As well identifying good practice in the design of simulations, it is also helpful to reflect on what can go wrong with this pedagogical approach, especially given the wide range of options that present themselves. What follows is a list of the most common issues and how they can be addressed. While this list might appear daunting, it should be remembered that it is very unusual for any one of them to prove fatal to the success of a particular simulation, not least because simulations typically serve multiple purposes. Moreover, the game-designer should recognise the intrinsic contingency of the approach: much of what happens is outside anyone’s control.
Lack of clear purpose
Looking back at the introductory comments on definitions, it might seem odd to note simulations without a clear purpose or focus, since simulations are about simplifying the real world and drawing out key elements. However, it is easy to fall into this trap, especially in a simulation of any complexity.
Consider a situation where you want to run a simulation about the Cabinet. Is focus on the internal operation of the Cabinet, with its committees? Or on the relationship between ministries, ministers and Cabinet? Or on the relationship between Cabinet and Prime Minister and party? Or on building package deals across issues and over time? All of these are possibilities and equally valid, depending on the learning objectives, but each require different simulation design and game-play, from a very stylised and abstract model to one grounded in the fine detail of the real-world practice.
The solution to this is to set out very clearly to yourself what it is that you expect students to gain from the simulation.
Under- and over-simplification
Under-simplification typically arises in situations where not enough consideration has gone into what the purpose of the simulation should be, leading to the inclusion of an excessive number of factors, which in turn makes the scenario so complex as to be effectively unplayable: a good marker of this is when students spend more time learning the rules of the simulation than playing!
By contrast, over-simplification occurs when there is so much focus on a single dimension of the real-world object that insufficient attention is paid to other important and relevant factors. Thus a simulation of a parliament debate where there is no scope for substantive amendment of a legislative text would risk the students not appreciating nested games or textual ambiguity.
In both cases, clear identification of learning outcomes is essential in allowing you to make a meaningful judgement on the inclusion or exclusion of particular aspects.
Design driven by rooming or timetabling constraints
In many institutions there is substantial pressure on rooms, in terms of size, style and times of availability. Obviously, a simulation that requires group debate cannot sensibly be run in a raked lecture theatre, while a negotiation that uses online resources will need to have some form of wifi connectivity. In extremis, this means that the starting point becomes about “what simulation can I do in this room within this time period?”
This matters because a key concept in simulations is the notion of immersion, of creating an environment within which a student can have enough time and space to get into their role and its relationship to others. Without that space, the benefits of using simulations become much harder to realise.
With this in mind, the initial question has to remain “what do I want the simulation to achieve?”, to then be followed up by “can I achieve that within the constraints I have?” If not, then either the constraints or the utility of the simulation needs to be challenged.
Inappropriate levels of conflict within the simulation
In any interaction between students there needs to be an appropriate level of conflict. This can be illustrated by two examples from the author’s experience where too much and too little conflict created problems.
In one game on a Middle East peace process, students represented different states. After an extended series of negotiations, over several days, some students started to over-identify with their roles and took overly-personal positions, which started to compromise real-world relationships. By contrast, in a game where students were representing different agencies of the US government, the impression was that they all agreed on everything, leading them to not challenge each others’ positions, in turn reducing the need to defend their own position and so appreciate the logic behind it.
In both cases there is an aspect of individual personalities, and the simulation leader needs to be ready to step in to moderate. However, reflection prior to game-play by the designer (perhaps in discussion with someone else) usually highlights where such problems might occur, allowing for adaptations in game-play.
Misalignment of game-play and incentives
Because of the centrality of students in this pedagogy, simulations have to align their various elements. This is especially the case where there is formal assessment: if that assessment is to be based on an external evaluation of participants’ game-play, then there need to be enough assessors present to observe properly that game-play: As noted above, one assessor cannot follow many more than five individuals for any length of time. Likewise, simulations focused on the production of a substantive output (e.g. a legislative text) often fail to provide enough time for prior preparation.
As with the rooming issue, you need to ask whether you can achieve what you intend within the constraints that you have. In addition, you need to recall the alignment issue outlined in the design principles section.
Lack of connection to other learning and teaching elements
The final problem is perhaps the one most often encountered (and was a key stimulus to producing this website): simulations too often suffer from being nothing than an add-on to bigger teaching modules – a ‘bit of fun’, within significant explicit or implicit connection to the rest of that module. Even with bigger simulations, the very fact of their own constellation of activity can often lead to a lack of connection to other modules in a programme.
If simulations are to allow students to operationalised existing skills and knowledge and give them new skills and knowledge, then that connection needs to be made explicit before, during and after the simulation. The two central aspects of making this connection are, on the one hand, curriculum design of modules and programmes and, on the other, meaningful feedback on the simulation.