Review of Definitions of Highly-Interactive Virtual Environments for Learning

As part of my research towards a PhD degree, in August 2010 I reviewed current games and simulations for project management. Now I am publishing the results here. The review consists of three parts: an overview of definitions (published with this post), the methodology I used for the actual review of games, simulations and other graphical systems (broadly referred to as highly interactive virtual environments) and, finally my comments on the reviewed systems.

Here I discuss distinctions between games, simulations and other platforms. Although research on business simulations and games has a long history and a number of authors have put forward definitions, in literature still very often these are used interchangeably and without consideration of exact terminology. A review of defining efforts has been done e.g. by Sauve and colleagues (2007) and Maier and Größler (2000) and I summarize it this article. One common observation made by various authors (e.g. (Sauvre et al 2007), (Aldrich 2009)) is that each of the aforementioned categories focuses on a particular set of features that are not essential, albeit often present in the other categories.

Sauve and colleagues (2007), among others, have conducted a review of the essential elements of games and have reached a convergence over five distinctive features. These are player or players, conflict, rules, predetermined goal and artificial nature. In the context of educational games, the authors introduce the pedagogical nature of the game as a sixth feature.

In their review, Sauve and colleagues (2007) also summarize some essential attributes of simulations used for learning. They identify four key attributes: a model of reality defined as a system; a dynamic model; a simplified model; and a model that has fidelity, accuracy and validity. Here too, the authors introduce a pedagogical attribute: the simulation should directly address the learning objectives. In a somewhat more unifying perspective, Aldrich (2009) argues that “simulations use rigorously structured scenarios carefully designed to develop specific competencies that can be directly transferred into the real world.”

While games and simulations are generally viewed as distinct technologies as indicated earlier, some systems combine elements of both i.e. typical features of simulations (e.g. a predominantly realistic game environment) with some features games (e.g. competition, user-friendliness, etc.). These technologies are commonly called simulation games.

Further two related categories have been discussed in the literature: interactive storytelling and virtual worlds. Interactive storytelling (sometimes called digital storytelling) is widely claimed to have emerged from games (Mateas 2001), (Crawford 2004). On the other hand, Riedl, Stern and Dini (2006) elaborate on the distinction between simulations and interactive narratives. Interactive storytelling has been contrasted both to games (Crawford 2004) and simulations (Riedl et al. 2006) in its emphasis on a pre-designed story. In the core of a definition of interactive storytelling is the contra-position between interactivity and a predefined plot. Authors in the field (see the previously quoted as examples) develop arguments of possible controlled interactivity that would still maintain the initially intended narrative. When talking about educational technologies, focusing this narrative on the learning material can become a strong learning support technique, as this has been demonstrated by Marsella and colleagues (2000).

In his comparison between games and simulations, Aldrich (2009) also includes virtual worlds as a distinct third category beyond the other commonly considered two. He underlines the absence of a specific goal as a distinctive characteristic of virtual worlds. He also indicates that communication is a much more central feature for virtual worlds, as opposed to the other discussed environments.