Today, many organizations use training games to enhance the knowledge and skills of their employees. Presumably, training games keep employees engaged throughout training and motivated to increase their exposure to the training content. Think about it this way: would you rather read text on a computer screen, listen to someone’s pre-recorded voice via computer, or actively play a computer-based game? The common problem is that the use of this technology in practice has outpaced the research on its effectiveness. So it is still unclear when, and if, training games work.
THE RESEARCH STUDY
In a recent SIOP session on “designing quality training games,” Traci Sitzmann presented the results of a recent meta-analysis (statistical combination of many past studies) that explored the effectiveness of simulation-based training games.
In her presentation, the researcher pointed out that the term “training games” is very broad. For example, while some games are fun and engaging, others can be quite boring. In addition to differences in the entertainment value of training games, some game-based activities are highly relevant to the knowledge/skills being trained while others are not.
As a notable example, the researcher described a game for which the goal was to teach students about the American Revolution. This particular game is a tactical war game that allows trainees to attack enemy soldiers with their own armies. The training content is presented periodically via “pop-ups” that include historical information about the war and interrupt game play. Clearly, if the training content is significantly less exciting than the simulation, this type of game would not be very effective at keeping trainees motivated to learn the pertinent material.
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The researcher ended her presentation with several important conclusions about the use of training games for enhancing learning:
(1) Games are more effective when they allow trainees to be actively involved.
(2) The entertainment value of a game does not affect learning.
(3) Standalone games are probably not in the best interests of learners and organizations; training games are best when they are blended with other instructional methods (e.g., lectures, group discussions) and serve as practice opportunities for trainees.
(4) To realize the potential benefits of a training game, it should be constantly available to trainees; placing strict limits on the time trainees can play a game defeats its purpose, which is to keep trainees coming back for more learning.
Subsequent publication by this author: Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528.
Image credit: Unsplash+