Practicalities

As this Guide has repeatedly noted, simulations are very adaptable. Therefore, it is helpful to try to list some of the key variables that might be considered when designing a simulation: it is not exhaustive, but it will get you to the large majority of decision points you will need to address.

What do you want students to get from it?

This is the central question that has to be addressed and relates directly back to the need for clear learning objectives discussed above. Whether looking at process or output (or both), the game-play needs to allow students to have the possibility of actually achieving those aims.

To illustrate this, we might look at this simulation, modelling a comprehensive set of negotiations in the Middle-East. The game-designer’s objectives here were multiple: to allow students to understand the positions of different regional actors; to appreciate the interlinked nature of security, economic, environmental and social issues in the region; to develop experience of a negotiation with scope for package deals and scope for non-compliance, as well as problems of the status of different actors. The game-play reflects this in the range of topics that are covered, the broad structure of the negotiating model and the ability of actors to set out their own rules of procedure. As the variations note, there is the possibility to use this model is several other ways that permit exploration of other aspects.

In all of this, there is a tension between being prescriptive and being flexible. Tightly written game-play will move students more quickly towards the intended objective, but with the potential downside of limiting their agency and their feeling of immersion: if only one outcome is possible, then what is the point of the exercise? Conversely, an open structure allows much more scope for students to develop creative approaches and outcomes, albeit not necessarily those originally intended. As this author often notes to his students, “I’m disappointed that you didn’t do what I thought you would, but I’m also happy, because you did something I hadn’t thought of at all.” In defining learning objectives, it is possible to set some parameters to this, as the game-designer feels most appropriate.

How much time do you have?

Simulations are highly variable in length and can be run in time slots from a few minutes up to as long as you can bear. In practice, five main sizes of simulation take place:

Very short simulations (under 30 minutes). These are typically brief, illustrative simulations (e.g. this simulation), where either no preparation is required or all relevant information is provided (i.e. a closed simulation).
Seminar-length simulations (1-2 hours). Very common, since they fit easily within usual teaching arrangements. These allow sufficient space to get into some substantive discussions, although if this is a priority then some student preparation is very helpful.
Day-long simulations (6-8 hours). This length permits extended discussion, even with larger groups, as well as scope for parallel sessions and/or sub-groups. Preparatory work becomes essential for any simulation at this length or longer.
Multi-day simulations. Sometimes it is possible to join together several shorter sessions (c.f. this simulation) to allow for informal interactions between sessions and for the progressive development of positions and outputs.
Asynchronous simulations. Purely online simulations (e.g. between students in different physical locations) can be run over an extended time period, with more or less flexibility on when interactions have to take place.

Increased length allows for more open and realistic scenarios and positions to be developed, but with an obvious cost of increased organisation and coordination costs. The practicality of shorter simulations has to be set against a necessary limit on what can be gained from the experience.

How many students you have?

Again, this can be any figure from one upwards. Online computing gaming can be created for individuals to play, but in an HE context it is more usual to have a group that requires simultaneous provision.

One key concern is again the purpose of the exercise. In this simulation, a key part of the interaction is the difficulty of reaching group decisions, which necessarily requires a group: typically, the upper limit for a single group to have a discussion is about 20.

Above this figure, then there is value in thinking about creating parallel or sub-sessions (e.g. working groups) or multi-stage discussions. These latter might comprise different students at different points (see this simulation for an example of this).

In an HE context, there might not be full control by the game-leader over student numbers, so any simulation needs to be able to cope with the numbers that do come, having scope to drop or add elements as necessary. If this creates fundamental issues, then these should be discussed in advance with the relevant colleagues, rather than trying to work things out on the hoof. In practice, extended simulations tend to develop a good reputation over time, so the issues are more usually ones of over- rather than under-recruitment.

What space do you have?

If there is limited control over student numbers in HE, then there is even less over rooming. As much as is possible, the game-designer and game-leader need to communicate their requirements to those in charge of rooming. The relevant issues are four-fold:

Number of students. This has been covered above, but there is the additional aspect that the students will need enough space for any movement or activity required by the simulation;
Length of simulation. Again already discussed, but anything that requires rooming beyond what is normally timetabled (i.e. beyond about 2 hours) will need a space that can be secured. This might mean finding spaces not normally made available for teaching;
Number of rooms. If parallel sessions or sub-groups are envisaged, then there needs to be space for them. In most cases, this means more than one room, especially if there is an intention to explore coordination issues;
Style of room. Plenary debates can be accommodated by lecture theatres while small group discussions cannot. In the majority of simulations, students will need to be able to move furniture around in a flexible way, so this should be considered when rooming.

In all cases, clarity on the purpose and game-play of the simulation should help to inform the necessary discussions.

How many times will you use this simulation?

Game-designers tend to rather proud of their simulations once they are created, so it is a good idea to think about how all that hard work and effort can be re-used and developed.

This can be thought about in a broader sense of pedagogic development. It might be that an extended simulation is run on a first iteration in a relatively basic form, to which additional elements and aspects can be added over subsequent runs. Indeed, given that it is usually only once the simulation happens that one is able to see how things work, it can make sense to start from a more modest beginning.

Likewise, it is possible to think about relating a series of individual simulations to each other. This might be simply a matter of using the same scenario and/or roles, or more ambitiously a series of linked simulations, where the outcome of one directly feeds into the next.

Finally, one might think about whether other game-leaders might want to use the simulation. The main consequence of this is to document more fully what the simulation entails, much as in the manner used in Appendix 1.

Are you assessing the simulation at all?

This is as much a quality assurance issue as it is a pedagogic one. The first issue is whether one assesses at all. On the one hand, assessment can bring more student engagement and strengthen reflective practice. On the other, it creates a series of requirements on documentation and evaluation that might detract from the simulation itself.

If assessment is taking place, then it must be decided what is being assessed. If direct participation is being assessed, then that requires some form of recording (for second and external examiners), as well as possibly assessors on the spot: as a rough estimate, one assessor cannot only follow about five individuals for any length of time. If assessment is based on outputs, there are equity issues if some students ‘win’ and others ‘lose’, especially if they have structurally unequal roles. Ex-post reflective essays can side-step many of these issues – by assessing the students’ ability to reflect – but this can be at the cost of directly assessing student performance in the simulation itself.

In any case where assessment is taking place, there needs to be sufficient documentation to allow second and external examiners to form their own judgements, going beyond what is necessarily an evaluation process that can be very subjective: just as students can become caught up in simulations, so too can game-leaders and assessors!