empirical study. Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), 729–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878112439444
10.
BellB. S.KanarA. M.KozlowskiS. W. J. (2008). Current issues and future directions in simulation-based training in North America. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(8), 1416–1434. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802200173
BouhnikD.MarcusT. (2006). Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20277
Cannon-BowersJ. A.BowersC. (2009). Synthetic learning environments: On developing a science of simulation, games, and virtual worlds for training. In KozlowskiS. W. J.SalasE. (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 229–263). Routledge.
15.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.BowersC.ProcciK. (2010). Optimizing learning in surgical simulations: Guidelines from the science of learning and human performance. Surgical Clinics of North America, 90(3), 583–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2010.02.006
16.
ChiM. T. H.FeltovichP. J.GlaserR. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2
17.
ConsortiF.MancusoR.NocioniM.PiccoloA. (2012). Efficacy of virtual patients in medical education: A meta-analysis of randomized studies. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1001–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.017
18.
CookM. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20164
19.
DaneE.PrattM. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23463682
20.
DaneE.RockmannK. W.PrattM. G. (2012). When should I trust my gut? Linking domain expertise to intuitive decision-making effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(2), 187–194.
21.
DayE. A.ArthurW.Jr.GettmanD. (2001). Knowledge structures and the acquisition of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 1022–1033. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.1022
22.
De JansS.Van GeitK.CaubergheV.HuddersL.De VeirmanM. (2017). Using games to raise awareness: How to co-design serious mini-games?Computers & Education, 110, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.009
23.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
24.
GarrisR.AhlersR.DriskellJ. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607
25.
GaryM. S.WoodR. E. (2011). Mental models, decision rules, and performance heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 32(6), 569–594. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.899
GathercoleS. E.AllowayT. P. (2012). Working memory and learning. In International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 47 (pp. 592–592). East-Sussex, England: Psychology Press.
28.
GavettiG.LevinthalD. (2000). Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 113–137. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666981
29.
GegenfurtnerA.Quesada-PallaresC.KnoglerM. (2014). Digital simulation-based training: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 1097–1114. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12188
30.
GegenfurtnerA.SeppänenM. (2013). Transfer of expertise: An eye tracking and think aloud study using dynamic medical visualizations. Computers & Education, 63, 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.021
31.
GentnerD.LoewensteinJ.ThompsonL. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.393
32.
GentnerD.StevensA. L. (Eds.). (1983). Mental models. Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
HoffmanR.ShadboltN. R.BurtonA. M.KleinG. (1995). Eliciting knowledge from experts: A methodological analysis. Organizational Behavior and Decision Processes, 62(2), 129–158.
34.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
35.
JonesA. (1981). Inter-rater reliability in the assessment of group exercises at a UK assessment centre. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 54(2), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1981.tb00046.x
36.
LacerenzaC. N.ReyesD. L.MarlowS. L.JosephD. L.SalasE. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(12), 1686–1718. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241
37.
LainemaT.NurmiS. (2006). Applying an authentic, dynamic learning environment in real world business. Computers & Education, 47(1), 94–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.002
38.
LandersR. N.ReddockC. M. (2017). A meta-analytic investigation of objective learner control in web-based instruction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(4), 455–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9452-y
39.
LeemkuilH.JongT. D. (2011). Instructional support in games. In TobiasS.FletcherJ. D. (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 353–369). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
40.
LiawS. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.005
41.
LievensF.AnseelF. (2007). Creating alternate in-basket forms through cloning: Some preliminary results. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(4), 428–433. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00401.x
42.
LovelaceK. J.EggersF.DyckL. R. (2016). I do and I understand: Assessing the utility of web-based management simulations to develop critical thinking skills. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(1), 100–121. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0203
43.
LukoschH.KurapatiS.GroenD.VerbraeckA. (2016). Microgames for situated learning: A case study in interdependent planning. Simulation & Gaming, 47(3), 346–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878116635468
44.
MaloneT. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333–369.
45.
MayerB. W.DaleK. M.FraccastoroK. A.MossG. (2011). Improving transfer of learning: Relationship to methods of using business simulation. Simulation &Gaming, 42(1), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110376795
46.
MayerR. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning to multimedia instruction. In MestreJ. P.RossB. H. (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 77–108). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00003-X
47.
MorenoR.MayerR. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.117
48.
OngC. S.LaiJ. Y. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5), 816–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.006
49.
PaasF.RenklA.SwellerJ. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_1
50.
PalmunenL. M.PeltoE.PaalumäkiA.LainemaT. (2013). Formation of novice business students’ mental models through simulation gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 44(6), 846–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878113513532
51.
RogersL. (2011). Developing simulations in multi-user virtual environments to enhance healthcare education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 608–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01057.x
52.
RuttenN.Van JoolingenW. R.Van Der VeenJ. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
53.
SanchezD.Van LysebettenS. (2017). Findings from a meta-analysis on training games and learning outcomes: Future directions. In ArmstrongM. B. (Chair), SanchezD. R. (Co-Chair), BauerK. N. (Co-Chair), & KraigerK. (Discussant), Gaming and gamification IGNITE: Current trends in research and application [Symposium]. 32nd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL, United States.
ScottS. G.BruceR. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701
56.
SiewiorekA.GegenfurtnerA.LainemaT.SaarinenE.LehtinenE. (2013). The effects of computer-simulation game training on participants’ opinions on leadership styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 1012–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12084
57.
SitzmannT. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x
58.
SitzmannT.ElyK.BellB. S.BauerK. (2010). The effects of technical difficulties on learning and attrition during online training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(3), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019968
59.
SunP. C.TsaiR. J.FingerG.ChenY. Y.YehD. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
TennysonR. D.JorczakR. L. (2008). A conceptual framework for the empirical study of instructional games. In O’NeilHFPerezRS (Eds.), Computer games and team and individual learning (pp. 39–54). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
62.
TharenouP. (2001). The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and development. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(5), 599–621. doi:10.1348/096317901167541
63.
Training Industry Report (2017). Training Magazine (November/December), 20–33.
64.
Van GervenP. W. M.PaasF.van MeriënboerJ. J. G.SchmidtH. G. (2006). Modality and variability as factors in training the elderly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1247
65.
van GogT.PaasF.SwellerJ. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Advances in research on worked examples, animations, and cognitive load measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 375–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9145-4
66.
van MerriënboerJ. J. G.KesterL.PaasF. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1250
67.
VogelJ. J.VogelD. S.Cannon-BowersJ.BowersC. A.MuseK.WrightM. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.2190/FLHV-K4WA-WPVQ-H0YM
68.
WilsonK. A.BedwellW. L.LazzaraE. H.SalasE.BurkeC. S.EstockJ. L.OrvisK. L.ConkeyC. (2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes: Review and research proposals. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 217–266. doi:10.1177/1046878108321866
69.
WoutersP.PaasF.van MerriënboerJ. J. M. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models: A review of guidelines base on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78, 645–675. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320320
70.
WoutersP.van OostendorpH. (2017). Overview of instructional techniques to facilitate learning and motivation of serious games. In WoutersP.van OostendorpH. (Eds.), Advances in game-based learning. Instructional techniques to facilitate learning and motivation of serious games (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Springer.
71.
YuanF.WoodmanR. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 323–342. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.49388995
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
