Pitfalls for Debriefing Games and Simulations: Theory and Practice

  • Bill Roungas
  • Marieke de Wijse
  • Sebastiaan Meijer
  • Alexander Verbraeck
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, 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.

Keywords

Debriefing Game and simulations Pitfalls 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. 1.
    Dewey, J.: Experience and education. Educ. Forum 50(3), 241–252 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fanning, R.M., Gaba, D.M.: The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul. Healthc. 2(2), 115–125 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 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_50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cantrell, M.A.: The importance of debriefing in clinical simulations. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 4(2), e19–e23 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crookall, D.: Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simul. Gaming 41(6), 898–920 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dismukes, K., Smith, G.M.: Facilitation and Debriefing in Aviation Training and Operations. Routledge, Abingdon (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ursano, R.J., Rundell, J.R.: The prisoner of war. Mil. Med. 155(4), 176–180 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kolfschoten, G.: Theoretical foundations for collaboration engineering. Ph.D. thesis, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dyregrov, A.: The process in psychological debriefings. J. Trauma. Stress 10(4), 589–605 (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neill, M.A., Wotton, K.: High-fidelity simulation debriefing in nursing education: a literature review. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 7(5), e161–e168 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kriz, W.C.: Creating effective learning environments and learning organizations through gaming simulation design. Simul. Gaming 34(4), 495–511 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leigh, E., Spindler, L.: Simulations and games as chaordic learning contexts. Simul. Gaming 35(1), 53–69 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klabbers, J.H.G.: The Magic Circle: Principles of Gaming & Simulation. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. 30.
    Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y.: Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
  31. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Whelan, J.G.: Building the fish banks model and renewable resource depletion (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bill Roungas
    • 1
  • Marieke de Wijse
    • 2
  • Sebastiaan Meijer
    • 3
  • Alexander Verbraeck
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Radboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations