Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pitfalls for Debriefing Games and Simulations: Theory and Practice

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Intersections in Simulation and Gaming (ISAGA 2016, SimTecT 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 10711))

Abstract

Debriefing is considered, by many scholars, to be a fundamental part of learning through games and simulations. Despite its significance, there is a lack of research in the area of debriefing, which results in unaddressed factors that inhibit debriefing. Research in the field is complicated by many influencing factors varying from context to game, the purpose of the game, conditions and player specifics, facilitators etc. Insight in the role of these influencing factors can aid in understanding how debriefing can be optimized. In doing this research so far two viewpoints are relevant, the first is the design of debriefing and the second one is the actual execution of the debriefing. The aim of this study is to identify, on the basis of literature, the influence of factors and their interrelation, and subsequently, to categorize them based on expert opinions, so as to determine which pitfalls have the highest influence on inefficiency and ineffectiveness of debriefing. Based on 12 pitfalls identified in literature, and through the use of an online questionnaire, facilitation experts evaluated the extent to which these pitfalls occur due to the design or the execution of the debriefing, and the extent to which they are influenced by the rules of games and simulations. All 12 pitfalls seem to occur in practice, to some extent, due to both the design and the execution of the debriefing. Nevertheless, some pitfalls appear to be more influenced either by design or by execution. Moreover, the results on the extent to which the pitfalls are influenced by the rules of games and simulations are inconclusive, due to the contradiction between the answers on the pre-defined questions and the comments of the experts. A method for further extending the list of pitfalls and verifying the results, hence minimizing the threat to the internal validity of the study, is proposed, which includes a more extensive literature review, interviews, and case studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dewey, J.: Experience and education. Educ. Forum 50(3), 241–252 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fanning, R.M., Gaba, D.M.: The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul. Healthc. 2(2), 115–125 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pearson, M., Smith, D.: Debriefing in experience-based learning. In: Boud, D., Keogh, R., Walker, D. (eds.) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, pp. 69–84. RoutledgeFalmer (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Seymour, N.E.: Debriefing after simulation. In: Tichansky, D.S., Morton, J., Jones, D.B. (eds.) The SAGES Manual of Quality Outcomes and Patient Safety, pp. 501–506. Springer US, Boston (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7901-8_50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Bond, W.F., Lammers, R.L., Spillane, L.L., Smith-Coggins, R., Fernandez, R., Reznek, M.A., Vozenilek, J.A., Gordon, J.A.: The use of simulation in emergency medicine: a research agenda. Acad. Emerg. Med. 14(4), 353–363 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cantrell, M.A.: The importance of debriefing in clinical simulations. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 4(2), e19–e23 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Crookall, D.: Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simul. Gaming 41(6), 898–920 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Issenberg, S.B., Mcgaghie, W.C., Petrusa, E.R., Gordon, D.L., Scalese, R.J.: Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med. Teach. 27(1), 10–28 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shinnick, M.A., Woo, M., Horwich, T.B., Steadman, R.: Debriefing: the most important component in simulation? Clin. Simul. Nurs. 7(3), e105–e111 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McCausland, L.L., Curran, C.C., Cataldi, P.: Use of a human simulator for undergraduate nurse education. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh. 1(1) (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nehring, W.M., Lashley, F.R.: Current use and opinions regarding human patient simulators in nursing education: an international survey. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 25(5), 244–248 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barreteau, O., Le Page, C., Perez, P.: Contribution of simulation and gaming to natural resource management issues: an introduction. Simul. Gaming 38(2), 185–194 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dufrene, C., Young, A.: Successful debriefing - best methods to achieve positive learning outcomes: a literature review. Nurse Educ. Today 34(3), 372–376 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dismukes, K., Smith, G.M.: Facilitation and Debriefing in Aviation Training and Operations. Routledge, Abingdon (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Arafeh, J.M.R., Hansen, S.S., Nichols, A.: Debriefing in simulated-based learning: facilitating a reflective discussion. J. Perinat. Neonatal Nurs. 24(4), 302–309 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ursano, R.J., Rundell, J.R.: The prisoner of war. Mil. Med. 155(4), 176–180 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Der Sahakian, G., Alinier, G., Savoldelli, G., Oriot, D., Jaffrelot, M., Lecomte, F.: Setting conditions for productive debriefing. Simul. Gaming 46(2), 197–208 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sawyer, T.L., Deering, S.: Adaptation of the US Army’s after-action review for simulation debriefing in healthcare. Simul. Healthc. 8(6), 388–397 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Husebø, S.E., Dieckmann, P., Rystedt, H., Søreide, E., Friberg, F.: The relationship between facilitators’ questions and the level of reflection in postsimulation debriefing. Simul. Healthc. 8(3), 135–142 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Decker, S., Fey, M., Sideras, S., Caballero, S., Rockstraw, L.R., Boese, T., Franklin, A.E., Gloe, D., Lioce, L., Sando, C.R., Meakim, C., Borum, J.C.: Standards of best practice: simulation standard VI: the debriefing process. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 9(6), S26–S29 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kolfschoten, G.: Theoretical foundations for collaboration engineering. Ph.D. thesis, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dyregrov, A.: The process in psychological debriefings. J. Trauma. Stress 10(4), 589–605 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Petranek, C.F., Corey, S., Black, R.: Three levels of learning in simulations: participating, debriefing, and journal writing. Simul. Gaming 23(2), 174–185 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Neill, M.A., Wotton, K.: High-fidelity simulation debriefing in nursing education: a literature review. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 7(5), e161–e168 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kriz, W.C.: Creating effective learning environments and learning organizations through gaming simulation design. Simul. Gaming 34(4), 495–511 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leigh, E., Spindler, L.: Simulations and games as chaordic learning contexts. Simul. Gaming 35(1), 53–69 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Klabbers, J.H.G.: The Magic Circle: Principles of Gaming & Simulation. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lethbridge, T.C., Sim, S.E., Singer, J.: Studying software engineers: data collection techniques for software field studies. Empir. Softw. Eng. 10(3), 311–341 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bredo, E., Feinberg, W.: Part two: the interpretive approach to social and educational research. In: Knowledge and Values in Social and Educational Research, pp. 115–128. Temple University Press (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y.: Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Grant, J.S., Dawkins, D., Molhook, L., Keltner, N.L., Vance, D.E.: Comparing the effectiveness of video-assisted oral debriefing and oral debriefing alone on behaviors by undergraduate nursing students during high-fidelity simulation. Nurse Educ. Pract. 14(5), 479–484 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Savoldelli, G.L., Naik, V.N., Park, J., Joo, H.S., Chow, R., Hamstra, S.J.: Value of debriefing during simulated crisis management: oral versus video-assisted oral feedback. Anesthesiology 105(2), 279–285 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Scherer, L.A., Chang, M.C., Meredith, J.W., Battistella, F.D.: Videotape review leads to rapid and sustained learning. Am. J. Surg. 185(6), 516–520 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Whelan, J.G.: Building the fish banks model and renewable resource depletion (1994)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Delft University of Technology, 2628 BX, Delft, The Netherlands

    Bill Roungas & Alexander Verbraeck

  2. Radboud University, 6525 HP, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Marieke de Wijse

  3. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 14152, Huddinge, Sweden

    Sebastiaan Meijer

Authors
  1. Bill Roungas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marieke de Wijse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sebastiaan Meijer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander Verbraeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bill Roungas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Central Queensland University, Wayville, South Australia, Australia

    Anjum Naweed

  2. Kozminski University, Warsaw, Poland

    Marcin Wardaszko

  3. FutureSearch, Tempe, New South Wales, Australia

    Elyssebeth Leigh

  4. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Sebastiaan Meijer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Roungas, B., de Wijse, M., Meijer, S., Verbraeck, A. (2018). Pitfalls for Debriefing Games and Simulations: Theory and Practice. In: Naweed, A., Wardaszko, M., Leigh, E., Meijer, S. (eds) Intersections in Simulation and Gaming. ISAGA SimTecT 2016 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10711. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78795-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78795-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78794-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78795-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation