The advantage of simulation games shrinks or reverses when the comparison group learns via active instructional methods¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i0–i2
Currency · newest study 2011 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 The comparison group learned more than the simulation game group when taught with active methods (d = −.19), a negligible effect. → Traci Sitzmann 2011 q3 i2 The simulation game group learned more than the comparison group when the comparison was passive (d = .38) or received no substitute instruction (d = .61). → Traci Sitzmann 2011 (2)

Evidence¶

Traci Sitzmann 2011¶

Traci Sitzmann. (2011). A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Instructional Effectiveness of Computer-Based Simulation Games. Personnel Psychology, 64, 489-528. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17446570

q3 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r2

Meta-analytic moderator analysis across 14 active-method comparison samples (N = 832); the comparison group "learned more than the simulation game group" with d = −.19, a negligible printed effect size.

"the comparison group learned more than the simulation game group when they were taught with active instructional methods (d =− .19)."

Traci Sitzmann 2011 (2)¶

Traci Sitzmann. (2011). A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Instructional Effectiveness of Computer-Based Simulation Games. Personnel Psychology, 64, 489-528. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17446570

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Meta-analytic moderator analysis across 18 passive-method comparison samples (N = 970) and the no-instruction category (25 samples, N = 1,844); the QB was significant (84.48), and the largest effect was d = .61 when the comparison group received no instruction.

"However, the simulation game group learned more than the comparison group when the comparison group was taught with passive instructional methods (d = .38) or a combination of lecture and active instructional methods (d = .38). In addition, the effect size was largest when the comparison group did not receive instruction as a substitute for the instruction received in the simulation game (d = .61)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Entertainment value of simulation games did not moderate learning relative to comparison instruction — related
• Simulation games are effective as a supplement to other instruction but not as standalone instruction, where comparison groups learned slightly more (a difference not statistically significant) — related
• Simulation games are more effective when they actively rather than passively convey course material — related