Simulations & the Future of Learning

We recently hosted a workshop at Harvard Business School Publishing to help refine our strategy for developing business simulations.  During the course of that workshop we held a panel discussion with our staff and the subject matter expert workshop guests.  This discussion focused on how simulations can help us think about education and learning in new ways critical to understand as we create effective learning technology products. What can simulations and strategy games tell us about how people learn?  About the socialization aspect of learning?  About how to capture, retain, and disemminate knowledge gained during the simulation experience?  We had some of the best simulation experts in the world join us to brainstorm on these questions and more.

This was truly a phenomenal brain trust of simulation expertise. Our panel discussion guests included:

• Simulation designer and author Clark Aldrich (see my earlier post on Clark's book).  Clark led the international team that created SimuLearn's Virtual Leader simulation.  He has since authored two important books on simulations, including Simulations and the Future of Learning and Learning by Doing.
• Simulation designer Michael Bean, co-founder of Forio Business Simulations, the vendor that HBS Publishing has selected to partner with on business simulation development.  He conducts scenario planning, systems thinking, and computer simulation seminars to corporations and government agencies and formerly worked in the System Dynamics Group at MIT. 
• Military simualtion expert Michael Prevou, Chief of Knowledge Strategies and Innovation, Strategic Knowledge Solutions.  Mike spent 24 years in military service including as Associate Professor of the Command and General Staff College (CGSC) where he was instrumental in integrating simulations into the curriculum.  He developed many military adaptive thinking strategies such as Think Like a Commander and was also instrumental in the development and implementation of Battle Command Knowledge System (BCKS), the largest knowledge asset management solution in the world.
  
• Knowledge management expert Holly Baxter, Chief Scientist @ Knowledge Engineer, Strategic Knowledge Solutions.  Holly focuses on Knowledge Management solutions and all phases of cognitively-based training including cognitive needs analysis, design, development, implementation, and developing cognitive metrics for evaluating training initiatives.  Her specialgy includes using knowledge management tools to capture tacit knowledge in the field and turning that knowledge into effective, just-in-time, vignette-based training.
• Serious games designer and facilitator Jim Lunsford, founder of Decisive-Point.  For more than ten years Jim has created and used games for training and education, including Decisive Action, a PC-based simulation for the Army focusing on division and corps-level warfare.

Most of the workshop focused on helping us refine our higher education business simulation product development strategy.  Unfortunately we shouldn't yet disclose the ideas and recommendations that our experts provided on that front, but I certainly hope to do so after we launch our product line.  But for the full staff panel discussion we decided to focus on the higher-level strategic advantage of simulations for business education.  Harvard Business School pioneered the use of "participant-centered learning" techniques such as the Case Method of classroom instruction.  Simulations afford a different way to explore participant-centered learning, so understanding the power of how simulations help us learn is instrumental for those of us involved in helping to educate business leaders.

Clark Aldrich presented ideas from his forthcoming book which explores the new glossary of adjectives necessary to understand and define learning beyond traditional books and classrooms.  He discussed the native constructs of books: linear content, narratives, internal monologues, timelines.  Processing content from books through these constructs affects how and what we can take away as learning.  Compare this to the native constructs of simulations:

• Situational awareness -- what do experts see when they come to a scene that others don't?
  
• Intellectual dead-reckoning -- understanding the opportunities, committing to a vision, and then navigating towards it.
• Knowledge of actions -- what do experts see as viable options and trade-offs of each? How and when should one calibrate responses?
• Intuition / pattern recognition -- How and why do things play out? What are small steps now that can have a big impact?

If we truly understand these new constructs then we should be reframing how we think about content in general.  As publishers and educators this is a primary challenge.  For more on Clark's thinking visit his Learning Circuits blog.

Michael Bean from Forio then started a discussion on the convergence of simulations and gaming and what simulations can "learn" from effective games.  As developments and cross-pollination continue in and between simulations, games, online collaboration, Web 2.0, etc, it affects how we define educational simulations and serious games.  (See my earlier post on simulations -- Clark's book outlines his thoughts on how game elements are a building block of simulations.)  Early simulations focused on data, number-crunching, etc.  Today, we see how simulations have converged with games as well as with online communites as seen with Second Life. It's the context that is important -- Michael gives the example of how the entire game of Monopolopy might be pre-configurable and run automatically but that misses the point -- that socialization is a key factor to enjoying the game.

World of Warcraft (WoW) is cited as a prime example of how socialization and collaboration are key elements of gaming.  WoW members form guilds and societies, meet in the "real world" to strategize game activities, etc.  The online game itself is merely one aspect of the experience. (The current issue of Games and Culture focuses entirely on these aspects of World of Warcraft.)  There are other examples of incorporating these elements as well -- the online version of the popular Boggle game provides communication elements for community competition.

Why does socialization (which many games evoke by their very nature) improve learning?  There are elements of engagement (fun), pride (fear of losing), and pressure (peer competition) involved in socialization that can increase the focus and take-aways associated with social activities. How can we make simulations more social?  We can allow competition and collaboration, provide forums for communities within simulations, introduce "levels" of play, etc.  Michael showed an example of a strategy simulation that Forio developed for Wharton that included some social elements: team photos were provided to personalize the team experience; there was a message component to allow teams to communicate; and while the simulation is the reference point of the experience, offline "real-world" collaboration is a critical element of the simulation.

For more on Michael's thoughts, see his Twelve Ways to Create a Fun Simulation and other blog entries on the Forio Business Simulations website.

Michael Prevou then gave an overview of some of the work he had been doing with military simulations.  Until the 1990s the military had focused on large, constructive simulations with the goal of rehearsing exercises on computer rather than running hundreds of thousands of soldiers through certain exercises.  But in the last 10 years the focus switched to training individual soldiers on cognitive skills -- problem-solving.  They call this approach "learing at the point of the spear" -- capturing lessons learned on the field and creating communities of practice as opportunities for informed communication and learning. 

As a result what used to take months can now be achieved overnight.  Michael described the following powerful example.  U.S. soldiers in Iraq would patrol hostile zones and remove anti-U.S. and pro-Saddam posters.  Enemy forces witnessed this behavior and began booby-trapping the posters so they would explode when soldiers tried to remove them.  But certain veteran soldiers would get "gut feelings" to not remove certain posters.  When prompted to quantify their feelings there were often tangible signs of danger: the absence of children playing near the poster, or the slight raised level of the poster from the building wall.  These danger signs, or cues, were collected and re-disemminated to the field.  A virtual reality training simulation was then created to showcase this danger and highlight the cues.  This was one successful example of a knowledge management initiative resulting in real learning through simulation.

This is an example of how the military is using simulations to teach soldiers how to solve problems (vs. past simulations which had focused on training soliders how to do certain things).  That cognitive focus is what Michael Prevou sees as critical to the evolution of simulations.  What is the learning objective?  What is it you want to train?  Then determine how you want to make that training objective part of the common experience of your learners.  The military calls this the "common carrier course".  Create the moment of reality that they can relate to and leverage that in your training.

Comments

[Scott Skibell]

Very thought provoking. Can these types of simulations be created for business yet still remain affordable though?

Military budgets allow for these types of expenditures. The costs of failure are quite high. However for business, can scenario-based simulations be cost justified?

The reality is we never have enough time or money to produce what is truly needed for business training.

[Denis]

It's a good point, Scott. I think that large-scale simulations may be too risky and expensive -- perhaps we need to investigate smaller, more manageable (and less costly) solutions for business / education.

[205Dykes]

Seems like a real world "The Sims".

I would agree that learning through experience is the best way to know "how to".

Perhaps a way to get rid of the cost factor would be to investigate open-sourcing. Now, this would get rid of the cost factor, but it would also get rid of profit. I suppose a question to ask would be are you wanting to make money or help people know what to do?

The more people that know how to, the less people that don't.