Relationship of Simulation Games to On-line Education

Relationship of Simulation Games to On-line Education

To date, there is little evidence to support the claim that simulation/games will be included in online education. Much of what currently exists as on-line education is a reappearance of conventional classroom instruction with a continued focus on content-retention (Boshier, 1998). Simulation games are currently not being widely adopted in on-line education.

In Canada, there is a national effort to explore the potential of tele-learning technologies (Harasim, 1995). These studies are attempting to validate subjectivist epistemologies from the constructivist perspectives of Vygotsky—the main learning benefit occurs as a result of learners “telling what they know” to others. This line of research will support and validate the interactivity potential of the new technology but offers little with regard to knowledge representation.

The issue of knowledge representation and computer games has been more fruitfully explored with regard to learners in the K-12 education system (Sedighian, 1998), but again the learning emphasis is on content retention. Developmental models for adult education emphasize the need for learning to relate to immediate application in everyday life—the intended learning must be relevant to the adult’s needs (Richey, 1986).

Gaps in the Research

Although many simulation games have been developed and utilized, practitioners have not reflected much on the process of development. Rather they have focused attention on the products of development. In general, simulation games as products have not been easily transferable from one teacher to another. Often, these products have been developed by a master teacher who then used the simulation games in his/her own instruction activities. However, most other teachers have not found simulation games to be as compelling and the simulations have, for the most part, failed to be adopted by other instructors (Shirts, 1989). Much of the research seems to be designed to encourage other teachers to use simulations by validating the compelling nature of simulation games. To this end, the research has focussed more on the products than the process of development.

Software Engineering: Computer Games

Scientists learn what is true, how to test hypotheses, and how to extend knowledge in their fields. Engineers learn what is true, what is useful, and how to apply well-understood knowledge to solve practical problems. Scientists must keep up to date with the latest research. Engineers must be familiar with knowledge that has already proved to be reliable and effective. If you are doing science, you can afford to be narrow and specialized. If you are doing engineering, you need a broad understanding of all the factors that affect the product you are designing. Scientists don't have to be licensed because they are chiefly accountable to other scientists. Engineers do have to be licensed because they are chiefly accountable to the public. An undergraduate science education prepares students to continue their studies. An undergraduate engineering education prepares students to enter the workforce immediately after completing their studies (1999, p. 1).

The personality characteristics and educational backgrounds of computer programmers has also been summarized (McConnell, 2000). The standard Myers-Briggs personality inventory describes a large percentage of programmers as follows:

Two large studies have found that the most common personality

type for software developers is ISTJ (introversion, sensing,

thinking, judging), a type that tends to be serious and quiet,

practical, orderly, logical, and successful through concentration

and thoroughness. ISTJs comprise 25-40 percent of software

developers (McConnell, 2000, p.1).
From another perspective, a recent college graduate offers the tale of his entry into the industry through an internship (Scheib, 1999). These reports provide clues concerning the overall context of software development but non-programmers may need to be introduced to its technical aspects if they are to participate in the development process.

During the 1980’s it was possible for one person with a modest awareness of software programming to design a computer game. Today the process requires highly trained specialists. In some cases, academics in artificial intelligence come to the computer game industry to learn about advances in the practical applications of AI (Woodcock, 1999). Some game designers are drawing upon the insights of new fields of thought such as emergent complexity and chaos theory (Leblanc, 2000). The 1980s was the decade of Pac-Man, the first video arcade game to reach a mass market. The video arcade market exploited the dynamics of human psychology. Much of this experience served to standardize features of the user-interface (Loftus and Loftus, 1983). In that decade, the debate concerned violence, gender differences and the addictive nature of video games, but little information was published with regard to the technical aspects of development.