Assessing I.R. Simulations
Reilly, February 2005
19
methods that are geared toward reflective observation and
abstract conceptualization (Fox and Ronkowski 1997), so students
may process information from simulations more effectively when
it is reinforced with more familiar forms of presentation.
Brainstorming sessions, discussions, and thought questions
facilitate reflective observation. Lectures and writing
assignments will encourage abstract conceptualization.
A recent study by Peters and Vissers (2004) examines the
debriefing process for simulations. Within, they argue that
different types of simulations require different types of
debriefing. They distinguish on the basis of whether
performance criteria are defined in advance. If they are – and
they would be in the instances of Historical Context and Rules
and Procedures simulations – the authors characterize the
experience as a “Closed Simulation” and describe the process as
training and education. Students can then be assessed in terms
of the extent to which they have acquired the necessary
knowledge and skill. Details are critical in this type of
simulation, and participants can be evaluated on the basis of
their preparation, adherence to rules, and in terms of how well
they followed instructions or assignments. The debriefing
session becomes an opportunity to connect the simulation to a
corresponding real-world (potentially historical) situation.
Peters and Vissers also suggest intermediate briefings “to show
participants the gap between actual performance and target and
to give suggestions or even guidelines that may help to bridge
this gap in subsequent rounds. This may be done by identifying
mistakes or discussing alternative courses of action” (75).
If the performance criteria are not defined in advance, as
is the case with a Dilemma of Choice simulation, an “Open
Simulation” should be treated as development/exploration. In
Convention