Provisional DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13117.

5424

Debriefing: A practical guide

David Crookall

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for
Participatory Education: Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer
Nature. (Provisional title.) Please note that the final, published version may differ
slightly from this pdf version, which is formatted for ease of reading.

Contents
Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Learning objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

Preamble ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3

1. What - object / idea / process ............................................................................................................................... 4

2. Whether or not ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

3. Why – reason, purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 7

a. Myths ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8
b. Socio- cultural context ............................................................................................................................................ 10
c. Approaches (educational philosophies & theories of learning) .............................................................................. 11
d. ‘Truths’ .................................................................................................................................................................... 14
e. Ethics ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14
f. Purposes .................................................................................................................................................................. 16
g. Issues ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20
h. Fidelity: A fundamental, practical and ethical reason for debriefing ...................................................................... 22
i. Paradox and dilemma of simulation: Need for debriefing ...................................................................................... 24

4. Whither – goals and objectives ............................................................................................................................27

5. When & how many – time & sequence ................................................................................................................29

a. Simple sequence...................................................................................................................................................... 30
b. Complex sequence – several in-game debriefs ....................................................................................................... 30
c. Several linked games, with debrief after each ........................................................................................................ 32
d. Series of debriefing activities .................................................................................................................................. 33

6. Where – place ......................................................................................................................................................33

7. With what – instrument .......................................................................................................................................34

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p1

8. Whose – ownership .............................................................................................................................................36

9. Who / Whom – people.........................................................................................................................................37

10. Which / whether – choice of alternatives .........................................................................................................38

11. How - way / manner ........................................................................................................................................39

a. Briefing .................................................................................................................................................................... 39
b. Ownership ............................................................................................................................................................... 40
c. Time ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40
d. Factors .................................................................................................................................................................... 41
e. Steps........................................................................................................................................................................ 44
f. Debrief skills development ...................................................................................................................................... 50
g. Research .................................................................................................................................................................. 50

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................52

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................54

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................................61
a. Guide for observers / debriefers ............................................................................................................................. 62
b. Sequence of games and debriefing for a course on teamwork ............................................................................... 63
c. Debrief form for a short cross-cultural game.......................................................................................................... 66

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
d. Debriefing materials used for Fishbanks ................................................................................................................. 67
e. Debriefing forms for ICEWISE .................................................................................................................................. 70
f. PROFFIteROLE ......................................................................................................................................................... 73
g. Online in-game debrief and end of game debrief forms for IOCS ........................................................................... 76
h. Classic, fifty-year old book still relevant for simulation and debriefing .................................................................. 76

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p2

Chapter 6

Debriefing: A practical guide

David Crookall

Dedication
This chapter is dedicated to a dear friend, the late Dr Ajarn Songsri Soranastaporn. Ajarn Songsri was
initiator (with me) and Secretary General of ThaiSim, the Thailand Simulation and Gaming Association. For
over ten years, she and her colleagues organised the International ThaiSim Conferences (including an ISAGA
conference), probably the most wonderful and memorable simulation/gaming meetings anywhere in the
world. She helped with the journal S&G, was a major force in Thailand for educational simulation and
applied linguistics, and was dearly loved by all her colleagues and students. In true Buddhist tradition, she
gave so much and asked for so little. We might feel closer to Ajarn Songsri and understand her passing better
by reading Upasen and Thanasilp (2020).

“Simulation without including adequate debriefing

is ineffective and even unethical.” (Willy Kriz, 2008)
“The debriefing is where the ‘magic’ happens” (Dick Duke, 2011)

Overview
Debriefing is the most important part of a simulation. That is why this is a key chapter in this book. The chapter
contains several sections, each one offering insights, guidance and stories for debriefers. The central sections
of this chapter look at various aspects of debriefing, such as what it is and when, why and how we should

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
conduct it. Each section looks at debriefing, not from a theoretical stance, but from a practical, down-to-Earth
perspective. The appendix contains a number of ready-to-use examples of materials to use for debriefing and
also suggestions of courses or curriculums that use larger-scale simulation and thus that must employ and deploy
debriefing in a judiciously managed fashion. Having developed and conducted debriefs and trained trainers in
debriefing for many years, I have written this chapter from a personal angle, sometimes offering short vignettes
or stories of my own experience.
Key words: simulation, experiential learning, debriefing, reflection, sharing

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Learning objectives
By the end of this chapter, readers should be able to:
• Grasp the broad notion of debriefing, and its importance in the simulation endeavour;
• Understand (a) that simulation objectives are different from learning goals, (b) that simulation is
about experience and (c) that debriefing is about learning from that experience;
• Understand the complex nature of debriefing – its design and implementation;
• Understand that debriefing can vary widely in its format, its structure and its modus operandi;
• Configure debriefing sequences and integrate them into a simulation, during and/or after the
simulation;
• Adapt debriefing forms (such as those in the Appendix) for their own games and learning
objectives:
• Design debriefing materials for their own specific learning objectives;
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p3

• Think about debriefing as belonging to participants and to realize that facilitators need to get out
of the way of their learners’ learning;
• Be (more) flexible in their debriefing facilitation and be willing to change strategy as the simulation
or debriefing evolves;
• Understand clearly that the learning starts when the game stops;
• Understand some of the many aspects of how to run a debriefing;
• Be more confident as a debriefer.
This chapter cannot, however, teach you the hands-on skills of facilitating debriefing. The only way that you
will learn to facilitate a debrief is to do it yourself, make mistakes, get feedback, reflect and implement
corrections – in cyclical fashion, somewhat as in the experiential learning cycle itself.

Preamble
Meaning. Debriefing can be described as an episode during a simulation and in which participants reflect on
and share their experience with fellow participants, with the purpose of transforming it into learning. That is
one way of describing the essence of debriefing. Many other descriptions of the term and action of debriefing
have been offered by practitioners and theorists. This chapter does not attempt to review the many definitions
of and publications on debriefing. Readers who wish to pursue a more academic route to working with or
understanding debriefing should look at some of the references at the end of this chapter.
Practice. However, the only sure and convincing way to understand and learn debriefing is to practice it (as a
facilitator-debriefer) or experience it (as a participant). In the same way that a book cannot substitute for the
experience of a simulation, a chapter cannot make anyone a master debriefer – only practice, training, debriefing
(of your debriefing) and more practice can do that. You cannot learn to ride a bicycle from a book or lecture;

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
you have to get on and fall off several times, and then continue to practice. Recently tools have been developed
to help improve debriefing skills (see, e.g., Coggins et al., 2022).
Guidance. This chapter then can only provide guidance; it is you, dear reader, who must practice and learn.
This chapter will provide ideas, leads, food for thought and concrete, ready-to-use examples of materials for
debriefing; you have to go out, jump in, get debriefed on your debriefing, adapt ideas here in this chapter,
consider other practitioner’s ideas and be sensitive to your participants’ feedback. Every practitioner follows
their own path; my path has been long and winding, and I am unlikely ever to reach the end. Luckily, I have
had friends, colleagues and debrief participants to suggest, guide and criticize along the way. I hope that this

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

chapter will be a useful companion for you.
Event. As you read through the chapter you will encounter a variety of terms for the kinds of things that are,
and often must be, debriefed; they include simulation, game, exercise, experience, role-play and event. I like
the term event. Many years ago, my friend and talented game designer, Ken Jones (1998), used the term event
to refer to a game or simulation and other similar types of …, well, event. At first, I felt uneasy with the term,
but over recent years I found myself being drawn ‘back?’ to the term. Ken used the word in the title of one of
his books: Interactive Learning Events. One great advantage of this term is that it avoids the tendency for some
to write nonsense like “a simulation is a game that …” or “a game is a simulation in which …”.
In addition, we all know (or at least should know) that we tend to vary the use of our terms as a function of the
character of our interlocutor, not the characteristics of the event itself (the social psychology of language also
tells us that, see Giles, n.d.). For example, with an audience sceptical about games, I use the word simulation
or event (even though, I know that they are, technically, different things). To distinguish debriefing from event,
I will use the term episode, for example, a debriefing or reflecting or taking stock episode during a simulation
event. You will also notice that I sometimes use the terms game and simulation interchangeably, in similar vein
to the early gamers, who used the term game as shorthand for simulation/game. Many books and articles offer
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p4

their varied definitions of the terms used. My own attempt, which needs some major revision at some point, is
to be found in one of my early articles (Crookall et al., 1987).
Rules. One thing that you should keep in mind is avoiding dogma of any kind, either in what some people say
or even in your own thinking – and that includes my own dogma in this chapter! Learning and people are so
complex and varied that it is impossible, in our current state of unknowledge, to lay down the ‘law of debriefing’,
except maybe to say that it really is a required episode in almost all experiential learning activities, including
games and simulations. In other words, the first, but crucial, rule about debriefing is that it must be done. The
second rule is that you must do it well, both for your own professional satisfaction and for the wellbeing and
learning of your participants.
A third rule might be: Use your own ideas; take advice but adapt to your participants and their learning;
experiment with a variety of formats, configurations and materials; invite your debrief participants to help by
asking them about the debrief; conduct action research on your debriefings; never mind what others (especially
fellow teachers) might mutter, do your thing; be proud (in yourself or even brag if that is your personality) when
you feel that a debrief has gone particularly well, but remember that the people doing and making the big effort
in the debrief are your participants, you are a facilitator.
The rest of this chapter provides some down-to-Earth thoughts on the debriefing episode from several angles.
The chapter is organized according several wh- words, starting with What and ending with How.

1. What - object / idea / process

Many authors start their text with a definition. Just as with the all-too-many and confusing definitions of terms
like game and simulation, the word debriefing has been defined in a myriad ways, and each time in a manner
that gives the impression that its author considers it to be definitive, and that no more thought or discussion is

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
possible.
The important thing is to do debriefing well, not to worry about how it may be variously defined. For the
purpose of this chapter, in a book on simulation, the simple description offered at the start will suffice:
Debriefing can be described as an episode during a simulation and in which participants reflect on and share
their experience with fellow participants, with the purpose of transforming it into learning.
That description (not a definition) has the advantage of saying what it is (an episode or activity in a simulation
or similar learning event), who does it (participants), the manner of their participation (refection and sharing),

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

the object of their reflection (their experience), why they do it (to learn) and how it happens (through
transformation). Debriefing occurs widely outside simulation, and this will be mentioned as it is relevant for
our learning-focused debriefing, but for present purposes, our main concern is its use in simulation/games for
learning.
Some readers may twitch at seeing the preposition in in the phrase ‘episode in a simulation’. My approach is
that debriefing should form an integral part of a simulation, starting with design. Debriefing should also be
mentioned in the introduction (briefing) for a simulation. It is usually a mistake to design a simulation, and then
as an after-thought to say “oh, well, maybe we should add on something for a debriefing”. That approach is
likely to take you into territory so well highlighted by my friend Willy Kriz (2008) in his statement that
“simulation without including adequate debriefing is ineffective and even unethical”. In addition, thinking of
debriefing as being included in, as an integral part of, a simulation makes it easier to think about including
debriefs at strategic points during the simulation, and not exclusively placed at the end; this is discussed in the
section When.
Different people and professions use different terms for essentially the same thing. Table 1 lists some that I
have seen or heard; no doubt others exist.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p5

Table 1. A variety of terms used for debriefing

o After-action review (AAR)* o Feedback
o After-game discussion o Game critique
o Assessment o Gather intelligence
o Cognitive assimilation of experience o Historical group debriefing
o Critical analysis o Interactive, bidirectional & reflective discussion
o Critical appraisal o Pause & learn
o Critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) o Post-experience analytic process
o Critical reflection o Post-game analysis
o Debriefing o Process debriefing
o Deliberate reflection on experience o Processing experience
o Exit interview o Psychological debriefing
o Facilitated reflective conversation o Reflection
o Facilitator-guided post-event debriefing o Transforming experience

* "a professional discussion of an event, focused on performance standards, that enables soldiers to discover for themselves what
happened, why it happened, and how to sustain strengths and improve on weaknesses." (US Army)

Of course, just like game and simulation, the terms related to debriefing each have a variety of meanings, each
one conceptualized for a given purpose, and thus resulting in a variety of designations. For example, the US
army uses after-action review, but the UK army uses the term debrief. This chapter uses a single term to embrace
the existing variety. The term critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) is used in specific circumstances after
a disaster, such as an earthquake or an accident. It usually needs special training. It will not be discussed in
this chapter, although it may be that some elements here could be useful in CISD and some aspects of CISD can
be useful in debriefing for learning.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Debriefing is more widespread, more commonly used and more talked and written about now than when I
started to use it – in the early 1980s. This is reflected in the increasing usage over time, depicted in Figure 1.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Figure 1. Evolution of the use of the terms debrief, debriefing and AAR from 1900 to 2019 (blue “debriefing”, red
“debrief”, green “after action review”.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p6

The origins of the word debrief go back a long way, as hinted at in Figure 1 (above). Etymonline offers these
origins (edited):
Debrief (v) "obtain information (from someone) at the end of a mission" 1945 (implied in verbal noun de-
briefing), from de-+brief (v).
De Latin adverb and preposition of separation in space, meaning "down from, off, away from," and
figuratively "concerning, by reason of, according to".
Brief (v) "to give instructions or information to," 1866; originally "to instruct by a brief" (1862), from
Brief (n) early 14c., bref, "a writing issued by authority," from Latin breve, noun derivative of adjective
brevis "short, little", which came to mean "letter, summary" and thus came to mean "letter of authority",
which yielded the modern, legal sense of "systematic summary of the facts of a case" (1630s). Sense of "a
short or concise writing" is from 1560s.

2. Whether or not
However, despite the increasing use of the term in publication, we should not cry victory too soon for the use
of the method in action. I have unfortunately come across far too many instances and examples where debriefing
was not used when it should have been. In a chapter on debriefing, it is worth mentioning a few of these
omissions, keeping in mind Willy Kriz’s ethical imperative. I still find myself in situations where debriefing is
ignored, unheard of or even frowned upon. See examples in Box 1 (below).
During my term as editor of Simulation & Gaming (Sage), I wrote into the author guide an extensive section on
debriefing. It included this instruction:
Articles that deal with issues, events or topics in which debriefing plays or should play a role must discuss
this aspect fully.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Even with this in the author guide, I received manuscripts that made no mention of debriefing when it was clear
that this should have at least been mentioned. In one instance, the author asked me what it was. After explaining
it, with a few references, the author said that they would have to redo their work to include debriefing. A few
months later, I received the revised manuscript, which now included debriefing, and this had actually changed
their results. The author conveyed their satisfaction with the changes that they had made, both in their practice
and in their article. Even now, I come across articles or books about games or simulations, and find myself
muttering to myself: Why on earth did they not discuss, let alone mention, debriefing? A key test to know
whether I should spend time reading an article or book on simulation/gaming (for learning) is whether it contains

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

some mention of debriefing. If it does not, then I tend to discard the publication.
The assumption in the above-mentioned author guide was that debriefing must be the default. You only leave
out debriefing if you have a compelling reason to omit it. You can dispense with debriefing only if you are
absolutely sure that no ethical issues may be raised as a result, or if the simulation/game itself is used as a
debriefing method.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p7

Some years ago, I was asked to speak at a newly-formed, innovative conference series called SEGAMED (Serious
Games in Medicine and Healthcare), founded by my friend Pascal Staccini of the Université Côte d’Azur. For my
presentation, I gave an overview of debriefing and emphasized its importance. I looked at medical organisations doing
simulation.
During my research for the talk, and to my amazement, I discovered that only some
were doing this. Most medical simulation centres (such as those attached to training
hospitals) emphasized and conducted debriefing. However, other organisations,
mostly medical game companies, made no mention at all of debriefing. During the
early conferences, I asked game company representatives at their stands what kind
of debriefing they had built into their game designs. Some said that it was not
needed; some had not even heard of it – I kid you not. During my online searches,
I even came across a searchable
data-base portal for health games. The image here (with the happy
looking man) shows ‘no results’ for a search on the term debrief.
While writing this chapter, I searched for that website, but it does not
seem to exist anymore. However, I found another searchable games
website, called “Digital Games Research”. The search term debrief
returned ‘no results’, despite seeming to be sponsored by Sage,
publisher of the world’s top simulation journal, and in which several
articles on debriefing have appeared.

Box 1. Two examples of inexistent debriefing

Most entertainment games are not explicitly debriefed, although people may talk informally about their event

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
for some while, even weeks, after. If you play Rummy with your family, it is unlikely to be the object of heated
debate, rather it is likely to be forgotten fairly fast. If you are an avid Chess player, then you could spend hours
and days going back over and analysing your moves.
Some games can be used as a debriefing method. My friend, Thiagi (Thiagarajan, 1992), wrote a delightful
article that contained instructions for running a variety of what he calls D-Games. I have used some with great
success. Indeed, I have used some to debrief, not just a game, but a whole several-day event, such as a
conference. It is important to weigh carefully the pros and cons of using a fun-game activity to debrief an event.
If a mismatch occurs between the event (emotional, heavy) and its D-Game (light-hearted), it could have the

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

opposite effect of what you and the participants expect.
An example of another type of event that might not need debriefing is Companion Modelling (or ComMod, e.g.,
Étienne, 2014). Some ComMod events, even though they involve role-play as part of their procedure, could be
conceptualised, not so much as large-scale simulations needing a debrief, but rather as large-scale debriefs of a
real situation, such as conflict between two communities over natural resources. This is not such a wild idea if
you remember Thiagi’s D-games. Much will depend on the configuration and context of the ComMod event.
What debriefing is, discussed above, and the simple fact that it is being used more widely than ever take us to
the next topic of Why.

3. Why – reason, purpose

This section looks at the broad reasons for, purposes behind or uses of debriefing. They include learning, peace
and conflict, assessing problems, processing experience, reducing stress, for ethical reasons, as part of research
and several more. The overarching purpose for debriefing for most readers of this chapter will be to help people
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p8

learn from their experience in an event. The learning process usually involves some degree of stress – after all,
little learning takes place if no effort is expended and no optimal stress is experienced.
Before reviewing the main Whys of debriefing, it is worth looking at some of the wrong assumptions that are
too often expressed about simulations or games. If we have erroneous ideas, or entertain myths, about
simulation, then we are unlikely to be able to get our debriefing right.

a. Myths
Unfortunately, in recent years, some unhelpful myths about learning and games seem to have spread unchecked.
Some lay and even some professional game users appear to assume that a game automatically results in people
learning, despite little or nothing being specified about that learning, such as its goals or processes. You may
encounter people with little experience of using learning games or people who have recently discovered games
in education or heard of what are called ‘serious’ games. Such people may have become blindly enamoured of
them, and made an enthusiastic, snap judgement about how ‘powerful’ they are and even that they can teach
anyone anything. That would qualify as a crush on games. One example, among many, is a fairly large website
that touts that
Games for Change … empowers game creators and social innovators to drive real-world impact through
games and immersive media. (https://www.gamesforchange.org.)
That is a worthy mission, but I could not find the word debrief on any of its pages. I did find it twice, mentioned
in passing, with no discussion, in a downloadable 45-page pdf file (titled XR for social impact). Another
anonymous and undated, 52-page pdf file, entitled Games pack: Games and learning, downloadable from that
website, tells us about the magic power of games, in these terms:
Games drop students into accessible, inquiry-based, complex problem spaces that are levelled to deliver just-

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
in-time learning and that use data to help student players understand how they are doing, what they need to
work on, and where they need to go next.
and yet, the word debrief is not mentioned once. The idea of ‘dropping students into spaces’ is, I would think,
hardly conducive to learning! Also, the concept of ‘just-in-time learning’ is not made clear, and is certainly not
an automatic outcome of games. It very much depends on how the game is designed, and especially on how it
is debriefed. I wonder also how a space can be ‘levelled’. Another, again anonymous, 42-page pdf file, entitled
How to teach with games, makes no mention of debriefing. All professionals of simulation must be wary of
this kind of commercialese, where buzz words from other areas, such as advertising and selling, take precedence

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

over real content, or even attempt to cover up empty claims. As simulation/gamers tend to be inventive, it is
relatively easy for them to over promise and under deliver.
A book that caused a buzz at the time was Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can
change the world. In over 300 pages, it contains not one mention of or reference to debriefing (ascertained by
a search through the pdf, not by reading). The book appears to make the erroneous, and possibly dangerous,
assumption that games equal learning. This extract from a review of the book captures the gist nicely.
Engaging with the argument that gamers are our future feels a bit like a game itself. … Such are the extremes
of opinion in my mind that I am awed by the idealism while also believing that Reality is Broken could be
an hour-long comedy show at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. The latter view is fuelled by games such as
McGonigal's own Cruel 2 B Kind, which uses mobiles and social networking to reward random acts of
kindness with points – behaviour that is supposed to spill over outside the game's boundaries. Other shiny,
happy examples also provoke snorts of derisory laughter, but the underlying message is clear: gaming is
good and gamers are benevolent. (Hall, 2011.)
All one needs to do is to throw a bunch of people into a game, or throw a game at a bunch of people, and out of
the hat pops learning. It seems that fashion, with unbridled overenthusiasm, not learning, takes the upper hand
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p9

for some teachers and trainers in using educational games, and at the same time may even drive curriculum
choices and the running of classroom activities. These myths and leaps of fantasy deter us from unlocking the
real learning that can be achieved from properly-debriefed simulation. Some of these myths are outlined in
Table 2.

Table 2. Myths about events and learning; Wrong, unfounded or dangerous assumptions
Myth Notes

No. People learn from processing their game experience. Significant learning from a simulation/game
happens in the processing and transformation of the game experience, not in the game itself. A crucial
People learn element of that experience is engagement (see the work done on this by Whitton, 2011).
from games. All our efforts to produce snazzy games will succeed (in helping people learn) only if we incorporate
appropriate debriefing. People learn from processing and transforming (thinking about, sharing,
structuring, conceptualizing, …) their experience, which means we need to debrief.

No. People learn from processing and transforming their participation in a game experience. The
often-observed giggle-type laughter during a game can be deceptive. It is often assumed and
superficially appears that it indicates having fun. However, that is illusionary. Such laughter and other
Having fun in
awkward behaviours stem from a variety of negative feelings, including feeling uncomfortable,
a game
surprise at unexpected actions, embarrassment, reluctance to participate (e.g., Saunders, 1985;
produces
Pulsford, 1993), etc. All those types of feelings may, in some ways, be considered as natural (having
learning.
counterparts in the real world), but they are nevertheless present and can interfere with any learning
that is to come out of the game. They do not usually constitute fun and they thus need to be addressed
in the debriefing.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
This was a belief among people working with video games for learning, often dubbed ‘serious games’
(usually erroneously), in large part due to the bad name that video games have, and the self-
Video consciousness of teachers and trainers in using the term game in a context (e.g., school) where they
(serious) fear that their peers or even their students will not take them seriously. They feel some kind of need
games to signal apologetically that they are after all serious people and doing non-frivolous things in class.
automatically Usually, such ambivalence and equivocation indirectly undermine their own effort and standing, and
result in does a disservice to the field of simulation/gaming.
learning. A basic contradiction emerges here. If games are fun (and therefore result in learning) why would we

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

wish to make them serious? If our games are serious, how can we have fun and so, one assumes, help
people learn? We cannot have it both ways.

Even though we have a fairly good idea of how to design and build simulation/games, we still seem,
All we need to as yet, to have only hazy theories of how people learn from them. As debriefing must be an integral
do is throw a part of a simulation, from the design stage on, I say ‘fairly good’ because it is (I think) still early days
bunch of in the development of excellent debriefing. It may well be that participants dumped into a game (even
people with bad facilitation and no debriefing) do learn, but they are likely to learn the wrong thing or even
together into a worse to learn that games are useless for learning, even though they appear to be fun. Once we have
game and they fully embraced the idea that debriefing is an integral part simulation, then we may be in a better position
will lean. to conduct research to understand the overall learning process (event+debriefing as an integrated
whole).

‘Serious
So called ‘serious games’ with no or inappropriate debriefing could actually be harmful to learners.
games’ need
The serious-games industry is unlikely to make serious progress unless it does some serious debriefing.
no debriefing.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p10

It is rather ironic that some teachers use the term ‘serious game’ and in the next breath assert that it is the fun
that guarantees learning. My impression is that once people latch on to the superficially beguiling term, it
becomes a language habit, and used without much thought about the implications. Once one pronounces such
a term, it tends to lock the speaker into a social commitment, and switching back to another term can give the
feeling of losing face with one’s peers. My impression also is that those who use the term tend to do less or no
debriefing. They are also probably less likely to read a chapter such as this. The term ‘serious’ is a misnomer
and is riddled with problems and impossible paradoxes. A preferred term is learning game or educational game
– or simply game, in the way that we used it conveniently and widely among ‘gamers’ as an informal short-
hand term for simulation/game/role-play/etc. (See, however, an interesting discussion by Djaouti et al., 2011.)
b. Socio- cultural context
Myths arise in a context, and this is no less true for simulation/games and debriefing. Thus, the context in which
a simulation/game and debriefing are conducted is of vital importance. A useful summary of learning context
is provided by an admired colleague, Alan Maley (2018). He outlines the following contextual dimensions of
learning:
o Physical, material and economic;
o Socio-political and religious;
o Linguistic;
o Philosophical and educational;
o Family and peer group;
o Psychological, relational and affective.
Context becomes a major factor, for example, in
cases where certain sections of the population are given privileged access to education to the detriment of

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
other sections, as, for example in Malaysia or India. Or the system may take a non-scientific stance towards
science, as in the Creationist approach in the US, or view science as a fixed body of expertise to be used for
political objectives rather than as an open-ended practice of inquiry. They clearly affect the way geography
or history are taught. Even the Mercator projection, which forms the basis for many maps, has a lot to answer
for. Politics can affect language learning too, as in cases of post- colonial resistance to the language of the
colonisers, or in views of one’s own language as being inherently superior to the one being learned. Factors
such as these are more influential and more stubborn than even material factors, partly because those who
hold such views are often unaware that they do so. (Maley, 2015)

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

It is obvious that some types of context will be more conducive to participatory methods, exchange and
debriefing than others. For example, gender attitudes and beliefs will influence game and debriefing outcomes;
a game on gender relations with gender-prejudiced participants may make for difficult debriefing, but may also
result in greater learning and behaviour change. The design of the debriefing for a group with gender prejudice
may have to be more elaborate and take more time than for participants who are already attuned to gender issues.
The outcomes of and debriefing for a game like STAPOWER with disadvantaged participants are likely to differ
from a session with upper-class, British ‘public school’ boys or in a school with upper-cast Indian pupils.
Indeed, it is unlikely that such a simulation is even likely to be run in elitist establishments, riddled as they are
by prejudices of and hunger for grandeur and power. In either case, the debriefing will need to be carefully
crafted and facilitated taking into account the type of participant.
In some cases, simulation/games can be a way of breaking into taboo topics and generating useful exchange.
For example, some cultures do not allow the discussion of cross-cultural issues in schools. One colleague, who
influenced me greatly, Paul Pedersen (1995), was able to get his S-E-Asia class to discuss taboo (even banned)
issues by ‘enclosing’ them in a simulation. Apparently, the authorities allowed this because a simulation was,
for them, just a fiction, and not the real thing. Of course, in such a context, difficulties might arise in a debriefing
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p11

that encourages participants to draw parallels between the game and the reality, to examine how the game
departs from and reflects one’s ideas and experience of reality. (Unfortunately, Paul did not tell me how he
handled this.)
Participant and institutional beliefs about learning may have a major impact on how we run and debrief games,
indeed on whether or not we run games at all. It should be fairly easy to guess which of the following two
context types is more conducive to learning from events and debriefing.
Other factors include the overall beliefs about how learning should be conducted. Broadly conservative or
traditional beliefs place a high value on discipline, effort, competition, memorisation and testing, and tend
to view learning as something difficult and painful. By contrast, more liberal or exploratory approaches view
learning as a pleasurable, creative and cooperative enterprise where the emphasis is on the quality of the
process rather than the short- term product in the form of examination results. (Maley, 2015.)
Sometimes you need to muster up a certain amount of courage to impose your way of ‘teaching’. On exiting
my classroom, at the end of one of my classes, in which students participated in a simulation, I encountered a
colleague teacher exiting his classroom. He complained “your class makes a lot of noise”, to which I retorted,
“yes, but that indicates that my students are working hard and learning”. I did not hear from him again.
The type of context will also determine, not just the amount, but more importantly, the type of talk and dialogue
that takes place there. This is important for both learning and for simulation and debriefing. The most effective
learning (probably) occurs through talk and dialogue. Both simulation and debriefing involve and depend on
exchange and sharing through talk and dialogue. (Some insightful ethnomethodological studies regarding talk
in simulation are worth looking at Sjöblom, 2006; Francis, 1989; Sharrock & Watson, 1985 and others. It would
be even more insightful to have conversational analysis conducted on debriefing.) This takes us to the next
topic of approaches.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
c. Approaches (educational philosophies & theories of learning)
One might argue that educational philosophies and theories of learning are part of the context of education; they
provide the backdrop to, and influence, the way we facilitate simulation and debriefing. Through a process of
social construction and legitimisation (see Berger & Luckmann, 1966), these philosophies and theories arise out
of, and develop (thrive or whither) within, socio-politico-cultural educational fashions. Indeed, education itself
can be considered as a social construction (see Dragonas et al., 2013), and thus so can the area of
simulation/gaming and the practice of debriefing.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

A chapter on debriefing would not be 100% complete if it did not mention theories of learning, especially in
relation to the various ways of debriefing. Unfortunately (or fortunately ☺), you are reading a less than complete
chapter, but you will find many books and articles elsewhere that outline, discuss and analyse the various facets,
ins and outs of many learning theories that have been concocted over the years.
However, learning simulation users often refer to one theory in particular. This is experiential learning theory
(ELT), developed principally by my friends Alice and Dave Kolb (Kolb & Kolb, 2009; Kolb, 2015; Thatcher,
1990). Over the last few years, with the increase in use of participatory and experiential methods in education
and training, ELT has gathered a large following – and rightly so. Their books and articles have inspired many
people using participatory methods – see the references in the bibliography.
The principal concern in this chapter is the use of debriefing in simulation to help people learn. One thing that
will help participants learn (more effectively) is if they, in addition you, have an idea, even if rather hazy, about
the theoretical underpinnings of the rather complex journey that you are asking them to follow. The one that I
tend to use is ELT, as it is probably more immediately understandable by participants. It is also helpful for
participants to understand the process and the relationship between simulation+debrifing and their learning,
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p12

even if only superficially. For first-time participants, I often use the diagram in Error! Reference source not
found., starting with concrete experience, furnished by a game.

Figure 2. Explaining debriefing to participant learners, using ELT

Other, related theories are also relevant for simulation and debriefing, for example, engagement, motivation,
adult learning, constructivism, dialogic learning, cognitive learning, social learning. Also, fortunately, you do
not need to know a huge lot about these theoretical edifices in order to design and conduct good debriefing. For
the sake of simplicity, we may group philosophies and theories under the unassuming, umbrella terms of
approaches. They have been developed over the last half century or more, and go under a variety of names,
often associated with a person, usually the person who did the pioneering work. They often overlap and

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
reinforce each other. Each approach often includes ideas drawn from other approaches. Of course, you do not
need to read all of these to be able to do good debriefing, but a familiarity with some of the areas and approaches
is likely to provide intellectual and emotional support as you search for and develop your own ways of
debriefing. Most of the approaches would confidently support the activity of debriefing in general and some of
the approaches would strongly support your own ways in particular. If pushed, I would say that the four that I
have found particularly helpful have been experiential learning, reflection, self-determination and cooperation.
Some are listed in Table 3, with a few references.
Table 3: Approaches to learning

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Approach Originator
Andragogy Alexander Knapp, Malcolm Knowles. See Clapper, (2010).
Cognitive learning &
Benjamin Bloom et al. (1956).
educational goals
Community of practice; social Etienne Wenger (2008); Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger (1991); García-Carbonell et
learning al. (2004).
Conscientization; Critical
Paolo Freire et al. (2020); Paolo Freire & Ana Freire (2021). Noam Chomsky
pedagogy; Praxis; Democracy;
(Chomsky & Macedo, 2000; Chomsky & Otero, 2003)
Rights
Constructivism (cognitive,
Jean Piaget; John Dewey; Jerome Bruner; Lev Vygotsy; Maria Montessori. See
social, …); Zone of Proximal
Clapper (2014).
Development; Scaffolding
Cooperative, Collaborative & D Johnson & R Johnson (1987); George Jacobs & Graham Crookes (2022); George
Out-of-class Learning Jacobs & Harumi Kimura (2013). See Clapper (2015).
Paolo Freire et al. (2020); Paolo Freire & Ana Freire (2021); Ramón Flecha (2000);
Dialogic learning
David Skidmore & Kyoko Murakami (2016); Mercer et al. (2019); Wegerif (2022)
Emotional intelligence Goleman (1998).
Engagement Nicolas Whitton (2011); Reid et al (1989).
Experiential learning John Dewey (1916, 1938); David Kolb (2015); Kurt Lewin.
Flow Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2014, 2016).
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p13

Humanism Carl Rogers; Abraham Maslow.

Dick Duke (1974); Amparo García-Carbonell et al. (2014); Crookall & Oxford
Language
(1990).
Metacognition John Flavel (1976, 1977).
Multiple intelligences Howard Gardner (2011).
Narrative movement Phillion, Ming Fang He & Connelly (2005); Rossiter & Clark (2007).
Reflective learning; Tacit
Donald Schön (1983, 1990).
knowledge
Self-directed learning; Self-
Henri Holec (1981a, 1981b, 1988); Hiemstra & Brockett (2020).
determination
Situated learning; Communities
Lave & Wenger (1991).
of practice
Social learning; self-efficacy;
Albert Bandura (1977, 1995, 2012).
social interaction
Sociocultural learning; Spiral
Jerome Bruner (1977).
curriculum
Honey & Mumford (1986); Myers (2014); Alice & David Kolb (2013); Dunn et al.
Syles, strategies
(1982, 1986); Oxford (1990).
Transformative learning;
Jack Mezirow (1991).
Critical reflection; Emotion
Some overviews of some of the above: Illeris (2018); Malinen (2000); Johnson
Overviews
(2022); Pritchard (2018).

Of course, other terms have also been used, sometimes with the word learning, such as deep, active, project-
based, problem-based, brain-based, situated, mastery learning and so on. You will find more about these and
similar approaches in a wide variety of publications, such as (Phillips, 2014; Angelini, 2022; Clapper, 2010,
2015; Kriz, 2010; Whitton, 2011; Whitton & Moseley, 2014) – all relevant to simulation and debriefing.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Cornerstones of the above approaches are often mentioned in writing on simulation/gaming and debriefing.
They include the ideas that:
o Experience and making sense of it are at the heart of all meaningful learning.
o Interaction, participation and engagement lead to rich learning experiences.
o Learning is achieved through creating communities, generating meanings and developing understanding.
o Talk, discussion and conversation are the prime means by which humans achieve learning.
o “Understanding is fostered through discussions and collaboration”. Jerome Bruner.
o “Talk is the foundation stone of all learning.” Debra Myhill.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

o “It is hard to imagine an effective approach to learning that does not involve the learner in some kind of
experience.” (Phillips, 2014).
Of course, each of the above approaches will emphasize certain aspects of learning, and thus influence
simulation and its debriefing in certain ways, sometimes subtle, sometimes overtly and strongly. This chapter
is not the place to analyse each approach in terms of its influence on simulation and debriefing. However, some
familiarity with some of the approaches can bring greater confidence in your journey of learning to guide
debriefing and make it more effective than without some background in some of the approaches.
This means a shift from education as knowledge absorption to knowledge making. It is not what you can
recite that reveals a good education, but what you can do. … what we take to be known is always in motion.
The challenge for future educational practices is preparing students for a life of continuous innovation – or
knowledge making. … when relational process is placed in the forefront of concern, a major shift occurs.
One begins to ask how pedagogical practices can become more participatory and collaborative; and to
explore alternatives to the evaluation of individuals. … The emphasis on participatory processes extends as
well to teacher training, and indeed to thinking about the well-being of entire educational systems, and the
way they function to build meaning and inspire action. (Dragonas et al., 2015.)
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p14

Simulation practitioners claim that participatory simulation is powerful tool to achieve such things, but their
real or true power resides in the debriefing. Many participatory activities, such as outings, projects, outdoor
activities, school holiday camps (Colonies de Vacances), internships and expeditions, could be enhanced greatly
if they employed debriefing, especially in a form adapted to the activity and participants. In addition,
There is no way to help a learner to be disciplined, active and thoroughly engaged unless he perceives a
problem to be a problem or whatever is to be learned as worth learning, and unless he plays an active role in
determining the process of solution. That is the plain unvarnished truth, and if it sounds like warmed-over
`progressive education', it is none the less true for it. . . .
We have largely trapped ourselves in our schools into expending almost all of our energies and resources in
the direction of preserving patterns and procedures that make no sense even in their own terms. They simply
do not produce the results that are claimed as their justification in the first place — quite the contrary.
Although the word `game' has connotations that are not usually associated with intellectual growth, there are
few concepts or skills that could not be learned with a rare degree of understanding and durability through
an educational game approach. In fact, a `game approach' [and debriefing] permits the development of a
learning environment that is much more congruent to what we know about learning than any other approach
now used in schools (Postman & Weingartner, 1969; emphasis in original).

d. ‘Truths’
In the light of the debriefing myths and the variety of contexts and of approaches discussed above, it is useful
to remind ourselves of some basic ‘truths’ (some would say assumptions) about learning, especially in regard
to games and debriefing.
o Learning is a journey.
o Learning goals are totally different from game objectives.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
o Game objectives end when the game ends.
o Game experience is processed and transformed in the debriefing (and beyond).
o Learning goals are achieved mostly in (and after) the debriefing.
o Learning arises from, and is enhanced by, the processing and transformation of game experience.
o Skills are learnt on task (reflection in) and from discussion about task (reflection on).
o Disciplines are artificial constructs invented by academics; simulation/games are multi-disciplinary.
o Both the real world and simulation are interdisciplinary, multi-skilled.
Some further Assumptions Underlying Experiential Exercises (Schwartz, 2002) are also worth keeping in mind
when designing your debriefing:

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

o Learning is more effective when it is an active rather than a passive process.
o Problem-centred learning is more enduring than theory-based learning.
o Two-way communication produces better learning than one-way communication.
o Participants learn more when they share control over and responsibility for the learning process than when the
responsibility lies solely with the group leader.
o Learning is most effective when thought and action are integrated.

e. Ethics
When people have been asked to participate in an event that involves them personally (cognitively, emotionally,
socially, etc.), it becomes an ethical responsibility to provide a safe space and moment for the participant to
process their experience in such a way that they may learn from it, be enriched and move on in life. Some
events can be fairly stressful, and that stress is best channelled in a positive manner, allowing participants to
understand their experience in such events, rather than having to deal later with cloudy after-thoughts or
lingering prejudices.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p15

Increasingly, people are forced to participate in a stressful or traumatic event, either inadvertently, such as in a
personal attack (theft, terrorism) or a natural disaster (earthquake), or unwillingly, such as in politics, war, self-
defence (e.g., defending one’s land rights). The greater the stress and trauma, the greater the ethical imperative
to enable participants or victims to recover or start their recovery, and the more elaborate the debriefing needs
to be. A traumatic experience is often debriefed in critical incident stress debriefing (CISD, see below).
In the comparatively benign events used for educational purposes, participants may still experience stress and
upset. This may be by design or unplanned. The stress or upset maybe designed into the simulation (e.g., a
simulation of a doctor telling bad news to a family or of a confusing intercultural encounter) and made part of
the learning objectives, or the stress may arise from some unexpected incident or unforeseen parameter (see
Box 5. Unforeseen necessity to debrief outside of a simulation.Box 5 and Box 7). Facilitators are under an
ethical obligation to attend to such emotions. In addition, it is certainly unethical to use games or debriefing to
peddle misinformation, erroneous ideas or untruths.
In addition, it is a professional responsibility and ethical obligation for all those involved in learning and training
games, as designers or facilitators, to get trained (or self-train) in designing and facilitating debriefing sessions
as part of the events that they run. Also, as Kriz (2008) implies, just as designing a game without including
debriefing in the design process and including debriefing materials in the game is unethical, undertaking to
debrief a game without basic debriefing skill training is unethical. This so important that several gamers in the
medical arena have designed debriefer training and standards, and make it a requirement for anyone to debrief
in a clinical setting – see, for example, the eminently clear standards for debriefing set out by the INACSL
Standards Committee (2016). In addition, for debriefer coaching, see Cheng et al. (2017), for a debriefer
assessment instrument, see Brett-Fleegler et al. (2012), for debriefer stance and interpersonal skill, see Rudolph
et al. (2007) and for best practices, see Lyons et al. (2015).

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Many professional associations have codes of ethics and ethics committees, and produce ethics reports.
Examples of such organisations are the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the European Geosciences Union
(EGU), the British Educational Research Association (BERA), the Ecological Society of America (ESA), the
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the American Psychological Association (APA) and many
others. In 2010, the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity developed the Singapore Statement on
Research Integrity. It has been adopted by several organisations, such as the American Educational Research
Association, which itself has a 12-page code of ethics. Another is the Association for Practical and Professional
Ethics (APPE),

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

dedicated to advancing scholarship, education, and practice in practical and professional ethics. APPE fosters
moral reasoning skill development, works to promote ethical conduct in all sectors of our daily lives, (About
APPE, n.d.)
One vibrant organisation, the International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG), is extremely active in
widening the debate on problems of Ethics applied to Geosciences. In 2016, it adopted the Cape Town
Statement on Geoethics, and it has been translated into 35 languages.
So, my question is: Would it not make ethical sense for the simulation/gaming associations to draw up codes
of ethics or ethical guidelines. They should cover all aspects of simulation/gaming, such as design, facilitation,
debriefing, publication and facilitator training, and they need, of course, to include clear guides about debriefing.
Almost the only simulation associations that concern themselves with ethics seem to be those working with
medical simulation, such as the Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SSH) and the International Nursing
Association of Clinical and Simulation Learning (INACSL).
However, as far as I know, all the general simulation/gaming associations have failed to produce a code of ethics
for simulation and debriefing. I have in mind the SAGAs, including the well-established, Europe-based,
International Simulation and Gaming Association (ISAGA) and the North American Simulation and Gaming
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p16

Association (NASAGA), but also the more recent associations that have popped up (and sometimes faded) over
the last couple of decades. The excellent article by my colleague, Marieke Wijse-van Heeswijk (2021), titled
Ethics and the simulation facilitator: Taking your professional role seriously would be a good starting point of
any discussion on a simulation code of ethics and, in that code, on debriefing ethics. Also, Roungas et al.,
(2018) and several medical simulation articles that mention ethics would be good sources from which to draw
inspiration for a general simulation and debriefing code of ethics. Of course, games themselves are used to
teach ethics, so why not design a simulation/game precisely to help develop an ethics code for debriefing? See
Box 2 for two early efforts in which I was involved.

This absence of a codified ethics for simulation/gaming is not for lack of trying. Many years ago, in July 1993, my
friend, Kiyoshi Arai, Dick Chadwick, myself and others organized an International Conference on Professional
Standards in Simulation, in Fukuoka, Japan. This by-invitation-only conference was intended to propose and debate
professional standards, ethics and ideas related to the future development of simulation/gaming. Several draft documents
were produced, but nothing, as far as I know, was published. (I may still even have some of those documents on an old
hard drive. If anyone would like a copy let me know.)
In 2002, I was invited to an inspiring meeting (http://medical.simulation.free.fr/) on the topic of training facilitators of
medical simulation. This was in the early days of medical simulation,
and it also gave impetus to the development of ethical principles and
practices. Debriefing was an important theme, as illustrated in this
photo of Edwardo Salas giving a presentation. Two top airline pilot
trainers were also there and emphasized the importance of debriefing.
Another attendee was Dave Gaba, who later went on to write an
influential article on debriefing (Fanning & Gaba, 2007), and to set up
the Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SSH) and found the journal

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Simulation in Healthcare.

Box 2 Precursors to ethics for debriefing

f. Purposes
It is this context recognizing the imperative of ethics to which I can now return, to outline the main reasons for
which debriefing is conducted after or during events, whether they be games, simulations or true (non-game)
experiences, such as an internship, field trip, team project, research project, natural disaster or an accident.
Several broad and overlapping purposes can be identified, such as learning, operational and relational

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

(behavioural), both for simulations and for non-simulation situations. Some are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Some reasons for using debriefing

o celebrating hard work o providing opportunity to hold people accountable
o troubleshooting challenge closing down a project
o building relationships o providing an occasion to reinforce goals
o providing closure o wrapping up tasks
o making plans for the next activity o critical incident debriefing (CID), also known as
o build and develop leaders critical incident stress debriefing (CISD), eg, after a
traumatic experience (eg, natural disaster, violent
o reward successes
incident, traffic accident).
o identify opportunities for future training
o following and during (long) visits to different cultures
o marking a pause in a long project
o planning for a project
o finding the solution to a problem
o at various points (typically) at the end of a real or
o sharing experiences of people back from separate
simulated medical intervention
missions
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p17

o as part of research, e.g., for clarifying issues and o cheer people up and reassuring them after a failure
scenarios at the end of psychological studies o gathering information at the end of a project or a field
(sometimes termed deception, studies trip or exploration
o increasing team effectiveness o at various points in professional training (eg, flying)
o during and following internships o celebrating a win
o at the end of an underwater dive o taking stock for a team

Personal sharing. Much writing on debriefing tends to overlook what is probably the most common form of
debriefing. This is something that most humans on this planet indulge in as part of their everyday, usually
social, lives and as a matter of course. It is so taken for granted that it goes almost unnoticed – unnoticed, that
is, until someone transgresses an ordinary social rule, such as ‘do not talk too much’ or ‘you are not supposed
to say such things’ or ‘showing your emotions inappropriately in public is not good’. This common-and-garden
debriefing happens as a part (large part?) of our small talk, among family members, friends and colleagues, at
home and at work, over meals, strolling, and in any place where two or more people come together in an
atmosphere of relative trust.
You may have noticed that many people, probably including yourself, love to go for a walk together and chat
about stuff, or to have a coffee together and exchange ideas, thoughts, feelings, worries, experience, successes,
expectations and so on. People like to gather in a restaurant and reminisce about times that they had together;
they like to call each other up or go online to share (even vaunt) their success (partly to get more pats on the
back; nowadays it is often in the form of ‘likes’) or to commiserate with someone over an unhappy or tragic
incident (partly so that the sharing helps them to feel that the weight is lightened and that they are not alone).
In our increasingly I-me-and-myself world today, people even do it in some media and on TV – generally in the

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
frivolous chat shows that have proliferated round the world.
Sharing experience – or debriefing, as we call it – is an activity that most people do naturally and spontaneously,
for a whole variety of purposes – often unawares – see Box 3. In our more formal debriefing episodes as part
of simulation and other learning events, we need to remember and draw on that natural tendency (or urge) that
people have to share, especially with others who are likely to understand and with whom we have shared a
common experience in a simulation?

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

My own experience demonstrates to me this natural tendency that people have to wish to share experience, to debrief.
Most weekdays, I walk down to the bus stop to meet one of my daughters, back home from the university. All it takes
is one little expression, “so?”, and they will talk all the way home about their class, what they learned, their latest grade,
an upcoming exam, the homework that they have been given and so on.

Box 3. Spontaneous, natural debriefing

Operational. An example of operational debriefing is when an individual, a group or a team (in a simulated or
a real situation) needs to assess work performed or action accomplished, the manner of performance and what
was or was not achieved. The purpose here is to discover what was done well and what tasks could have been
done better and to deliberate on what changes should be made and how to accomplish such changes.
This type of debriefing helps individuals and teams to learn, and to learn to learn. At work, this is mostly carried
out in a formal or informal meeting and often without regard for the important elements or structure normally
associated with a formal debriefing. With increasing desire (or pressure) to sound technical, organized, modern
and even authoritative, the term debriefing is increasingly used for such meetings.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p18

However, the term alone accomplishes little; it is the content and practice that counts. Real, operational
debriefings are common, such as in mountain rescue crews (e.g., the impressive PGHM, Peloton de
Gendarmerie de Haute Montagne, in the Mont Blanc massif), sea rescue (e.g., Société Nationale de Sauvetage
en Mer), police interventions, fire brigades, Antarctic exploration, research excursions, mountain expeditions,
public festivals, commercial campaigns and many other kinds of events. This is where the term event takes on
its usual force, although the events industry still seems to be oblivious to the advantages of debriefing and thus
to fail to learn fully from the events that they organise. Box 4 contains an personal example.

My personal experiences with operational debriefing have occurred most when diving. Before leaving the dive boat,
we would be briefed by the dive master. After returning to the
boat, and over a well-earned lunch, the dive master would
debrief the group of divers. We would talk about difficulties
that we encountered, get answers to technical questions, learn
about the flora and fauna that we observed, and consider how to
do better for the next dive. Of course, here, the urge to talk is
even greater than in most other situations because one cannot
talk underwater (unless one is equipped with special and
expensive apparatus). One might characterize this type of
debriefing as both operational and personal sharing. (The photo
is of me during a diving expedition in Thailand.)

Box 4. Operational debrief after a dive

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Often the debrief feeds into the next step of operations, such as in team training or the next dive. Operational
debriefing provides a powerful opportunity to assess problematic and successful strategies, with the aim of
moving forward in a positive and constructive manner, for the people concerned in particular and, ultimately,
for society more generally. This type of debriefing may include, and often overlaps with, relational and
behavioural debriefing.
Relational / behavioural. A debriefing session can be organized with the purpose of helping to improve
relations among people or to help people to correct behaviours so that they are more appropriate for a given
setting. It may also be used to understand a common experience, such as a research expedition or a field trip,

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

in which relations may become strained (partly due to situational stress and hardship). It may be to take stock
of progress in an ongoing improvement programme.
On a more individual level, relational or behavioural debriefing might aim to help the person to make clearer
sense of events, to integrate their experience into their life as a whole, to perceive their experience more
meaningfully, to bring a sense of closure to an event or to bring peace to a conflict (among people or in oneself).
Strong debriefing skills are needed in unethical, unprofessional situations, such as in an expedition, where a
junior female explorer is harassed or worse. All expedition leaders and their assistants need to be skilled in
debriefing. Sexual harassment is a not an uncommon event on some geo-science expeditions, and this has led
to all-female expeditions being organized.
Debriefing can also be needed unexpectedly at the start or on the side of a simulation. See Box 5 for an
unexpected incident (at the start of simulation), which was debriefed and thus helped one person find peace with
playing cards.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p19

Sometimes a particularly unexpected incident occurs and needs debriefing attention. Usually, it cannot be foreseen. An
example of one that happened was during one of my workshops. I was co-facilitating a pre-conference SIETAR
workshop with my dear friend Sandy Fowler (past president of SIETAR International and of SIETAR USA). The theme
of the training workshop was using simulation for intercultural training, attended by some 20 professional
interculturalists. Along with other games, we had decided to use Thiagarajan (Thiagi) Sivasailam’s Barnga. This
wonderful game uses ordinary playing cards, with players sitting in small groups.
Very soon after asking each table to distribute its pack, I noticed that one player in a group seemed uncomfortable. Other
players had not yet noticed as they were focussed on their cards. I went over to the player and asked if she was ok. She
said that she could not play in this game, which had come as a bit of a shock to her in an intercultural train-the-trainer
session. By now the other players in her group had become aware of the situation. I asked why, and she said that she
knew why, but was shy of telling, and then the other players showed sympathy. I said that it might help if she shared
with the group.
After a slight hesitation, she then proceeded to tell a story of how she had been mistreated at school when playing cards.
That had put her off cards for many years and she had almost forgotten about it. Having to hold the cards for Barnga
and being confronted with the idea of playing cards again revived her unhappy childhood experience. After explaining,
with everyone listening carefully and showing sympathy [the group was composed of all women], she said that a weight
had been lifted off her shoulders, and warmly thanked everyone. To everyone’s delight she then declared herself willing
to play Barnga. This, and not intercultural simulation, may well have been the biggest learning for her from that
workshop.

Box 5. Unforeseen necessity to debrief outside of a simulation.

Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD). This is a specialized and structured form of personal debriefing,
which needs to be conducted by trained personnel. It usually takes place after a traumatic experience, such as

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
a natural disaster, a violent incident or a road accident. In this type of debriefing, ethics will play a particularly
important guiding role. This chapter does not look at this type of debriefing as it requires special training and
is not usually accomplished as part of a simulation. However, some of its elements may be useful for simulation
debriefing.
Learning experiences. This is the area of application that concerns us most here, and on which this chapter
focusses. The broad reason why debriefing is used in learning is primarily to ensure that an experience leads to
some kind of leaning. The range of types of experience is huge. A game, simulation or role-play must be
debriefed. Other types of learning experience, such as values exercises, internships, field trips, expeditions and

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

project work, do not always require debriefing, but can usually benefit immensely from some form of debriefing,
adapted, of course, to the learning objectives and type of experience. For example, an internship is not usually
debriefed, but it should be – see Box 6.

In a couple of my university appointments, part of my responsibility was to ‘supervise’ master’s students during their
internships. This entailed site visits, meeting with the students’ company supervisors and overseeing the writing of
student reports. Several times I asked students to include a chapter entitled “how and what I learned”. The idea (at least
for me) was to allow them to reflect on their learning process during the internship, which after all constitutes a key
learning experience in their studies. They would tell me “that is not in the guide for writing reports”. So I asked “but is
that not a key ingredient for learning from an internship?”, “would it not be useful as part of your studies to reflect and
write about your own personal learning process?” and “would it not be useful later in professional life to be aware of the
ways in which you learn?”. “Of course”, they would say, without hesitation.
I tried to get the university administration to change the guide. To no avail. That is how education in general, and
universities in particular, get stuck in a rut. More importantly, it results in millions of students missing out on an
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p20

important learning opportunity. In other words, it is one way in which universities are failing in their responsibility to
students – that is unethical, to come back to the ethics statement by Willy Kriz.
One student – a woman of Muslim faith, and for whom I was her internship supervisor – called me several times during
her internship because she was being pressured, illegally, to take off her headscarf. We had several conversations
(debriefings) about it. She obviously learned much from the experience; as I did. I encouraged her to put that in her
end-of-internship report, but she was not comfortable doing that, even though it was important for her. “I cannot put my
personal experience in there; they would not accept it”.

Box 6. Debriefing for internships - unethical omission by universities

You will, of course, have noticed that the above cases can be somewhat close to the situations created by
participation in a simulation, especially ones in which emotions are generated and in which the participant is
engaged personally as a whole person. In such cases, debriefing becomes paramount.

g. Issues
The above purposes are varied and raise a number of crucial issues, each of which should be considered when
designing and implementing a debrief, depending on the situation.
Ownership & participant centredness. In our simulation debriefing we need to remember that the natural
tendency is for people to share personal experience, that the experience was lived by participants and therefore
that it was their experience, not the facilitator’s. This means that debriefing belongs to the participant and that
we must not do what the traditional teacher tends to do – seize control and get in the way. We need to remember
to avoid snatching away that desire to share by plonking ourselves in the middle. How would you like it if, in
the middle of a quiet chat with your friend in a café, an acquaintance walks in and takes over the conversation

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
and starts to tell you what is what and what your experience is and should have been, what it is right and wrong
about it and indeed what you must understand from it. I am sure that you would be disappointed at best and
thoroughly annoyed or more at worst. This is similar, mutatis mutandis, to many simulations debriefs that I
have witnessed (as participant, as observer, and even – in my early gaming days – as debriefer).
Later, in the section Who, we will look at this dichotomy of teacher-focussed and participant-centred debriefing.
For the moment, it is worth wrapping your head round the idea that people’s experiences and their sharing of
them belong to them, even more so when it is a learning-oriented debriefing. It is fundamentally a question of
respect and even rights. In the end, one must ask: What right does a teacher-debriefer have to jump in swash

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

participants’ words, feelings and thoughts?
Stress. Some simulation sessions can involve emotional stress. The greater the stress in a simulation, the
greater the need to conduct debriefing sessions that allow the stress and emotions to be shared, released and
understood. Only after that has happened will participants be ready to move on (as mentioned above) and think
about the more cognitive aspects of their experience. See a concrete example detailed in Box 7,Box 8 andBox
9.

During my stay in the USA, I taught a master’s level class for trainee teachers. One of the classes was about
understanding the learning process and the learners’ viewpoint. The rationale was that many trainers and teachers over
time tend to forget what it is like to be a learner, especially during moments when teachers and peers heighten the pressure
to perform or learn.
I remembered a simulation called Me The Slow Learner, designed by Don Thatcher and June Robinson. I remembered
participating in a prototype version during a SAGSET conference in the UK and run by Don himself. I was both moved
and intrigued by the simulation. I was also impressed by Don’s manner of conducting the game and debriefing. Don
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p21

was an excellent game designer and one of the best facilitators ever in simulation/gaming. While I was Ed of S&G, I
invited Don to guest edit a special issue because I wanted people to know about his work.
For my master’s class, Don’s simulation immediately came to mind as an effective and affective way of getting future
teachers, who had even by then, forgotten what a challenge it is to learn certain things, and thus to get future teachers to
understand something of the learning difficulties of their future students.
The simulation is fairly straightforward. It consists of handicapping participants so that they find it difficult to
accomplish simple tasks. For example, I bandaged students index and middle finger with tape, gave them a blunt scissors
and told them to cut a clean square in the middle of a piece of paper. They had a list of tasks to accomplish. During this
time, students were not allowed to talk and I berated them noisily for sloppy work. As you can imagine, this was a rather
stressful moment, even though tasks only lasted several (about 10) minutes. (Cont. in Box 7.)

Box 7. Emotion-generating simulation

(Cont. from Box 7.) I planned to do a short debrief before the end of the class and a full debrief the following class
(about three days later). Soon after the start of the debrief, one student broke down in tears. The rest of that debrief was
given over to listening to her. By the end of the class, she had calmed down and reassured me and the other students
that she was fine. The students left the class with a debriefing form to fill, asking questions about their experience.
In the second, class-long debriefing session, everyone shared their emotions and their experience. The person who had
cried in the previous class again attracted everyone’s attention. She explained that she had broken down because the
handicap experience in the simulation brought back to her memories of a time in her childhood when she had been forced
to learn things for which she was not ready and in a strict school environment. She explained that these memories came
flooding back as we started the short debrief, memories that she had almost forgotten, ‘almost’ because she had not
spoken about them for several years – as no one would listen to or believe her. She explained that her simulation
experience and being able to talk about her childhood experience was liberating for her. She said that she felt that a

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
weight had been lifted and that she was glad to have been in the simulation.
At the end of the second class, I asked students if they wished to move on to the next item in their syllabus or if they
wished to debrief further. Unanimously and strongly, they expressed a desire to continue with the debrief.
Thus, the third class was taken up with a second full session debriefing. At the end, the students said that would like a
third full-class debriefing, which we did. Thus, one class of simulation lead, unexpectedly for me, to three classes of
debriefing.
In a way, I feel grateful to that class and especially to the student who had the courage to share what was, after all, an
intimate experience from her private past. See also the lessons that I myself, as a debriefer, learned from this experience,
in Box 8.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Box 8. Emotions and participant-centred debriefing: A memorable and learning experience

(Cont. from Box 8.) The lessons for me in debriefing Me the Slow Learner in a master’s class for trainee teachers were:
• You can never overestimate the time needed for debriefing.
• You have to expect the unexpected (as, I think Ellysbeth Leigh would say).
• As a result, you must be flexible in allocating enough time for participants to debrief as much as they express
the need to do so.
• If necessary, you must be ready to drop elements of a pre-decided programme, such as items in a syllabus, to
make way for extra or unplanned debriefing.
• You need to plan more time than you think will be necessary, it being better to end before time than to run over
time and find yourself in a crunch.
• You must stay focussed on the participants’ emotions, experience, sharings, ideas, and not attempt take them
over and place them into your own pre-conceived idea of what and how they should have learned.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p22

• You should always respect the learner’s own freedom to learn. It is their process, not yours. That does not
mean that you cannot intervene, but intervention should be done at the right moments and in appropriate ways,
when the participants are ready, not when you want. All that takes time.
Box 9. Lessons from debriefing Me the Slow Learner (Thatcher).

Of course, it should be kept in mind that it is not the calling of a debrief per se, the decision by you to debrief,
that accomplishes the work. It is accomplished by participants’ effort during, and after, the debriefing. Seen in
that light, debriefing can be a stressful time as well as a liberating and eye-opening moment. Much depends on
the event being debriefed, the facilitator (debriefer), the manner of debriefing, the mindset of the participant and
other factors. One important factor is the participant-centredness of the debrief – how much participants are
allowed, indeed, encouraged to take ownership of their debriefing session. This will be discussed further in
How.
Some people seem to be shy of mentioning debriefing – as if this was not really the thing to do or as if
participants might not like it. Understandable, they might say, for after an exciting game, what could be drearier
than talking about it; but make no mistake. Most of the classes that I have taught involved some form of
debriefing, and as time went by, the relative time spent on debriefing increased and the focus was increasingly
on debriefing.
The students learned that no game would be without a debriefing. Over a short period of time (two or three
class periods), they learned how to debrief in their small, participant-centred groups. I would not infrequently
hear, at the end of a game, a student spontaneously and eagerly say something like “ok, let us now go and
debrief” or “come on, we have to debrief, then we can learn”. They would then organise themselves, draw up
a few chairs into a circle round a small table, ask for the individual debriefing form (see below, in How) and

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
focus on the debriefing process. In the same way that simulation provides a relatively safe, controlled and
mistake-tolerant system for participants to explore, so should debriefing provide a safe setting for them (and
you as debriefer, or better as debriefing organizer) to learn and make mistakes.
Social issues. An ordinary classroom is often conducted as if all students were the same. How many times do
we hear teachers and authorities insisting that all are treated equally, for fear of being accused of favouritism
and other ills. In such a classroom, social relations, realties of the real wild, feelings and individual identities
are left at the door, and the teacher carries on merrily (or not so merrily) with teaching about Les Fleurs du mal
(a collection of poems by Baudelaire, 1857) or sine and cosine in trigonometry as if they were totally separated

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

from, had absently nothing to do with, the learner. Both teacher and student breath signs of relief when the end-
of-class bell rings – a real case of saved by the bell.
This is difficult with a simulation/game and impossible in debriefing. Each participant in such an event brings
with them their own individual feelings, prejudices, preferences, ways of thinking, socially-marked accents and
ways of talking, their beliefs and fears about the world and other people. Their experience (often unawares) of
inter-group relations, gendered ways and a whole host of characteristics that are interpreted by fellow
participants, and which all mitigate or enrich participation in usually unforeseen and imperceptible ways. In
the simulation itself, such idiosyncrasies may manifest themselves in unsurprising ways, as they do in everyday
life, or they may be enhanced or cloud game objectives and other factors. However, when it comes to debriefing
these elements may well come to the fore and be seen in a clearer light than in everyday life. (See, e.g., my job
interview simulation sequence, outlined in the Appendix.)
h. Fidelity: A fundamental, practical and ethical reason for debriefing
The above discussion will have given you an overview of several reasons for why you should debrief. However,
a further reason underlying most of the reasons above is related to what one might call the inevitable lack of
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p23

simulation fidelity or the hiatus or mismatch between a simulation and its referent situation (the real-world
situation represented in the simulation). Most simulators and simulations by definition represent only part of
the referent system. They do not and cannot achieve absolute fidelity. If they did, it would be the reality itself
– the referent situation – and thus the simulation would be superfluous and the reality possibly or probably
dangerous.
Imagine, for example, an airline company inviting a novice pilot to fly a real Airbus aircraft with real passengers.
Would you be happy to be on that flight? A real aircraft and a high-level simulator are just too complex for a
novice or even an intermediate learner pilot. Learners need to progress in steps or degrees of complexity – or
of fidelity to the referent system. Three levels are depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Levels of fidelity for flight simulators: beginner, intermediate, advanced

Simulation infidelity is not always examined in a debrief, even though it is a key to learning (see Box 10 for an
example in aviation). I like to raise the debriefing of simulation infidelity with a question like “what are the

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
differences and similarities between the simulation and reality (or the real-world referent situation)?”. This lack
of fidelity has often posed a dilemma, discussed by the more theoretical simulation scholars. The basic question
is usually: How faithful should a simulation be in order to achieve the learning objectives for which is built?

One concrete experience that I was lucky enough to have had was to fly an Airbus, well, to fly a simulator of an Airbus.
This was during the Singapore ISAGA conference. After the excitement of flying over Rio, with help from the
professional trainer, we chatted, and I asked him about debriefing. I remember to this day how clear he was in

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

emphasizing how crucial debriefing was in all their training. The simulator records every decision and movement, and
later during the debriefing, they can play back the sequence, discuss and then try again. It is also the debriefs that allow
trainee pilots to move up levels of fidelity (see Figure 3). Aircraft simulators would not be worth much without
debriefing. Medical simulation experts understand this too. All areas using simulation need to learn from aviation.

Box 10. Flight simulation

A simulation that reproduces extremely faithfully the simulated or referent situation could turn out to be far too
complex for beginners and intermediates to learn. A simulation that is too simple and represents just a few of
the referent situation characteristics is unlikely to be of much use to the advanced learner. This is partly why
apprentice pilots progress from fairly simple trainers, through more complex simulators before moving to full-
blown advanced aircraft simulators – Figure 3.
However, the above question and concern with level of fidelity of a simulation for learning often misses the
point. It is not always or so much the fidelity of the simulation, but how the debriefing is conducted. Thus, talk
about simulation fidelity cannot omit talk of debriefing fidelity. The central question should be how and how
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p24

far the debriefing helps a learner to move towards the real-world complexity from the starting point of the
simulation, its level of fidelity. Some people get excited about the high fidelity of their simulation. This is okay
for research and exploration purposes (such as for climate and meteorology), but for learning, they should get
excited, instead, about the ways in which their debriefing (built into their simulation) can help learners attain
the desired complexity. It is the debriefing that helps to bridge the gap between simulation and reality. Indeed,
it is this ‘gap’ that ethically and learningly requires debriefing – see discussion in the next section.
We should also not forget the immense capacity that the human mind has for imagination. In many ways one
could say that radio is better than television. On the radio, the landscapes and views are far more beautiful than
on television. Of course, they may not be as accurate, have as high fidelity to reality, but in some cases, it does
not matter.
That idea brings us to an added danger. This is that the learner may assume that s/he has learned perfectly,
when the opposite is true. Let us take our three levels of flight simulator as a concrete example of the kind of
situation that a simulation participant might assume. A novice may train thoroughly on the level 1 or level 2
simulator and be able to make perfect take-offs and landings in that simulator. It is not inconceivable that the
novice could then assume that s/he has become a master pilot and assume that s/he can already fly big aircraft.
That is, however, unlikely in flight training programmes, which are usually tightly controlled.
However, in other situations, it might present a real problem. In some training situations, learners move up
levels. It could be that a participant, having taken part, for example in a team-building simulation or in a doctor-
patient simulation, assumes that they have mastered all the necessary skills. They then find themselves in a real
situation, assume that they know what the reality is, and then make massive blunders – simply because no
debriefing was done, debriefing in which they would learn that their learning journey is just the beginning. This
is the kind of situation that ethics requires to be debriefed.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Thus, for most learners, a simulation will not represent the referent situation in its entirety. This means that
learners in most simulations participate in a system that bears only superficial or partial resemblance to the real-
referent system that they are supposed be learning. Because learners do not yet know what the referent situation
is really like, they will not have the elements (knowledge) needed to detect what things in a simulation do not
correspond to the referent system or indeed what things are different from the referent. Learners need to know
what things are different from and even what things contradict the referent. Unless this fundamental discrepancy
between the simulation and the reverent is debriefed adequately, we could be withholding learning at best or
teaching something perverse at worst. (More discussion, on such issues can be found in much publication on

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

simulation, e.g., Angelini, 2021; Becu, 2020; Cannon et al., 2009; Crookall et al., 1987; Duke, 2011; Greenblat
& Duke, 1981; Peters et al., 1998; Teach, 2018; Wardaszko, 2018. These issues are also of concern in medical
simulation, e.g., Massoth et al., 2019.)
i. Paradox and dilemma of simulation: Need for debriefing
The paradox or dilemma that we must confront calls for some practical theory, as Fred Goodman might have
said (Goodman, 1995). The paradox in thinking about simulation as a means to learning and the dilemma with
which we are confronted as practitioners are that simulation is not a straight path to learning, indeed it is a
roundabout way. We ask learners to leave (the comfort of) their ordinary reality and embark on a journey to
another (simulation) world, and a make-believe one at that, and one that then also requires suspension of
disbelief, with which some people have problems. They are asked to treat this new (simulation) world as if it
was the real (non-simulation) world – quite an ask, really. It can be a new world in which they encounter totally
new things, encounter disruption, see themselves in a new light – in other words, a world that can be somewhat
disorienting for some, even traumatic (as I have related in Box 7). We then say to them, even insist, that they
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p25

will learn in this unreal world. We assert that our learners will learn about the real world from this other
(simulated) world – contradicting the adage ‘you learn what you do’.
It is often said that we learn more about one’s own culture (or country) by visiting a foreign one, but that learning
takes time – the learning comes from usually informal debriefing – talking with friends and family, maybe
reading about intercultural communication. Then we find ourselves (usually unexpectedly) that we cannot go
back fully to our old world for it has changed and we have moved on and grown through our experience. Our
original country will never be what it once was. Yes, our country (our situation) and us change over time, but
relatively slowly, which gives us time to change (adapt). One problem, then, in simulation is our and often
participants’ expectation that they will change fast and easily. Relatively to our normal every-day speed of
change, we expect simulation participants to make massive change at great speed. Here and for all debriefing
we must remember that learning and change are synonymous. We cannot learn with changing; change usually
entails learning.
After a while in their new country, maybe just when the learner is beginning to settle down in their new
(simulation) culture, we halt that world, and again ask the learner to embark on another journey. We might be
tempted to think that it is merely the previous journey in reverse. However, their strange experience in this
unreal (new, becoming familiar) world means that they can never return to where they started. Intercultural
travellers will have experienced this somewhat as they move into a new culture, and then return to their home
or starting point, never to feel the same about their home or about themselves. We learn much about our own
culture by going to live in another and then return, never to see one’s home in the same way. When adaptation
(change / learning) happens too slowly it can result in what is sometimes known as cultural re-entry or revers
cultural shock. To understand more on cultural adaptation (and thus on what we ask our simulation learners to
do), see a wonderful book by my friend Young Yun Kim (2000).

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Thus, the simulation learning path is a roundabout and rather tortuous one, but one that can be made clearer and
straighter with some good debriefing. Let me simplify. In most learning paradigms, from classical chalk-and-
talk, sit-in-rows and listen-to-teacher formats to learner-centred and experience-based project work, field strips
and internships (among others), the basic idea is that we lead the learner from a starting point (of unknowing or
not understanding) to the destination (of knowing, understanding and capability or skill competence). The
knowing can be knowing that or knowing how (as Gilbert Ryle expressed it). The path is said to be relatively
straight, but rarely is.
However, in simulation learning, we complicate that already difficult path with a massive detour, something

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

that some learners may perceive as a clumsy clanger on our part. Learners new to simulation sometimes wonder
“what on Earth are we doing this for?”, “what has this got to do with my class?”, and “I did not come here to
play games”. For us, simulation practitioners, it is so obvious that ‘they will learn’ that we do not think twice
and we see no need explain anything about it. This phenomenon of rejection on the part of some potential
participates may account in part for what my good friend Danny Saunders calls “the reluctant participant”
(Saunders, 1985). Thus, part of the briefing before a simulation with newcomers needs to include sufficient
explanation and reassurance about the whole process and about debriefing for the learners to understand the
principles at the very outset – to provide pointers about the journey on which learners are to embark
The paradox (for simulation theorists) or dilemma (for practitioners) is that learners are expecting to enter a
‘normal’, familiar straightforward learning setup, but we ‘throw’ them into ‘this thing’ we call simulation or
game. At first sight this thing may appear rather strange, especially as it may look thoroughly different from
(the future participants’ idea of) the referent situation that the learners are expected to reach or learn about. The
paradox or dilemma is that we take learners on a detour through an essentially imaginary world to help them
reach a new referent world, often doing little more than simply hoping that they will survive and learn. This
detour is illustrated in Figure 4. I say a ‘new different world’ because the experience of participation and
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p26

debriefing will have changed the participant, even if only a little, and they will thus contemplate the world
though new eyes – see the above discussion on cultural adaptation. As mentioned above, this different world
might be experienced as a journey to strange land with a complete change of scenery and culture. Indeed, this
is somewhat similar for some cross-cultural travellers, for whom the return home (re-entry) can be more
disorienting than the outward-bound journey.
In Figure 4, the standard, classical path of learning is symbolised by the thick, squiggly, brown line I at the
bottom, taking the participant P (bottom right) directly towards their learning goals or referent system R (bottom
left), along path H that is usually taken-for-granted as straightforward (in the literal sense of the word). In some
cases, they do not fully reach their learning goal, partly because they have to jump over, round and through
crazy hurdles (usually called exams, and which have little to do with their learning goals, their career path, their
individuality or indeed life).

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Figure 4. Triangle of relations among participant, simulation and learning goals.

However, in some cases, the referent system may not be possible to experience, for a variety of reasons, for
example, the referent system does not exist physically, or it is too dangerous, or too fast or slow, or too big or
small. We thus substitute a representation of the system, which we can observe or manipulate or experience.
In some cases, the referent system exists, but is configured in such a manner that direct experience for practice
is not possible. One example is training in job-interview skills (see Appendix). The real situation of a real, live
job interview cannot usually be accomplished in a classroom. We therefore create a substitute, one that we
consider as being sufficiently equivalent for the learner to gain meaningful experience as if it were real – we
design and conduct a job-interview simulation.
This immediately involves quite a big detour A (blue arch). It is a journey B (orange arrow), along a strange
path C, towards and into the simulated job interview S (triangle apex), and then another journey D (green arrow),
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p27

along another strange path F, from the simulation S to the real job interview R (bottom right), where the student
hopes to be offered a real job.
This, by the way, is also an example of how debriefing may help a person to learn from the real situation. The
steps, techniques and questions that the learner has learned from a job-interview simulation can subsequently
be used to debrief a real interview.
Another example might be negotiating and writing an international agreement for ocean conservation – path A.
It is well-nigh impossible for a group of students to be parachuted into some real, high-level negotiations R;
first, they do not have the skills; second, they would simply not be allowed. However, a group of learners may
be taken through a simulation S in order to experience something of the agreement negotiation and writing
process and hone the skills needed for that as well as learn about the knowledge involved (e.g., ocean
degradation, acidification and overfishing). Their path D, from simulation S to referent system R, must of
course be accomplished through appropriate debriefing. It is clear that the path P-S-R is far longer than the path
P-R. It is longer cognitively, emotionally and behaviourally. If need be, briefing should explain this.
One purpose of this debriefing is to close the gaps between the simulation S and the referent system R. If no
debriefing D is done, the participants might simply remain at the Simulation S stage, and never understand that
the referent system R is partly or considerably different. They would come away from the simulation with an
inexact, and maybe even dangerous, image of reality.
Another major purpose of debriefing for path D, especially in the learning R of skills of all kinds, such as job-
interview skills, is precisely to transform and transfer their simulation performance S into better skills and deeper
knowledge in order to operate successfully in reality R, for example in a real job interview R.
We need to have a good reason to drag someone away from everyday realty and plunge them into a strange,

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
alternate-reality, non-real-reality world, and then to snatch them from that simulation reality and thrust them
back into the real world. Of course, suspension of disbelief helps, but that suspension requires trust – we ask
the participant to trust us to take them on safe travels, a journey that will deliver on our promises of learning the
goals that we set. As we all know, trust is easily broken, even inadvertently, and – like Humpty Dumpty – is
hard to put back together again. If trust is broken, then disbelief comes tumbling down, and we will have, not
reluctance, but refusal to participate. For trust to remain intact and for promises to be kept, debriefing must be
accomplished well. Maybe part of the answer to the question that my friend Dick Teach (2018) asks: “Why is
learning so difficult to measure when ‘playing’ simulations?” could simply be ‘because debriefing has been
insufficient or improperly conducted’.

4. Whither – goals and objectives Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

The word why implies goals or objectives. Much literature has been devoted to the fact that debriefing
contributes to learning. I say ‘fact’ because several studies have actually shown that debriefing is indeed an
important contributor to learning. However, I would suggest that we (participants, trainers, debriefers, debrief-
ethical gamers) do not need hard ‘scientific’ proof because we witness the effect every time that we do proper
debriefing. My students who spontaneously speak aloud at the end of a game and say “ok, let us now go an
debrief” do not need any proof. They realize it first-hand through concrete, hands-on, participant-centred
experience – ‘realize’ in both senses of the term: understand and make it happen. It is important here to make
a short but crucial detour into objectives.
In life as in simulation, people are concerned with objectives, goals, purposes, aims, targets, intents, wishes,
ambitions, missions, intentions and other ends. In simulation, it is useful for both facilitator and participant to
distinguish between two types of objectives. These are game or simulation objectives and learning goals. The
difference is crucial. During the simulation participants are focused on reaching their simulation objectives,
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p28

such as getting the most points, making an agreement, writing a treaty, finishing the interview, building the best
tower or beating the others (individuals, teams). Once the simulation comes to an end, or is paused, then
participants can set aside the simulation objectives and focus on learning. Thus, it is helpful to realize that only
when the game stops, does the learning start.
When I was Editor of the journal S&G, I introduced a new section called ready-to-use simulations. Authors
would format their game so that readers could copy the materials and run the game. Authors were required to
indicate the purpose of their simulation, and to divide the purpose into simulation objectives and learning goals.
Some examples of the huge difference between simulation objectives and learning goals are outlined in Table
5 and illustrated in Figure 5. This is at the origin of my assertion that “the learning starts when the game stops”,
or even that “the game stops and then the learning starts”.

Table 5. Examples of the fundamental difference between simulation objectives and learning goals
Simulation objectives (point S, Figure 4) Learning goals (point R, Figure 4)
These are the things that the participant, the game designer or
These are the specific end-game criteria; things facilitator would like participants to have learned by the time
that determine when the simulation ends, such as they have finished the (final) debriefing. These are ideally things
winning, getting an agreement, accomplishing a in the referent situation that the participants are supposed to
task, solving a problem and so on. understand or for which they are supposed to perform better or
The game ends when its objectives are reached. optimally.
The learning goals start when the game ends.
Encourage people to work collaboratively to become ocean-
Write a roadmap to guide climate-coast-literate, to help other people to become literate in
people in their behaviour the ocean-climate-coast nexus, in other words, to learn about the
CockleSim
towards climate change and ocean, coasts and climate system, to behave in a responsible

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
the ocean. manner in that system and to realize the importance of passing on
their knowledge and skills to others.
Capture the king by check Strategy, thinking skills, concentration, operating under stress
Chess
mate. and several more.
Become owner of all the Learn about monopolistic strategies and mindsets, and how these
Monopoly property, i.e., bankrupt all the operate in society. (If the game has been used to teach students,
other players. then it needs to be well debriefed.)
Become a better cross-cultural communicator and understand the
Barnga Win a game of cards.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

roots of intercultural misunderstanding.
Understand the tragedy of the commons, the limits to growth, the
Become the richest fisher by
importance of trust, the need for cooperation, carrying capacity,
the time the end is announced,
Fishbanks complexity of balancing resources and allowing their
usually the ninth or tenth
regeneration and several other factors in fish stock and natural
round.
resource sustainability.
Hand over medication to a Improve pharmacist professional communication and procedures
PROFFIteROLE
patient. for medication delivery.
Be the team to build the best
Towers Understand, practice and develop teamwork skills.
tower.
Accomplish simple tasks
Me the Slow under pressure, while Understand the difficulties of learning in general, and the stress
Learner handicapped and in an of being a beginner in learning a skill.
oppressive atmosphere.
In revolving groups, build a Learn creative story making, vocabulary, sentence structure and
Picture Stories
story from picture cards past tense.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p29

During the game, participants are focussed on playing the game, winning or accomplishing a task – that is, on
the game objectives. It is thus difficult, while in the thick of the action, for them to step outside of the action
and contemplate what they are doing, and impossible for them to think about and share their experience with
colleagues. They are hardly aware of learning goals. Thus, very little (explicit, expressible) learning can take
place.
It is after the game, during the debriefing, that participants can turn their mind to and focus on the learning
goals. However, the debriefing must be accomplished in a deliberate and structured manner. The debriefing
must, of course, derive from the game experience, and be centred around and on the participants. It is after all
the participants who are doing the learning – not the teacher. This means that debriefing has to include both
individual thought and collective sharing. The full sequence of game with observation (and presentation of the
game product), followed by individual and group debriefs, showing the distinction between simulation
objectives and learning goals, is illustrated in the sequence of photos in Figure 5.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.
Figure 5: Learner-centred debrief and distinction between simulation objectives and learning goals

If you keep those two things, simulation objectives and learning goals, clearly separated in your mind, it will
help you facilitate both the simulation and the debriefing. Be aware that many ready-packaged, published or
online simulations do not make that distinction (clearly enough). If you confuse the two, you are more likely
to fall into Kriz’s lack of learning and ethics trap.

5. When & how many – time & sequence

Time (When) and place (Where) are closely related, and in practice, inseparable. Debriefing can take place
pretty well anytime and anywhere. In fact, humans spend much of their life debriefing events and concerns.
We debrief with a friend over a morning coffee about our concerns that our child is having a hard time at school.
We may debrief with family or a psychology consultant after the loss of a loved one. During an evening stroll
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p30

along the beach, we share our excitement about a good exam result or our worries about an upcoming job
interview.
Those types of impromptu, unstructured debriefing moments occur mostly anytime and anywhere that is
convenient. The more formal experiential learning events, such as games and simulation, are programmed to
happen at specific times and in designated places and spaces. This, of course, determines the time framework
for debriefing.
The timing of debriefing varies according to several criteria, among which are the simulation criteria and the
learning criteria. Other factors here include number and experience of participants, total length of the simulation
event, nature of tasks to be accomplished and (unfortunately) the time given to you by the school or university
timetabling or by the company, which often thinks in terms of loss of work, instead of skills to be gained.
a. Simple sequence
The standard, and rather simple, way of looking at the steps usually follows the format illustrated in Figure 6.
Notice that the arrow head (end point or final goal) is the debrief, not the game. The debrief here is composed
of one or more activities – more details in the section How.

Figure 6. Simple, standard sequence

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
b. Complex sequence – several in-game debriefs
However, especially in larger-scale simulations, it is useful to conduct a debrief session at various strategic
points throughout the simulation. Debriefing that takes place during a game is usually called in-game
debriefing. This is particularly beneficial in simulations that last an hour or more. In-game debriefing is
required (ethically mandatory) in large-scale and whole-semester simulations. In my semester-long simulations,
I usually have a short (20 to 30m) in-sim debrief once a week or a fortnight, and sometimes a more substantial
in-sim debrief one half or two thirds the way along. Of course, the main debrief must still be conducted at the
end of the simulation, often along with a feedback session. You can also get feedback on your own debriefing

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

skills.
Some large-scale simulations actually have their own in-built debriefing as part of the basic structure, requiring
individuals or groups to discuss a joint production. An example would be when groups negotiate and write a
treaty or when they have to design materials for and get feedback from other groups. (One example is described
in Crookall, 1991) Note that this in-built debriefing may not capture all the learning goals, and a more in-depth
(midway and) final debrief will be necessary. Thus, in your design phase, you will need to design the debriefing
episodes along with the game. You cannot tack on in-game debriefs at the end! This is illustrated in Figure 7.
The blue arrow indicates that feedback on the whole process can help improve the design. More discussion and
some marvellous insight into this are to be found in Schwägele et al. (2021).
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p31

Figure 7. Timing or sequencing of debriefing episodes during a simulation – in-simulation debriefing

Table 6 provides a summary of the kind of timings for debriefings during a simulation, from its inception till its
conclusion. As you can see, the question of debriefing occurs in several steps along the course of a simulation.

Table 6. Sequence and timings for debriefing over the course of a simulation
Step What to do
Design Debriefing needs to be designed built in from the very start of the game design.
Briefing is an important part of any game. Participants need to know the rules, what may happen, what to
do if rules are transgressed, what risks they face, and several other aspects related to their upcoming
Briefing participation. It is important here to mention that, at various points along the way and/or at the end, they
will participate in a debriefing. It is also useful, especially for first-time participants, to outline for them
the rationale and function of games and debriefs, perhaps using Kolb’s experiential learning cycle.
Game The usual pattern is that the debriefing follows on after the game itself. (See Figure 6.)
However, it is often a good idea to stop the game for a while and organize a short debrief and then
In-game continue with the game proper. This is particularly suited to longer games, in which maybe some form of
debrief negotiation or research is involved. Material from in-game debriefing can then be fed into the next stage
of the game and help participants to focus more clearly. (See Figure 7.)

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Game 1, An alternative pattern is to run several games, one after the other, each one with its own pause and
2, … debrief. Debriefing 1 can then feed into Game 2, and so on. (See Figure 8.)
A pause at the end of the game proper is usually a good idea, especially if the game has involved complex
issues, raised emotional levels or involved high energy. This allows participants to recover from frayed
Pause
nerves and tiredness. It also allows participants to de-role, to come out of role and slip back into their
ordinary everyday roles. The pause can be anything from about 10 minutes to a week.
The (main) debrief takes place after the game has ended. In terms of timing, the debrief can take place as
early as 10 minutes after the end of play. This works well for games that focus on cognitive content (such
as a physics game).
If the game has generated strong emotions, it is usually a good idea to wait an hour, a day or even a week.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Some participants may be more emotionally moved than others. You need to keep an eye on participants,
Debrief and ask those who appear emotionally moved or even upset to come and see you and let the other people
leave. Then start a conversation by saying something like “you seem a little upset; please tell me more”.
Then it is your job to listen; you cannot counter; you cannot explain that their emotions are wrong. Once
they stop talking, express your concern, and say that you hope that they will express those emotions to the
other participants during the debrief later because it is quite possible that other people will have
experienced similar emotions, without maybe showing it.
An assessment of the whole process can be done in a feedback session or using a feedback form. It is
usually better to get feedback outside the debrief. The debrief is for people to process their experience,
Feedback not to evaluate the game or the way it was facilitated or debriefed. Feedback can then be fed into revision
of the game. In addition, you can obtain feedback on your own debriefing skills (see Coggins et al.,
2022).
Beyond the simulation itself, if you decide to conduct research on a simulation or on some aspect of
participation in a simulation or of outcomes from a simulation, you will also need to have collected data
that relates in some way to the debriefing that you did. The research can be about almost anything, such
Research as the effectiveness of simulation, the effectiveness of a particular simulation, the relationship between
participants’ expectations at the start and their perceived gains (or losses) at the end, the social-
psychological challenges of participation in certain types of simulation, the perception of reflecting reality
or their impressions of learning. That short list does not, of course, do justice to the immense variety of
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p32

Step What to do
research topics done and to be done; many more will be found in the research literature (some referenced
on the Bibliography).
However, one thing that much research fails to do is to take into consideration and account for the
debriefing that is done. It is quite inadequate in any simulation research endeavour to collect data about,
for example, people’s impressions of the simulation without also asking about the debriefing. In any
research report (e.g., an article in a journal or a document on the internet), it is a serious omission to give
no details about the debriefing materials and process used. It is inadequate and unethical in any research
on simulation for learning or understanding not to provide proper debriefing that forms an integral part of
the simulation. (For more discussion on research and possible research structures that take debriefing
fully into account, see the Section 11f below and also the Appendix — Possible Structures for Research
on Debriefing, in Crookall, 2010.).

For further discussion on some of the dimensions and issues involved in this type of debrief woven, as it were,
into the fabric of the simulation itself, the article by Schwägele et al. (2021) is highly recommended.
Of course, the main debrief must be conducted at the end of the simulation, often along with a feedback session.
Thus, in your design phase, you will need to design the debriefing episodes along with the game. You cannot
add on in-game debriefs at the end!
c. Several linked games, with debrief after each
I have also used a series of different (but similar games) one after the other. The aim is to teach a set of complex
skills at different stages of complexity or fidelity, introducing new notions or skill sets with each game. I have
used this successfully on a semester-long course on teamwork for masters’ students. Of course, each game must
be debriefed. However, in a pattern like the one depicted in Figure 8, the ‘Debrief 3’ can be incorporated into
the ‘Overall debrief’ if this makes sense in terms of game content and learning goals. The design trick is to set

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
up a system in which the debriefing results of one game feed into the next game. Background discussion on
reflecting in and back on experience will be found, for example, in Schön (1990), Kolb (2015).

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Figure 8. Alternating games and debriefs, each debrief feeding into the next game

Length in time for debriefing. I have participated in games, after which the debriefing session was far too short,
with the outcome being a feeling of frustration at having missed out on what could have been some important
learning. Debriefing must be given the time that it needs for all participants to feel satisfied with the whole
process. One problem with this is that some will want to finish before others. Generally, this is a small problem.
It can be solved by letting people go and get a coffee, continue to discuss informally, which may sometimes
give rise to a discussion on aspects related to the game that were not included in the debriefing.
It is difficult to establish even a general rule about length of time for debriefing. A rough guide, especially if
you lack any other indication, would be to allow about as much time for debriefing as for the simulation itself.
Thus, a two-hour game session would include one hour of game and one hour of debrief. For the second and
subsequent runs of your simulation, you can easily adjust down or up. My experience is that as we get to know
the simulation and its debriefing, the latter gets longer. We also tend to recognize areas that need more
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p33

debriefing and thus increase the number of debriefing activities. An outline of possible factors that might
influence your debrief times is provided in Table 7.
If your preferred style of debriefing is to bring all participants back together into a teacher-centred class, with
you controlling rows of students neatly strung out behind lines of desks before you, the timing for the end of
your debriefing session is not a problem – you control and decide. If, on the other hand, your predilection is to
give control to participants in learner-centred debriefing groups, then you solve several problems related to the
need for self-determined debriefing (discussed elsewhere), but you create the potential problem of coordination
of groups to end their small-group session at (more or less) the same time. Possible solutions to this fairly
innocuous problem are discussed in the section on How.

Table 7. Factors influencing length of debriefing

Factor Possible effects of various factor on length of debriefing
In your game design stage, it is useful to think initially in terms of allocating about 40% to 60% of
Proportion to the overall time to the debrief. It is fairly common for debriefing to take as much time as the game.
game length It is not uncommon for the debrief to take three or four times the game time (see example in Box 7
and Box 8.
The type of game may influence the debriefing time. Often the greater the complexity of issues,
Type of game
components and interactions in a simulation, the longer it is likely to take to debrief.
The characteristics of the participants will influence length of debriefing. Variables include age,
Participants maturity, prior knowledge, shyness, game experience, educational level, openness of mind,
discussion skill level and several others.
The format or structure of the debriefing will influence its length. For example, a teacher-centred
Debriefing
debriefing may last as long as the teacher decides or intuits as its proceeds. A participant-centred
format /
debriefing will last as long as they decide, which in turn depends somewhat on the participant
structure
characteristics (see above).

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
The The experience of participants will influence the length of debriefing. If they have been deeply
participatory involved and emotionally involved, the debriefing is likely o last longer. Spare time at the end
experience should always be made in case some participants wish to explore beyond the agreed time.
Given that it is often difficult to know how long the debriefing or a segment of debriefing will take, it
Over time is important to plan for extra time. This can be extension to the originally agreed time, or it can be
(improvised) organised the next day or in a week. If a week, then it is also a good idea to ask participants to do
some interim work.
In the first session (game and debrief) that I run with a group; I usually limit the time and finish the
debriefing at a fixed time. In subsequent sessions, after participants have learnt in a first session
Extra time
what they have to do in a small-group debriefing, I start the debriefing in class and ask them to take

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

(planned)
extra time and finish it for homework. Sometimes the debrief can spread over several time periods
(e.g., after class, next class, writing a portfolio – see next section).

d. Series of debriefing activities

It is customary to organize one single debriefing session. However, over the years, I have lengthened my
debriefings into several varied activities, each one building on the previous, depending on the course, the
participants, the learning goals, the type of simulation, and other factors. For example, I tend to use the
following sequence of four main debriefing activities: individual filling in forms in silence, sharing in small-
group discussions, in class and then out of class, presentations linking debriefing to readings and (end-of-
semester) portfolio. More details are provided in the section How.

6. Where – place
Debriefing can take place pretty well anywhere. As mentioned above, we can debrief in a quiet café, in a garden
and pretty well anywhere that is conducive to listening and thoughtful talk. These aspects are also important
for more formal debriefing, so the place that you choose to conduct simulation debriefing should be quiet and
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p34

peaceful, even though some noisy discussion does arise in small-group debriefing. Sometimes participants
themselves will request to go to another place, see Figure 9. If you are lucky enough to have nearby empty
classrooms free, it is beneficial to spread out the debriefing groups across rooms; I found this particularly
beneficial.

I remember a place where outside participant-requested debriefing this happened in one of my worlshops. I had been
invited by my long-time and dear friend, the late Laurent Mermet,
professor at AgroParis Tech, France, to attend a week seminar on
environmental gaming. My task was to emphasize the importance of
debriefing by running a workshop on the topic. The seminar was held
in a wonderful castle - Château de Cerisy-La-Salle, built around 1620
– see the picture here (from https://en.normandie-tourisme.fr/museums-and-
heritage-sites/chateau-de-cerisy-la-salle/).

I ran the workshop in the converted farm buildings in the background

(on the left of the picture). The game involved a moderate amount of
stress. As we were preparing for the debrief, some participants came
up to me and asked if they could do their debriefing groupwork
outside on the lawn. The weather was marvellous and so each
debriefing group found a small patch of lawn to sit down and share
their game experience. At the end, we held a plenary where each
group shared their debriefing summary. They found that debriefing
outside, away from other groups – and from me! – was particularly
conducive to listening and discussion.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Figure 9. Château de Cerisy-La-Salle

Of course, participants need to be comfortable. It is sometimes a good idea to facilitate the debriefing in an area
that is different from where the game was run. This helps to mark a clear break from an area that may continue
to have lingering emotional connotations, and maybe to dampen free expressing during the debrief. The game
and debriefing can also take place online, using internet tools such as Google Forms and Discord.

7. With what – instrument

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Related to place are the various instruments that you may use as debrief aides. Just as many trainings and
classes use audio-visual and computer aides to ‘deliver’ material, debriefing can and should make use of aides
where it enhances learning. As mentioned, debriefing can make use of electronic and internet tools. I discuss
two here: video camera recordings and graphs generated from simulation decisions.
Video-aided debriefing (VAD). Probably the most useful instrument to use for some debriefing is a video
recording (camera) of some kind, in what is called video-aided or -assisted debriefing (VAD). The decision to
use it and its method of use depend of course on various factors, such as the learning goals, participants, physical
circumstance and preparation. The general pattern is that the participant is recorded during the simulation, and
then the film is used to help with debriefing. As a rather general rule, video recording is used mostly in psycho-
social-motor areas, such as debriefing a simulation for learning to improve body language in job interviews,
pharmacy-patient encounters, intercultural interaction, doctor-patient interaction, teambuilding, language
learning or manipulating a machine (car, medical apparatus, navigation, etc.).
The use of video raises ethical issues, which you need to resolve before you consider its use. You also need to
come to an agreement with your trainees about how any recording is used and stored. In my job-interview-
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p35

skills training, for example, students use their own smartphone to record their simulated interview; the phone is
held by a colleague student in the role of coach. I tell students that they will never be asked to show the recording
in class, and that the only two people who will see the film are they and their coach, and for debriefing purposes.
They are free, however, to show the film in class if they so wish, but the initiative must come from them. They
get a simple form to fill in to help them analyse the film. Most students report that the film was useful in their
own private, coach-facilitated, debriefing. It is particularly useful for them to see what they are ‘really like’,
something that they could never get from in-class feedback only, either from their peers or from me.
Debriefing augmented with information coming from a video … is believed to be even more objective,
effective, and educational. (van Dalen et al., 2021)
VAD was commonly used to enhance learning by showing what actually happened rather than talking about
what was thought to have happened. There was a sense that video was particularly helpful in providing
objective perceptions of time, space, and use of equipment. (Krogh et al., 2015)
At the end of the job-interview course, students must compile a portfolio. This is a kind of extended debrief,
and requires that they go back over their simulation experience, their video fims and their debriefs – and relate
it all to the literature on job interviews. It contains all their log-sheets for classes, interviews and debriefs, the
notes that their peers made about them during in-class and at-home debriefs, and stills extracted from their films,
which they analyse for body language, and which usually show improvement from the first to the second
simulated interview. I suggest to students that they keep their portfolio after the class and go over it before a
real job interview as it can be a reminder to them of certain things to which they need to pay attention during
their real interview. More information on this in the Appendix about job-interview debriefing.
Graphs. Some of the simulations that I have run allow for the collection of data as the simulation proceeds.
For example, Fishbanks allows you to collect data about participants’ decisions (e.g., N° of boats to send to the

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
deep sea) and about the results of those decision (e.g, regeneration of coastal fish). The teamwork-training
game, Towers, can be configured to allow performance evaluations for various dimensions of teamwork, which
can then be converted into graphs. See examples in Figure 10, with more explanation in the Appendix.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Figure 10. Graphs used for debriefing – Fishbanks and Towers

Other classic games allow you to collect participant-decision data. The NASA Game specifically requires
participants to record decisions, and then to calculate results at the end, before debriefing. My dear friend, the
late Richard Powers, designed the Commons Game (Powers, 1992), which also allows this. More recently, the
natural resource managament game, ReHab, generates data that can be used in debriefing (Le Page et al., 2014
& 2016). Some complex participatory simulations, sometimes using agent-based modelling, are able to do this
(e.g., Becu, 2020; Bommel, 2020).
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p36

These kinds of graphs are especially useful for participants to use during their debriefing episodes, either in-
class or at-home. Students are able to base their debriefing presentations and portfolios more easily and clearly
on concrete and meaningful data that reflects their participation during the simulation than on unreliable
recollection of the simulation and debriefing discussions.
Of course, these instruments need to be designed and tested well before you run the simulation. They also need
to be adapted for each run of a game, usually because the number of participants and groups changes from run
to run. Once a game is under way, you have no time even to tweak a bugging program (e.g., an excel file).
Some games available online will also display graphs about participant performance and progress. However,
usually the graphs are destined for use during the game. No guidance is provided on using them for a debrief;
that is because no guidance is provided for any debrief! What a marvellous opportunity for online game
developers, if only they would take the trouble to seize it!

8. Whose – ownership
Whose debriefing is it? To whom does a debrief belong? This is a question that is not often asked, and yet
answers can guide us in our decisions for How – how a debriefing is to be facilitated. All too often, I have
witnessed debriefings in which, at the end of the game, the facilitator asks everyone to “return to their places”,
usually returning chairs and desks back into rows, with everyone facing the facilitator, actually a teacher. In
that short request “return to your places”, the teacher has (re-)established control and ownership of the situation,
its dynamic, its content and its communication. What better way than that to kill the desire in participants to
share with their peers their experience shared with their peers.
The idea of ownership has been a thorny issue of debate in educational circles for some time. This is not the
place to attempt any resolution to the issue. However, for the moment, it may be worth drawing a rough parallel

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
between the continuum of participant-teacher ownership and what I (somewhat loosely) call ‘participant-
centred’ and ‘teacher-focussed’ facilitation. This reflects Christopher and Smith’s (1987) open and closed
facilitation approaches. Elyssebeth Leigh and Laraine Spindler (2004) speak of “traditional teaching and
experiential facilitation”, which “require quite different, and at times contradictory, skills and processes”. My
friend Elyssebeth Leigh has done much valuable work to encourage gamers to work within the participant
paradigm, respecting participants’ experience and pathway desires.
In debriefing as in games, ownership of developments should be with the participants. It is, after all, the

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

participants who (are supposed to) do the learning. In some cases, the teacher can withdraw completely,
although I would be careful suggesting that to colleagues in a dyed-in-the-wool conservative educational
establishment, which most universities and many schools (still) are – almost by definition. In those
establishments, learners generally have little (if any) say in what happens. However, it can be invigorating and
liberating to experiment without asking authorities because learners will appreciate any sensible, learner-
oriented, non-traditional action that you take to help them learn. My early experiment with a teacher-less class
has encouraged me throughout my career – see Box 11.

Many years ago, I taught a course in a law school. Every week, I ran a small environmental-rights role-play with some
15 master’s students. One week I told them “next week, I cannot be here as I will attend a conference; would you like
to try an experiment?”. The, I must admit, somewhat hesitant answer was “ok”. I explained that the procedure (read
roles + game + debrief) was the same as they had been doing in previous classes with me present. I selected two students
to whom I gave the materials, with a few extra procedural instructions. Two weeks later, I returned to class, with the
students appearing to be pleased. I asked how it went. Their answer was “we never worked so hard before in class”. I
sometimes say that this was the best class that I ever taught. What this shows is that, with a moderate amount of guidance
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p37

and preparation, responsible learners are perfectly able to take ownership of their learning, to make their own decisions
about what to do for their learning and, crucially, to organise their own debriefing.
I must admit that this would have been impossible in some, more austere and conservatively-ruled, universities. I was
lucky to have been able to experiment without being harassed by whips. In that sense, France provided me with a
platform to experiment freely, an opportunity for which I am grateful. It must be said that, to experiment in that way,
you need to establish a climate of trust with the university; they need to know that you are doing you job well and that
the students are satisfied. However, I have the impression that French university authorities in recent years have been
trying to clamp down gently on rogue learning facilitators.

Box 11. My best class, for which I was absent

That, Box 11, is not just to tell you an encouraging story. It is to emphasize that debriefing must be a moment
where, even more than in the simulation, the learners are (almost) fully in charge of the nitty gritty content, and
that they must do it among themselves, for themselves and with their own expression. That is why I like to run
debriefing sessions with participants in small groups working independently and in parallel, and then also to
ask them to debrief partially or fully outside class, for homework. On some occasions, sometimes I sit away
from a debriefing group and listen in discretely, and then move to another group; on others, I actually leave the
room for a while, something which some students assured me that they had not even noticed as they were so
engaged in their small-group debriefing. (See also Section 6. Place.)
After learner-centred debriefs or out-of-class debriefs, students still have to prepare and deliver a plenary
presentation on their simulation+debriefing work. It is during such presentations that other students (groups)
and I are able to comment, correct and criticise. This is illustrated in Figure 5 (above, in the section on Whither)
and discussed in more depth later, under How. The fact that my students know that the debriefing belongs to

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
them may be behind their clear eagerness to debrief. Detailed discussions of learner-centred debriefing is
offered by Cheng et al (2016), and Kikkawa et al (2021) provide useful insight into facilitator-guided and self-
guided debriefing.
Thus, ownership really matters. The debriefer’s stance on or approach to debriefing ownership will determine
several aspects of debriefing. This is an important dimension of debriefing that you need to decide at the outset,
in the design stage, because that is there where you will design your debriefing format and materials. It also
impacts simple but important things like room layout, time given to debriefing, place and organisation of
debriefing. Some of these things are discussed in the other sections here. See Cheng et al. (2016) for further

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

discussion.

9. Who / Whom – people

The number of different roles involved in debriefing is surprisingly large. It is worth reviewing these briefly.
You will notice that each of the people concerned plays a variety of roles, occupies a variety of functions.
o Participants are, of course, central. They may step into a variety of shoes over the time period
concerned by a given debriefing. First, they are ordinary people with a host of pastimes, responsibilities
and roles in their lives. Second, they walk into a training centre, school or university and become
learners. Third, they start their simulation journey, the blue arrow in Figure 4 and learn to take on some
kind of more or less well-defined simulation role, given by the simulation rules or scenario. Fourth,
they continue as a learner on their blue-arrow (debriefing) journey towards outside reality (their learning
goal). Fifth, they need to rebecome ordinary people again. During this journey, they may also have
worn one or more other hats, such as observer, debriefer, discussant, listener, coach, note-taker and
presenter.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p38

o Observers are extremely useful, on at least two levels. The first time that I meet a group (e.g., a class)
who has had little or no experience of simulation, I spend quite a bit of time explaining in a mini lecture
what it is, including an explanation of why debriefing is important, and showing Kolb’s learning cycle.
Then I ask for volunteers to participate in the simulation. Sometimes several members are hesitant and
prefer not to play. I tell them that it is perfectly ok to decline to play, but that I would appreciate them
being observers. I ask for a few things (two or three per person) that they would like to observe, and
ask then to make notes during play. The second time that we play, everyone wants to participant; almost
no one wants to observe. However, I explain that observers are important to provide feedback during
debriefing, that they can really help their peers to learn from their observations and therefore that
everyone needs to take their turn to observe and provide feedback – and thus everyone contributes the
learning of everyone else. This is of course easier in a course with a simulation every week. Some of
the instruments in the Appendix contain notes for observers or forms with the role of observer.
o Facilitators too may take on a variety of roles. These depend on their past experience, their approach
or philosophy of learning, social and intuitional expectations, and so on. Roles may include simulation
facilitator, debriefing facilitator (debriefer), simulation participant (e.g., taking on a role briefly for
demonstration purposes), observer, listener, teacher, trainer, encourager, evaluator, grade giver and
others. Less centrally involved people might include game designers, administrators, simulation
technicians, conference presenters, trainers, author and so on.
o Co-debriefing. You may wish to debrief with the help of a colleague – or co-debrief. This needs
careful preparation, sensitivity to your co-debriefer as well as to participants, flexibility, adaptability
and knowing when to be a good listener. It also requires a high level of trust and respect between you
are your co-debriefer. I have enjoyed the few sessions in which I co-debriefed, and I learned much in

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
the process. I remember one session with Sandy Fowler, with whom it was always such a delight to
work; it was a pre-conference workshop in which we were training cross-cultural trainers, and I know
that I could not have done it without Sandy Another enriching experience was with my friend Alain
Percivalle, when we ran a session on debriefing for medical personnel, at the Faculty of Medicine,
University Côte d’Azur. As we had differing approaches to debriefing, we took advantage of this to
illustrate to trainees that no one single way exists to debrief and to give them a broader repertoire of
techniques. With three friends, Beth Tipton, Elyssebeth Leigh and Willy Kriz, at the 2015 ISAGA
conference (Kyoto, Japan) we jointly ran a five-hour workshop on debriefing. I learned much from my

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

co-facilitators. See Tipton et al. (2016). One advantage of co-debriefing is that you can debrief
yourselves after the debriefing session with participants. You will find more discussion and useful
advice in Cheng et al. (2015) and Goldsworthy et al. (2022).

10. Which / whether – choice of alternatives

Several types of debriefing structure (or format) have been developed over the years.
o Early structures, mentioned in Thiagarajan (1992), for debriefing include these phases suggested by
Gaw (1979): Experiencing; Sharing; Interpreting; Generalizing; Applying; Processing.
o Lederman and Stewart (1985) suggest questions related to: Validity; Reliability; Utility.
o Morry van Ments (1989), a pillar for the British association SAGSET, used: Establishing the facts;
Analyzing the causes of behaviour; Planning action.
o Thiagarajan (1995) suggested six phases: How do you feel? What happened? What did you learn?
How does this relate to the real world? What if? What next? This was based on an earlier plan of
seven steps.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p39

Other types of debriefing, such as CISD, PTSD or security incident fact debrief, use different steps or phases.
Much writing on debriefing offers a structure of some kind. In recent years, medical simulation experts have
developed a number of formats or structures. Figure 11 outlines a number of medical simulation training
debriefing structures, showing their similarities. Indeed, many seemingly different ways of debriefing have
much in common, which is hardly surprising, given that they all share a common overall purpose. It is probably
their underlying similarity that is of most interest, rather than the more superficial differences. Other structures
and formats exist, and you will discover them in other writings on debriefing.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Figure 11. Similarities among a number of debriefing structures (from Oriot & Alinier, 2018)

A major choice that you will have to make is to opt either for a facilitator-focused debrief or for a participant-
centred debrief, as discussed in Whose above. This choice is more or less independent of the structure that you
use. You can also, of course, choose to start the debrief in participant-centred mode, and end as teacher focused;
I would, in most cases, do it in that order. An interesting way to approach debriefing is outlined in Zhang et al.
(2018). For a useful overviews of debriefing, see Sawyer et al. (2016) and Oriot and Alinier (2018).

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

11. How - way / manner
No doubt, a hundred or so ways to debrief have been invented and used. One thing for sure is that no one single
way of debriefing is the best. However, one could argue that debriefing really starts with the briefing
(introducing and setting up the game session).

a. Briefing
Before the simulation or series of simulations, I usually tell future participants about simulation in general and
about the particular simulation in which they will participate. I do this either by ad-libbing or with a slide
presentation. I usually go over some of the main aspects of simulation, its purposes and advantages, its
difficulties and demands, especially on participants (such as the need for full participation and for responsible
and respectful behaviour) and the imperative of debriefing. I usually show Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle
diagram, and explain how simulation and debriefing mesh with his ideas. Students understand and can relate
to that fairly easily, especially as they recognize it as being different from their usual class fare and in line with
professional matters. When they come to their first participation in a simulation, it is then not completely
disorienting.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p40

I explain in a nutshell that the debrief after the game helps people to process their experience, especially if it
has been stressful or emotional, so that they gain insight and learning, and can then move on to manage their
life in a more effective manner. Mention of stress and emotion usually catches their attention as it is rarely
talked about within the hallowed walls of a university. I reassure them by saying that emotion in a university
is taboo, but that expressing and talking about emotion makes them more human, and that it can lead to a
liberating effect. I tell them that the debrief is the most important part of the whole exercise. Most students
seem to understand the basics with relative ease, which is less the case with a group of teachers. Students take
to games more readily than some teachers, even teachers who use games!
In addition to aspects of simulation in general, it is important to tell participants some specifics about the
upcoming simulation, such as the learning goals, the game objectives (end-game criteria), the rules, the scoring
system, the role of the observers, the importance of the debriefing. I stop and ask if there are questions; I ask if
anyone wants to observe instead of participate. I put people in groups or ask them to find their own groups,
sometimes with specific criteria (such as group size, gender balance, cultural balance.)
In some cases, I ask students to take part in a short and light-hearted briefing simulation, designed to prepare
them for the upcoming larger and more engaging simulations. A briefing simulation is not designed to teach
any content, but it provides a first, hands-on experience of the simulation cycle, of participation and of
debriefing. Participants familiarize themselves with fundamental aspects of simulation and they are able to taste
‘life in a simulation’ without the pressure of also having to learn something. This usually has a positive effect
on the subsequent simulations. It takes the idea of simulation out of the dark unknown, and places it into known
practice. It is what I call ‘learning to be’ in a simulation. In addition, a number of factors will influence how
you run your debriefing.

b. Ownership

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
I return here to the notion of ownership. Your stance on this will, in my view, have a profound impact on how
the debrief goes, what the participants get out of it in terms of learning, self-fulfilment or wellbeing and
satisfaction. As I discussed above, a stance in which a debrief is effectively accomplished with the teacher
claiming their self-ordained right to control proceedings is not, in my view, going to allow the learners to
accomplish their learning goals. Under these circumstances, I would suggest that teachers either have to admit
defeat and accept that learning was minimal, or have to be economical in their claims to learning.
Ownership is a question of adopting the right mindset. I have rarely felt comfortable adopting a stance of “I

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

will now debrief you” and “this is what you have or should have learned”. I therefore push myself to adopt a
mindset of relinquishing control over most of the debriefing. What I do retain is guidance over procedural
matters, and even then, if participants say they wish to pursue or to cut short a debrief I do my best to take that
into account, for example, by prolonging a debrief to the following class or letting the students leave class early.

c. Time
Debriefing needs time.
Effective debriefing also requires time. This time has to be included in the planning of any experience-based
programme. Too often it is the debriefing phase of a programme [that] is cancelled or considerably shortened
… (Pearson & Smith, 1985)
On several occasions I have been asked to shorten a debriefing session, even by gamers who supposedly know
that debriefing needs time. In most cases, debriefing time is incompressible. Lack of time is probably one of
your major obstacles in facilitating and game and debriefing it. This, of course, raises ethical issues in relation
to your participants. Is it better to do a rushed, superficial debrief, and leave participants frustrated and taking
away the wrong message, or simply to refuse to run the simulation? That is a judgement call that you may find
that you have to make in each case that you are restricted in time. Remember too that if you go ahead (motivated
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p41

by your own eagerness or under pressure from a workshop or conference organiser), the likely fallout on you
from an inadequate debrief is that you will be seen as or felt to be poor facilitator. In addition, an inadequate
debrief tends to bring the simulation/gaming profession into disrepute.
In regard to amount of time, opinions and practices differ. They seem to vary from at least half the duration of
the game to twice the length of the simulation. It is impossible to give a more precise estimate here. Each event
is unique and will require a minimal length of time to debrief. A three-month internship will not require three
months to debrief; a ten-minute game may need half an hour to debrief. Remember the adage that a game is
ideally a means of providing substance to debrief.
d. Factors
A wide range of factors may influence the way you debriefing, in general or in any particular instance. It is
probably wise to focus on just a few factors during any given debrief session, and let the others ‘take care of
themselves’. Possible factors include:
Learning goals. If the learning goals of your participants are behavioural or performative, such as job interview
skills, then you may wish to run several short debriefs during a sequence of simulations, each one building on
the previous (as in Section 5c above). Examples are included in the appendix. If the learning goals include
understanding complex systems, such as the relationship between natural resource management and the human
tendency toward greed and overshoot, then you may wish to include an occasional taking-stock feedback during
the game, and then a series of longer debriefing activities after (as in Section 5b above). Examples included are
in the appendix. If the learning goal is for participants to get to know each other (warm-up exercise), then an
informal chat at the end may be sufficient.
The learning goals need to be established and the debriefing protocol and materials need to be designed and

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
built as part of the overall game design, not something tacked on as an afterthought. The learning goals need to
be reflected carefully in the debriefing protocol and materials. Thus, they cannot be scrambled as the simulation
nears the end.
Prior simulation experience & reluctant participants. It always strikes me as somewhat odd that some
people do not like to participate in simulation, which usually happens when they are confronted with such an
activity for the first time. So, it behoves me to remember an early article by my dear friend, Danny Saunders,
entitled Reluctant participants in role play situations: Stage fright or bewilderment? (Saunders, 1985) and
which is still highly relevant today.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

My approach to this fairly common reluctance is simply to accept that some people are reluctant, nervous or
even fearful about participating for the first time in a simulation. This tends to happen in a new class of students,
most of whom are somewhat befuddled by being asked to become active participants, instead of sinking into a
half-snooze for a lecture. Once reluctant participants can see that I understand their reluctance, they
immediately feel relieved. What I do is to accept that they do not participate, but I ask them two important
things: one is to be observers and make notes on what they see, which most are happy to do; the other is to stay
silent and not interfere with the simulation participants. Almost invariably, the next time I run a simulation,
everyone wants to participate, and then it becomes a problem of getting volunteers to observe. If students are
working in small groups and taking part in several games, I ask each group to decide who is observer for the
upcoming game. When we come to the next game; they will already have decided who is to be observer.
Observers-debriefers. In almost all short or medium-length simulations that I run, I arrange to have some
participants observe the simulation as it unfolds. Thus, you may also surely wish to have one or more observers
for each game group, each one observing a certain type of behaviour (e.g., gestures or eye contact). As a general
pattern, I give observers a Guide for Observers (see copy in the Appendix). While the participants are studying
their game materials, I meet with the group of observers and go over the main principles in the guide. Some
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p42

people understand by reading, others do better from hearing it. On several occasions I have congratulated a
student for doing some outstanding observation, far better than I would been able to do. They usually tell me
that they like that kind of observation task or that they have done it before.
At the end of the observation period, each observer becomes a debriefer. The Guide for Debriefers is longer
than for observers (see copy in the Appendix). I go over the main points orally, and then leave it to each
debriefer to manage the debriefing proceedings. Over the course of several debriefing sessions, either as
debriefer or as participant being debriefed, participants learn how to manage the meetings. This is a skill that
they have told me is useful in itself.
In my debriefer training sessions, I usually have two observers. One person does the observation as above, and
the other will then observe the debriefing session, and share their observations in a meeting to debrief the
debriefing session.
Affective reluctance, or reluctant affect. Many debrief formats start with emotions (see the section
Which/whether and the various debriefing forms in the Appendix). As you can imagine, some participants,
usually males more than females, may be reluctant, nervous or fearful of talking about their emotions. Indeed,
some may have participated in a hardly unaware or reluctant to admit that they experienced a range of emotions.
It may also be that in their first debrief session, it is the first time that they have been invited, let alone expected,
to talk about emotions, especially in universities where such stuff is considered inappropriate or even taboo.
Emotions, then, do not necessarily come trippingly off the tongue.
The conventional wisdom is that, at the start of their debriefing, participants should address their in-game
emotions. The rationale is that people need to deal with, come to terms with, calm down, understand, express,
share and articulate their game emotions before they are (fully) able to think about, share and learn from the
cognitive and behavioural aspects of their participation, and (fully) able to understand the system complexities

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
of which they were a part, and to which they contributed, during the game.
Even with the use of debriefing forms (see examples in the Appendix) that include an explicit question on
emotions, some participants will avoid mentioning their emotions. Sometimes, the space for answers to
emotions questions carries few words, is even left empty, or mentions something else, such as another
participant’s behaviour. As I walk round the participants working in silence and filling out their form, I will
stop at those who have failed to provide a few emotion words. I explain briefly what is wanted – “during the
game did you feel relaxed, excited, angry, annoyed, happy?” – and point to the words on the form. I reassure
them that telling about their feelings is okay and is in fact good, that everyone had feelings and that even I had

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

feelings.
After filling in their individual debriefing forms, participants meet in small groups and go through the questions.
Here again, some people (males usually more than females) avoid talking about emotions. When I see this, I
go up to the group and again explain to the whole group that emotions are good to talk about, even if I know
that my comments are aimed more at the male participants. As I explain, sometimes, from behind, I put my
hands on the shoulders of a particularly nervous male, and this is reassuring for him. Once they have dipped
their toe in the water, suddenly they seem relaxed and are able to express their emotions.
When I sense that groups have got over their initial inertia and got under way, I am able to draw up a chair at a
little distant and to listen in to each group without disturbing them. Usually, they hardly notice me, but if I
sense that they feel my presence (too strongly), I get up and move to another group. I can even be near one
group, but actually listen to another group. During small-group, online debriefings (several groups working in
parallel in different online rooms), it is perfectly possible to drop in on a group, but without my webcam on and
without intervening. Of course, I explain beforehand that I will drop in out of interest, but that it is their
debriefing session.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p43

Trust and ownership. Facilitators who are still driven to conduct teacher-centred debriefs and to correct every
small error almost before it is made may find reassurance in several emerging qualities of debriefer groups.
These are debriefer groups’ internal resources, such as honesty and trust, debriefers’ natural desire to own their
learning, and debriefer groups’ abilities to self-organize and to self-determine. An independent, teacher-free
debrief group quickly develops trust, ownership, a self-determined attitude and a self-critical approach among
its members. Debrief group members, free of the spying eye of a threatening teacher, can be and often are both
more critical and more supportive of each other than a teacher could ever be. In addition, peer criticism is often
more relevant and effective than that proffered by a teacher. I have sometimes been alarmed by the directness
and harshness of some debrief members towards their peers, but immediately relieved and glad to see that the
remarks are well received and taken on board. Trust for honest feedback and open expression is crucial in any
debrief, and this can, in my view, only be fully achieved in learner-centred debriefs, with the teacher mostly out
of the way. An example from my own experience is provided in Box 12.

I remember clearly several instances of harsh and direct peer remarks during debriefing. One episode stands out for me.
This was during the debrief of a job-interview simulation, one of several during a whole semester course on job
interviews based on a backbone of several interlocking assimilations, with several debriefs for each simulation. Indeed,
for each 10-minute simulation, about one hour was spent debriefing, with feedback provide mostly by students
themselves. During one debrief of a student’s job interview, one of the student debriefers, said in a fairly strong but
respectful voice:
“Your eye contact was good, and your gestures were ok, but your arrogance is your downfall. If you do that in
a real job interview, you will just not be selected, and they could even remember you later. You come across
as far too arrogant, and that is a no no for a job interview. In real life, you also tend to be arrogant, we all
[students in the class] can see that. So, for a job interview, you really have to cut your arrogance. In real life,

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
you can make a start, and that would be nice for us.”
At first, I was a bit taken aback, but a quick glance at the student debriefee reassured me that he [it was a male] was
listening carefully. After a pause, the debriefee said to the debriefer student “thank you for that; it is a great help”. I am
not sure I would have dared to be so forthright, and even if I had, it would probably not have been driven home with the
same force. In subsequent debriefs, I actually took my cue from that and was more direct in my own feedback, but
usually giving a cue for the students to rebut if they felt like it. It is important for students to know that they can object
to what I say in regard to feedback that I gave. Sometimes they did, but then other debriefers would sometimes insist
that the debriefee listen to what I had to say. I usually emphasized and reinforced what other students had said, but I
would also give feedback on things that had not been brought up by students. In any case, when offering feedback, I

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

usually ask the student what they think; was I being unfair or did it make sense? During the early debriefs, a climate of
trust would develop, and it generally remained throughout the remainder of the semester.

Box 12. Episode of honest feedback, and the development of trust.

Participants. The debriefing protocol and materials need, of course, to be adapted to the participants. For
example, younger participants will do better if the materials are simpler. Instead of open-ended questions,
multiple choice or Likert scales may make it easier to respond. Participants with no or little experience of this
sport of activity probably need to be trained, such as in a debriefing simulation (see above). Participants with
prior simulation and small-group, learner-centred experience take to debriefing like ducks to water. Several
times, I was particularly pleased to hear some participants at the end of a game say “ok, now, let’s go an debrief”,
and they seemed more focussed and excited during debriefs than during the games – this is how it should be.
Culture. The cultural context in which you run a simulation, will be a factor influences decisions that you make
(Box 14). In some cultures, for example, women and men are not allowed to touch each other, or touch each
other on the head. In some cultures, you need to plan for prayer breaks at specific times, or for more or less
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p44

mandatory coffee breaks. In some places, organizers will tell you that the workshop starts at 09h and ends at
19h, but on your first day, participants are still drifting in close to 10h.
Just as you are trying to make up for lost time, at about 16h, participants announce that many have to leave as
it takes them two or more hours to get home. When you query this, you are told quite naturally that official and
real times tend to be rather different. Better to adapt to that fast, otherwise you may experience unneeded
frustration.
Resistance by others to debriefing. Also, you have to find your own way of overcoming resistance to debriefing
in all sorts of people who think that they know better (just like many people think that they know about language
or about climate change), but who in fact have not taken the trouble to find out or to experience for themselves.
When your debriefings are relatively successful, and participants thank you for encouraging, even pushing, them
through, then you can have full confidence in insisting that you are given the time that you need in order to
debrief properly. Do not be browbeaten, or cudgelled into accepting less time than you need. If necessary,
explain that you refuse to run a simulation and have it fail because you have not been able to debrief properly.
In the end, you will be respected for standing your ground on important principles. Also, if, in the end, you are
given the time, and the debrief is successful, which it is likely to be, you will have no further need to fight that
organisation. Those are things that you have to negotiate well before you agree to run a workshop. You can
also agree to do a short version with a warning that you cannot guarantee results. Box 13 gives some insight
into one way of working things through when your host is a reluctant player. It is not just participants who may
be reluctant at the start, it is sometimes organizations (e.g., schools or conferences), even those doing games.

I was once asked to debrief a whole conference, on games no less, but the organizers did not feel comfortable giving
me the necessary time, so I suggested a greatly reduced time frame, with a severely cut-down version of the debrief

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
and with uncertain results. The session turned out to be fairly successful, sufficiently so that in a subsequent
conference (again on games and organized by the same people) I was given the required time and space to do a full
conference debrief. This was a great success and lead to several invitations to debrief events elsewhere.
Box 13. Negotiating a safe debriefing time and space

e. Steps
Below is a table that spells out in some detail the kinds of things that you might consider adopting in your
debrief sessions. They are only my own way of doing things, but developed over several years. The table

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

contains only a gist of the things that I do. In any case, you must develop your own materials, procedures and
sensibilities, taking what you find useful, leaving things you do not like and inventing your own.

Table 8. Steps in debriefing

Step Notes, often based on my own practice
It is usually a good idea to have some kind of pause between the point where you stop the simulation and
the moment when you start a debriefing session, be this during or at the end of a simulation. Some people
say that the debrief should be almost immediately after, but my experience is that a reasonable pause,
anything between 10 minutes and an hour, gives participants the chance to derole, that is to ‘cool down’,
Pause & to take some deep breaths and do whatever helps them to recover their normal composure, after what could
de-roling have been a tumultuous session, or at least a game involving tension, if only from high and sustained
concentration.
If circumstances allow (time and space), it is a good idea to ask participants to leave the simulation room
and go for a short stroll outside in the fresh air, and then to return after 10 or 15 minutes. This also gives
you, debriefer, a breather and time to organize furniture and materials for the impending debrief.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p45

Step Notes, often based on my own practice

Participants should also take off any role badges that they might have had, and shed any other paraphernalia
that was part of their role. The longer the simulation and the stronger the emotions, the longer the pause.
Sometimes the pause can or must be a full week, for example, if timetabling does not allow game and
debrief in the same sitting. You need not worry about participants ‘forgetting’. Research shows that games
are more memorable than ordinary (boring) classes. Participants are highly likely to remember, and once
the debrief gets under way, their memory will be jogged and details will come back fairly fast. If you use
an end-of-game or midway game questionnaire, then they will already be starting their debrief. If you
pause for a week, then participants will need to remember to bring their form to the debrief session. In
contrast to what I know of ordinary classes, my experience in simulation sessions is that they invariably
remember to bring their forms because they are keen to do the debrief, knowing that they will learn.
It is usually okay to let participants talk about the game during their pause; some will, others do not. If
you join them in the pause, they may ask you questions and make comments. My stance here has been to
listen carefully, to show interest, to agree with comments like “that was not easy” and for involved
questions, to suggest that they should bring up the issue during the upcoming debriefing. I have sometimes
had a question like “is it okay to talk about X in the debriefing?”, to which I answer “you do not need
permission from me, you can talk about anything, as long as it is respectful”. For some types of game and
debrief, you may wish to impose a talk embargo until the start of the debrief, but you should explain to
participants why you are asking them to keep mum for a while, when their strong and immediate urge is
to talk.

Welcome back participants into the ‘debriefing room’. Remind them of what you said in the briefing at
the start. Elaborate a little; point out some important aspects of debriefing, especially that it is the most
important part of the dame session and that it is in the debrief that the most significant learning happens.
Intro

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
One main aspect of this introduction is to set the scene, as it were, and to making for a safe and comfortable
environment so that participants will feel that they can trust others in their group and that they can express
themselves freely, without fear of retribution. Of course, the debriefing guide and the debriefer will help
considerably to set a positive scene.

If this is their first time in a debrief, then it is important to emphasize certain rules regarding behaviour.
You will find an example Guide in the Appendix. The guide is also an instrument that observers-about-
Guide
to-become-debriefers should already have studied. If they have already used this instrument, your intro
can be shorter.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Ask people to sit in groups as you have determined, or as they wish. The group membership for debriefing
can be different from that during the game, or it can be the same. If I wish participants to discover
experiences from other groups, then mixed debriefing groups helps. This works well, for example, with
Fishbanks (assuming, of course; that each fisher was a group of participants). If I wish the game group to
Groups focus on its game performance, then participants stay in the same group. This works well, for example,
with the teamwork game Towers. It is also possible to run two debrief sessions, with debrief group
membership changing in the second session. This works with most games, including Fishbanks and
Towers. I have also started with game groups debriefing within their group, followed by a (shorter) debrief
where members from each group are placed together.

The first step in most of my debriefing sessions is done individually and in silence. That tends to surprise
some teachers, and they immediately question it. Interestingly, I have never had a participant question
Individual this. As a general rule, you should do what you think would best benefit participants. Imagine yourself
debrief as a participant and ask what would be good for me just now.
form
Participants are not left alone to their own devices as they have the individual debrief form to fill out and
they know that they will meet with their peers later. Filling out the form keeps them busy; generally,
participants appear to be very concentrated during this time. Some participants write long replies, despite
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p46

Step Notes, often based on my own practice

being asked to give short ones. In a way, this is excellent, but it does mean that you have to juggle with
coordinating the timing (see below). The advantages of an initial individual debrief form are many, and
include:
o The silence gives participants time to think back over the game (some of my forms specifically
ask participants to think back over their game experience);
o They start their debriefing calmly, and are actually able to do what many say that debriefing
should be, a time for reflecting back on experience, which is far more difficult during the hurly-
burly of group discussion;
o The silence gives participants time to collect their thoughts and to articulate answers, which
would be difficult or impossible during a purely oral debrief, where they have to listen carefully
to and think about other people’s talk, in addition to expressing their own ideas;
o The form contains spaces allowing participants to articulate their thoughts in writing, which
requires that they think more carefully than they would if ad-libbing to a rushed oral question;
o Each question on the form helps the participant to focus on a specific aspect of their simulation
participation, instead of wandering about;
o Putting thoughts in writing forces participants to be more precise;
o The writing gives participants the chance to make notes on their initial thoughts, enabling them
to be freer during the oral discussion later;
o The notes serve as reminders to bring up certain things during the subsequent oral debrief;
o The writing constitutes a record that students keep. They use this when they do one of their last
debrief activities, which as a portfolio for the whole course.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Several examples of forms are to be found in the Appendix.
The only real problem that I have encountered with using forms is that people fill them in at different
speeds. Here are a few tips to reduce the disparity:
o Announce the end time, e.g., “please complete your form in 20 minutes, no more”;
o Half way through, announce the amount of time left;
o Five and two minutes before the end, announce these times to finish;
o Allow a short time after for laggards to finish;

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

o Walk around the room, keeping an eye on how far people have progressed;
o Adjust the finish time as a consequence, e.g., if most people are ahead of schedule, announce a
shorter time to finish; if several people are lagging behind, announce a slightly longer time;
o For those who finish very early, you can ask them to be patient for a short while and maybe to go
back over their form to see if they have other things that they would like to add.
Remember that your form must be designed during the simulation-design phase, and not left until a few
minutes before your run the simulation. The form will include some (or all) of the learning goals that you
have set for the simulation and debriefing. Thus, you have to strike a balance along several factors: the
learning goals, the types of issues involved, the level emotional charge that is likely to be generated during
the simulation, the types of participant (e.g., adult, sophisticated, middle school people, minorities).
As a general rule, your form will be on paper handouts. However, if your simulation is online, then you
can easily build a form with online tools. The one that I use is Google Forms. One advantage of online
forms is that you can collect the data for research after. Once the current virus has ended, and we move
back to in-person simulation, I plan to stay with online forms for in-person debriefing. If you use, online
forms, it is important to tell participants how the data will be used – see the Appendix for an example.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p47

Step Notes, often based on my own practice

During the above silent time, gather with the simulation observers. Go over the main points for
observation. You may ask them to use blank paper or give them a form that focuses their observations on
certain aspects that are important for the learning goals. Such forms should be easy and straightforward
Meeting to fill out. Ask if they have any questions.
with
observer- Explain that, when the debriefing starts, they will become debriefers and chair the debrief meeting. If this
debriefers is the first time for them, they may be a little anxious, but understanding and reassurance from you will be
of great help. Go through the points in the Debriefer Guide (see example in the Appendix), Ask if they
have any questions. Emphasize that their role is essentially to help the group share their game experience
and express their ideas. Their role is more to encourage others to talk, rather than talk themselves.

At each step of the way, I try to remember to ask if anyone has a question. I usually pause for a few
Questions
seconds, as people may need time to call up a question that they had or a new one that starts to form.

In most cases, I also develop and distribute a group debrief form. This resembles closely the individual
form (see example in the Appendix). It follows the same pattern, either with the original questions in full
or with just summaries. Several ways of using this include:
Group o The participant debriefer in each group makes a few notes to capture the essence of the discussion
debrief for each question;
form
o Every participant has a form and makes their own notes as discussion proceeds;
o If you have had two observers, then one can become debriefer and the other become discussion
note-taker for the group.
Remember that the type of episode that I am talking about here is learner-centred or participant focussed
debriefing. This allows small, independent groups to discuss together without the teacher controlling the

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
talk and telling participants what they should have learned or even that they did something wrong. The
term “debriefer” here refers to the participant as debriefer. The teacher’s role is to coordinate the
proceedings, to help out with ambiguities, to reassure, to nudge an individual or group back on track if
they seem to have drifted, to set time limits and so on.
At the start, I usually go over a few of the main guidelines for debriefing (see Guide in the Appendix), I
emphasize the ones that seem particularly important for the groups. I mention that if they wish to know
more, they can ask the debriefer to show them a copy. I remind participants that debriefing is important,
that it is the chief place where learning happens and, crucially, that each person is responsible for their
own behaviour and their own earning.
“The learning that you derive from this debriefing depends largely on you, on, your
participation and input, on your sharing, on your listening to others respectfully, on your

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

considering others’ views, even if you do not initially agree wit them. You form a learning
collective, wherein each person is responsible both to themselves and to the collective. It is by
working together that you will make the most of the debriefing session and derive the most
Start of the
valuable learning.”
debrief
I explain that the people who were observers during the simulation have now become debriefers, and that
it is they who will chair the discussion. I tell participants something like the following:
“During discussions, you have important things to share with others, and that helps you to
learn. However, you can also learn from listening to others, who also have important things to
share about their experience. One person, whom you may have not noticed much was the
observer. This person was outside the bustle and rumpus of the simulation, quietly taking notes
about what was going on. The observer could thus see things that you did not see and even that
you would not even imagine seeing. The observer can tell you a lot to help you learn. So you
also need to listen to the observer.”
Even if you emphasized in the observer-debriefer meeting (see above) that the debriefer must get the
others to talk, you will occasionally encounter a novice debriefer who starts and continues the debrief by
doing most of the talking. If I see a debriefer talking too much, I intervene, and do it as early as possible,
once I sense that the debriefer could talk most of the time non-stop. I may address the whole group in
this way:
“Now, normally, your debriefer chair is there to get you to talk, so if you do not talk, the
debriefer may get nervous. And what happens when you get nervous? Yes, you talk, often too
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p48

Step Notes, often based on my own practice

much. So help your briefer to help you by talking. And, debriefer, please give the others a
chance to talk. Sometimes, they may need a short while (5 to 10 seconds maybe) to think what
they wish to say. So be patient. Silence is perfectly ok; it usually means that people are
thinking. Be comfortable with others in your group when they are silent for a while.
Remember that listening is the greatest of all communication skills.”
Just before the debrief starts, I announce the time by which they should have reached the last question on
Give time the form. If a group has already debriefed (in a previous session), it is perfectly possible for them to start
limit the debrief in class and to finish outside of class (as ‘homework’). Thus, groups can end their debrief
session at different times.
The debrief proper is usually a quiet time for the facilitator. You can do several things during the
debrief. Often the debriefing groups do not notice the facilitator.
When groups seem to have settled into concentrated and respectful conversations, I sometimes leave the
classroom physically as a signal that the groups are on their own and that I am not interfering. When I
return, I usually have the impression that some groups at least are not aware that I have returned, and that
is a good sign for me.
However, it is still important to keep your eyes and ears open to what the various groups are doing. Eyes
pick up on body language, and ears tell you the tone of the conversations.
I sometimes walk round to get an idea of how groups are proceeding. Some groups will advance faster
Debrief than others.
proper It is good to remind groups of time limits. Here I do not shout out to the whole gathering; experience
has told me that some do not listen as they are too immersed in their discussion. A better tactic is go to
each debriefer, the person coordinating each group. Either speak quietly in their ear with “10 more
minutes” or write a time on a card and show it to the debriefer.
Of course, some people learn more quickly how to be a debriefing chair of a discussion. At first, some
participants are nervous about taking on the role of debriefer. After the second or third simulation, most
participants want to try their hand at it. As far as possible, it is best to ask them to volunteer, but
sometimes you have to put pressure on someone. Generally, after they have done it, they express
satisfaction at having had the experience. Thus, a simulation-debrief also helps participants to learn

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
additional skills such as chairing a meeting, balancing questions, note taking and showing leadership.
At the end it is usually a good idea to thank people for their hard work. Generally, they tell me, the
End &
debrief requires harder concentration and is more tiring than the simulation. I ask individuals and groups
next
to keep their debriefing forms and notes carefully as they will be needed later.
Most participants that I have had learn quickly how to manage their own debriefing discussions. A tell-
tale sign of this can occur even at the end of their second simulation, when some will spontaneously say
“ok, let us now go and debrief”, and they ask for the debriefing form. Once groups have learned to
manage their own debriefing discussions, it is time to let them fly on their own wings. I ask them if they
feel ok about finishing a debrief or doing a whole debrief together outside of class, during the upcoming
week. Most say yes. Some may indicate being unsure, to which I usually suggest that they try and they
will probably do much better then they think.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

It is important to ask participants to finish or do their debrief out of class only when you are fairly sure
Outside
that will be able to do it fairly well. Most participants are up to the task after completing at a whole
class
debrief in class, and maybe starting a second. Of course, much depends on the participants’ level. Most
(home-
of mine were first- or second-year masters level students, and they appreciate the challenge of doing this
work)
as well as the trust that you put in them to act in a responsible manner.
University students maturity and self-efficacy in studying vary across cultures. You will have to gauge
your own students’ self-debriefing ability. As a general rule of thumb, you should assume that they are
more capable than your initial inclination might tell you. Give them the encouragement to try. In almost
all cases, they will rise to the challenge and succeed. The desire to succeed is strong, especially when
students work in a group. Once they have demonstrated to themselves that they are capable of
conducting their own debriefing without your immediate presence, they will do it well and gain both
satisfaction and learning from it.
In addition to finishing or doing their debriefing outside class, my students are required to prepare a
presentation for the next class, based on their debriefing. (These notes are based on my teamwork skills
In class - course, and they can be adapted to many courses that use a series of simulation and debriefs.) At this
presentatio point I have stopped calling them ‘groups’ and call them ‘teams’, which they like (even if they have not
n yet met fully the criteria for being a fully-operational team).
As a general pattern, I ask them to prepare a ten-minute presentation, plus five minutes for questions,
with a structure as follows:
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p49

Step Notes, often based on my own practice

a. Introduction (name of their team, team members, class ID, etc.). In many simulation
sequences, I ask teams to make a name. They have been pretty inventive.
b. Description of the simulation and what happened.
c. Results of the simulation, showing photos that they took during the simulation, graphs based on
the evaluations (which I email to them after I have done the calculations).
d. Analysis of the results, such as why they think they achieved this or failed that. The analysis
has to be concrete, and draw on the notes during the debriefing and, if they feel able,
mentioning members by name. If they disagree on the analysis, they should mention this,
saying wat the disagreement is and why. Generally, they have been fairly self-critical.
e. Readings. Each team has to have read some documents about concrete aspects of teamwork,
and relate their results and analysis to the principles in those readings.
f. Improvement. Each team has to specify in concrete terms what improvements each of its
members undertakes to make for the future (either in the next simulation or in reality).
g. Questions and comments from other students, and finally from me. This is where I get to make
comments on their work, cross Ts and point out strengths as well as weakness in their work.
Generally, their presentation is a high point for students as they are keen to tell about their experience to
everyone and tell about their things for improvement and their success. The first-time round, they tend
to go well beyond the ten minutes, but (sitting at the back of the room) I hand signal that they need to get
a move on. In my comments, I point out to each team that a good team sticks to the allocated time
(usually with a story about presenting a project to a funder). The students sometimes complain that they
need more time to say everything. I reply that it is good that they have so much to share, but that they
should also hone their skills in summarizing the main points. I then ask how much time they need for
the next presentation, and we tend to negotiate something like 15 minutes, plus ten for questions. Of
course, I then warn them that I will cut them off if they go over the allocated time. They generally do
not; one more team skill learned.
In some courses, a debrief session is followed, in the next class, by another simulation. It is generally
focussed on a related or extended skill set and/or is more challenging. For example, instead of building a
More tower, they have to build a bridge. By this time, students are able to, conduct their debriefing fully
games and outside class. Some have told me that their discussion has even gone on for over two hours, that they

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
debriefs found it exhausting, but rewarding. As time goes on, the team members begin to talk about themselves
and behave in terms of real teams, which is what they form over and above the simulation episodes in
class.
Of course, during class, it is not possible to give a grade to each student. I explain that in reality they do
not need a grade, that a grade means little or nothing. It is not because they have this or that grade that
they can claim to be good team players for a company. The only way is to actually do it, as they did in
class. A grade does not guarantee any kind of ‘level’ in teamwork. I explain to students that,
unfortunately, I have to give in a grade at the end of the semester because someone in the university sits
at a computer and inputs numbers, which they call grades.
However, it is not really possible for me to give an accurate grade. I did not see all their work, either in

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

class or outside. It is only they who know what they did with any degree of accuracy. Therefore, they
are the best placed to give a grade. After some questions, doubts and more explanation, they come round
to the idea that they can give themselves a grade, and do so more meaningfully than I can.
In addition, the portfolio thus becomes another debrief for them, a debrief in which they look back over
their whole course, begin to realize the progress that they have made, stand back and understand the
broad aspects of teamwork and their importance in real life. In addition, as they write their portfolio as a
Portfolios team, they can continue to practice their team skills.
What to do? The answer is to ask each team (not individual students) to make a portfolio for their work
during the semester. I explain what a portfolio is, which, sadly, few have heard of before. In addition to
including all their work, debrief notes, results, photos, presentations and comments about each item, they
have to write notes on what makes for good teamwork (relating them to assigned readings), on their
experience of collective portfolio writing and on the things that each member promises to do during the
next few years.
In addition, I give them a final test of their teamwork skills – yes, teamwork learning continues during
their final portfolios. I give them instructions that the team (with all members present) must attributing
an overall percent to each of the members, but that they have to make a hierarchy by giving percents
which show at least a one-or two-point difference between each member. (My portfolio template gives
precise instructions.) They also have to include a team account of how this was done. Finally, I convert
the team’s percents into a grade for each student, in such a way as to preserve something of the
differences that they have calculated. Some students find that procedure difficult, but most appreciate
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p50

Step Notes, often based on my own practice

the opportunity to participate in their own grade assessment. The whole process (portfolio and grade
procedure) is thus also a way for them to debrief.
As an anecdote, it might be worth relaying this story. One student, during her internship after a
teamwork course that I ran, had mentioned the course to her company supervisor. The supervisor asked
the student if she would like to conduct a training workshop on teamwork for people in the company.
Anecdote
The student asked me for advice, and I gave her materials about the simulations and debriefings that she
was thinking of using. I emphasized the need to debrief thoroughly. Her workshop was successful; her
boss, the participants and her were pleased with the training.

Once you have mastered something of those steps, then you could probably think of yourself as a good or even
as an accomplished debriefer, but it takes time, as it did for me. Even now, after many years, with almost every
debrief, I discover new things and realize that I could have done better.

f. Debrief skills development

None of us are born with debriefing skills; they must be learned, sometimes with difficulty. For many years, I
found the debriefing episode particularly difficult; I often felt nervous, and I am certain that I did it badly on
several occasions. I still find it difficult, but I feel more confident, partly because I made a special effort to
focus on that and discover and invent ways to do it better.
… it is obvious that the skills necessary for effective debriefing are many and complex. They include
structuring and organizing skills, group process skills, communication skills, conflict resolution skills and
very often skills in counselling. These skills are not innate but can be developed through formal training and
through critical reflection on one's own experience. Anyone who undertakes debriefing episodes without a
basic grasp of these skills, or without immediately available skills support from someone else, is placing
himself or herself and other participants at risk. As with other skills, however, successful experience in using

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
debriefing skills generates confidence. The level of confidence of a group leader is often reflected in his or
her debriefing style. (Pearson & Smith, 1985)
A number of ways are available to help improve your debriefing skills. One exercise that can be helpful is to
include a question about participants’ thoughts on their debriefing – a kind of meta-debriefing. You can include
such a question in your group debriefing form (see examples in the Appendix), ask it after verbally or include
it in portfolio instructions. A minor drawback of including such a step is that it can lengthen the whole process
if done at the end of the debrief. It is easier to do in a train-the-trainer workshop than in a university course. In
a workshop on debriefing, meta-debriefing should be built into the workshop structure. Co-debriefing is a great

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

way to learn (see elsewhere in the Chapter). Attending workshops on debriefing; running a workshop on
debriefing is probably even more instructive! Some of the techniques for debriefing (e.g., video recording) can
also be used in debrief skills training. I would like to think that this chapter might also help and also the works
cited in the Bibliography.
g. Research
Much research has been conducted on the effectiveness (or otherwise) of simulation/gaming in general and on
specific games in particular (for an overview of early work, see Bredemeier & Greenblat, 1981; Randel et al.,
1992; de Caluwe et al., 2008; Hofstede et al., 2010; for more recent reviews, see Ranchhod et al., 2014; Buljac-
Samardzic et al., 2020; Hallinger et al., 2020; Kourgiantakis et al., 2020; Luctkar-Flude et al., 2021). Much of
that research tends to be somewhat inconclusive in that it does not demonstrate a massive advantage over what
one might call ‘traditional teaching methods’. More recently, Dick Teach (2018) took up the challenge in Why
is learning so difficult to measure when “playing” simulations?.
This is hardly surprising as it is like trying to compare sticky toffee pudding and ratatouille. Also, it is unfair
because it sets traditional methods as the standard to which other things must be compared and proven before
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p51

they can be admitted within the sacrosanct halls of teaching. Conservative institutions do not like being
threatened with innovation, openness, enthusiasm, play and least of all silly games.
Thus, it is games, not traditional teaching, that must prove themselves. Very few traditional chalk-and-talk
methods are ever expected to prove themselves. It is taken for granted that they work. Yes, they do work, to a
certain extent, but so do games. We gamers take it for granted that games work, but gamers are still put on the
spot and expected somehow to prove that they work, whereas traditional teachers are rarely asked to prove that
their classes work. Apart from the thorny issue that, scientifically speaking, no researcher can ever ‘prove’ that
this or that educational method works or works better or best. All that science can do is to indicate levels of
confidence and probabilities of this or that method working to a certain extent, usually hedged with limitations
in each piece of research, which in the end lead to a rather patchy picture of what educational research can tell
us about the effectiveness of this and that method. In addition, the kinds of things that game participants learn
(e.g., teamwork, collaborative writing, leadership, understanding complexity, intercultural communication) is
more elusive and less amenable to classic educational research than the content of standard teacher-controlled
classes.
Despite such misgivings, I would like to suggest that research on the effectiveness of games can do better than
it has done so far. One powerful way forward is, yes, to include full and proper debriefing in simulation/gaming
research programmes. If we accept as axiomatic that (almost) all simulation/games must include substantial
and properly-facilitated debriefing for the full learning potential of a game to be realized, then it makes no sense
at all to attempt to show that a simulation/game is effective in helping learners reach certain learning goals if
proper debriefing has not been built into the simulation and executed in such a way as to maximise learning.
In research articles on the effectiveness of simulation, little attention is paid to debriefing. With few exceptions,
such as research conducted by Toshiko Kikkawa, Willy Kriz, Dick Teach and others, the usual fair is to say

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
something like “at the end of the simulation, students were debriefed”, with nothing more about how the
debriefing was accomplished. In addition, the above phrase “students were debriefed” smacks of a teacher-
centred approach, in which the teacher did the debrief to the students, rather than the participants being allowed
to discover, realize and fulfil their own learning, learning that belongs to them. It would show much greater
respect, to the simulation/game research community and to the learners who give us their data, if we include
debriefing – the place where learning happens – in our research paradigms and procedures. As long as we tuck
debriefing away into a small corner, or simply forget about it, rather than holding it as more important for
learning even that the game, we are unlikely to be able to show that simulation/gaming/debriefing works and

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

works well. It is probably in the area of medical simulation research that the greatest strides in debriefing
research have been made, with initial impetus by Fanning and Gaba’s (2007) well-cited article. Game
practitioners and researchers should look at this body of research, some of which is listed in the Bibliography.
A good place to start is Roungas et al. (2018).
To summarize the How of doing research in simulation/gaming/debriefing, we should, nay, must:
o Acknowledge debriefing as the main fount of learning in most simulation/gaming.
o Include properly designed and facilitated debriefing in any research programme.
o Decide on whether the debriefing paradigm is participant centred or teacher focused, and account
explicitly and fully for this in the research report.
o Give a full account of the debriefing materials and methods in any research report or article, so that the
research can be better understood and replicated.
o Build into research instruments questions about the debriefing as a process, thus providing an idea of
how the debriefing was experienced by participants.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p52

o Put pressure on journals, especially simulation/gaming journals, to require this kind of rigour in
effectiveness and related studies.
In addition, it is important to conduct research specifically into debriefing, its effect, comparing a variety of
debriefing types (including no debriefing), its effectiveness and so on. Several years ago, in one of my articles
(Appendix in Crookall, 2010), I suggested a research structure that might achieve this. My suggestion has
largely been ignored, including by myself. It is time for rigorous research to be conducted into debriefing itself
– beyond the medical arena.

Conclusion
The following words (Pearson & Smith, 1985), written nearly 40 years ago, are just as true and powerful today
as they were when they were written.
Debriefing is neither simple nor easy. Effective debriefing relies upon the development of a range of
specialized skills. These skills, particularly interpersonal and interventionist skills and the skill of timing,
may be developed through deliberate training and are refined through experience; such skills cannot be learnt
by reading this or any other chapter. The only way to learn to debrief is by doing it, and by watching others
doing it with an attitude of deliberate and critical reflection.
Reflection lies at the core of experience-based learning. Without it, experiences may remain as experiences
and the full potential for learning by the participant may not be realized. If debriefing, or some other form
of reflective activity, is absent from a programme of experience-based learning, serious questions can be
raised concerning that programme's validity and claim to be based in experiential learning. However,
ineffective or superficial debriefing may be even worse than no debriefing at all. Effective debriefing
depends in part on:

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
1. A positive commitment to the importance of debriefing and its central role in experience-based
learning.
2. The deliberate planning, in any experience-based learning activity, for an adequate opportunity for
debriefing to occur.
3. A realization that effective debriefing depends upon a high level of facilitatory skill and a
determination by those who facilitate debriefing to either possess, or develop these skills.
4. The establishment of clear intentions, objectives and purposes for activities which are conveyed to
participants during the briefing phase and which, with the debriefing, form the framework within

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

which the activities take place.
5. The identification of the ways of knowing and types of knowledge which any experience represents
and the establishment of appropriate context, structures and relationships in which any debriefing
process will take place.
6. The establishment of a debriefing environment based upon trust, acceptance, willingness to take
risks and the mutual respect of individuals' feelings, perceptions and theories.
If these simple but essential rules are followed and supported by a skilful and sensitive group leader, then
debriefing, which as a form of reflection, is the key to successful experience-based learning [and] can be
highly effective.
One of the loveliest and most dedicated people in simulation and debriefing was the late Barbara Steinwachs.
If I had to choose just one person to debrief me, it would be her; an editorial about her will tell you why (Crookall
et al., 2004). I suggest that you grab a copy of her wonderful 1992 article, titled How to facilitate a debriefing.
Her guidance there will considerably enrich what you might have found in this chapter. Many other documents,
such as Deason et al., (2013) and Alklind Taylor et al., (2014), will provide some useful, practical guidance,
some of which are included in the Bibliography (below).
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p53

This chapter has sought to provide an overview of debriefing mostly for learning simulation/games and to
provide some nitty-gritty advice on a range of aspects related to debriefing, such as where it can take place, to
whom it belongs, when and how many debriefs, why debrief, how to debrief, including how to sequence a series
of games and debriefs as the back bone of a semester course. It has also provided some instruments, such as
debrief forms, that you can copy, adapt and use for your own games.
Now that you have read about debriefing, the next step, is to go out and do it. Just as you can only learn to ride
a bicycle by getting on and doing it, the only way to learn to debrief is to do it. If you are still nervous about it,
ask your student-participants for help. Tell them that you have not debriefed the game before and that you are
still learning and would they like to experiment along with you, see Box 14. Above all, do not let yourself be
browbeaten into reducing your debriefing because some arrogant know-all tries to discourage you, often because
they are afraid of the power of games and debriefing and also of your skill in being able to facilitate them.

It is easier to ask students to help than you might think. Generally, students are game for experimenting new ideas in
the classroom. You just have to ask. One of the times that this happened was for me was for a Masters level class at
PennState, a top American, university. It resulted in one of my best simulations. Normally, one is supposed to give in
one’s syllabus months before the class starts. I had not submitted any syllabus, which severely annoyed the university
authorities. Walking down to my first class, feeling a bit scared as I still did not know what I was going to do, I suddenly
hit on the idea of a semester-long simulation on the very topic of the class, pedagogical materials design. On entering
the classroom, I explained the above to them and asked if they were game for exploring a new type of class with me,
which might or might not be successful. They all seemed keen on the idea, despite the uncertainty – maybe because they
had been bored with the usual fare of chalk and talk in their other classes. During the semester, students made useful
suggestions as the simulation unfolded.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
At the end of the semester, one student said to me, with the whole class to hear, “You know, I am proud of what I have
done” – and that has stayed with me ever since. She had indeed much to be proud of; she had made a huge folder, full
of excellent pedagogical materials, all original and creative, ones that her future students would be glad to use. A chalk
and talk class would never have resulted in that!
In a subsequent university, I ran a similar (and better) simulation. Some of the students presented their work at an
international conference, and were approached by a school and a publishing company, which wanted to buy their
materials. Now that is a feather in any student’s learning cap. The students accomplished all that, not because I taught
them, but because they were participants in their own simulation and debriefing. More on that in Crookall (1990, 1991).

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Box 14. Asking students to help.

Chances are that you will learn together with your learners, that your relationship will strengthen and that their
self-confidence will be given a boost. It is also interesting to conduct an informal debrief of your joint learning
together. If, in this whole-class debrief, you are more numerous than can be accommodated in a one group (e.g.,
more than about 20 people), then try using the fish bowl technique – I leave you to find out about that – I have
found it to be very effective.
Let me finish with two interesting quotes; one insightful, the other thoughtful – I invite you to debrief in your
mind to decide which is which.
A debriefing friend, Stephan Rometsch, at the end of an ISAGA workshop on debriefing, came to me
and said some-thing like: “A game is like a tasty meal in your mouth. The debriefing is digesting and
absorbing nutrition.” Remember his comment when you run your event and debrief it. One might say
that debriefing avoids indigestion and keeps one healthy – both your participants and you!
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p54

I have three possible authors, Bill Bullard, George Eliot and Plato, for the second quote (if you find
which one it is, please let me know): “The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to
suspend our egos and live in another’s world”.
Finally, every time that you run a simulation/game, ask yourself if have designed a full and proper debrief,
adapted to the learner and to the learning goals. Also, ask yourself whether your debrief will be centred on the
participants themselves.

Bibliography
Not all the references below have been cited in the chapter. Some extra ones have been inserted below to help
you pursue this area further. It is also likely that some references that should have been mentioned are missing.
I ask their authors for forgiveness, and to send me a link to an open access source, and failing that, to send me
the missing document (pdf preferred).

Aarkrog, V. (2019). ‘The mannequin is more lifelike’: The significance of fidelity for students’ learning in simulation-
based training in the social- and healthcare programmes. Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.19921
Abulebda, K., Auerbach, M., & Limaiem, F. (2021). Debriefing Techniques Utilized in Medical Simulation. In StatPearls.
StatPearls Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546660/
Airbus. (n.d.). Airbus Training Center Europe celebrates the certification of a new A350 Full Flight Simulator | Airbus
Aircraft. Retrieved 4 December 2021, from https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2021-10-airbus-training-
center-europe-celebrates-the-certification-of-a-new-a350-full
Alklind Taylor, A.-S., Backlund, P., Rambusch, J., Linderoth, J., Forskningscentrum für Informationsteknologi, &
Interaction Lab. (2014). Facilitation matters: A framework for instructor-led serious gaming. University of Skovde.
Angelini, M. L. (2021). Learning through Simulations: Ideas for Educational Practitioners. SpringerBriefs in Education. In

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65540-2
Angelini, M. L. (2022). Simulation in teacher education. In Simulaition. Springer.
Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (3rd ed). Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (1997). In Conversation: Transforming Experience into Learning. Simulation &
Gaming, 28(1), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878197281002
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1995). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prenctice Hall.
Bandura, A. (2012). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Baudelaire, C. (1857). Les Fleurs du mal. Poulet-Malassis et De Broise; Éditions Gallimard.
Becu, N. (2020). Les courants d’influence et la pratique de la simulation participative: Contours, design et contributions

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

aux changements sociétaux et organisationnels dans les territoires. Géographie. La Rochelle Université.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.
Penguin.
Blair, B., Müller, M., Palerme, C., Blair, R., Crookall, D., Knol-Kauffman, M., & Lamers, M. (2022). Coproducing Sea
Ice Predictions with Stakeholders Using Simulation. Weather, Climate, and Society, 14(2), 399–413.
https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0048.1
Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals. NY, David McKay.
Bommel, P. (2020). Participatory modelling and interactive simulation to support the management of the commons
[University of Montpellier]. http://agents.cirad.fr/pjjimg/pierre.bommel@cirad.fr/HDR_dissertation_EN.pdf
Bredemeier, M. E., & Greenblat, C. S. (1981). The Educational Effectiveness of Simulation Games: A Synthesis of
Findings. Simulation & Games, 12(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687818101200304
Brett-Fleegler, M., Rudolph, J., Eppich, W., Monuteaux, M., Fleegler, E., Cheng, A., & Simon, R. (2012). Debriefing
Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare: Development and Psychometric Properties. Simulation in Healthcare: The
Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 7(5), 288–294. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182620228
Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education. Harvard University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10313833
Buljac-Samardzic, M., Doekhie, K. D., & van Wijngaarden, J. D. H. (2020). Interventions to improve team effectiveness
within health care: A systematic review of the past decade. Human Resources for Health, 18(1), 2.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-019-0411-3
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p55

Buxton, M., Phillippi, J. C., & Collins, M. R. (2015). Simulation: A New Approach to Teaching Ethics. Journal of
Midwifery & Women’s Health, 60(1), 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12185
Caluwé, L. de, Hofstede, G. J., & Peters, V. (2008). Why do games work?: In search of the active substance. Kluwer.
Cannon, H. M., Friesen, D. P., Lawrence, S. J., & Feinstein, A. H. (2009). The Simplicity Paradox: Another Look at
Complexity in Design of Simulations and Experiential Exercises. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential
Learning, 36, 243–250.
Center for Medical Simulation. (2022). Le guide d’évaluation du débriefing pour la simulation en santé.
https://harvardmedsim.org/debriefing-assessment-for-simulation-in-healthcare-dash-french/
Cheng, A., Grant, V., Huffman, J., Burgess, G., Szyld, D., Robinson, T., & Eppich, W. (2017). Coaching the Debriefer:
Peer Coaching to Improve Debriefing Quality in Simulation Programs. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the
Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 12(5), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000232
Cheng, A., Morse, K. J., Rudolph, J., Arab, A. A., Runnacles, J., & Eppich, W. (2016). Learner-Centered Debriefing for
Health Care Simulation Education: Lessons for Faculty Development. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the
Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 11(1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000136
Cheng, A., Palaganas, J., Eppich, W., Rudolph, J., Robinson, T., & Grant, V. (2015). Co-debriefing for Simulation-based
Education: A Primer for Facilitators. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in
Healthcare, 10(2), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000077
Chomsky, N., & Macedo, D. P. (2000). Chomsky on miseducation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Chomsky, N., & Otero, C. P. (2003). Chomsky on democracy & education. Routledge Falmer.
Christopher, E. M., & Smith, L. E. (1987). Leadership training through gaming. Kogan Page.
Clapper, T. C. (2010). Beyond Knowles: What Those Conducting Simulation Need to Know About Adult Learning Theory.
Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 6(1), e7–e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2009.07.003
Clapper, T. C. (2011). Interference in Learning: What Curriculum Developers Need to Know. Clinical Simulation in
Nursing, 7(3), e77–e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2010.08.001
Clapper, T. C. (2014). Situational Interest and Instructional Design: A Guide for Simulation Facilitators. Simulation &
Gaming, 45(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878113518482
Clapper, T. C. (2015). Cooperative-Based Learning and the Zone of Proximal Development. Simulation & Gaming, 46(2),
148–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878115569044
Coggins, A., Hong, S. S., Baliga, K., & Halamek, L. P. (2022). Immediate faculty feedback using debriefing timing data

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
and conversational diagrams. Advances in Simulation, 7(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00203-6
Collomp, R. (n.d.). La simulation et Pharmacie clinique.
Collomp, R., Collomp, T., Decaudin, B., Genay, S., Muller, K., & Orloff, M. (2020). Atelier Simulation et Pharmacie
Clinique. 29.
Crookall, D. (1990). Task-based teacher training: CO-MADE (COperative MAterials DEvelopment). Papers in
Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 83–106.
Crookall, D. (1991). Experiential teacher education: A case study in TESOL. Simulaztion/Games for Learning, 21(1).
Crookall, D. (1992). Editorial: Debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 141–142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232001
Crookall, D. (2010a). Le débriefing, clé du processus d’apprentissage dans les pédagogies ludiques. Actualité de la

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Formation Permanente, 224–225, 21–24.
Crookall, D. (2010b). Serious Games, Debriefing, and Simulation/Gaming as a Discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6),
898–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110390784
Crookall, D. (2014). Engaging (in) Gameplay and (in) Debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 45(4–5), 416–427.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114559879
Crookall, D., & Arai, K. (Eds.). (1992). Global Interdependence. Springer Japan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-
68189-2
Crookall, D., & Oxford, R. L. (Eds.). (1990). Simulation, gaming, and language learning. Newbury House Publishers.
Crookall, D., Oxford, R., & Saunders, D. (1987). Towards a Reconceptualization of Simulation: From Representation to
Reality. Simulation/Games for Learning, 17, 147–171.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284024653_Towards_a_Reconceptualization_of_Simulation_From_Repres
entation_to_Reality
Crookall, D., & Promduangsri, P. (2018). Learning from geoscience games through debriefing. Geophysical Research
Abstracts, 20, EGU2018-4991. https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2018/EGU2018-4991.pdf
Crookall, D., Promduangsri, P., & Promduangsri, P. (2019). Common pool resource dilemma games: An overview.
Geophysical Research Abstracts, 21, EGU2019-4391–1, 2019, 1.
Crookall, D., & Saunders, D. (Eds.). (1989). Communication and Simulation: From Two Fields to One Theme.
Multilingual Matters.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p56

Crookall, D., Steinwachs, B., & at al. (2004). Editorial: Thank you, Barbara. Simulation & Gaming, 35(3), 325–339.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878104267078
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Applications of flow in human development and education. Springer.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2016). Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. Springer.
de Caluwe, L., Hofstede, G. J., & Peters, V. (2008). Why do games work? In search of the active substance.
de Wijse-van Heeswijk, M. (2021). Ethics and the Simulation Facilitator: Taking your Professional Role Seriously.
Simulation & Gaming, 52(3), 312–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781211015707
de Wijse-van Heeswijk, M., & Leigh, E. (2022). Ethics and Simulation Games in a Cultural Context: Why Should We
Bother? And What Can We Learn? In T. Kikkawa, W. C. Kriz, & J. Sugiura (Eds.), Gaming as a Cultural Commons:
Risks, Challenges, and Opportunities (pp. 149–167). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0348-9_9
Deason, E. E., Efron, Y., Howell, R. W., Kaufman, S., Lee, J., & Press, S. (2013). Debriefing the Debrief. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2251940
Decaudin, B., & Crookall, D. (2015). Experiential learning in pharmacotherapy implementation: Focus on debriefing.
Decker, S., Alinier, G., Crawford, S. B., Gordon, R. M., Jenkins, D., & Wilson, C. (2021). Healthcare Simulation Standards
of Best PracticeTM The Debriefing Process. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58, 27–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.011
Dennehy, R. F., Sims, R. R., & Collins, H. E. (1998). Debriefing Experiential Learning Exercises: A Theoretical and
Practical Guide for Success. Journal of Management Education, 22(1), 9–25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299802200102
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Duke Classics.
https://www.overdrive.com/search?q=03E71CA9-F02A-421B-902C-38AAFA6DD587
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Free Press.
Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., Jessel, J.-P., & Rampnoux, O. (2011). Origins of Serious Games. In M. Ma, A. Oikonomou, & L.
C. Jain (Eds.), Serious Games and Edutainment Applications (pp. 25–43). Springer London.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2161-9_3
Dragonas, T., Gergen, K. J., McNamee, S., & Tseliou, E. (2015a). Education as Social Construction: An Introduction. In
Education as Social Construction: Contributions to Theory, Research and Practice.
Dragonas, T., Gergen, K. J., McNamee, S., & Tseliou, E. (Eds.). (2015b). Education as Social Construction: Contributions
to Theory, Research and Practice. Taos Institute Publications.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Dreifuerst, K. (2015). Getting Started With Debriefing for Meaningful Learning. Undefined.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Getting-Started-With-Debriefing-for-Meaningful-
Dreifuerst/3037be1db778f8f0de5c13b8aa33e3253892f615
Dufrene, C., & Young, A. (2014). Successful debriefing — Best methods to achieve positive learning outcomes: A
literature review. Nurse Education Today, 34(3), 372–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.06.026
Duke, R. D. (1974). Gaming: The Future’s Language. Sage; WBV.
Duke, R. D. (2011). Origin and Evolution of Policy Simulation: A Personal Journey. Simulation & Gaming, 42(3), 342–
358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110367570
Duke, R. D., & Kriz, W. C. (Eds.). (2014). Back to the Future of Gaming. W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
http://site.ebrary.com/id/11058796

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Étienne, M. (Ed.). (2014). Companion Modelling. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8557-0
Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007). The Role of Debriefing in Simulation-Based Learning. Simulation in Healthcare:
The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2(2), 115–125.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539
Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing words: Theory and practice of dialogic learning. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
https://archive.org/details/sharingwordstheo0000flec
Francis, D. (1989). Game Identities and Activities: Some Ethnomethodological Observations. In D. Crookall & D.
Saunders (Eds.), Communication and Simulation: From Two Fields to One Theme. Multilingual Matters.
Freire, P., & Freire, A. M. A. (2021). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Bloomsbury.
https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350190238?locatt=label:secondary_bloomsburyCollections
Freire, P., Ramos, M. B., Macedo, D. P., & Shor, I. (2020). Pedagogy of the oppressed.
Games for change. (2021). Games For Change. Games For Change. https://www.gamesforchange.org/who-we-are/about-
us/
García-Carbonell, A., Andreu-Andrés, M. Á., & Watts, F. (2014). Simulation and Gaming as the future’s language of
language learning and acquisition of professional competences. In W. C. Kriz & R. D. Duke (Eds.), Back to the Future
of Gaming (p. 23).
García-Carbonell, A., Watts, F., & Montero, B. (2004). Learning communities in simulation and gaming. In W. C. Kriz &
T. Eberle (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Transforming knowledge into action through gaming and simulation: ISAGA,
SAGSAGA Conference Munich 2004 (pp. 254–262). SAGSAGA.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p57

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. BasicBooks.

Gardner, R. (2013). Introduction to debriefing. Seminars in Perinatology, 37(3), 166–174.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2013.02.008
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, Motivation, and Learning: A Research and Practice Model.
Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607
Giles, H. (Ed.). (n.d.). Journal of Language and Social Psychology. https://journals.sagepub.com/description/JLS
Goldsworthy, S., Goodhand, K., Baron, S., Button, D., Hunter, S., McNeill, L., Budden, F., McIntosh, A., Kay, C., &
Fasken, L. (2022). Co-debriefing Virtual Simulations: An International Perspective. Clinical Simulation in Nursing,
63, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.10.007
Goodman, F. L. (1995). Practice in Theory. Simulation & Gaming, 26(2), 178–190.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878195262005
Greenblat, C. S., & Duke, R. D. (1981). Principles and Practices of Gaming-Simulation. Sage Publications.
Guetzkow, H. (1995). Recollections about the Inter-Nation Simulation (INS) and Some Derivatives in Global Modeling.
Simulation & Gaming, 26(4), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878195264007
Gum, L., Greenhill, J., & Dix, K. (2011). Sim TRACTTM: A Reflective Conceptual Framework for Simulation Debriefing.
Journal of Transformative Education, 9(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344611428470
Hall, J. (2011). Reality is Broken, book review. The Independent on Sunday.
https://www.textualhealing.co.uk/2011/01/30/reality-is-broken/
Hallinger, P., Wang, R., Chatpinyakoop, C., Nguyen, V.-T., & Nguyen, U.-P. (2020). A bibliometric review of research
on simulations and serious games used in educating for sustainability, 1997–2019. Journal of Cleaner Production,
256, 120358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120358
Harviainen, J. T. (2014). Critical Challenges to Gamifying Education: A Review of Central Concepts. Proceedings of the
Game On! Conference, 9.
Harviainen, J. T., Lainema, T., & Saarinen, E. (2014). Player-reported Impediments to Game-based Learning. Transactions
of the Digital Games Research Association, 1(2), Article 2. http://todigra.org/index.php/todigra/article/view/14
Hiemstra, R., & Brockett, R. (2020). Self-Direction in Adult Learning: Perspectives on theory, research and practice.
Routledge.
Hill, J. L., & Lance, C. G. (2002). Debriefing Stress. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 490–503.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238613

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Hofstede, G. J., de Caluwé, L., & Peters, V. (2010). Why Simulation Games Work-In Search of the Active Substance: A
Synthesis. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 824–843. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110375596
Holec, H. (1981a). Autonomie dans l’apprentissage et apprentissage de l’autonomie. Didier Erudition.
Holec, H. (1981b). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon.
Holec, H. (1988). Autonomy and self-directed learning: Present fields of application. Council for Cultural Co-operation.
Hunsaker, P. L. (1978). DEBRIEFING: THE KEY TO EFFECTIVE EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING. Exploring
Experiential Learning: Simulations and Experiential Exercises, 5, 2.
Illeris, K. (2018). Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists ... in their own words. Routledge.
INACSL Standards Committee. (2016). INACSL Standards of Best Practice: SimulationSM Debriefing. Clinical
Simulation in Nursing, 12, S21–S25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.09.008

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Jacobs, G. M., & Crookes, G. (2022). Becoming community-engaged educators: Engaging students within and beyond the
classroom walls. Springer.
Jacobs, G. M., & Kimura, H. (2013). Cooperative Learning and Teaching. TESOL Press.
Jeffrey Earp, Donatella Persico, Francesca Maria Dagnino, Marcello Passarelli, Flavio & Manganello, Francesca Pozzi.
(2018). Ethical Issues in Gaming: A Literature Review.
Johnson, A. P. (2022). The human dimension in education: Essential learning theories and their impact on teaching and
learning. Rowman & Littlefield.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic
learning. Prentice-Hall.
Jones, K. (1998). Jones, K. (1998). Interactive Learning Events: A Guide for Facilitators. Kogan Page.
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we work: Seven languages for transformation
(1st ed). Jossey-Bass.
Kikkawa, T., Kriz, W. C., & Sugiura, J. (2021). Differences Between Facilitator-Guided and Self-guided Debriefing on
the Attitudes of University Students. In M. Wardaszko, S. Meijer, H. Lukosch, H. Kanegae, W. C. Kriz, & M.
Grzybowska-Brzezińska (Eds.), Simulation Gaming Through Times and Disciplines (pp. 14–22). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72132-9_2
Kikkawa, T., Sugiura, J., & Kriz, W. C. (2018). The Effects of Debriefing on the Performance and Attitude of Japanese
University Students. In H. K. Lukosch, G. Bekebrede, & R. Kortmann (Eds.), Simulation Gaming. Applications for
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p58

Sustainable Cities and Smart Infrastructures (Vol. 10825, pp. 173–180). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91902-7_17
Kim, Y. Y. (2000). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Sage.
Kirylo, J. D. (Ed.). (2013). A Critical Pedagogy of Resistance. Sense Publishers.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2009). The Magic Circle: Principles of Gaming & Simulation. Sense.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789087903107
Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2013). Kolb learning style inventory. HayGroup.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The Learning Way: Meta-cognitive Aspects of Experiential Learning. Simulation &
Gaming, 40(3), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108325713
Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Second edition). Pearson
Education, Inc.
Kortmann, R., & Peters, V. (2021). Becoming the Unseen Helmsman—Game facilitator competencies for novice,
experienced, and non-game facilitators. Simulation & Gaming, 52(3), 255–272.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781211020792
Kourgiantakis, T., Sewell, K. M., Hu, R., Logan, J., & Bogo, M. (2020). Simulation in Social Work Education: A Scoping
Review. Research on Social Work Practice, 30(4), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731519885015
Kramer, A. (2013). Great gluten-free vegan eats from around the world. Fair Winds Press.
Kriz, W. (Ed.). (2014). The Shift from Teaching to Learning: Individual, Collective and Organizational Learning Through
Gaming Simulation.
Kriz, W. C. (2003). Creating Effective Learning Environments and Learning Organizations through Gaming Simulation
Design. Simulation & Gaming, 34(4), 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878103258201
Kriz, W. C. (2010). A Systemic-Constructivist Approach to the Facilitation and Debriefing of Simulations and Games.
Simulation & Gaming, 41(5), 663–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108319867
Kriz, W. C., & Duke, R. D. (2014). Back to the future of gaming. WBV.
Krogh, K., Bearman, M., & Nestel, D. (2015). Expert Practice of Video-Assisted Debriefing: An Australian Qualitative
Study. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 11(3), 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.01.003
Krogh, K., Bearman, M., & Nestel, D. (2016). “Thinking on your feet”—A qualitative study of debriefing practice.
Advances in Simulation, 1(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-016-0011-4
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Le Page, C., Dray, A., Perez, P., & Garcia, C. (2014). Can Communication Save The Commons? Lessons From Repeated
Role-Playing Game Sessions. ETH-Zurich.
Le Page, C., Dray, A., Perez, P., & Garcia, C. (2016). Exploring How Knowledge and Communication Influence Natural
Resources Management With ReHab. Simulation & Gaming, 47(2), 257–284.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878116632900
Le Page, Christophe; Anne Dray; Pascal Perez; Claude Garcia. (2014). Can Communication Save The Commons? Lessons
From Repeated Role–Playing Game Sessions: Vol. in Kriz (2014).
Lean, J., & Moizer, J. (n.d.). Using Oral Debriefing to Assess Student Learning in a Business Simulation Game. 9.
Lederman, L. C. (1984). Debriefing: A Critical Reexamination of the Postexperience Analytic Process with Implications
for its Effective Use. Simulation & Games, 15(4), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037550084154002

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Lederman, L. C. (1992a). Debriefing: Toward a Systematic Assessment of Theory and Practice. Simulation & Gaming,
23(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232003
Lederman, L. C. (1992b). Guest Editorial: After the Game is Over. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 143–144.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232002
Leigh, E., Likhacheva, E., Tipton, E., Heeswijk, M. de W., & Zürn, B. (2021). Why Facilitation? Simulation & Gaming,
52(3), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781211016914
Leigh, E., & Spindler, L. (2004). Simulations and Games as Chaordic Learning Contexts. Simulation & Gaming, 35(1),
53–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878103252886
Lennon, J. L. (2006). Reports & communications: Debriefings of Web-based malaria games. Simulation & Gaming, 37(3),
350–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878106291661
Lennon, J. L., & Coombs, D. W. (2005). The GOOD-BYE TO DENGUE GAME: Debriefing study. Simulation & Gaming,
36(4), 499–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878105279194
Lovell-Hawker, D. (2004). Debriefing Aid Workers: A Comprehensive Manual. Oxford University.
Luctkar-Flude, M., Tyerman, J., Verkuyl, M., Goldsworthy, S., Harder, N., Wilson-Keates, B., Kruizinga, J., & Gumapac,
N. (2021). Effectiveness of Debriefing Methods for Virtual Simulation: A Systematic Review. Clinical Simulation in
Nursing, 57, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.04.009
Lyons, R., Lazzara, E. H., Benishek, L. E., Zajac, S., Gregory, M., Sonesh, S. C., & Salas, E. (2015). Enhancing the
Effectiveness of Team Debriefings in Medical Simulation: More Best Practices. The Joint Commission Journal on
Quality and Patient Safety, 41(3), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1553-7250(15)41016-5
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p59

Maley, A. (2015). Six ways of looking at context. Journal of NELTA, 20(1–2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3126/nelta.v20i1-
2.19770
Malinen, A. (2000). Towards the essence of adult experiential learning: A reading of the theories of Knowles, Kolb,
Mezirow, Revans and Schön. University of Jyväskylä.
Massoth, C., Röder, H., Ohlenburg, H., Hessler, M., Zarbock, A., Pöpping, D. M., & Wenk, M. (2019). High-fidelity is not
superior to low-fidelity simulation but leads to overconfidence in medical students. BMC Medical Education, 19(1),
29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1464-7
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Major, L. (2019). The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education.
Taylor & Francis.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning.
Jossey-Bass.
Myers, I. B. (2014). The Myers-Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Naweed, A., Wardaszko, M., Leigh, E., & Meijer, S. (Eds.). (2018). Intersections in Simulation and Gaming: 21st Annual
Simulation Technology and Training Conference, SimTecT 2016, and 47th International Simulation and Gaming
Association Conference, ISAGA 2016, Held as Part of the First Australasian Simulation Congress, ASC 2016,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia, September 26-29, 2016, Revised Selected Papers (Vol. 10711). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78795-4
Nicholson, S. (2012). Completing the Experience: Debriefing in Experiential Educational Games. 5.
Nyström, S., Dahlberg, J., Edelbring, S., Hult, H., & Abrandt Dahlgren, M. (2016). Debriefing practices in interprofessional
simulation with students: A sociomaterial perspective. BMC Medical Education, 16(1), 148.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0666-5
Oriot, D., & Alinier, G. (2018). Pocket Book for Simulation Debriefing in Healthcare. Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59882-6
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House Publisher.
Pearson, M., & Smith, D. (1985). Debriefing in Experience-based Learning. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.),
Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Kogan Page [u.a.].
Pedersen, P. (1995). Simulations: A Safe Place to Take Risks in Discussing Cultural Differences. Simulation & Gaming,
26(2), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878195262007
Peters, V. A. M., & Vissers, G. A. N. (2004). A Simple Classification Model for Debriefing Simulation Games. Simulation

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
& Gaming, 35(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878103253719
Peters, V., Vissers, G., & Heijne, G. (1998). The Validity of Games. Simulation & Gaming, 29(1), 20–30.
Petranek, C. (1994). A Maturation in Experiential Learning: Principles of Simulation and Gaming. Simulation & Gaming,
25(4), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878194254008
Petranek, C. F. (2000). Written Debriefing: The Next Vital Step in Learning with Simulations. Simulation & Gaming,
31(1), 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687810003100111
Phillips, D. C. (Ed.). (2014). Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy. SAGE Reference.
Postman, N., & Weingartner, C. (1969). Teaching as a subversive activity. Penguin.
Powers, R. B. (1992). The NEW COMMONS GAME. In D. Crookall & K. Arai (Eds.), Global Interdependence. Springer
Japan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-68189-2

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Powers, R. B. (2014). How I Became Addicted to Simulations and Games. Simulation & Gaming, 45(1), 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878113501834
Pritchard, A. (2018). Ways of learning: Learning theories for the classroom. Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Pulsford, D. (1993). The reluctant participant in experiential learning. Nurse Education Today, 13(2), 139–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0260-6917(93)90031-V
Ranchhod, A., Gurău, C., Loukis, E., & Trivedi, R. (2014). Evaluating the educational effectiveness of simulation games:
A value generation model. Information Sciences, 264, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.09.008
Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The Effectiveness of Games for Educational
Purposes: A Review of Recent Research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261–276.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192233001
Reed, S. J., Andrews, C. M., & Ravert, P. (2013). Debriefing Simulations: Comparison of Debriefing with Video and
Debriefing Alone. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 9(12), e585–e591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2013.05.007
Reyes, D. L., Tannenbaum, S., & Salas, E. (2018). Team Development: The Power of Debriefing.
https://www.shrm.org/executive/resources/people-strategy-journal/Spring2018/Pages/debriefing.aspx
Roungas, B., de Wijse, M., Meijer, S., & Verbraeck, A. (2018). Pitfalls for Debriefing Games and Simulations: Theory
and Practice. In A. Naweed, M. Wardaszko, E. Leigh, & S. Meijer (Eds.), Intersections in Simulation and Gaming (pp.
101–115). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78795-4_8
Roungas, B., Meijer, S., & Verbraeck, A. (2021). The Tacit Knowledge in Games: From Validation to Debriefing. In M.
Wardaszko, S. Meijer, H. Lukosch, H. Kanegae, W. C. Kriz, & M. Grzybowska-Brzezińska (Eds.), Simulation Gaming
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p60

Through Times and Disciplines (pp. 74–83). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
72132-9_7
Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., Dufresne, R. L., & Raemer, D. B. (2006). Thereʼs No Such Thing as “Nonjudgmental”
Debriefing: A Theory and Method for Debriefing with Good Judgment: Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the
Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 1(1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/01266021-200600110-00006
Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., Rivard, P., Dufresne, R. L., & Raemer, D. B. (2007). Debriefing with Good Judgment:
Combining Rigorous Feedback with Genuine Inquiry. Anesthesiology Clinics, 25(2), 361–376.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anclin.2007.03.007
Runnacles, J., Thomas, L., Sevdalis, N., Kneebone, R., & Arora, S. (2014). Development of a tool to improve performance
debriefing and learning: The paediatric Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD) tool. Postgraduate
Medical Journal, 90(1069), 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2012-131676
Salas, E., Klein, C., King, H., Salisbury, M., Augenstein, J. S., Birnbach, D. J., Robinson, D. W., & Upshaw, C. (2008).
Debriefing Medical Teams: 12 Evidence-Based Best Practices and Tips. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality
and Patient Safety, 34(9), 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1553-7250(08)34066-5
Saunders, D. (1985). Reluctant participants in role play situations: Stage fright or bewilderment? Simulation/Games for
Learning, 15(1, March), 3–15.
Sawyer, T., Eppich, W., Brett-Fleegler, M., Grant, V., & Cheng, A. (2016). More Than One Way to Debrief: A Critical
Review of Healthcare Simulation Debriefing Methods. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for
Simulation in Healthcare, 11(3), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000148
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1990). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the
professions. Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective.
Schwägele, S., Zürn, B., Lukosch, H. K., & Freese, M. (2021). Design of an Impulse-Debriefing-Spiral for Simulation
Game Facilitation. Simulation & Gaming, 52(3), 364–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781211006752
Schwartz. (2002). Assumptions Underlying Experiential Exercises.
Schwartz, M. (2012). Best Practices in Experiential Learning. Ryerson University, CA.
Sellberg, C., & Wiig, A. C. (2020). Telling Stories from the Sea: Facilitating Professional Learning in Maritime Post-
Simulation Debriefings. Vocations and Learning, 13(3), 527–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09250-4

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Sharrock, W. W., & Watson, D. R. (1985). ‘Reality construction’ in L2 simulations. System, 13(3), 195–206.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(85)90033-8
Simon, R., Raemer, D. B., & Rudolph, J. W. (2010). Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH)© Rater’s
Handbook. Center for Medical Simulation. https://harvardmedsim.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/DASH.handbook.2010.Final.Rev.2.pdf
Sjöblom, B. (2006). To do what we usually do: An ethnomethodological investigation of intensive care simulations.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277851938_To_do_what_we_usually_do_An_ethnomethodological_invest
igation_of_intensive_care_simulations
Skidmore, D. D., & Murakami, K. (2016). Dialogic Pedagogy: The Importance of Dialogue in Teaching and Learning.
Multilingual Matters.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Smith, J. Z. (2022). Myth. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/myth
Steinwachs, B. (1992). How to Facilitate a Debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 186–195.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232006
Stewart, L. P. (1992). Ethical Issues in Postexperimental and Postexperiential Debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2),
196–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232007
Teach, R. (2018). Why is learning so difficult to measure when “playing” simulations? Developments in Business
Simulation and Experiential Learning, 45, 9.
Teach, R. D. (1990). Profits: The False Prophet in Business Gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 21(1), 12–26.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878190211002
Team Development: The Power of Debriefing. (2019, October 3). SHRM.
https://www.shrm.org/executive/resources/people-strategy-journal/spring2018/pages/debriefing.aspx
Thatcher, D. C. (1990). Promoting Learning through Games and Simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 21(3), 262–273.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878190213005
Thatcher, D. C., & Robinson, M. J. (1990a). Me—The Slow Learner and Some of its Implications. Simulation & Gaming,
21(3), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878190213009
Thatcher, D. C., & Robinson, M. J. (1990b). Me—The Slow Learner: Reflections Eight Years on from its Original Design.
Simulation & Gaming, 21(3), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878190213008
Thiagarajan, S. (1992). Using Games for Debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 161–173.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232004
Thiagrajan, S. (1995). Diversity Simulation Games (Amherst, Massachusetts: HRD Press, 1995), pp. 6—7. HRD Press.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p61

Tipton, E., Leigh, E., Kriz, W., & Crookall, D. (2016). The Real Learning Begins When The Game Stops. In In Simulation
and Gaming in the Network Society; Kaneda, T., Toyoda, Y., Rizzi, P., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2016; p. 473.
Ulrich, M. (1997). Links Between Experiential Learning and Simulation & Gaming. Jac Geurts, Cisca Joldersma, Ellie
Roelofs, Eds. Gaming/Simulation for Policy Development and Organizational Change, 269–275.
Universitat Politècnica de València, E. (2014). Universitat Politècnica de València. Ingeniería Del Agua, 18(1), ix.
https://doi.org/10.4995/ia.2014.3293
Upasen, R., & Thanasilp, S. (2020). Death acceptance from a Thai Buddhist perspective: A qualitative study. European
Journal of Oncology Nursing, 49, 101833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2020.101833
van Dalen, A. S. H. M., van Haperen, M., Swinkels, J. A., Grantcharov, T. P., & Schijven, M. P. (2021). Development of
a Model for Video-Assisted Postoperative Team Debriefing. Journal of Surgical Research, 257, 625–635.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.07.065
Verkuyl, M., Lapum, J. L., Hughes, M., McCulloch, T., Liu, L., Mastrilli, P., Romaniuk, D., & Betts, L. (2018). Virtual
Gaming Simulation: Exploring Self-Debriefing, Virtual Debriefing, and In-person Debriefing. Clinical Simulation in
Nursing, 20, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.04.006
Wardaszko, M. (2018). Interdisciplinary Approach to Complexity in Simulation Game Design and Implementation.
Simulation and Gaming, 49(3), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118777809
Wardaszko, M., Meijer, S., Lukosch, H., Kanegae, H., Kriz, W. C., & Grzybowska-Brzezińska, M. (Eds.). (2021).
Simulation Gaming Through Times and Disciplines: 50th International Simulation and Gaming Association
Conference, ISAGA 2019, Warsaw, Poland, August 26–30, 2019, Revised Selected Papers (Vol. 11988). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72132-9
Wegerif, R. (2022). Beyond Democracy: Education as Design for Dialogue. In LiberalDemocratic Education: A Paradigm
in Crisis (pp. 157–179). Brill mentis.
Wenger, E. (2008). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Whitton, N. (2011). Game Engagement Theory and Adult Learning. Simulation & Gaming, 42(5), 596–609.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110378587
Whitton, N., & Moseley, A. (2014). Deconstructing Engagement: Rethinking Involvement in Learning. Simulation &
Gaming, 45(4–5), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114554755
Zhang, X. C., Lee, H., Rodriguez, C., Rudner, J., & Papanagnou, D. (2018). A Novel Approach to Debriefing Medical
Simulations: The Six Thinking Hats. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2543

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Zlaugh. If you noticed a strange entry in this Bibliography, it was put their for two purposes: 1) for Stephan
Rometsch in case he notices the entry, and 2) as a literary chuckle to see if you went as far as reading the Bibliography;
if you did, congratulations – please send me an email.

Appendices
The appendices contain a number of ready-to-use materials. Some are instruments that you can use in your own
debrief. Others contain elements that may be used during the game and in the debrief, such as the spreadsheet

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

graphs produced during participation. One set of materials includes the syllabus for a whole simulation-based
course on teamwork, as well as the spreadsheet graphics and forms used for debriefing. Assessment sheets can
be short or long, used at the start or in the middle (usually short) or at the end or some while after (usually
longer). In almost all cases, participants should be able to keep their replies to themselves, that is, not required
to share them with others or the facilitator. I usually tell participants that their form is for them, that they are
under no obligation to show it to others, although they can if they wish (they usually do after a short while into
the debrief).
Of course, you will have to adapt these instruments to your own particular circumstance, and consider all the
factors and aspects discussed elsewhere in the chapter. It is particularly important to adapt your debriefing
structure and questions to your learning objectives, keeping in mind the participants’ characteristics (familiarity
with their subject matter, age, game experience, professional level, etc). Please feel free to use and adapt these
materials, but please do so with the Creative Commons Attribution, NonCommercial, ShareAlike 4.0
International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) . For more details, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p62

a. Guide for observers / debriefers

As mentioned earlier, in most of the simulations that I run, I ask a small number of people to be observers during
participation. I give them each a copy of this guide, and spend a few moments with them to make sure that they
understand at least the main ideas. I also sometimes give them a simple form to make notes during their
observation, or ask them to use blank paper.
At the start of the individual debriefing, participants work in silence and fill out an individual debriefing form
(see examples in the Appendix). During this time, observers study the form, go over their observation notes,
and sometimes consult with each other to compare notes.
The guide is one that I tend to use, but may modify for each simulation. You will obviously want to make your
own, to emphasize the aspects that you consider important. If you are running a debriefer training workshop,
one exercise that you can ask trainees to accomplish is to adapt the guide to a specific simulation or specific
circumstances, or even to develop a guide from scratch.

Guide for observers / debriefers

During the simulation you will observe. Please use the observation form (given to you by the facilitator) or your own
paper. After the simulation you will help participants to debrief.
Observer: Instructions for the gameplay session.
1. You cannot participate in any way with your group.
2. Observe mostly your group. You may also observe other groups briefly.
3. Stay away from the group; do not go too near or interfere with the participants.
4. Keep a straight face; do not show any sign of surprise, pleasure, disappointment, etc.
5. With pen and paper, take notes on visible aspects of behaviour and interactions: Who does what.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Debriefer: Guidelines for the debriefing session – after the gameplay.
a. Form a circle - round; not oval. If necessary make people move to obtain a tight round circle.
b. Using a pen, write on the group debriefing form, and summarize the group’s ideas. This is not a simple list
from everyone’s individual forms. You should summarize the collective thoughts of the group, which may
be similar to or different from their individual answers.
c. If you have limited time for the discussion, go quickly over the first questions, and spend more time on the
later questions. Keep an eye on your watch. Leave enough time to conclude. Each person should have more
or less the same time to share.
1. Start with a word of welcome. Make people feel at ease. Outline the purpose and spirit of debriefing. Then

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

invite people to share their feelings (usually the 1st question). Maintain the spirit of exploring, sharing
and learning.
2. Affirm (encourage, thank) anyone who helps (especially at the start). Help them to overcome inertia.
3. Ensure that the spirit of sharing and listening is respected.
4. Give timid people opportunities to express themselves. Ask talkative people to let others talk too.
5. No personal attacks; criticism should be formulated positively, that is, people should focus on what can be
done better next time).
6. Remain impartial at all times. Do not let yourself be involved in substance if people’s comments are
balanced and constructive. Do not allow comments that are racist or sexist, or plainly negatively prejudiced
(for example, disrespectful or intolerant of difference, especially in culture and religion).
7. Facilitate the discussion: Do lead not too openly once it has acquired its own momentum.
8. Make sure everyone who wishes to contribute can do so. Remind people to speak respectfully.
9. Avoid “yes/no” Qs. Use “why?”. Do not push people to speak against their will.
10. Do not tell participants what you think they should have learned. It is for them to say what they learned (or
would have liked learn).
11. From time to time, summarize the general sense or main points - clarify an issue before moving to another
question.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p63

Follow the structure of the group debriefing form. Encourage participants to focus on the item in question. Bring
wanderers back to the main discussion.

Box 15. Guide for observers / debriefers

Notes on the above guide. Most of the instructions should make sense to you, but beginner observers and
debriefers may not understand fully or forget them some items. For beginners, you may wish to give them a
shorter list of items. In any case, it is important to emphasize orally some of the crucial points.
Debriefers are asked to make sure that participants form a true circle. They often miss this or consider that it is
not important. So, for that instruction, I tell the whole class that forming a true circle is important so that all
participants may participate equally. On the board, I sometimes draw a circle with four dots round more or less
equidistant from each other and from the circle. I then put a dot clearly outside the circle and other dots. I then
ask if they think that that person is able to participate equally. Even when they clearly see that, you will
occasionally get a reluctant participant sitting outside facing at a tangent to the circle, and clearly not wishing
to participate. In those rare cases I go up to the group and ask them what they would like to do. I ask the
recalcitrant person if they would rather stay out of the group. I also ask the other people in the group. I explain
that it is perfectly ok, if the person wishes to stay out, but they cannot be half in as that disturbs the work of the
others. Depending on relationships, the person will decide to stay out or be convinced by the others to become
part of the fold. Usually, it is the latter. Once the hesitant person has started to participate, they forget their
resistance and take part fully. If the person decides not to participate, I then ask what they would like to do
and/or discuss options that I offer.
b. Sequence of games and debriefing for a course on teamwork

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
This was a semester course that I taught to master’s level students. The course contained short lectures, films,
gameplay classes, debriefing classes and feedback classes. Class grade was based on individual scores from
games, group scores from games, end-of-semester group portfolio (score modulated by team members). Below
are:
The sequence of classwork and out-of-class sessions, with games and debriefs feeding into each other, follows
the pattern in Figure 8. You will notice that debriefing is done entirely in class at the start, but very soon I ask
students to start in class and finish at home, and then to do it entirely at home. Some people may berate me for
not tightly controlling what the students are learning; such people forget that it is impossible to determine and

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

control what is learnt, no matter what type of classroom configuration, open and student centred or closed and
sitting in neat rows. In addition, I used a spreadsheet calculator, Figure 12, which I designed to provide
numerical and visual feedback, based on the results from each game. You will also find an individual debrief
form, Table 10Error! Reference source not found..

Table 9. Simulation & debriefing-based teamwork training: Summary of semester syllabus showing debriefing points
Week

Classwork (debriefs in bold) Out-of-class work (debriefs in bold)

My introduction to the course: Mini

lecture on using games to learn,
including the importance of debriefing,
1. Read texts on teamwork. Make notes.
grading sheets. Two mini interactive
lectures on teamwork. Class is organized
into groups (to become teams later.)
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.)
Week p64

Classwork (debriefs in bold) Out-of-class work (debriefs in bold)

Game 0 NASA Game (the main goal is

to familiarize students with what it is like Students find and prepare presentation from web-based video film on
2.
to participate in a game, and touch on teamwork (3n to 7m)
some aspects of teamwork) + debrief.
Semester teamwork project. In addition to the short in-class simulations listed above and below, students in each
of their groups participate in an out-of class simulation. In a nutshell, each group must develop a full proposal in
response to a tender to set up a government teamwork centre in a country in ASEAN (each group choses their
3. country). The proposal must include such things as location, detailed curriculums for two sets of trainees, a
budget and business plan for three years. They debrief this out of class, in a similar fashion to the in-class
simulations. From time to time, they have to report progress with a short presentation in class. On seeing how
other teams are doing, of course, rivalries develop and each team wishes to outdo the others.
Presentations on films, Q&A by students Preparation for Game 1
and teacher. Students prepare for Game 1, taking into account the feedback that
4.
Instructions given for Game 1 Replica they got from debrief of Game 0, and what they learned from mini
(incl roles, rules, constraints, etc). lectures, presentations & films
Game 1 Replica (photos &/or film)
Complete the individual debrief form.
5. Individual Debrief = start filling out an
Highlight points in texts relevant to the game experience.
Individual Debriefing Form.
Meet in groups & prepare debrief presentation for class, based on
Small Group Debrief of Game 1, using their individual and group debriefs (both structure and content), incl
6.
Group Debriefing Form (a) teamwork aspects, (b) performance items that were good and (c)
ones that need improvement
Each group presents, with Q&A and
feedback from students, then from the Preparation for Game 2
7. teacher. Students have to take into account the feedback that they got from the
Instructions given for Game 2 Towers debrief of Game 1

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
(incl roles, rules, constraints, etc)
Semester teamwork project. Groups present their work to date, with debrief (feedback) by each group on each
8.
presentation.
In their groups, meet and continue and finish group debrief.
Game 2 Towers Prepare group presentation for class, based on their individual and
9. Individual debrief of Game 2 group debriefs (both structure and content), incl (a) teamwork
Start group debrief of Game 2 aspects, (b) performance items that were good and (c) ones that need
improvement
Each group presents, with Q&A and
feedback from students, then from the Preparation for Game 3
10. teacher. Students have to take into account the feedback that they got from

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Instructions given for Game 3 Bridges debriefs of Games 1 and 2
(including roles, rules, constraints, etc.).
In their groups, meet and continue and finish group debrief.
Game 3 Bridges Prepare group two group presentation for class, based on (1) their
11. Individual debrief of Game 3 individual and group debriefs (both structure and content), incl (a)
Start group debrief of Game 3 teamwork aspects, (b) performance items that were good and (c) ones
that need improvement, and (2) their class experience.
Each team presents their debrief of
Game 3. Teams present their tenders for
12. developing a teambuilding training
centre and also present their training
centre debrief session and results.

Below is an example of one of the several forms used during the teamwork course. To save space, I have
reduced the gap between questions. When you use this, you will, of course, need to insert sufficient space after
each question to allow participants to write a few words and phrases. I typically, fill a one side of an A4 page,
which gives ample space for students to write notes. The size of the space varies from question to question. By
the time that participants get to this Towers form, they have already filled in two similar, but shorter, forms, so
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p65

students work fairly efficiently. You will notice that Question 8 askes them about progress since the last
simulation (and debriefing).

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.
Figure 12. Example of my spreadsheet calculator for teamwork simulation

Participants fill out this form after the pause at the end of the simulation. The debrief is in two main movements.
First, participants fill out the individual form below in silence. In the second movement, after they come
together in small groups, either they or only the debriefer gets a similar group form to take notes about the group
discussion.

Table 10. Individual debrief form (for Towers)

Debriefing TOWERS : Individual work
Work alone & in silence. Use a few key words or phrases - no long sentences
1. What were your feelings during the activity (excited, frustrated, happy, angry, achievement, belonging)?

2. What are your feelings now?

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p66

3. What events happened during the activity? Facts, behaviours, interactions.

4. What attitudes and non-verbal signals did you and your teammates have?

5. What explanations do you have for the events (facts, behaviours, attitudes, etc) in 3 & 4?.

6. Based on this experience, what are the differences & similarities between your activity and the "real
world". Examples: distribution of tasks, communication patterns, attitudes, initiative, trust, listening, conflict of
interests, arguments, winning/loosing, change, goals, sharing, etc.
7.
8. Teamwork: Based on this experience, what are the important elements of
teamwork (versus individual work or group work)?

9. Progress: What things do you feel have improved in this TOWERS experience over and above the things that you
learned in the previous experience REPLICA?

10. The future: What will you as an individual do better next time?

11. What should your team do better next time?

c. Debrief form for a short cross-cultural game

This is an example of a form that I have used for a short cross-cultural game. The form takes up one A4 size
page and contains space both for the silent thinking back and for making notes after the debrief.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Table 11. Debriefing form for a short cross-cultural interaction game
Form to help you debrief your experience in the cross-cultural encounter game
Use this feedback form to make brief notes on your feelings and thoughts about your experience in the simulation. This
form is private and you will not be asked to show it. You do not have to share with others what you write here, but you
may if you wish. Your notes here are simply to help you think more clearly about things. However, you will be invited
to take part in a discussion, during which you may, if you wish, share your feelings and thoughts

Individual notes just after Notes during the debriefing group

participating in the simulation (before discussion
oral, group debriefing)

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Feelings. Write a few notes about
your various feelings (e.g., pleased,
frustrated, angry, intrigued,
accomplishment, disconcerted, badly
treated, …).
Events. Describe some of the main
events. Do not explain or interpret.
E.g, instead of saying “X got angry”,
say “X spoke loudly”. Events
include funny episodes; frustrating
moments, odd behaviours; strange
encounters.
Interpreting & explaining events.
Go back to some of the events you
noted above and say why you think
they happened. What interpretations
and explanations do you give to
them? Avoid laying blame; explain
impartially.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p67

Form to help you debrief your experience in the cross-cultural encounter game
Other situations. Describe other
situations of which you are
reminded. What is similar? What is
different? What aspects of the
simulation experience are realistic
and unrealistic?
Learning & action. Note down one
or two important things that you have
learned, or one or two new ideas that
you have had. What thing(s) will
you do differently from now on?

d. Debriefing materials used for Fishbanks

Probably the most elaborate form that I have devised is the one that I use for debriefing Fishbanks, a simulation
designed by my long-time friend, Dennis Meadows. Over the years, the form has evolved, usually with
expanded and additional questions. I have used variations of this form with several groups, such as masters
level classes, fishery authorities in Thailand, the Institut d’Etudes Politiques (IEP, Sciences Po) and the
Department of Fisheries at the University of Tromsø – The Arctic University of Norway. In each and every
case, including the two with professionals in fisheries, the participants managed to kill all the fish.
In the formatting below, I have reduced the space for answers in each question. If you use this or modify it,
you will have to expand the spaces. I usually keep debriefing forms to one page, but for this one I use two A4
pages, both sides, to give ample space for participants to reply.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Table 12. Individual debriefing form for Fishbanks

Individual debriefing form, by David Crookall, for FISHBANKS, by Dennis Meadows

Name_____________________ Fishing company________ Role____________ Date_________

Work alone & in silence. Reminder: You are no longer in the simulation. Think back to your time in the simulation.
Your replies below should be words or short phrases (not long sentences).

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

1. What were / are your feelings and emotions?
a. during the activity (e.g., excited, sad, frustrated, happy, annoyed, accomplishment, belonging, etc)?

b. now?

2. What? Here just describe; do not explain or interpret. What happened ? Do not try to explain or interpret here;
be descriptive. Consider: Facts, events, interactions, phases. Decision processes. Teamwork in your company
(clarity of objectives, role clarity, balance, responsibility, listening, etc). Ship allocation strategies used. Your
company's achievements. Evolution of the fish stocks. Ship acquisition (purchase, trade, auction). Account keeping.
Negotiation with other companies. Trust levels.

3. How well do you feel your company succeeded in the negotiations? How well do you feel the other companies
succeeded?
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p68

4. Why? Raisons & explanations for events in N°2, and success / failure in N°3. For example: How did emotions
influence events? Did communication problems influence events? How did negotiation styles influence outcomes?
What was the role of greed (the desire to become rich, the desire to become richer than others - to 'win' at all costs),
and non-concern for next generations? What role did intergroup behaviour play? What factors encouraged
success? What factors made things difficult?

5. Trust. How did your trust and feelings of trust evolve during the course of the exercise? What influenced the
changes in trust? How did levels of trust influence decisions and interactions? What kinds of vicious circles
developed around issues of trust. What did you do to re-establish trust, or indeed to take advantage of a climate of
distrust? What about greed?
…/…
6. Objectives - commons. What kinds of objectives did you have? How did they evolve? For example: did you
assume that your main objective was to get as many fish (and money) as possible for your company? or did you
assume that you had to share common resources among companies, for a sustainable future. What other
objectives? Did you attain your objectives? Why / why not? If you did not, who was responsible?

7. Real world. What analogies can you make with the real world ? What other natural resource commons are being
plundered in this way? What kinds of overshoot & collapse are we witnessing today (overshoot = using resources
faster than they can regenerate; going beyond the limits of sustainability). (Examples: trees, alcohol, urbanization,
debt, water, soil, etc, etc.) What about tomorrow? What are the main dangers in your lifetime?

8. Changes. If you were to participate again in FISH BANKS, what would you do differently? What different policies
(objectives) would you pursue, and how would you achieve your objectives?

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
9. Solutions. What 'solutions' to consider, for fishing and for food in general? What kinds of measures should be taken
(local, regional, global) to reduce over-exploitation, overshoot and collapse? Role of technology? Partition the seas;
quotas; farm fish; eat food lower in the food chain; change consumption preferences; ban meat; ban all pollutants,
insecticides, chemicals; use of technology; world government for food; monitor food better; change social values
and economic incentives.

10. Other thoughts, questions, issues related to sustainability and the future of the planet?

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

11. Your future. In what ways will this simulation experience, and especially your heightened awareness of the issues,
influence your future outlook and your future career?

Generally, especially for this form, you need to give plenty of time for participants to write their answers. Even
though you ask them to be brief, some will fill each space completely. Generally, allowing participants the time
to write as much as they wish here pays dividends later during the oral sharing and discussion. Also, below are
graphs of participants ‘progress’ through decisions.
The graphs below are produced during game play, with each round of decisions. Every three or four rounds,
depending on how the situation is developing, I stop the game for a few minutes. I allow fishing companies
(each played by about four people) to meet and discuss the situation. I also show them the results of their
decisions so far. I was told once that you should not indicate anything to participants about their actions, as it
would give things away. My experience is that showing them the graph and even warning them (I sometimes
point out several trends, such as the more boats they put out, the more they will deplete stocks, and over time,
the deep-sea catch will diminish). This has little (if any?) effect on their decision making, so hell bent are they
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p69

on quenching their greed and making the most money. If anything, showing them the graphs focusses their
minds and pushes them more to making agreements, which they promptly break in the next two or three rounds.
In addition, the kind of data that they see in the graphs would in real life be available to them. The graphs are,
of course, made available to participants for their debriefing.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Figure 13. Two graphs used for Fishbanks in Masters level class

In the 2014 run of Fishbanks (Figure 13), it is relatively easy to see, by comparing the graphs, why assets started
to decline after round 9. Fishing companies sent almost all their boats to the coastal sea (catch for the coast) in
rounds 8 and 9, which killed all the fish there, so no income was obtained in round 10, when the game ended.
In the 2016 Tromsø run (Figure 14) the situation evolved in a more complex fashion. Various teams requested
breaks for meetings fairly often and they sometimes lasted quite some time.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p70

Figure 14. Graph used for Fishbanks in Tromsø University Fisheries Dept.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
They decided about half way through to ease up on the deep-sea catch, and work on a jointly-agreed arrangement
for the coast (Tot catch, coast). These agreements were broken several times, hence the wavy red line for coastal
catch. In round 10 or 11, participants decided that they would make a concerted effort to save the fish. However,
some fishing companies, sensing that they were arriving at the finishing line, decided to use end-game tactics
in a last-ditch fling, and threw all their boats at the deep sea, with the result that you can see on the graph. It
may well be that if participants had had another dozen rounds in front of them, they might have been able to
stabilize their catch, but probably at less than optimal levels.
e. Debriefing forms for ICEWISE

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

A full account of the simulation, Icewise, and its use will be found in (Blair at al, 2021). In a word
Our custom-developed computerized simulation-game Icewise integrated sea-ice parameters, forecast technology
and human factors, as a participatory environment for stakeholder engagement. We explored the value of … sea-
ice prediction and linked uncertainty information.
This was a one-off simulation and had not been tested before being used for real, that is, with its intended
audience. It was therefore important also that the debriefing instruments were spot on. The original form
allowed more space for writing. For example, the left-hand column was narrower, which made the space for
writing in the right-hand column wider and deeper.

Table 13. Individual debriefing form for IceWise, Salienseas, Tromso, Norway
IceWise, Salienseas, Tromso, Norway 1st & 2nd names __________________________
individual debriefing Org
You have now left the simulation and moved on from the emotions that you felt.
Work alone & in silence; no talking with neighbours.
For each question, write only a few key words or phrases (as a reminder for discussions later).
• Think back to the simulation and recall your participation a little bit as if as if you had been an observer.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p71

• This form is for you to clarify and record your thoughts.

• In the upcoming discussion, you will not be required to share any more than you wish.

What were your various feelings / emotions during the

simulation? Examples: pleasure, sadness, good humour,
interest, frustration, curiosity, boredom, anger, calm,
untrusting, hope, irrelevance?
How did your emotions evolve over time?

Emotions are part of what makes us human. Emotions

Please do not influence every aspect of our lives and decision making.
In the discussion that follows you will of
shy away from Emotions are always there, even if we do not usually express
course choose which emotions to share.
expressing your them easily and openly, and even if we are not always aware of
However, in the space above, please write
emotions, even them or what type they are. After we put a name on an
down as much as you are comfortable with
if you generally emotion and share it, we are in a way liberated from the taboo
mentioning.
do not do so. of the emotion, and can then think more clearly about our
actions, interactions and decisions.

How did your various emotions influence:

- Your motivation to participate?
- Your perception of the (lack of) realism of the
simulation?

What differences and similarities did you see between the

simulation and reality?
Examples: 1 in configuration, 2 in your participation, 3 in feelings.

What elements in the simulation influenced your sense of

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
confidence in the reliability of forecasts?
Why and how did these elements influence your
confidence?
Examples: 1 your emotions, 2 the realism of the simulation, 3 the
business aspects, 4 the event cards, 5 other participants, 6 the
simulation design, 7 decision making, 8 etc.

How would you change the simulation? What would you

have put in, taken out of, or modified in, the simulation if
you had to participate again?

In what ways has the simulation changed your perception of Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.
the reliability of MET.no’s forecast product?

Are you more or less likely to use MET.no’s new forecast

product as a result of participating in the simulation? Why?

What thoughts or ideas of yours about voyage planning have

changed, or new ones been generated, as a result of
participation? What elements of the simulation contributed?
Examples of thoughts, ideas & elements may be: 1 simulation
design, 2 simulation participation, 3 learning to play in the
simulation, 4 objective reliability of forecasts, 5 your confidence in
forecast reliability, 6 your confidence in voyage planning, 7 etc.

What advice would you give to MET.no for modification of

the design of their product?
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p72

What advice would you offer to the simulation designers

and/or the facilitators?

What do you promise yourself to do or do differently as a

result of participation?

Any other comments?

Thank you for your participation !

After filling out the individual form, participants gathered in small groups to share experiences. They were
given the group sharing form, Table below, and asked to record notes during the discussion. These notes were
then used in a report for the sponsors, along with a record of the decisions made during the simulation. You
will notice that the cell borders have wavy lines and that the questions are in, italics. This is simply so that
participants and facilitators can easily distinguish between individual and group forms. I usually do that for
most forms that have an individual and a group version. If it is possible, I also use a different colour paper for
individual and group forms.

Table 14. Group sharing debriefing form for IceWise, Salienseas, Tromso, Norway

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
IceWise, Salienseas, Tromso, Norway 1st & 2nd names _____________________________________
group sharing debriefing Org
You are now in the sharing phase of the debriefing. You may share anything from the previous individual work, but
you are under no obligation to share if you do not feel comfortable sharing a particular item.
In the spaces below, do not simply make a catalogue of all the things that your group says; that is not the aim. From
time to time, especially before you move to a new topic or section, write notes below
to capture the essence, the overarching ideas and/or the general drift of the discussion so far (not the details).
Be in the discussion, listen, share, spark new ideas, be convinced, convince; above all be respectful.
Make a special effort to contribute to a balanced discussion. Avoid talking too loudly.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Remember that silences are to be welcomed; they can enrich a discussion.
Always remember that the debriefing is the most important and enriching part of a simulation/game.

What were your various feelings / emotions during the simulation?

Examples: pleasure, sadness, good humour, interest, frustration, curiosity,
boredom, anger, calm, untrusting, hope, irrelevance, etc? How did your
emotions evolve over time?

Please do not shy away Emotions are part of what makes us human. Emotions influence every aspect of our lives
from expressing your and decision making. Emotions are always there, even if we do not usually express them
emotions, even if you easily and openly, and even if we are not always aware of them or what type they are. After
generally do not do so. we put a name on an emotion and share it, we are in a way liberated from the taboo of the
emotion, and can then think more clearly about our actions, interactions and decisions.

How did your various emotions influence:

- Your motivation to participate?
- Your perception of the (lack of) realism of the simulation?

What differences and similarities did you see between the simulation and reality?
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p73

What elements in the simulation influenced your sense of confidence in the reliability
of forecasts?
Why and how did these elements influence your confidence?

How would you change the simulation? What would you have put in, taken out of, or
modified in, the simulation if you had to participate again?

In what ways has the simulation changed your perception of the reliability of
MET.no’s forecast product?

Are you more or less likely to use MET.no’s new forecast product as a result of
participating in the simulation?

What thoughts or ideas of yours about voyage planning have changed, or new ones
been generated, as a result of participation? What elements of the simulation
contributed?

What advice would you give to MET.no for modification of the design of their product?

What advice would you offer to the simulation designers and/or the facilitators?

What do you promise yourself to do or do differently as a result of participation?

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Any other comments?

Thank you for your participation !

f. PROFFIteROLE
PROFFIteROLE (the name of a delicious French pastry) stands for “pratiques officinales et jeu de rôle”,

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

pharmacy practices and role play. It was designed at the Pharmacy Faculty in Lille (see Collomp, n.d.; Collomp
et al., 2020; Decaudin & Crookall, 2015). I was invited up to help with the debriefing. Together we developed
a simulation-debriefing protocol that worked well.
The purpose was for pharmacy students to learn to interact with the public and follow protocols in handing over
medication. We had three roles: patient, pharmacist and observer. With three different scenarios, each student
in turn playing one of the roles. The events took place in a simulation centre (see Figure 15), and the pharmacist-
patient interaction was filmed.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p74

Figure 15. Simulated pharmacy in Lille

Debriefing was individual and collective. Among the documents provided were an observation guide (filled in
by the observer), the patient’s medical history, a doctor’s prescription, an individual debriefing form and a
collective debriefing form. As with previous forms in this Appendix, you will need to stretch them so that
participants have more space to write. As a general guideline, you can fill a whole A4 page with one form.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Table 15. Observer guide for PROFFIteROLE
Observer guide for PROFFIteROLE Role First name (write below)
Remember that this guide is not a strict evaluation instrument. It is Pharmacist
a guide to help observers organize their observations. Interpretation
of the terms in this guide and the observations remain subjective. Patient
The guide collects impressions to serve as a starting point for
discussion in the debriefing. Observer
Adapting the dispensing to the individual patient Good ☐ Fair ☐ Improve ☐
Relevance of the questions Good ☐ Fair ☐ Improve ☐

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Listening to patient (information, worries, …) Good ☐ Fair ☐ Improve ☐
Relevance of the analysis (of the prescription) Good ☐ Fair ☐ Improve ☐
Identification of key points Good ☐ Fair ☐ Improve ☐
Adapted dispensing (drugs / dosage / generic) Good ☐ Fair ☐ Improve ☐
Relevance of information transmitted to the patient Good ☐ Fair ☐ Improve ☐
Understandable information Good ☐ Fair ☐ Improve ☐
Suitable amount of information transmitted Good ☐ Fair ☐ Improve ☐
Welcome, attitude, approach, friendliness Good ☐ Fair ☐ Improve ☐
Ability to convince the patient Good ☐ Fair ☐ Improve ☐
Check list of information communicated Explained by Verified by Understood by
2 good, 1 ok, 0 missed pharmacist pharmacist patient
INR monitoring
Reporting Warfarine (Coumadin) treatment to health professionals
What to do in case of bleeding
Treatment plan notebook
Nutrition (food)
Medical advice if necessary
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p75

Comments

Table 16. Individual debriefing for PROFFIteROLE

Individual debriefing for PROFFIteROLE
Work alone ; do not talk to anyone. Write just a few keywords. All ideas, thoughts, feelings and comments are
welcome. Later in a discussion, you may share what you wrote, but you will not have to show your paper if you do
not wish to do so.
Name ___________________________ Role _________________________ Group ______ Date _________
As pharmacist : Use only your As observer : You may write in all 3
As patient : Use only your column columns
column
What were your various feelings (emotions) during the role-play ? (For example, excitement, shyness, confidence or
lack of, frustration, annoyance, belonging, …

Happenings, behaviours, surprises, problems, etc. Note down just one or two.

Differences and similarities with the ‘real’ world. Are those differences/similarities helpful for your learning, or a
hinderance ? In what way ?

Difficulties experienced. What specific difficulties did you experience (in regard to the situation, your role, your task,
the other participants, in general, …)

As a participant in the role-play, what things will you do differently next time ? (Examples : Jump into my role faster,
forget about the observer, etc.)

As a trainee pharmacist, what things should the role-player pharmacist do differently next time? Give suggestions for
improvement, from your point of view (as pharmacist, as patient, as observer). Be specific.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
What specific things would you like to talk about in the collective discussion later ?

Table 17. Collective debriefing of PROFFIteROLE – Debriefer’s note-taking form

Collective debriefing of PROFFIteROLE – Debriefer’s note-taking form
Discuss a short while, then write notes (keywords) to capture the essence of the discussion. Do not write a list of all
things said, just the general idea. All ideas, thoughts, feelings, comments are welcome.
Names __________________________________________________ Groupe ______ Date_________

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

Essence concerning / for pharmacist Essence concerning / for patient

Feelings during the role-play.

Happenings, sequence of events, surprises, problems, etc.

Differences and similarities with the ‘real’ world.

Difficulties experienced.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p76

As a pharmacist or trainee pharmacist (in ‘real life’), what things will you do differently next time ?

What things have you learnt (doing the activity and the debriefing) ? About delivering medication, about pharmacist-
patient interaction, about pharmacist work more generally, about yourself, about life ?

Changes. If you use this exercise in your training/teaching, what things would you change ?

Feedback to current facilitators. What things did you like ? What things would you suggest that the facilitators do
differently ? (By name is fine – we want to learn too! ☺ )

g. Online in-game debrief and end of game debrief forms for IOCS
I had planned to include the online in-game taking-stock form and the online final-debrief form for the Inter-
Ocean Climate School simulations that I run online. However, they are too long, so if you would like copies,
please send me email, here oceans.climate at gmail dot com, or better still participate in one of our simulations.
h. Classic, fifty-year old book still relevant for simulation and debriefing
Many years ago, I read the now famous book Teaching as a subversive activity (Postman & Weingartner, 1969).
It made an indelible impression on me. In the intervening years, the authors went back on some of their ideas.
Despite that, it can be an inspiration to all those in simulation and debriefing.
I always find it a little strange to hear educators talk about ‘delivery’, as if learning was like a product to be
delivered and dumped down the throats of people, followed a while later by excruciating hurdles, called tests
and exams, which no one in their right mind would contemplate doing by themselves. Imagine going to a
conference to hear a speaker and they told you that you would be tested at the end; everyone would double up

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
in laughter, and yet this is precisely what happens millions, nay, billions of times a year in schools around the
world. Would it not be better for climate and vaccine deniers to put their skills to good use by denying the
usefulness of school exams and tests?
Very relevant to debriefing are these quotes from the book:
Once you have learned how to ask questions—relevant and appropriate and substantial questions—you have
learned how to learn and no one can keep you from learning whatever you want or need to know.
Unless … perceived as relevant by the learner, no significant learning will take place. No one will learn
anything he doesn’t want to know.

Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.

The critical content of any learning experience is the method or process through which the learning occurs.
Almost any sensible parent knows this, as does any effective top sergeant. It is not what you say to people
that counts; it is what you have them do. … What students do in the classroom is what they learn (as Dewey
would say), and what they learn to do is the classroom’s message (as McLuhan would say). Now, what is it
that students do in the classroom? Well, mostly, they sit and listen to the teacher. Mostly, they are required
to believe in authorities, or at least pretend to such belief when they take tests. Mostly, they are required to
remember. They are almost never required to make observations, formulate definitions, or perform any
intellectual operations that go beyond repeating what someone else says is true.
As soon as [tests] are used as judgment-making instruments, the whole process of schooling shifts from
education to training intended to produce passing grades on tests. About the only wholesome ground on
which mass testing can be justified is that it provides the conditions for about the only creative intellectual
activity available to students — cheating. It is quite probable that the most original “problem solving”
activity students engage in in school is related to the invention of systems for beating the system. We’d be
willing to accept testing if it were intended to produce this kind of creativity.
To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature. (Provisional title.) p77

By the way, the book has a whole chapter (N°11) on games in education and mentions some of the early gamers,
especially the late Harold Guetzkow (1995), one of the founders of modern academic simulation. He did me
the honour of inviting me to be on a panel that he organized at a meeting of the International Studies Association,
and to visit him and his wife at their California retirement home. The other pioneering gamers mentioned are
…, well I will let you discover them for yourself when you read the book.

To appear in Angelini, L.M. & Rut Muñiz, R. (Eds.) (2023). Simulation for Participatory Education:
Virtual Exchange and Collaboration Worldwide. Springer Nature.