Advertisement

SDILEs in Service of Dynamic Decision Making

  • Hassan Qudrat-Ullah
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Complexity book series (BRIEFSCOMPLEXITY)

Abstract

As the objective of a SDILE is to improve people’s decision making and learning in dynamic tasks, its design should incorporate the mechanisms to support people’s learning. Researchers in the SD community have identified three such mechanisms to be an essential part of a SDILE: (i) HCI design principles, (ii) cognitive apprenticeship theory and Gagné’s nine instructional events, and (iii) structured debriefing. We provide an overview and elaborate on the implementation of these learning inducing elements of any SDILE with the example of our developed and validated SDILE, SIADH-ILE. Also, to better assess the efficacy of SDILEs and to fully capture the decision makers’ performance in dynamic tasks, we present a five-dimensional evaluative model. Based on this newly developed evaluative model, we advance five assertions pertaining to the efficacy of debriefing-based SDILEs.

Keywords

Dynamic tasks Evaluative model HCI design principles Instructional events Cognitive apprenticeship theory SDILE Structured debriefing Situated learning Modeling and explaining Facilitator support SIADH-ILE Decision strategy Decision time Structural knowledge Heuristics knowledge 

References

  1. Abdel-Hamid, T., Sengupta, K., & Swett, C. (1999). The impact of goals on software project management: An experimental investigation. MIS Quarterly, 23(4), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakken, B. E. (1993). Learning and transfer of understanding in dynamic decision environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Boston.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, D. C. (1991). The role of action in implicit learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 881–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blazer, W. K., Doherty, M. E., & O’Connor, R. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brehmer, B. (1990). Strategies in real-time dynamic decision making. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making (pp. 262–279). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Briggs, P. (1990). Do they know what they are doing? An evaluation of word-processor user’s implicit and explicit task-relevant knowledge, and its role in self-directed learning. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 32, 385–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, I. (2008). Improving time-critical decision making in life-threatening situations: Observations and insights. Decision Analysis, 5(2), 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crookall, D., Oxfored, R., & Saunders, D. (1987). Towards a reconceptualization of simulation: From representation to reality. Simulation & Gaming, 17(4), 141–171.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 121–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..Google Scholar
  10. Conant, R., & Ashby, W. (1970). Every good regulator of a system must be a model of the system. International Journal of System Science, 1, 89–97.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox, R. J. (1992). Exploratory learning from computer-based systems. In S. Dijkstra, H. P. M. Krammer, & J. J. G. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Instructional models in computer-based learning environments (pp. 405–419). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidsen, P. I., & Spector, J. M. (1997). Cognitive complexity in system dynamics based learning environments. International system dynamics conference, Istanbul, Turkey: Bogazici University Printing Office, 757–760.Google Scholar
  13. Dreifuerst, K. T. (2009). The essentials of debriefing in simulation learning: A concept analysis. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(2), 109–114.Google Scholar
  14. Fanning, M., & Gaba, M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simulation in Healthcare, 2(2), 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faria, A. J. (1998). Business simulation games: Current usage levels—An update. Simulation and Gaming, 29, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer, H., & Gonzalez, C. (2016). Making sense of dynamic systems: How our understanding of stocks and flows depends on a global perspective. Cognitive Science, 40(2), 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  19. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008). Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1055–1075.Google Scholar
  21. Größler, A., Rouwette, E., & Vennix, J. (2016). Non-conscious vs. deliberate dynamic decision-making—A pilot experiment. Systems, 4(13), 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.3390/systems4010013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hogarth, R. M., & Makridakis, M. (1981). Beyond discrete biases: Functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. Psychological Bulletin, 9(2), 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Howie, E., Sy, S., Ford, L., & Vicente, K. J. (2000). Human-computer interface design can reduce misperceptions of feedback. System Dynamics Review, 16(3), 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Isaacs, W., & Senge, P. (1994). Overcoming limits to learning in computer-based learning environments. In J. Morecroft & J. Sterman (Eds.), Modeling for learning organizations (pp. 267–287). Portland, OR: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kim, J., & Pavlov, O. (2017). Game-based structural debriefing: A design tool for systems thinking curriculum. SSRN Electron J https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3218674.
  26. Klabbers, G. (2000). Gaming & simulation: Principles of a science of design. Simulation and Gaming, 34(4), 569–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kleinmuntz, D. (1985). Cognitive heuristics and feedback in a dynamic decision environment. Management Science, 31, 680–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kottermann, E., Davis, D., & Remus, E. (1995). Computer-assisted decision making: Performance, beliefs, and illusion of control. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kwakkel, J. H., & Pruyt, E. (2013). Explanatory modeling and analysis and approach for model-based foresight under deep uncertainty. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lakeh, B., & Ghaffarzadegan, N. (2015). Does analytical thinking improve understanding of accumulation? System Dynamics Review, 31(1–2), 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lane, M., & Tang, Z. (2000). Effectiveness of simulation training on transfer of statistical concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 383–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Langley, P. A., & Morecroft, J. D. W. (1995). Learning from microworld environments: A summary of the research issues. In G. P. Richardson & J. D. Sterman (Eds.), System dynamics ‘96 (pp. 213–231). Cambridge, MA: System Dynamics Society.Google Scholar
  33. Lederman, L. C. (1992). Debriefing: Towards a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation and Gaming, 23(2), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayer, W., Dale, K., Fraccastoro, K., & Moss, G. (2011). Improving transfer of learning: Relationship to methods of using business simulation. Simulation and Gaming, 42(1), 64–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moxnes, E. (2004). Misperceptions of basic dynamics: The case of renewable resource management. System Dynamics Review, 20, 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. NTSA. (2011). President’s notes. Training Industry News, 23(4), 2–2.Google Scholar
  37. Pavlov, O., Saeed, K., & Robinson, L. (2015). Improving instructional simulation with structural debriefing. Simulation and Gaming, 46(3–4), 383–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peters, V. A. M., & Vissers, G. A. N. (2004). A simple classification model for debriefing simulation games. Simulation & Gaming, 35(1), 70–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Plate, R. (2010). Assessing individuals’ understanding of nonlinear causal structures in complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 28(1), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2007). Debriefing can reduce misperceptions of feedback hypothesis: An empirical study. Simulations and Gaming, 38(3), 382–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2010). Perceptions of the effectiveness of system dynamics-based interactive learning environments: An empirical study. Computers and Education, 55, 1277–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2014). Yes we can: Improving performance in dynamic tasks. Decision Support Systems, 61, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rouwette, A., Großler, A., & Vennix, M. (2004). Exploring influencing factors on rationality: A literature review of dynamic decision-making studies in system dynamics. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21, 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sengupta, K., & Abdel-Hamid, T. (1993). Alternative concepts of feedback in dynamic decision environments: An experimental investigation. Management Science, 39, 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Söllner, A., Brödery, A., & Hilbig, E. (2013). Deliberation versus automaticity in decision making: Which presentation format features facilitate automatic decision making? Judgment and Decision making, 8(3), 278–298.Google Scholar
  46. Spector, J. M. (2000). System dynamics and interactive learning environments: Lessons learned and implications for the future. Simulation and Gaming, 31(4), 528–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sterman, J. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35, 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sterman, J. D. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 10, 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Sterman, J. D., & Booth Sweeney, L. (2007). Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change, 80(3–4), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Expertise in complex problem solving: A comparison of alternative conceptions. In P. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tamara, E. F., Alec, M. B., & Judith, D. S. (2013). The use of technology by nonformal environmental educators. The Journal of Environmental Education, 44(1), 16–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debrief enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thatcher, C., & Robinson, J. (1985). An introduction to games and simulations in education. Simulations. Hants: Solent.Google Scholar
  57. Thiagarajan, S. (1992). Using games for debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yi, S., & Davis, F. (2001). Improving computer training effectiveness for decision technologies: Behavior modeling and retention enhancement. Decision Sciences, 32(3), 521–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hassan Qudrat-Ullah
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Administrative StudiesYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations