The Experimental Approach

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


To empirically test our proposed assertions about the efficacy of debriefing in SDILE-based education and training in dynamic tasks, we adopted the experimental approach. In this chapter, the experimental approach is explained through various dimensions. It has a step-by-step procedure to meet the needs of debriefer and the participants. First, the research design is elaborated. Then, the dynamic task, SIADH-ILE, its causal structure, mathematics model, and interface design including its decision panel and help systems are explained. To capture the knowledge development of the learners, examples of both structural and heuristic questions are provided. Finally, the protocol of the experiment is also described here.


Effort AIDS population Contact frequency Decision strategy Decision time Dynamic task Experimental approach HAART Hawthorne effects Learning objective HIV/AIDS epidemic Scripted discussion SIADH-ILE Task performance metric Transfer learning 


  1. Adobor, H., & Daneshfar, A. (2006). Management simulations: Determining their effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 25(2), 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atun, R. A., & Sittampalam, S. (2006). A review of the characteristics and benefits of SMS in delivering healthcare. In R. A. Atun (Ed.), The role of mobile phones in increasing accessibility and efficiency in healthcare. Vodafone Group Plc.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, S., & Ceci, S. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davidsen, P. I., & Spector, J. M. (1997). Cognitive complexity in system dynamics based learning environments. In International system dynamics conference (pp. 757–760). Istanbul: Bogazici University Printing Office.Google Scholar
  5. Ford, D. N., & Mccormack, D. E. M. (2000). Effects of time scale focus on system understanding in decision support systems. Simulation and Gaming, 31(3), 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Homer, J. B., & Hirsch, G. B. (2006). System dynamics modeling for public health: Background and opportunities. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 452–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lane, D. C. (1995). On a resurgence of management simulations and games. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46, 604–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lederman, L. C. (1992). Debriefing: Towards a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation and Gaming, 23(2), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moxnes, E. (2004). Misperceptions of basic dynamics: The case of renewable resource management. System Dynamics Review, 20, 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2007). Debriefing can reduce misperceptions of feedback hypothesis: An empirical study. Simulations and Gaming, 38(3), 382–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2008). Behavior validity of a simulation model for sustainable development. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 9(2), 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2014). Yes we can: Improving performance in dynamic tasks. Decision Support Systems, 61, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Qudrat-Ullah, H., & BaekSeo, S. (2010). How to do structural validity of a system dynamics type simulation model: The case of an energy policy model. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2216–2224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Qudrat-Ullah, H., Saleh, M. M., & Bahaa, E. A. (1997). Fish Bank ILE: An interactive learning laboratory to improve understanding of ‘The Tragedy of Commons’; a common behavior of complex dynamic systems. Proceedings of 15th international system dynamics conference, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  17. Qudrat-Ullah, H., & Tsasis, P. (Eds.). (2017). Innovative healthcare systems for the 21st century. Cham: Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-55773-1.Google Scholar
  18. Roberts, C. A., & Dangerfield, B. C. (1992). Estimating the parameters of an AIDS spread model using optimization software: Results for two countries compared. In J. A. M. Vennix, J. Faber, W. J. Scheper, & C. A. T. Takkenberg (Eds.), System dynamics 1992 (pp. 605–617). Cambridge, MA: System Dynamics Society.Google Scholar
  19. Sengupta, K., & Abdel-Hamid, T. (1993). Alternative concepts of feedback in dynamic decision environments: An experimental investigation. Management Science, 39, 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sing, D. T. (1998). Incorporating cognitive aids into decision support systems: The case of the strategy execution process. Decision Support Systems, 24, 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Tebbens, D., & Thompson, K. (2009). Priority shift- ing and the dynamics of managing eradicable infectious diseases. Management Science, 55, 650–663. 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