Planspiele - Erkenntnisse aus Praxis und Forschung E-Book

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Serie: ZMS-Schriftenreihe
• Sprache: Deutsch

Seitenzahl: 277

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

Dieser 13. Band der ZMS-Schriftenreihe bringt zusammen, was seit 2010 zusammengehört: Das Europäische Planspielforum und den Deutschen Planspielpreis. Als größte europäische Tagung zum Thema Planspiel ist das Europäische Planspielforum eine nicht mehr wegzudenkende Größe in der Planspielszene. Das Forum richtet sich gleichermaßen an Planspielhersteller, Lehrende und Forschende. Auf der Veranstaltung und in diesem Sammelband werden Planspieltrends und neue Simulationen präsentiert, Fragen der Anwendung und Didaktik von Planspielen diskutiert sowie Ergebnisse der Planspielforschung erörtert. In diesem Jahr lautete das Thema des Europäischen Planspielforums "Facilitation: Emotional - digital - zentral.". Als Methode steht Facilitation dafür, eine Gruppe von Menschen darin zu unterstützen, von ihnen angestrebte Ziele selbstgesteuert zu erreichen. Die Beiträge im Band beleuchten Facetten der Facilitation von Planspielen, dabei liegt ein spezieller Fokus auf der Online-Lehre sowie der Evaluation von Planspielveranstaltungen. Mit dem Deutschen Planspielpreis werden seit 2010 herausragende Studienabschlussarbeiten und Dissertationen für ihren innovativen Beitrag zur Planspielforschung ausgezeichnet. In den Beiträgen der Preisträger*innen und ausgesuchten weiteren Autor*innen werden Forschungsergebnisse, beispielsweise zu zwei politischen Planspielen für die Grundschule, präsentiert. Der Band versammelt wie gewohnt wieder eine breite Vielfalt an Themenstellungen. Dieser Band entstand als Kooperationsprojekt des Zentrums für Managementsimulation der DHBW Stuttgart mit der SAGSAGA, der Gesellschaft für Planspiele in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz e.V..

Leseprobe

ZMS-Schriftenreihe

Band 13

Die Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Managementsimulation (ZMS) der Dualen Hochschule Baden-Württemberg Stuttgart fördert Innovationen rund um die Planspielmethode.

Die Veröffentlichung dieses Bandes erfolgte in Kooperation mit der SAGSAGA, der Gesellschaft für Planspiele in Deutschland, Österreich und Schweiz e. V..

ISSN: 2192-7502

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Vorwort der Herausgebenden

Beiträge zum Europäischen Planspielforum 2021

Black screens and real people

Maria Freese, Heide K. Lukosch

The Art of Facilitating the Undesired

Martin Gerner

Experience Scrum! Agile Softwareentwicklung durchspielen

L. Rustemeier, A.-K. Astheimer, T. Giorgashvili, S. Voß-Nakkour

Theoriebasierte Entwicklung eines Inventars zur Evaluation von Planspielveranstaltungen

Friedrich Trautwein, Tobias Alf

Zum Einfluss von Studierenden auf die Lehre mit Planspielen

Tobias Alf, Friedrich Trautwein

Beiträge zum Deutschen Planspielpreis 2021

Helmpflicht – auch beim Fahrradfahren?

Matze Krebs

Politische Planspiele an Grundschulen

Theresa Störlein

Unterschiede zwischen Expert*innen und Noviz*innen beim Planspielen

Maria Freese, Birgit Zürn, Heide K. Lukosch

Develop the skills of managers

Anna Güttler-Lindemann

Playground

David K. Solèr

Der Deutsche Planspielpreis – Entstehung, Entwicklung, Ausblick

Friedrich Trautwein

Zusammenfassungen weiterer Einreichungen zum Deutschen Planspielpreis 2021

Spiele im Sozialmanagement

Judit Costa

Lernzielorientierte Konzeption, Durchführung und Evaluation eines Planspiels

Robin Luge

Die Planspielmethode in der Mittelstufe

Ruth Steiner

Teaser Blogbeitrag

How to not get shipwrecked in the digital ocean

Margarete Imhof et al.

Autor*innen

Vorwort der Herausgebenden

Dieser Sammelband bringt zusammen, was seit 2010 zusammengehört: Das Europäische Planspielforum und den Deutschen Planspielpreis. Als größte europäische Tagung zum Thema Planspiel ist das Europäische Planspielforum eine nicht mehr wegzudenkende Größe in der Planspielszene. Das Forum richtet sich gleichermaßen an Planspielhersteller, Lehrende und Forschende. Auf der Veranstaltung werden Planspieltrends und neue Simulationen präsentiert, Fragen der Anwendung und Didaktik von Planspielen diskutiert sowie Ergebnisse der Planspielforschung erörtert. Die breite Ausrichtung bringt unterschiedliche Professionen und Perspektiven zusammen und belebt die im zweijährigen Rhythmus stattfindende Veranstaltung. Ein zentraler Programmpunkt jedes Europäischen Planspielforums seit 2010 ist die Verleihung des Deutschen Planspielpreises. Mit dem Preis werden herausragende Studienabschlussarbeiten und Dissertationen für ihren innovativen Beitrag zur Planspielforschung ausgezeichnet. Mit diesem Sammelband blicken wir auf beides zurück, das Europäische Planspielforum 2021 und den Deutschen Planspielpreis 2021.

Spätestens seit März 2020 stand die Planspielszene vor der Herausforderung, Planspiele in die digitale Welt zu übertragen. Hersteller brachten neue Planspiele oder Adaptionen bestehender Planspiele auf den Markt, um digitale Settings bedienen zu können, Lehrende entwarfen neue didaktische Konzepte und gingen (oftmals) erste Schritte in der digitalen Lehre. Hierbei geht es nicht nur um die Frage, welche Spielmechanismen und Methoden sich auf welche Weise in den digitalen Raum übertragen lassen, sondern insbesondere darum, welche neuen Möglichkeiten sich durch digitale Settings eröffnen. In besonderer Weise steht die Frage im Zentrum, wie Teilnehmende abgeholt und integriert werden und wie trotz Distanz Gemeinsamkeit entsteht. Auch für die (Begleit-)Forschung eröffnen sich durch die digitale Lehre neue Fragestellungen und Probleme, die es zu adressieren gilt. Diese aktuellen Fragen aufgreifend, stellte das 33. Europäische Planspielforum im Juni 2021 das Thema „Facilitation: emotional – digital – zentral.“ in den Mittelpunkt, wobei das Thema auf zweifache Weise behandelt wurde. Zum einen inhaltlich in den vielfältigen Beiträgen und Workshops, in denen darüber nachgedacht und ausprobiert wurde, wie Facilitation emotional, digital und zentral gelingen kann. Zum anderen fand die Tagung erstmals als rein digitale Tagung statt, sodass sich Veranstaltende und Teilnehmende ganz praktisch auf Facilitation – emotional und zentral – im digitalen Raum eingelassen haben.

Entsprechend handelt der erste Beitrag in diesem Band von „black screens and real people“. Maria Freese und Heide Lukosch erörtern, inwiefern sich offline und online Planspiele im Hinblick auf die Übereinstimmung von Realität und Spielwelt (Fidelity) unterscheiden. Martin Gerner plädiert in seinem Beitrag für Freiheit und Intuition anstelle von starren Konzepten in der Moderation von Planspielen, sowohl für die Offline-, also auch für die Online-Lehre. Linda Rustemeier et al. geben Einblick in die Entwicklung und Evaluation des Planspiels ScrumSimPlan, das dem Erlernen von Scrum dient, einer Methode der agilen Softwareentwicklung. In zwei Beiträgen widmen sich Friedrich Trautwein und Tobias Alf der Evaluation von Planspiellehrveranstaltungen. Sie stellen die Entwicklung eines planspielspezifischen Evaluationsinstruments dar und zeigen anhand erster Daten, inwiefern die Spielfreude von Studierenden Einfluss auf den Planspielverlauf nimmt.

Der zweite Teil dieses Sammelbandes gibt Einblick in den Deutschen Planspielpreis 2021, der bereits zum 7. Mal verliehen wurde. Ziel des Preises ist es, innovative Ideen zur Planspielmethode zu würdigen und diese einem breiteren interdisziplinären Publikum zugänglich zu machen. Der Preis wird alle zwei Jahre vom Zentrum für Managementsimulation (ZMS) der Dualen Hochschule Baden-Württemberg (DHBW) Stuttgart in Kooperation mit dem deutschsprachigen Planspiel-Fachverband SAGSAGA (Swiss Austrian German Simulation And Gaming Association) verliehen. Im Zentrum stehen dabei die Förderung des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses und die öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit für die Planspielmethode. Mit dem Deutschen Planspielpreis werden in der Regel drei Studienabschlussarbeiten ausgezeichnet. Zusätzlich können Dissertationen mit einem Sonderpreis gewürdigt werden.

Für das Wettbewerbsjahr 2021 wurden insgesamt 13 Arbeiten eingereicht, darunter 10 Abschlussarbeiten und 3 Dissertationen. Verglichen mit der Anzahl der Einreichungen der letzten Wettbewerbsjahre (2019: 15 Abschlussarbeiten und 5 Dissertationen; 2017: 20 Abschlussarbeiten und 1 Dissertation) ist die Anzahl der Einreichungen etwas rückläufig, zumindest im Hinblick auf die Abschlussarbeiten. Als plausibler Grund hierfür kommen die erheblich erschwerten Studienbedingungen aufgrund der Pandemie (insbesondere mit Blick auf empirische Erhebungen für Abschlussarbeiten) in Frage. Zudem waren die Möglichkeiten zum Aushängen von Postern in Bibliotheken und Hochschulgebäuden zur Bekanntmachung des Preises stark eingeschränkt.

Die auszuzeichnenden Arbeiten werden von einer interdisziplinär besetzten Jury aus Planspielentwickelnden, Planspielanwendenden und Forschenden in einem mehrstufigen Verfahren begutachtet und ausgewählt. Die eingereichten Arbeiten zu lesen, zu beurteilen und in interdisziplinärer Runde kontrovers zu diskutieren geht mit einem hohen Arbeitspensum und viel Zeit einher. Für die geleistete Arbeit danken wir den Jurymitgliedern unter Vorsitz von Prof. Dr. Friedrich Trautwein herzlich: Dr. Andrea Frank, Prof. Dr. Willy Kriz, Dr. Heide Lukosch, Dr. Max Monauni, Prof. Dr. Stefan Rappenglück, Dr. Sebastian Schwägele und Dipl. Soz. Eric Treske.

Nicht zuletzt ist die Verleihung des Preises durch die oftmals langjährige Unterstützung unserer Partnerunternehmen aus der Planspielszene möglich, die den Preis finanziell und ideell unterstützen. Auch ihnen gebührt unser herzlicher Dank. Bereits jetzt freuen wir uns auf eine Weiterführung der Partnerschaft im nächsten Wettbewerbsjahr 2023.

Organisatorisch steht hinter dem Deutschen Planspielpreis das ZMS und damit die DHBW Stuttgart. Insbesondere zu erwähnen sind an dieser Stelle die Hochschulleitung, Herr Rektor Professor Dr. Joachim Weber, unser Prorektor und Dekan Professor Dr. Bernd Müllerschön (a.D.) sowie unsere Prorektorin und Dekanin Professorin Dr. Beate Sieger-Hanus. Für die langjährige Förderung des Deutschen Planspielpreises und die vertrauensvolle Zusammenarbeit danken wir sehr herzlich.

Unter den folgenden Beiträgen finden sich zunächst Beiträge der drei ausgezeichneten Preisträger*innen. Die Beiträge in diesem Band fassen die ausgezeichnete Arbeit entweder zusammen oder betonen einen besonderen Aspekt der Arbeit. Matze Krebs (1. Platz Studienabschlussarbeiten) hat Grundschullehramt studiert und ein politisches Planspiel für die 3. und 4. Klasse an Grundschulen entwickelt. Anhand des Beispiels „Helmpflicht beim Radfahren“ spielen die Kinder einen bundespolitischen Gesetzgebungsprozess nach. Ebenfalls mit einer Arbeit über Planspiele an Grundschulen erlangte Theresa Störlein den zweiten Platz. Sie entwickelte ein kommunalpolitisches Planspiel über unterschiedliche Interessengruppen und deren Blick auf die Nutzung eines alten Klosters und reflektierte dessen Durchführung. Den Sonderpreis erhielt Dr. Maria Freese für ihre Dissertation „Mensch frustriere dich nicht oder doch?“, mit der sie anhand eines Planspiels zum Flughafenmanagement den Einfluss von positiven oder negativen Emotionen auf Teamentscheidungen untersuchte. Der Beitrag in diesem Band behandelt den Aspekt der unterschiedlichen Entscheidungsfindung von Expert*innen und Noviz*innen. Co-Autorinnen dieses Beitrags sind Dr. Heide Lukosch und Birgit Zürn.

Über die Preisträger*innen hinaus bieten wir ausgewählten weiteren Bewerber*innen die Möglichkeit, einen Beitrag zu ihren Arbeiten in der Schriftenreihe zu veröffentlichen. So gibt Anna Güttler-Lindemann mit ihrer Einreichung einen Einblick in die Entwicklung eines systemischen Rollenspiels und dessen Anwendung in der Kompetenzentwicklung von Führungskräften. In dem Beitrag „Playground“ leitet David Solèr 10 Essenzen des Spielens her und beschreibt deren Einfluss auf die persönliche Lebensbewältigung. Es folgen die Abstracts von vier weiteren Einreichungen zum Deutschen Planspielpreis 2021. Der Band schließt ab mit einem Rückblick von Friedrich Trautwein auf die bisherigen Wettbewerbsjahre des Deutschen Planspielpreises seit 2010.

Beim Lesen und Entdecken der Beiträge wünschen wir viel Vergnügen, Inspiration und spielerische Eindrücke.

Stuttgart, im Oktober 2022 Tobias Alf, Simon Hahn, Birgit Zürn und Friedrich Trautwein

Beiträge zum Europäischen Planspielforum 2021

Black screens and real people

Concepts of fidelity in facilitating offline and online simulation games

Maria Freese, Heide K. Lukosch

Facilitation is a meaningful concept and process, especially when it comes to the organization and conduction of simulation games. Simulation games defined as games with a specific purpose in mind can be played in different settings or environments, such as offline or online. The question arises whether facilitation shows similar characteristics independent of the environment it is located in, or whether the process and content of facilitation needs adoption. We discuss this question in the light of fidelity, or the resemblance of reality in a game environment. The aim of this contribution is to discuss the concept of facilitation in a more detailed way as well as its role in different environments and its facets.

Facilitation ist ein bedeutsames Konzept sowie ein wichtiger Prozess, besonders wenn es um die Organisation und Durchführung von Planspielen geht. Planspiele, die als Spiele mit einem bestimmten Zweck definiert sind, können in verschiedenen Setups oder Umgebungen gespielt werden, wie z.B. offline oder online. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob die Facilitation ähnliche Merkmale aufweist unabhängig von der Umgebung, in der sie stattfindet, oder ob der Prozess und Inhalt von Facilitation angepasst werden muss. Wir diskutieren diese Frage aus der Fidelity-Perspektive, also der Übereinstimmung mit der Realität in einer Spielumgebung. Ziel dieses Beitrages ist es, das Konzept der Facilitation genauer zu erörtern, die Rolle von Facilitation in verschiedenen Umgebungen zu diskutieren und entsprechende Facetten zu beschreiben..

1. Introduction

The publication of a Special Simulation and Gaming Issue on Facilitation in 2021 as well as the organization of the 33rd European Simulation and Gaming Forum in 2021 with a strong focus on Facilitation are only two examples that highlight that facilitation is an important topic in the simulation and gaming domain, especially in the light of the global Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, with a new focus on online facilitation. This includes the facilitation of games that are developed for physical presence, but need to be re-designed to allow for remote participation. Creative solutions have been developed that address this problem. However, offline game sessions have many facets, including a certain level of psychological and social fidelity (Lukosch, Lukosch, Hoermann & Lindeman, 2019), that are challenging to reproduce in an online setting. The concept of fidelity describes a games’ resemblance of the real system, and can be described by the dimensions of physical, functional, psychological, and social fidelity (Lukosch et al., 2019). While physical fidelity describes the degree to which a game simulates the physical properties of its reference system, functional fidelity refers to the tasks to be carried out in real systems and in a game, psychological fidelity describes the cognitive and psychological dimensions of a game (Alexander, Brunye, Sidman & Weil, 2015), and finally, social fidelity refers to how well social interactions and social reality are represented in a game (Galloway, 2004). All four dimensions influence the experience and effects of a simulation game session, and can be different in offline and online environments, related to different affordances on the side of the players and the facilitator.

Facilitating a simulation game session is an important issue because it is a complex, challenging and sometimes even uncertain process, which lays the foundation for a successful simulation game session – understood as the achievement of intended learning, training or research goal(s). Schwägele, Zürn, Lukosch and Freese (2021, p. 5) defined facilitation, or the guidance to enable learning as “[…] the process of preparing a simulation game session, introducing the game used, supporting the process of game play, and leading players through the phases of play and debriefing […]”. Facilitation can also be conceptualized as process of scaffolding, which “[…] entails gradually diminishing support to ensure that the learner is able to make progress in the game, while at the same time develop independence and self-regulatory skills” (Alklind Taylor, 2014, p. 95) or gradually allowing more freedom, and reduce direction (Beaubien, Baker & Salvaggio, 2004; Gee, 2005). Knowing how much guidance is needed is maybe the most difficult part in facilitating simulation game sessions. In offline environments, knowing and ‘reading’ the audience can reveal clear hints towards this question. When players feel like active agents, co-creating the game space rather than being passive recipients, the learning effect is higher (Gee, 2008). In a face-toface setting, the facilitator can invite participants to actively engage and co-design the process of the game. Building up an identity, and committing to the game play can be easier in a face-to-face setting than in an online one. In online games, understanding cues of the participants in order to identify how much guidance or freedom is needed, can be much more difficult. This article discusses the concept of facilitation in simulation game sessions with the aim to compare its role in different offline (or face-to-face) and online (or distance learning) environments and to identify and describe facilitation facets, including the role of fidelity in both modes.

2. Facilitation and facilitator

In section 1, we defined the concept of facilitation as a process of preparing, supporting, and debriefing a simulation game session. According to this definition, facilitating a simulation game means going through different phases, such as a briefing or scenario preparation and debriefing (Alklind Taylor, Backlund & Niklasson, 2012). In 2005, Leigh and Spindler (p. 189) reviewed articles published in the Journal of Simulation and Gaming and concluded that “[…] only about 10% of the articles addressed the issue of facilitation skills. While most authors provided information concerning specific briefing and debriefing processes, only a few provided details about the capabilities required of a person directing a simulation or game as a learning activity.” Kortmann and Peters (2021, p. 1) stated that the “[…] literature on facilitation is disjointed and sparse on guidance for game facilitators.” Facilitation can be understood as an umbrella activity that covers the whole span of all phases of a simulation game session. Baalsrud Hauge et al. (2021) clustered facilitation-related challenges around topics such as players, technology, class, learning, game and facilitator. Especially the role of being a facilitator needs more attention. A facilitator has different roles such as “[…] in-game facilitator, puckster, debriefer, technical support and subject matter expert” (Alklind Taylor, 2014, p. 1). Baalsrud Hauge et al. (2021, p. 2) focused on the competencies needed by a facilitator and stated that “[…] facilitators must set the right ambience where students feel engaged, valued, trusted, and respected […]”. Offering such safe environments that enable players to react without fearing any negative consequences is one of the powers of simulation games. On the other hand, it shows one of the biggest challenges when acting as a facilitator, because “[…] difficulties in facilitation may occur as a result of incongruent facilitation strategies […]” (Leigh & Spindler, 2005, p. 189) and the “[…] interaction between players and facilitators can sometimes result […] in frustration […]” (van Laere, Lindblom & de Wijse-van Heeswijk, 2021, p. 2). Van Laere, Lindblom and de Wijse-van Heeswijk (2021, p. 15) came also to the conclusion that “[…] facilitation is instantaneous, multi-skilled, arbitrary and fallible.” That is why it is “[…] important for facilitators to develop an awareness of their preferences for particular modes of learning and personal styles. This will assist in making effective choices about the styles of simulations and games initially and ways they will need to challenge their beliefs in order to develop more flexible facilitation styles” (Leigh & Spindler, 2005, p. 189).

With regard to the competencies a facilitator should have, Kortmann and Peters (2021) distinguished three main groups of facilitation competencies ranging from attitudes, knowledge to skills. For each of the three pillars, these scholars identified different sub-categories, such as being well organized, having some domain knowledge, and being able to intervene in groups. All competencies well balanced would lead to a facilitator that serves as ‘unseen helmsman’ in a simulation game session. In addition, Baalsrud Hauge et al. (2021, p. 12) found out that both technical competencies (e.g., “[…] knowledge of the gameplay, game content, its connection to the intended learning outcome, and the operation of any technical infrastructure” and managerial competencies (e.g., “[…] active listening and reactive and proactive abilities to act on groups reactions, through the use of strategies like team management, leadership, motivational and participation techniques, consensus techniques, community management empathy, conflict resolution, and flexibility”) play an important role. As these authors’ focus is on facilitation in higher education, the question arises whether these conclusions are generalizable to other application domains. In an online seminar facilitated by Schmitz (2021), an experienced game consultant from Germany, for the webinar series leading towards the International Simulation and Gaming Association’s conference in 2021, she states that a facilitator should start with playing the game themselves, before facilitating game sessions. From our own experience, we can conclude that being familiar with the field of the simulation game, having taken part in the design of the game, or at least being very familiar with its processes and rules, and careful preparation as well as a truly open and positive attitude towards the participants of a game play session are vital characteristics a facilitator should show. Many simulation games come with pre-defined roles, rules, and resources. However, as most simulation games are played by content-matter experts, a facilitator should be able to allow some degree of freedom, and encourage players to include their knowledge and experiences into the design of the game. If that means changing the rules for example, than the facilitator should accommodate for this, too.

So far, we defined the concept of facilitation, discussed the link between briefing, debriefing and facilitation and explored the role of and competencies needed by a facilitator. Caused by the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and its consequences of being restricted in meeting groups of people in a closed environment, the question arises whether there are differences in terms of offline and online facilitation, based on their different levels of fidelity caused by the modality of play. We will discuss this issue along certain dimensions of facilitation in the next section.

3. Comparison of offline and online facilitation of simulation games

We will discuss the differences in terms of facilitating simulation games in offline and online environments according to the different phases of a simulation game session as outlined in Figure 1. We will discuss related challenges, and formulate recommendations based on our personal experiences. In our own work, in designing, using, and researching both analogue and digital games for education, decision-making, and research, we have experienced the influence of the modality of facilitation in several game sessions. We have been involved in game sessions that represent complex systems and situations, and that require the presence of one or more facilitators, to handle the game material and progress, to support and observe the players, and to conduct the debriefing phase(s) of the game session. Based on our experiences with offline and online facilitation of several workshops, teaching activities and the cases of the serious offline and online MachiaCelli game (Freese, Lukosch & Tiemersma, 2020), the serious offline and online Cards for Biosafety game (Freese, Tiemersma & Verbraeck, 2021) and the offline and online Disruption game (Klemke, Kurapati, Lukosch and Specht, 2015) before and during the global pandemic caused by Covid-19, we define the aim of this article as to shed light on vital concepts of facilitation, both in offline and online situations. We include related work on facilitation, and identify its gaps. This way, our work can have an impact on the academic field as well as providing guidelines for professionals in the field.

Fig. 1: Overview of an exemplary online simulation game session.

3.1 Target group and objective of a simulation game session

We use the structure of a simulation game session and its main components outlined in Figure 1 to discuss our experiences. The structure of any simulation game session depends on the target group(s) and objective(s) of this session as well as the chosen simulation game and its (offline or online) mode. Based on the purpose and context of the distinct game, the different phases can take more or less time, and can be defined by different actions and resources.

For offline game sessions, it is important to know your target group, and have an idea with what kind of experiences and expectations the participants enter the session.

For online sessions, building trust beforehand might even be more important, because the direct social contact misses that can be used for trust-building in offline sessions.

3.2 Opening and check-in

In offline settings, the first contact moment between a facilitator and attendees of a simulation game session is of utmost importance because in our experience, this is the first moment that can lay the foundation for a trustful (working and playing) environment. Very often, informal small talk can be used in order to contribute to such an environment. Usually, the game session starts with a welcome moment, where participants enter the physical space, are greeted by the facilitator, and sometimes warm up with a tea or coffee moment, where they can get used to the environment and other participants. Schmitz (2021) talks about how important the introduction and having an ‘ice breaker’ at the beginning of a game session is. In our own work, we often have to do with competing actors in a real system. Bringing them together, and creating a safe and trustworthy environment is one of the first important tasks of the facilitator, and crucial to the success of a simulation game session. An open attitude, the skill to create a safe and welcoming atmosphere, and the knowledge about some strategies to do this are vital in this phase.

Compared to this, the mediated connection with the participants that a facilitator experiences in online sessions imposes a distinct challenge. In online sessions, a so called check-in can help creating a similar opportunity for on-boarding. However, often it is also used as a moment to check the functions of cameras and microphones and to make the participants ready for an online setting. This technical check can help make the participants more confident about the technology use, and create a safe environment, too. More users experience anxiety with using technology than is often anticipated, which can leave participants in an isolated place if not well addressed and dealt with (Gillett-Swan, 2017). A check-in time can be created more interestingly by playing a warm-up game or listening to some music. From a psychological point of view, this can have different effects: First, music can influence our feelings positively (Lundqvist, Carlsson, Hilmersson & Juslin, 2009) and second, it can stimulate interesting and informal discussions about the memories people have of a certain song. However, less technology savvy participants may be nervous about the use of the technology in combination with entering unknown territory, and meeting more or less known participants. It is important to create a welcoming atmosphere and keep the technological barriers as low as possible. Again, an open and patient attitude, the skills to handle the technology as well as creating a safe and welcomed feeling, and the knowledge about strategies, including the technology used, are vital for the facilitator in this phase. In the on-boarding phase, creating an environment that feels safe and welcoming is equally important in both modes of game play. Psychological and social aspects play the most important role. While functions, or game tasks, are usually not yet addressed in an offline session, technological functionalities should be checked and tested in an online session. Enough time needs to be allocated especially in online settings to allow every participant to reach a similar level of technological confidence before entering the next phase.

3.3 Introduction (Centering)

In offline game settings, the facilitator has some influence on how to set the scene – how to prepare the location, the get to know each other phase, with or without a game-based exercise, and to make all participants feel welcome and confident. In this phase, the aim and set-up of the session can be introduced, and there is room for questions of the participants. This moment also allows the facilitator to get to know the group a little bit and build up a first relationship with them. Again, social and psychological aspects are very important in this phase. Functional fidelity also plays a role – the location and setting of a game session can influence the players’ perception, and experience of the session.

An issue we identified several times during online game sessions is the central topic of ‘Centering’ that has been addressed by Schwägele and Bartschat (2020) in their online training on ‘Facilitation in the digital space’. In their understanding, ‘Centering’ means to give participants the opportunity to arrive (safely) in the virtual room. Therefore, different channels such as cognitive, emotional/social and physical components should be activated. This can be realized by interactive warm-up exercises. An aspect that is very challenging in online sessions is the decreasing amount of concentration and attention of attendees over time as a result of so-called platform fatigue (Bailenson, 2021). Compared to a standard introductory round in an offline meeting, interactive warm-up exercises are working very well in online settings and can help creating continual interest and motivation among the participants. In addition, providing an overview of the session’s goal or very general theoretical information using a power point presentation or other visualisation can support this phase. This can also work in an online setting, but in order to avoid that the attention of the participants decreases, such presentations should be very short and brief. If online sessions take longer or consist of separate follow-up meetings, we recommend to define some general “How to behave” rules in one of the very first sessions. In one of our online student courses, we asked the students at the beginning of the semester about ingredients for a good online experience. We used the formula method (Leigh & Kinder, 1999) to let the students think about a maximum of six variables that they had to bring into a particular structure by discussing and prioritizing them. Such a method can help to foster the commitment of the participants over time. In an offline session, with the direct interaction between participants and between participants and players, it is less important to have explicit rules for this phase of the session. Thus, social and psychological ‘rules’ are different again, and require more effort from a facilitator in an online session. It is important to build social relationships in an online session, as those a crucial for working in a group (Gillett-Swan, 2017).

In addition to this, Schmitz (2021) distinguishes between two main player types in game sessions – the ones who need time to read through material and instructions in order to understand what is expected from them in the game. These participants need the room to go through the instructions themselves. And others, who need to articulate instructions and rules aloud in order to internalize these. In offline sessions, the second group would just talk about rules and instructions with their neighbour’s in a usually more informal way. If this way of ‘learning’ is restricted in online sessions, these players could experience a disadvantage from the beginning on. The facilitator has to carefully balance the risk of platform fatigue against the need of (verbal) exchange of some participants.

3.4 Play situation of simulation games

When playing physical games, emotional and social experience becomes relevant. A good game should be fun, engaging and challenging, and so should be a well-designed simulation game. In an offline game setting, a facilitator can easily observe dynamics between the different players, the movements of game tokens and the decisions and experiences during game play. Hence, an offline game setting offers transparency of game actions, and less dependency on technology. It’s also important to being able to ‘read’ the dynamics between players. Schmitz (2021) refers to a play situation in a simulation game, where one player in a sub-group takes over the control over the situation, and tries to convince the other group members to take over her perspective. From the body language of the players, it is obvious that other players disengage, triggered by this behaviour. This is a signal for the facilitator to step in and break up this dynamic in the group, either by re-grouping, or by any other intervention possible.

In comparison to this, it is way harder to have an emotional and social experience and interaction in an online game session. One aspect which we observed is that in offline meetings several things happen at the same time – they run parallel, whereas in online sessions the sequence of certain processes and actions is quite serial. This stepby-step approach does not only last longer, but also makes it very difficult to create an active feeling of emotional and social interaction and thus, a positively perceived game experience. This also creates a new challenge for facilitators of game sessions because their visibility in online sessions has changed dramatically. Even with having several screens, it is quite difficult for the facilitator to keep both, the content-wise aspects (e.g., presentations) and all attendees, in view. It’s also much more difficult for the players to concentrate on the game flow, and react to the interventions of the facilitator.

In addition, and with regard to the title of this publication, we want to focus on another important aspect, namely the use of cameras. If participants do not turn on their cameras in an online session, for whatever reason(s), and which cannot be enforced, it is difficult to impossible for a facilitator to see and ‘read’ the participants and to react properly. As human beings tend to communicate not only via verbal communication, but through non-verbal communication, using body language and facial expression, it is really difficult to compensate for this lack in online sessions that restrict the use of non-verbal communication even in sessions when every participant turns their camera on. This is one of the biggest challenges we identified during the past months as often, the feelings and experiences of participants are transmitted through their body languages and facial expressions. These signals are extremely limited in online sessions, compared to offline sessions with direct interaction. Moreover, while offline game sessions can be broken up into intervals, with breaks that physically separate players from the game play, and can be used to re-energize, taking action against the screen or platform fatigue (Bailenson, 2021) is much harder, because a facilitator cannot control what happens in these breaks. The social situation when an offline game pauses can be used for an interim debriefing, or just to strengthen the social bond between players. This is not the case in online sessions, where breaks should be used to disengage from the whole situation, and to take a break from the camera, and the demanding technology-mediated communication. In terms of fidelity, we can assume that social and psychological fidelity play an equally important role in both settings, but that because of the mediated nature of online game sessions, it is more difficult to create the same level of embodiment and sense of presence in an online setting than in an offline setting. With their visual power, digital games may have the ability to reach a higher level of physical fidelity. However, for the same reason it might be easier to reach a higher level of psychological and social fidelity in offline sessions than in online ones.

Furthermore, it seems as if a facilitator has more control over the game play situation in an offline than in an online session. Especially during the time when people were forced to work from home, simultaneously taking care for other family members, or having to share work spaces, distractions may occur during game play, which can be better controlled in an offline session.

Debriefing

As stated above, breaks can be used for formal and especially informal debriefing moments during a game session. It has been stated that a debriefing is one of the most important processes in a simulation game session (Crookall, 2010; Kriz, 2010) because it is seen as a prerequisite for learning. Schwägele, Zürn, Lukosch and Freese (2021, p. 1) defined debriefing as “reflection moments during the whole session, in which participants have the opportunity to reflect on their game play, experiences, and learnings”. These scholars (2021, p. 1) developed an Impulse-Debriefing-Spiral that “[…] conceptualizes the role of facilitation between briefing and debriefing throughout the whole process of a simulation gaming session - starting with its planning to reacting on emerging needs of the participants in between, up to closing the session as last step before transferring new knowledge and competencies into a new context (learning transfer)”.

In offline game sessions, a debriefing is usually structured according to a set of pre-defined questions, such as suggested by Thiagarajan (1992) and Kriz (2010), aimed at intense and deep discussions about a certain topic. Pointing out the elements of the game play that can be related to the real world is a crucial aspect in debriefing, as it fosters the learning transfer. In that sense, debriefing does not necessarily show a high level of fidelity, but can contribute to relating the game play experience to real world experiences. This is an aspect that might be easier in offline settings, where a reference to a certain game material and its significance in the real world can be visually connected. Referring back to a distinct situation or distinct game material can be more challenging in an online session.