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)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2011 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i2 When simulation games supplemented other instructional methods the game group had higher knowledge than the comparison group (d = .51), but when games were standalone the comparison group learned slightly more on average (d = −.12, 95% CI −.26 to .01, an interval that includes zero). → Traci Sitzmann 2011
Evidence¶
Traci Sitzmann 2011¶
Traci Sitzmann. (2011). A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Instructional Effectiveness of Computer-Based Simulation Games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489-528. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x
q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2
Meta-analytic moderator analysis across 40 effect sizes for games used as a supplement (N = 3,109) and 21 for standalone games (N = 946); the QB was significant (64.59), supporting the embedding hypothesis. The standalone estimate (d = −.12) has a 95% confidence interval of −.26 to .01, which includes zero, so it does not show standalone games to be reliably worse than the comparison condition.
"when simulation games were used as a supplement to other instructional methods, the simulation game group had higher knowledge levels than the comparison group (d = .51). However, when simulation games were used as standalone instruction, trainees in the comparison group learned more than trainees in the simulation game group (d =− .12)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Entertainment value of simulation games did not moderate learning relative to comparison instruction — related
- The advantage of simulation games shrinks or reverses when the comparison group learns via active instructional methods — related
- No evidence that learning effects differ by variety of player actions or by inclusion of additional nongame instruction — related
- The review reports that students learning with serious games often perform better on content knowledge assessments than those in traditional settings — a broader claim this one bears on
- Simulation games are more effective when they actively rather than passively convey course material — related
- Trainees learn more from simulation games when they have unlimited access to the game — related
- The review reports that participants in simulation-game conditions had significantly higher skill-based knowledge outcomes than those in non-game conditions — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
simulation-games-as-supplement-not-standalone |
title |
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) |
description |
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) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2011 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — traci-sitzmann-2011 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.