Simulation-Action Learning (SAL)

Part of the Contemporary Issues in Technology Education book series (CITE)


Theory has been described as an effort to bind together, in a systematic fashion, the knowledge that one has of some aspect of world experience. Consequently, this chapter binds together the experiences described in Chap.  6 into a theoretical framework called simulation-action learning (SAL). The purpose of SAL is to provide a phased process for teachers to build competences in design and innovation among a wide variety of student cohorts. Furthermore, SAL can be adapted to deliver relatively short continuing professional development (CPD) courses. In order to facilitate this type of learning, the chapter adopts Donald Schön’s concept of a practicum, a purposefully designed setting in which practice can be simulated to approximate a real-world scenario.


Problem-based learning PBL Simulation Simulation-based learning Schön Practicum 


  1. agilemanifesto. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development available on line through Accessed July 2019.
  2. Bogen, J. (2005). Teleological explanation. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy (2nd ed., p. 911). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Lewinian space and ecological substance. In U. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development (pp. 41–49). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Bruno, A., & Dell’Aversana, G. (2018). Reflective practicum in higher education: The influence of the learning environment on the quality of learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 345–358. Scholar
  5. Cadotte, E. (2014). The use of simulations in entrepreneurship education: opportunities, challenges and outcomes. In M. H. Morris (Ed.), Annals of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy -2014 (pp. 280–304). Cheltenham Edward Elgar, Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  6. Cant, R. P., & Cooper, S. J. (2010). Simulation-based learning in nurse education: Systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casar, J. R. (2000). Encouraging students’ attitude of innovation in research universities. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(2), 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christopher, M. (1998). Creating agile supply chains. In J. Gattorna (Ed.), Gower handbook of supply chain management. Aldershot, UK/Gower, MO: Burlington.Google Scholar
  9. CISL. (2019). Center for immersive and simulation-based learning avialable on line through Accessed July 2019.
  10. Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 329–354.Google Scholar
  11. Cooney, T. M., & Murray, T. M. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in the third-level sector in Ireland avialable on-line through Accessed Dec 2019: Institute of Minority Entrepreneurship, Dublin Institute of Technology.
  12. Cooper, R. G. (2001). Winning at new products : Accelerating the process from idea to launch. New York: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Costello, G. J. (2015). Working paper: Review of innovation process frameworks Research@THEA Repository Accessed July 2019.
  14. Creed, C. J., Suuberg, E. M., & Crawford, G. P. (2002). Engineering entrepreneurship: An example of a paradigm shift in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(2), 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford: Berg Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Curedale, R. (2013). Design thinking : Process and methods manual. Design Community College Inc. Topanga, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, M. (2017). Teaching design: A guide to curriculum and pedagogy for college design faculty and teachers who use design in their classrooms. New York: Allworth.Google Scholar
  18. Deegan, M., Stave, K., MacDonald, R., Andersen, D., Ku, M., & Rich, E. (2014). Simulation-based learning environments to teach complexity: The missing link in teaching sustainable public management. Systems, 2(2), 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eck, R. V. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless…. Educause Review, 41(2), 16–30.Google Scholar
  20. Enterprise Ireland. (2019). Enterprise Ireland Website Accessed Dec 2019.
  21. Fadale, K., Tucker, D., Dungan, J., & Sabol, V. (2014). Improving nurses’ vasopressor titration skills and self-efficacy via simulation-based learning. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 10(6), 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fink, L. D. (2004). Beyond small groups: Harnessing the extrordinary power of learning teams. In L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, & L. D. Fink (Eds.), Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Gregory, S. A. (1966). The design method. Springer US.
  24. iHub. (2019). GMIT innovation Hubs Accessed July 2019.
  25. Jørgensen, F. (2004). The student voice. In A. Kolmos, F. K. Fink, & L. Krogh (Eds.), The Aalborg PBL model: Progress, diversity and challenges (pp. 21–35). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Khunger, N., & Kathuria, S. (2016). Mastering surgical skills through simulation-based learning: Practice makes one perfect. Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery, 9(1), 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolmos, A., Fink, F. K., & Krogh, L. (2004). The Aalborg model - problem based and project-organized learning. In A. Kolmos, F. K. Fink, & L. Krogh (Eds.), The Aalborg PBL model: Progress, diversity and challenges (pp. 9–19). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Krogh, L., & Rasmussen, J. G. (2004). Employability and problem-based learning in project-organized settings at universities. In A. Kolmos, F. K. Fink, & L. Krogh (Eds.), The Aalborg PBL model: Progress, diversity and challenges. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lappalainen, P. (2011). Development cooperation as methodology for teaching social responsibility to engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(6), 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lateef, F. (2010). Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock, 3(4), 348–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Laurillard, D. (2013). Rethinking University teaching : A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Retrieved from Hoboken: Routledge.
  32. Leonard, D. A., & Rayport, J. (1997). Spark innovation through empathic design. Harvard Business Review, 75(6), 102–113.Google Scholar
  33. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lu, J., Hallinger, P., & Showanasai, P. (2014). Simulation-based learning in management education. Journal of Management Development, 33(3), 218–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luryi, S., Tang, W., Lifshitz, N., Wolf, G., Doboli, S., Betz, J. A., et al. (2007). Entrepreneurship in engineering education. Paper presented at the frontiers in education conference-global engineering: knowledge without borders, opportunities without passports, 2007. FIE’07. 37th Annual.Google Scholar
  36. Mendelson, M. I. (2001). Entrepreneurship in a graduate engineering program. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(4), 601–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Michaelsen, L. K. (2004). Getting started with team-based learning. In L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, & L. D. Fink (Eds.), Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching (pp. 27–50). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. ODE. (2006). Simulate. In Oxford dictionary of english (Revised, 2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ohland, M. W., Frillman, S. A., Zhang, G., Brawner, C. E., & Miller III, T. (2004). The effect of an entrepreneurship program on GPA and retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(4), 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Papayannakis, L., Kastelli, I., Damigos, D., & Mavrotas, G. (2008). Fostering entrepreneurship education in engineering curricula in Greece. Experience and challenges for a technical university. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(2), 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perrenet, J. C., Bouhuijs, P. A. J., & Smits, J. G. M. M. (2000). The suitability of problem-based learning for engineering education: Theory and practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pikkarainen, M., Wang, X., & Conboy, K. (2007). Agile practices in use from an innovation assimilation perspective: a multiple case study. Paper presented at the international conference on information systems (ICIS 2007), December 10th – 12th, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  43. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon (NCB University Press), 9(5), 1–6.Google Scholar
  44. Pretotyping. (2019). Accessed July 2019.
  45. Ruse, M. (2005). Theory. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sara, R. (2011). Learning from life: Exploring the potential of live projects in higher education. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 6(2), 8–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schön, D. A. (1987 ). Donald Schön’s presentation “Educating the reflective practitioner” to the 1987 meeting of the American Educational Research Association Washington, DC available on-line through Accessed July 2019. Retrieved from.
  48. Schön, D. A. (1990). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  49. Scrum. (2019). Scrum Alliance: Transforming the world of work available on-line through Accessed Oct 2019.
  50. Silva, A., Henriques, E., & Carvalho, A. (2009). Creativity enhancement in a product development course through entrepreneurship learning and intellectual property awareness. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sørensen, O. J. (2004). New realities and the implications for problem-based learning. In A. Kolmos, F. K. Fink, & L. Krogh (Eds.), The Aalborg PBL model: Progress, diversity and challenges (pp. 109–128). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Steadman, R. H., Coates, W. C., Huang, Y. M., Matevosian, R., Larmon, B. R., McCullough, L., et al. (2006). Simulation-based training is superior to problem-based learning for the acquisition of critical assessment and management skills. Critical Care Medicine, 34(1), 151–157. Scholar
  54. Tan, S. S., & Ng, C. K. F. (2006). A problem-based learning approach to entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 48(6), 416–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2004). Product design and development (3rd ed.). Boston/London: Irwin McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Galway-Mayo Institute of TechnologyGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations