Influence of Room Condition on Participants in Simulation and Gaming Activities: Analyses of Debriefing Forms

Abstract

Background. Increasing attention has been paid to simulation and gaming (S&G) as an active learning technique within Japanese universities; however, the more that active learning sessions are conducted, the fewer rooms there are available for these activities. This shortage sometimes results in having to conduct S&G in a traditional lecture room; as such, this study explores the influence of room condition on participants.

Intervention. During each gaming session, the author played the role of facilitator and made herself as invisible as possible. In the debriefing sessions, the author delivered a lecture and organized the debriefing in the role of a teacher.

Aims and Methods. The two research aims were as follows: first, to understand the influence of room conditions on participants; and second, to understand the influence of content and question order in debriefing forms on participants. Data collected from debriefing forms regarding two gaming sessions were analyzed.

Results. The degree of satisfaction in HACONORI and the degree of usefulness in BLOCK WORK were influenced by room condition. This study found that debriefing forms influenced participants less than room condition.

Discussion. These study results reflect the powerful effect of room condition, which varies due to individual game attributes. The effect of debriefing forms was found to be less potent than the effect of room condition, although the order of questions should be taken into consideration.

Suggestions and Limitations. A large room with movable desks and movable chairs is recommended for S&G.

Conclusion. The factor of room condition had a powerful effect on the degree of satisfaction for HACONORI and the degree of usefulness for BLOCK WORK. The factor of debriefing forms was less potent than the factor of room condition; as such, S&G facilitators should be sensitive to room conditions.

Keywords

debriefing forms degree of satisfaction degree of usefulness facilitator’s role room condition simulation and gaming

Simulation and gaming (S&G) has recently received increased attention within Japanese universities as a tool for active learning. According to MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology), active learning is a comprehensive term describing teaching and learning methods that incorporate learners’ active participation. Active learning includes discovery learning, problem-solving learning, experiential learning, exploratory learning, group discussion, debate, and group work (MEXT, 2012). S&G should be categorized as active learning, particularly when it includes experiential learning and is played by groups of people. Many Japanese universities have constructed new rooms with movable desks and chairs to promote active learning; if S&G is conducted in such rooms, facilitators and teachers can exploit the full potential of S&G. The more S&G or active learning is conducted, however, the fewer appropriate rooms there are available. When a desirable room is not available, S&G is conducted in a traditional lecture room, where desks and chairs are screwed to the floor and laid out in rows or tiers. If the room is spacious and each group does not bother the others, then this is not problematic; otherwise, it may be difficult for some S&G to be conducted smoothly. According to Nakamura (2019), students who participated in a series of gaming sessions in a traditional lecture room perceived S&G as less necessary and vital than those who did it in an active learning room. How the room condition affects participants of S&G may depend on the individual attributes of S&G, participants’ characteristics, the ways of conducting S&G, and other factors. In this study, I collected data from debriefing forms answered by Japanese university students immediately after participating in a gaming session and examined how room condition affects their perceptions. This information will inform how much attention should be paid to room condition when conducting S&G.

Background

S&G in Japanese Universities

In Japanese universities, lecture-style teaching has been a standard teaching method for a long time; however, it may be a factor that fosters passive, silent listeners in universities. In today’s globalized society, there is growing emphasis on communication ability, and so, in order to raise globally-minded people, MEXT is encouraging university educators to use more active learning when teaching their subjects, to reform university education (MEXT, 2012). PMAC (Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan, 2016, 2017, 2018)’s survey demonstrates that the percentage of Japanese private universities that are adopting active learning is steadily increasing: 62.0% in 2015, 64.0% in 2016, and 66.0% in 2017.

For those who have been using S&G at Japanese universities, this trend should be favorably received, as it should encourage more support from people in general and a more comprehensive understanding of the concept. For example, to reserve a room, I used to spend time and energy explaining S&G and why a large room was required, that could seat 150 people for only 50 registered students. While such lengthy explanations are no longer necessary, even so, when no large room is available, S&G must be conducted with those 50 participants in a lecture room that seats 60 people in a static, tiered layout. While it is not impossible to conduct S&G in such a room, it is not desirable. It is assumed that other university teachers who conduct active learning in Japan face similar situations. In terms of room condition, an active learning room is best, a spacious lecture room is second best, and a small lecture room is least desirable.

Process of Debriefing

Previous studies have identified what factors a facilitator takes into consideration while structuring a debriefing. After a game, people exchange perspectives to understand what occurred during the game. They are expected to review their experiences using metacognitive skills; for this purpose, facilitators should prepare for appropriate debriefing, so that participants can extract general strategies applicable to real-world issues in the future. Raths (1987) stated that “debriefing is a process of helping students reflect on their learning experience, attach personal meanings to them, and deepen their understandings” (pp. 25-26). Debriefing is a process that starts with facilitators asking questions that stimulate thought and thoughtful responses. When participants can sort their feelings and review their thoughts in a debriefing, then they can seek answers. The content and order of questions reflect how facilitators structure the process of debriefing.

In terms of the debriefing process, Kriz (2010) introduced six phases of debriefing, for which the basic questions are as follows: “How did you feel?”; “What has happened?”; “In what respects are events in the gaming simulation and reality connected?”; “What did you learn?”; “What would have happened if. . .?”; and “How do we go on now?” (pp. 669-671). Pivec (2011) proposed a debriefing model with four stages, based on Kolb’s (2007) model: Experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and applying. Petranek, Corey, and Black (1992) proposed the four Es for oral debriefing: Events, emotions, empathy, and explanation. Duke and Geurts (2004) suggested two phases of debriefing: reviewing the performance of the game and focusing on the real-world issues.

After a game, participants release their emotions and gradually become calm, at which time they can focus on what happened during the game, listen to others’ perspectives, and exchange opinions and interpretations with others. Kriz’s (2010) six basic questions demonstrate how debriefing proceeds in general. The former two phases involve collecting and sharing information among participants while the latter phases involve grasping the big picture. In the fourth and fifth phases, the most critical learning is identified and hypothetical scenarios are questioned. What-if scenarios help participants distance themselves from their experiences in the S&G and view the situations from a new perspective. In this way, the order in which questions are asked is essential, as it helps participants to prepare for a meta-cognitive point of view.

Methods of Debriefing

Petranek et al. (1992) recommend two stages of activities for debriefing: oral debriefing and journal writing. They note that “in debriefing, the professor is a facilitator and encourages all to offer opinions. This might be difficult to offer if a professor’s lecturing style dominates passive students” (p. 177). This is true for Japanese university students who have been accustomed to being passive rather than making verbal statements in front of other people. Thus, oral debriefing, particularly in a large group, would not work well as a starting point for Japanese university students.

Based on the above, a printed questionnaire (referred to as a debriefing form) is instead used at the beginning of the debriefing and then, later, participants are asked to share what they have written on their debriefing forms while in small groups. Those who are shy are less hesitant to speak in small groups and can rely on what they have already written to read aloud. In this sense, writing down answers on debriefing forms right after the gaming session is a good starting point for Japanese university students. Students are also advised that debriefing forms should be used as a reference when writing reports as homework to bring to the next debriefing session. These reports are used as learning materials for information sharing and opinion exchange.

Factors Related to Debriefing

There are several related factors that should be taken into consideration when analyzing debriefing forms. Nakamura (2019) revealed the difference between inexperienced and experienced participants. The inexperienced group was composed of those who had played a game during the early phase of the course while the experienced group played the same game at the end of the course. Participants were given two different types of questionnaire (past-oriented and future-oriented). Experienced participants demonstrated low satisfaction when the past-oriented question was asked, perhaps due to regret. The goal of the game was to obtain a high score as a team, and there was a clear winner. Experienced participants may have felt frustrated at losing and the past-oriented question reminded them of their errors and made them feel less satisfied.

Nakamura’s (2019) study indicates that factors such as participants’ characteristics and their experiences in S&G, the attributes of S&G (e.g., competitive or cooperative), and types of questions posed during the debriefing such as past-oriented or future-oriented can affect the answers provided in debriefing forms, such as degree of satisfaction.

Concerning the content of questions, the facilitator can create appropriate questions with reference to previous studies as well as existing debriefing materials. There has been little prior research concerning the order of questions in written debriefing forms and how much attention should be paid to this aspect of debriefing. For oral debriefing, however, there is a basic order for the questions, starting with a release of emotions, and then reviewing what happened, understanding the meaning, and applying what they learned to real-world issues. Different from oral debriefing, participants engaging in written debriefing forms can refer to their previous answers and go back and forth among questions if they desire. As such, this study assumes that question order has a level of influence on participants’ answers.

Intervention

When conducting the gaming session for this study, I played the role of facilitator. Participants first counted off into groups and arranged desks and chairs as necessary so that they could sit together. Handouts were then distributed and the rules of gameplay were explained. During the gaming session, I did not intervene but made myself as invisible as possible. After the gaming session, debriefing forms were distributed and participants were asked to answer the questions and write marginal notes about their thoughts and experiences during the game. I then proposed a topic (either from the debriefing form or from another source) that each group would discuss among themselves before reporting on the topic in front of the class. Finally, homework was assigned to write a report individually and bring it to the next debriefing session. In the debriefing session, I played the role of teacher, and delivered a lecture on the topic related to the game content. Students were then organized into small groups and asked to read other members’ reports, either in the same group or other groups, in order to obtain different perspectives. After sharing others’ perspectives, students exchanged opinions within their small groups and reported what they had discussed to the class.

Aims

The two research aims were, first, to understand the influence of room condition on participants, and second, to understand the influence of content and question order in debriefing forms on participants.

For HOCONORI, there were two independent variables (debriefing form, room condition), each consisting of two levels, either learning or utility, and either a large or small room, respectively. The dependent variables were the degree of four items: expressing, listening, satisfaction, and involvement. For BLOCK WORK, there were two independent variables (debriefing form, room condition), each consisting of two levels: the order of questions being either satisfaction-finding-usefulness or finding-usefulness-satisfaction and either a large or small room, respectively. The dependent variables were the degree of three items: satisfaction, finding, and usefulness.

Method

General Information About the Course

I am currently teaching a course on decision-making at a university in Japan. In the present study, data were obtained from students who had registered for the course between 2013 and 2018. Each course comprised 15 classes with approximately 50 students per class, during which several S&G sessions were conducted. Three class periods were scheduled together as a unit. The first and second periods were used as gaming sessions, and the third as a debriefing session. The game topics were communication, leadership, and team building, and in each of the two gaming periods, the groups worked in parallel. After completing their work, participants filled in debriefing forms and shared opinions within their groups. The students then took the debriefing forms home to prepare reports for the debriefing session. In the third class, after a short lecture, students read approximately ten reports from their classmates to understand better how others had interpreted the events during the gaming sessions and to exchange opinions through discussion. In each class, students were assigned to different groups with different classmates.

I have been using this structure for S&G since 2011, though a turning point occurred in 2016 when the university changed the room in which the course was taught. Before 2016, classes were held in a large room, typically used for design course students, that seats 140. While the desks are heavy and immovable, the chairs could easily be moved so that each group could concentrate on their work without interrupting others. In 2016, however, the assigned room was changed to a location approximately one-third the size of the previous room (seats 160) in which both desks and chairs are screwed to the floor in tiers. When participants work in groups, it is difficult for them to concentrate, since half of the members must sit facing backwards to work within their group and most groups are seated very close to one another. After this course, I asked the university to change the assigned room to one with more movability since the room was not appropriate for S&G. As a result, in 2017, an active learning room with movable desks and chairs was assigned that seats 128. Although this room is the smallest of the three, it affords students the most room to move around and form groups. Each group can sit facing each other and at a comfortable distance from the other groups by putting unused desks and chairs between them.

This study focuses on data from 2013 to 2015, when a study hall was assigned, and data from 2017 and 2018, when an active learning room was assigned. Because participants in 2016 were distracted constantly due to the room condition, and thus the full potential of S&G could not be exploited, this year’s data are excluded from the study analysis. Instead, data from pre- and post- 2016 are compared to ascertain how participants were affected by room condition and debriefing forms.

General Information About the Present Studies

In this section, the two studies conducted in the present research will be introduced. Study 1 comprised an analysis of the debriefing forms for HACONORI, while Study 2 comprised an analysis of debriefing forms for BLOCK WORK. As mentioned above, the room assigned pre-2016 was large while the room assigned post-2016 was small. This room difference is one of the key factors to be noted. In the analysis of HACONORI, the data were collected in 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2018. In the analysis of BLOCK WORK, the data were collected in 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2018. The room condition and number of participants during 2013-2015 and 2017-2018 are shown in Table 1. Two classes were organized each year and approximately 50 students participated regularly.

Table 1.

Room Condition and Number of Participants, 2013-2015, 2017-2018.

Year	Room condition		Number of participants in two classes
Year	Size	Movability (desks, chairs)	Number of participants in two classes
2013	Large	Middle (immovable, movable)	48–56, 58–69
2014			43–50, 53–60
2015			39–43, 47–52
2017	Small	High (movable, movable)	41–52, 47–56
2018			41–48, 50–60

When participants submitted their reports, they also submitted debriefing forms. Participants were aware that the debriefing forms would be collected during this period via a notice at the top of the debriefing form when initially distributed. While not mandatory, it was appreciated if they would cooperate and submit their debriefing forms.

Study 1: HACONORI

Outline of HACONORI

HACONORI (JOYPOD, 2007) is a game that enables participants to communicate efficiently among members. Participants are required to describe how a picture looks on the card in their hand and combine fragments of information to fit them together successfully. HACONORI was conducted in the early phase of the 15-week course. The details of HACONORI are as follows.

In HACONORI, players work in groups of five. Ten cube-shaped boxes and a set of five cards are given to each group. Each box comprises a cube with 20-cm sides. Nine boxes are white and one is red. Group members sit around the ten boxes. Each member receives one card at a time, and they are not allowed to show their cards to the others. Each card shows a picture of a two-dimensional diagram, which represents one of the views of a three-dimensional object, from five different directions: from above, and from each of the four horizontal directions. The three-dimensional object is built of 10 boxes. The task of each group is to combine the boxes such that the shape of the resulting three-dimensional object fits all five two-dimensional pictures. Each task takes approximately two to five minutes to complete, and they range in difficulty from easy to difficult. When all members of a group concur that the picture on their cards fits one of the five different views of the central object, they can proceed to the next task. There are 15 tasks in total. After every five tasks or every 10 minutes, the facilitator calls for a short break, to maintain a good pace. Groups who finish early must wait for the break, while groups who have not finished must give up at this point. During the break, the facilitator asks for problem-solving tips from successful groups, to share their knowledge with those who have had difficulty.

Debriefing Forms of Study 1

Immediately after the game, debriefing forms were distributed to focus players’ thoughts on what had occurred during the game and to derive meaning from these experiences. To assess the effect of a specific question, slightly different debriefing forms were prepared.

The debriefing forms of HACONORI consisted of six questions. Since HACONORI is expected to promote communication among members, questions about expressing one’s opinion and listening to others’ opinions are asked. Through HACONORI, participants may learn about various difficulties that people can encounter through the sharing of information and may experience a feeling of accomplishment. Since participants communicate through actions, if they are deeply involved in the activity, it will likely result in greater success; therefore, degrees of satisfaction and involvement are queried. In sum, four questions were prepared along an interval scale, followed by a free-description query regarding what they had learned or in what situation they could utilize their learning. The former is about the past while the latter is about the future. By placing this question in the middle of the questionnaire, it was expected to ascertain whether it affects the degree of satisfaction and/or degree of involvement.

In the field of experiential learning via laboratory methods, speaking and listening are usually asked at the beginning of the debriefing sheet (Tsumura, 2012). They function as flipping a switch in one’s mind and move the focus away from S&G as a process. Choosing one answer from an interval scale is easier for most participants than completing a free-description question; therefore, in this study, the interval-scale questions were balanced and a free description was added, focused on balancing this ratio.

All questions across the two forms were identical except for the third, which alternated between learning and utility. After the gaming session was completed, two types of debriefing form were distributed to approximately equal halves of the participant body. The questions were as follows:

(1) How much did you express your opinion during the gaming session?

(2) How much did you listen to your teammates’ opinions during the gaming session?

(3) Learning: What did you learn from this gaming session?

Utility: In what kinds of future situation do you think you can apply what you learned in this experience?

(4) How satisfied are you with the results?

(5) How much do you feel you got involved in the gaming session?

(6) Please feel free to write your feedback.

Participants answered (1), (2), (4), and (5) based on a 6-point scale from 1 (never) to 6 (fully). Questions (3) and (6) called for free description. In this study, quantitative data were analyzed in terms of (1) expressing, (2) listening, (4) satisfaction, and (5) involvement. There was a difference in the content of the third question (learning or utility) as well as a difference in room condition (e.g., the room was large in 2013 and 2015, but small in 2017 and 2018). A two-way analysis of variance was conducted on the influence of the two independent variables (debriefing form, room condition) on the degree of four items. The debriefing form consisted of two levels (learning, utility) and room condition also consisted of two levels (large, small).

The difference in the debriefing forms is not expected to affect either expressing or listening because the debriefing forms differed in terms of the third question, while expressing and listening were asked in the first two questions. However, since satisfaction and involvement were asked in the fourth and fifth questions, they were expected to be affected by the third question. Compared with the question about utility, the question about learning is less complicated and less time-consuming to answer. The question about learning must elicit more clear-cut answers than the question about utility. Considering HACONORI was conducted in the early phase of the course, participants would feel more satisfaction and involvement after answering the question about learning than the question about utility.

Predictions: Concerning expressing and listening, there would be no difference between the different debriefing forms (learning and utility). Concerning satisfaction and involvement, there would be a significant difference between the different debriefing forms. Participants who were asked about learning would be more satisfied and involved than those who were asked about utility.

Study 2: BLOCK WORK

Outline of BLOCK WORK

In the 15-week course, BLOCK WORK (Kikkawa, 2012) was conducted in the early phase. The purpose of BLOCK WORK is to enable participants to experience describing ideas and concepts through writing. Six participants sit in a circle and work as a quasi-group on the following three stages.

In the first stage, each participant receives an envelope containing eight pieces of plastic interlocking building blocks that vary in color and shape. Each participant creates a unique piece of work using all eight blocks. They can help each other by exchanging opinions or giving advice within the group, but they work individually and must complete their creation in five minutes. Then, they are given 10 minutes to write a handwritten description on how to make the piece of work on a sheet of A4 white paper without providing illustrations; as such, the description must be sufficiently clear so that anyone who reads it can make the same piece of work from the eight disjointed pieces. The direction to write a description post-building is not mentioned at the start of the exercise, to avoid some participants from making overly simple creations to facilitate writing a description. After writing their descriptions, each participant photographs their work, takes apart their creation, and encloses everything in an envelope. In the second stage, the facilitator asks two groups to exchange envelopes. Each member receives an envelope from their paired group and attempts to make the assigned creation by following the handwritten description. Those who finish early can help those who have not yet finished in their same group. When all members in the group have finished, they write down on the back of the descriptions what difficulties they encountered when creating the pieces from the descriptions. In the third stage, the paired groups visit their partner group and check how well each member’s work has been reproduced (e.g., judge the degree of completion such as 80%) and write these notes on the front of the envelope. They also check the back of the descriptions to see what difficulties the readers had while building. The members of another group visit their paired group and do the same thing.

Debriefing Forms of Study 2

Everyone returns to their original group and fills out a debriefing form. To assess the influence of question order, two slightly different debriefing forms were prepared. While all six questions in the two debriefing forms were identical, the order of the questions was changed to see whether it would affect the tendencies of answers.

Three questions were prepared along an interval scale. Participants of BLOCK WORK were graded by degrees of completion in their reproductions, and it can be assumed that in any group, some would be satisfied with the results while others would not. Through the activity of writing a description, participants may discover something new and useful; therefore, satisfaction with results, new findings, and the usefulness of the experience were the basis of the queries. Communication (writing a description), what they learned, and feedback were asked as free descriptions.

Two types of debriefing form were randomly distributed to approximately equal halves of the participant body. The first set of questions was ordered as follows:

(1) How satisfied are you with the results?

(2) Did you discover anything new during the gaming session?

(3) What do you think is the trick of communication (writing a description)?

(4) Do you think the experience of the gaming session will be useful in the future?

(5) What did you learn from the gaming session?

(6) Please feel free to write your feedback.

In the second set, the order was (2), (3), (4), (5), (1), and (6).

Participants answered (1), (2), and (4) based on a 6-point scale from 1 (never) to 6 (fully). Questions (3), (5), and (6) called for free description. In this study, quantitative data were analyzed: (1) satisfaction, (2) finding, and (4) usefulness. Using the initial characters of the three items, the first group is called S-F-U and the second group F-U-S. There was also a difference in room condition, with a large room used in 2014 and 2015, and a small room in 2017 and 2018. Two-way analysis of variance was conducted on the influence of the two independent variables (debriefing form, room condition) on the degree of the three items. The debriefing form consisted of two levels (S-F-U, F-U-S) and room condition also consisted of two levels (large, small).

We can predict that the degree of satisfaction might be affected by the question order. Emotion and evaluation are involved in the meaning of satisfaction. In general, those who performed well would feel satisfied and this is a natural reaction to the result. Asking about the degree of satisfaction at the beginning of the questionnaire requires a spontaneous answer that would elicit participants’ natural emotions. On the other hand, asking about the degree of satisfaction at the end of the questionnaire often invites an insightful answer. After being asked several questions, people review what has happened during the game run, obtain a deeper understanding, and reflect this understanding when answering the question. Here, satisfaction indicates an evaluation of internal fulfillment. Even those who have made mistakes during the game run might be satisfied with the results if they feel the experiences were worthwhile on the whole.

Prediction: The degree of satisfaction would be higher in the F-U-S condition than in the S-F-U condition.

Results

Result of Study 1

Table 2 shows the mean and SD of each item in the four conditions. All of the mean scores were relatively high, suggesting that participants expressed themselves well, listened to others well, were satisfied, and felt deeply involved. No effect was significant at the .05 significance level in the degree of expressing, listening, or involvement. The main effect of room condition was significant in terms of the degree of satisfaction.

Table 2.

Means and SDs of Four Question Items in Four Conditions on HACONORI.

Debriefing form	Learning		Utility
Room condition	Large room	Small room	Large room	Small room
N	100	88	98	93
(1) expressing(2) listening(4) satisfaction(5) involvement	5.210	5.205	5.204	5.172
	(.973)	(.943)	(1.020)	(.969)
	5.210	5.398	5.173	5.183
	(.840)	(.747)	(.948)	(.972)
	4.740	5.057	4.612	4.763
	(1.309)	(.946)	(1.094)	(1.177)
	5.380	5.420	5.316	5.355
	(.822)	(.750)	(.943)	(.946)

Table 3 comprises an ANOVA summary table for the degree of satisfaction. The main effect of room condition was significant (F (1, 375) = 3.913, p<.05), indicating a significant difference between the large room (M = 4.676, SD = 1.212) and small room (M = 4.910, SD = 1.084). The interaction effect was not significant. The results demonstrate that participants in the small room were more satisfied than those in the large room, perhaps because HACONORI requires speedy correspondence among group members; as such, when the room is small, group members are forced to remain close to one another. This may be convenient to speed up communication among group members.

Table 3.

ANOVA Summary Table for the Degree of Satisfaction on HACONORI.

	SS	df	MS	F	p
Debriefing form	4.191	1	4.191	3.168	.076
Room condition	5.176	1	5.176	3.913	.049
Interaction	.648	1	.648	.490	.484
Error	496.017	375	1.323
Total	9188.000	379

In Table 3, the degree of satisfaction was weakly significant at the .10 significance level. The main effect of the debriefing form was weakly significant (F (1, 375) = 3.168, p<.10), indicating a difference between learning (M = 4.888, SD = 1.164) and utility (M = 4.686, SD = 1.137). Participants were slightly more satisfied when asked about learning than when asked about utility. This tendency was consistent with the prediction. The prediction itself may change depending on circumstances. HACONORI was conducted in the early phase of the course and participants were not yet accustomed to the method of S&G and debriefing. Therefore, those who favored simple questions at this time had a chance to favor rather complicated questions after becoming accustomed to the method of S&G and debriefing.

In terms of the degree of involvement, no effect was significant at the .05 significance level. The results of involvement were close to the score of the upper limit, 6. Because of the ceiling effect, the scores could not rise any further.

Results of Study 2

Table 4 shows the mean and SD of each item in the four conditions. All the mean scores were high, suggesting that participants were satisfied to some extent, discovered something new, and felt the usefulness of the task. No effect was significant at the .05 significance level in the degree of satisfaction and finding (discovering something new). The main effect of room condition was significant in terms of the degree of usefulness. Table 5 is an ANOVA summary table for the degree of usefulness. The main effect of the debriefing form was not significant. The main effect of room condition was significant, (F (1, 378) = 10.964, p<.01), indicating a significant difference between large room (M = 5.014, SD = 0.901) and small room (M = 4.685, SD = 1.028). The interaction effect was significant (F (1, 378) = 5.455, p<.05).

Table 4.

Means and SDs of Three Question Items in Four Conditions on BLOCK WORK.

Debriefing form	S-F-U		F-U-S
Room condition	Large room	Small room	Large room	Small room
N	99	107	83	93
Satisfaction	4.111	4.131	3.867	4.011
Satisfaction	(1.332)	(1.283)	(1.395)	(1.299)
Finding	4.747	4.579	4.639	4.489
Finding	(.978)	(1.077)	(1.013)	(1.136)
Usefulness	4.919	4.822	5.108	4.548
Usefulness	(.992)	(.984)	(.761)	(1.053)

Table 5.

ANOVA Summary Table for the Degree of Usefulness on BLOCK WORK.

	SS	df	MS	F	P
Debriefing form	.170	1	.170	0.183	.669
Room condition	10.211	1	10.211	10.964	.001
Interaction	5.080	1	5.080	5.455	.020
Error	352.036	378	.931
Total	9326.000	382

Post-hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni method indicated that the simple main effect of room condition in the debriefing form of S-F-U type was not significant (F(1, 378) = 0.517, n.s.), whereas the simple main effect of room condition in the debriefing form of F-U-S type was significant ((F(1, 378) = 14.771, p<.01). The mean score for the large room condition (M = 5.108, SD = 0.761) was significantly different from the small room condition (M = 4.548, SD = 1.053). When participants were asked about usefulness in the order S-F-U, they felt approximately the same degree of usefulness in the large room and small room. When participants were asked about usefulness with the order F-U-S, they felt significantly less usefulness in the small room than in the large room. In other words, the room condition was only effective when participants were asked about usefulness before satisfaction. This may be because the degree of satisfaction set the tone for the participants’ attitudes, wherein they may have thought that since they had already admitted high satisfaction, they should also admit high usefulness. Once the tone was set, the factor of room condition had no influence. Before the tone was set, the factor of room condition did have an influence. Participants in the large room felt more usefulness than those in the small room. This may be because BLOCK WORK comprises individual work. The large room provides more space for participants to concentrate on their work and this, in turn, might foster participants’ feeling that their work was useful.

Discussion

From the result of a previous study on the degree of satisfaction (Nakamura, 2019), participants’ past experiences with S&G influence their attitudes toward S&G sessions. To reduce the effect of such previous experiences with S&G, Studies 1 and 2 focused solely on gaming sessions conducted in the early phase of the course. Therefore, we can assume that previous experiences with S&G had little influence. Results from the current study demonstrate that the difference in room condition was influential. In HACONORI, participants felt more satisfaction in the small room than in the large room, while in BLOCK WORK, participants felt less usefulness in the small room than in the large room, but only when asked about the degree of usefulness before being asked about their degree of satisfaction. The effect of room condition seems to trend in the opposite direction in the two gaming sessions. This difference is because the amount of space has a different meaning in HACONORI and BLOCK WORK; for example, in HACONORI, group members can successfully work together by providing quick and responsive communication with each other. The small room must have encouraged such speedy communication. Conversely, in BLOCK WORK, participants can successfully work when they have more personal space since the task is more individualized; however, this may be affected by the order of questions. When participants were asked about the degree of usefulness after being asked about their degree of satisfaction, their attitude tone was fixed and the degree of usefulness was not affected by room condition. When asked about the degree of usefulness before being asked about their degree of satisfaction, they recognized the usefulness of the BLOCK WORK session in the large room more than in the small room.

We should take into consideration the movability of the desks as an essential factor in improving room function as this must have affected the results. In HACONORI, participants felt more satisfaction in the small room than in the large room. This is because the movability of the desks was high in the small room but low in the large room. In other words, the small room functioned well because of the movable desks.

Both studies reflect the powerful effect of room condition, which depends on the game attributes. They also demonstrate that the effect of the debriefing form is not as powerful as the effect of room condition, although as noted above, it is advisable to consider the order of the questions.

In study 1, the degree of satisfaction was significantly different in room conditions and slightly different in the debriefing forms. No other variables were significantly different. As mentioned above, the ceiling effect prevented the degree of involvement from differing. Can we, therefore, conclude from the results that the degrees of expressing and listening were not affected by room condition? The hint lies in high involvement. When participants were highly involved, they expressed themselves well and listened well to others. S&G has the power to involve participants regardless of the condition of the room. The results proved that high involvement was established in HACONORI. Nevertheless, it does not guarantee that participants can apply what they have learned to real-world issues. For this reason, follow-up activities in the following debriefing session are essential.

In study 2, participants’ evaluation of the findings (discovering something new) and satisfaction were approximately the same regardless of the room condition and the order of questions. This means that findings and satisfaction were relatively stable. It is good to know that most participants of BLOCK WORK found something new and were satisfied with the results. However, the most crucial aspect is that they can apply what they have discovered in other situations in the future. To be able to transfer these findings to real-world issues in the future, the following debriefing session is essential. After filling in the debriefing form, activities such as sharing and exchanging opinions are necessary.

The contribution of the research findings can be summarized as follows:

In this research, the influence of question order in a written style of debriefing form was not significant. However, if we ask about satisfaction at the beginning of a debriefing form, participants might be influenced by the tone they set when they answer the following questions. This finding will be useful for other styles of debriefing.

The influence of room condition is informative for facilitators, most of whom are likely to be sensitive to room condition. This research offers suggestions for selecting or setting the room environment when preparing for S&G.

In this research, participants were in the early phase of the course. If they had been in the later phase of the course, the results might have differed. For participants with little experience of S&G, what-if questions such as asking about an imaginative situation in the future sometimes cause too much confusion. In such cases, introducing examples may reduce confusion. Besides, follow-up activities such as reading others’ reports or exchanging opinions will support participants to apply what they have learned to real-world issues.

Recommendations

One of the most important roles of a facilitator is to structure debriefing sessions appropriately. For Japanese participants, it is recommended that debriefing forms be used as the starting point to enable participants to reflect on what has happened during the S&G and provide time for them to calm down before sharing what they have written in debriefing forms in a small group. Through this sharing, participants can hear others’ opinions and broaden their perspectives. By writing reports with reference to debriefing forms, participants have time to think and connect their learning to real-world issues.

Regarding room condition, a large room with high movability (movable desks and movable chairs) is recommended. The facilitator can then prepare for an appropriate arrangement of desks and chairs depending on the attributes of the games. For a game like HACONORI, the facilitator can move the desks and chairs to use only a small part of the room. For a game like BLOCK WORK, the facilitator can scatter groups and use the whole room.

Suggestions and Limitations

Regarding the debriefing form, it may be desirable to include more free description questions since these do not seem to affect the answers to any questions that follow. At least for HACONORI, neither the degree of satisfaction nor degree of involvement were affected by the previous free description question (i.e., neither learning nor utility).

Since this was exploratory research, we can derive some clues to venture a hypothesis based on the study results; for example, as mentioned above, we can elicit a hypothesis that a question about the degree of satisfaction at the beginning of the debriefing form set the tone for any following answers. Such an assumption can be examined if we plan hypothesis-testing research.

Conclusion

Understanding that the factor of room condition had a powerful effect on the degree of satisfaction for HACONORI and the degree of usefulness for BLOCK WORK is important to note, as is the fact that the factor of debriefing form seems less powerful than the factor of room condition.

The necessity of active learning is increasing in Japan, even though most classrooms in Japanese universities are lecture rooms. If S&G needs to be conducted in a lecture room, the facilitator must be sensitive to the room condition. The facilitator plays a vital role in making the physical environment as appropriate as possible for S&G; therefore, if necessary and possible, the facilitator should insist on the importance of room condition and make the best choice.

Footnotes

Declarations of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The present study was funded by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP18K03014 awarded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science had no involvement in conducting this study or preparing this article.

Author Biography

M. Nakamura is a professor of psychology at Ryutsu Keizai University, Japan. Her research has focused on facilitation and debriefing of simulation and gaming in communication fields.

Contact: mnakamura@rku.ac.jp

References

Duke

R. D.

Geurts

J. L. A.

(2004). Policy games for strategic management: Pathways into the unknown. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Dutch University Press.

JOYPOD. (2007). HACONORI. Retrieved from http://www.joypod.net/haconori/ (In Japanese)

Kikkawa

(2012). BLOCK WORK. In Kikkawa

(Ed.), Improving risk communication skills: Experiential training course with gaming (pp. 106-107). Kyoto, Japan: Nakanishiya. (In Japanese)

Kolb

D. A.

(2007). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory (Version 3.1). Boston, MA: Hay Group.

Kriz

C. W.

(2010). A systemic-constructivist approach to the facilitation and debriefing of simulations and games. Simulation & Gaming, 41(5), 663-680. doi:10.1177/1046878108319867

MEXT. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/koutou/055/gijiroku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2013/04/04/1331530_6.pdf (In Japanese)

Nakamura

(2019). Physical and mental environments for simulation and gaming: The facilitator’s role as a designer of environments. In Hamada

Soranastaporn

Kanegae

Dumrongrojwatthana

Chaisanit

Rizzi

Dumblekar

(Eds.), Neo simulation and gaming toward active learning (pp. 443-452). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8039-6

Petranek

C. F.

Corey

Black

(1992). Three levels of learning in simulations: Participating, debriefing, and journal writing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 174-185. doi:10.1177/1046878192232005

Pivec

C. R. J.

(2011). Debriefing after simulation: Guidelines for faculty and students (Master of Arts/Science in Nursing Scholarly Projects, 14). Retrieved from https://sophia.stkate.edu/ma_nursing/14

10.

Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan. (2016, 2017, 2018). Retrieved from https://www.shigaku.go.jp/files/H27kyouikugenjyou.pdf (In Japanese)

11.

Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan (2017) Retrieved from https://www.shigaku.go.jp/files/h28kyouikunogenjyou.pdf (In Japanese)

12.

Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan (2018) Retrieved from https://www.shigaku.go.jp/files/h29kyouikunogenjyou.pdf (In Japanese)

13.

Raths

(1987). Enhancing understanding through debriefing. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 24-27. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198710_raths.pdf

14.

Tsumura

(2012). Process education. Tokyo, Japan: Kanekoshobo. (In Japanese)