The Experimental Approach

Qudrat-Ullah, Hassan

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28166-3_3

Hassan Qudrat-Ullah²¹

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Complexity ((BRIEFSCOMPLEXITY))

430 Accesses

Abstract

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.

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)

eBook: USD 39.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 54.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
An earlier version of SIADH-ILE model description was presented at the 37th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA ◊ July 21–25, 2019.
2.
The pilot test was conducted with nine subjects. The performance data is not included in this study.
3.
This questionnaire is the short version of a questionnaire which was published in Qudrat-Ullah (2014).

References

Adobor, H., & Daneshfar, A. (2006). Management simulations: Determining their effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 25(2), 151–168.
Article Google Scholar
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
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.
Article Google Scholar
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
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.
Article Google Scholar
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
Lane, D. C. (1995). On a resurgence of management simulations and games. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46, 604–625.
Article Google Scholar
Lederman, L. C. (1992). Debriefing: Towards a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation and Gaming, 23(2), 145–160.
Article Google Scholar
Moxnes, E. (2004). Misperceptions of basic dynamics: The case of renewable resource management. System Dynamics Review, 20, 139–162.
Article Google Scholar
Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2007). Debriefing can reduce misperceptions of feedback hypothesis: An empirical study. Simulations and Gaming, 38(3), 382–397.
Article Google Scholar
Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2008). Behavior validity of a simulation model for sustainable development. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 9(2), 129–139.
Article Google Scholar
Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2010). Perceptions of the effectiveness of system dynamics-based interactive learning environments: An empirical study. Computers and Education, 55, 1277–1286.
Article Google Scholar
Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2014). Yes we can: Improving performance in dynamic tasks. Decision Support Systems, 61, 23–33.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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
Qudrat-Ullah, H., & Tsasis, P. (Eds.). (2017). Innovative healthcare systems for the 21st century. Cham: Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-55773-1.
Google Scholar
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
Sengupta, K., & Abdel-Hamid, T. (1993). Alternative concepts of feedback in dynamic decision environments: An experimental investigation. Management Science, 39, 411–428.
Article Google Scholar
Sing, D. T. (1998). Incorporating cognitive aids into decision support systems: The case of the strategy execution process. Decision Support Systems, 24, 145–163.
Article Google Scholar
Spector, J. M. (2000). System dynamics and interactive learning environments: Lessons learned and implications for the future. Simulation and Gaming, 31(4), 528–535.
Article Google Scholar
Tebbens, D., & Thompson, K. (2009). Priority shift- ing and the dynamics of managing eradicable infectious diseases. Management Science, 55, 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0965.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

School of Administrative Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada
Hassan Qudrat-Ullah

Authors

Hassan Qudrat-Ullah
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendix A: Transfer Learning Questionnaire

In the following, you are asked to reflect on your understanding about LichenBankILE game by rating the relationships between variables in the underlying model of the game? In each of the following questions, imagine that other things being equal, left-hand bold face variable below either increases or decreases. What will happen to the right variable? Will it increase immediately or after a delay? Will it remain unchanged? Will it decrease immediately or after a delay?

An immediate increase implies that an increase or decrease in the left variable is followed by an increase in the right variable in the same year. No change means that if the left variable stays constant after an initial increase or decrease, so will be the right variable. In a delayed relationship, however, the right variable continues to increase or decrease for some time even after the left variable is constant (of course initially it was either increased or decreased). As an example, if the left variable is “Hiring New Employees” and the right variable is “Retirements,” other things being equal, an increase in “Hiring New Employees” leads to a delayed increase in “Retirements,” because “Retirements” continue to increase even after “Hiring New Employees” has stopped. New Employees remain in the pipeline for some time (hopefully till their retirement age!), and “Retirements” thus are a delayed function of “Hiring New Emp1oyees.”

You make choices by clicking on the appropriate button. Having done that, you have about 25 seconds to make the next choice. A timer will appear in the upper right corner of this screen once you have finished this introduction.

Here is the set of questions that will appear on your screen:

1.
An increase in Herd Recruitment leads to ………………… in Lichen Stock
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease
2.
An increase in Herd Stock leads to ………………… in Lichen Harvesting
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease
3.
An increase in Herd Stock leads to ………………… in Lichen Density
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease
4.
An increase in Lichen Density leads to ………………… in Feed per Reindeer
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease
5.
An increase in Feed per Reindeer leads to ………………… in Lichen Harvesting
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease
6.
An increase in Lichen Stock leads to ………………… in Reindeer Birth Rate
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease
7.
A decrease in Herd Stock leads to ………………… in Natural Death Rate of Reindeer
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease
8.
A decrease in Lichen Harvesting leads to ………………… in Lichen Stock
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease
9.
A decrease in Herd Stock leads to ………………… in Operating Costs
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease
10.
A decrease in Lichen Density leads to ………………… in Operating Costs
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease
11.
A decrease in Operating Cost leads to ………………… in Operating Profits
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease
12.
A decrease in Weight per Reindeer leads to ………………… in Revenue
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease
13.
A decrease in Herd Stock leads to ………………… in Revenue
1. (a)
  ………… immediate increase
2. (b)
  ………… delayed increase
3. (c)
  ………… no change
4. (d)
  ………… immediate decrease
5. (e)
  ………… delayed decrease

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2020). The Experimental Approach. In: Improving Human Performance in Dynamic Tasks. SpringerBriefs in Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28166-3_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28166-3_3
Published: 31 August 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28165-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28166-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

The Experimental Approach

Abstract

Access this chapter

Notes

References

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Appendix A: Transfer Learning Questionnaire

Appendix A: Transfer Learning Questionnaire

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Publish with us

Search

Navigation