A META‐ANALYTIC EXAMINATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTER‐BASED SIMULATION GAMES
Abstract
Interactive cognitive complexity theory suggests that simulation games are more effective than other instructional methods because they simultaneously engage trainees’ affective and cognitive processes ( Tennyson & Jorczak, 2008 ). Meta‐analytic techniques were used to examine the instructional effectiveness of computer‐based simulation games relative to a comparison group ( k = 65, N = 6,476). Consistent with theory, posttraining self‐efficacy was 20% higher, declarative knowledge was 11% higher, procedural knowledge was 14% higher, and retention was 9% higher for trainees taught with simulation games, relative to a comparison group. However, the results provide strong evidence of publication bias in simulation games research. Characteristics of simulation games and the instructional context also moderated the effectiveness of simulation games. Trainees learned more, relative to a comparison group, when simulation games conveyed course material actively rather than passively, trainees could access the simulation game as many times as desired, and the simulation game was a supplement to other instructional methods rather than stand‐alone instruction. However, trainees learned less from simulation games than comparison instructional methods when the instruction the comparison group received as a substitute for the simulation game actively engaged them in the learning experience.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Simulated work environments and role-playing are well-documented strategies for increasing student engagement and self-efficacy.
“Simulated work environments and role-playing are well-documented strategies for increasing student engagement and self-efficacy (Sitzmann, 2011).”
From Integrating Generative AI with Experiential Learning in the Digital Marketing Classroom (2026) · cites this paper as Sitzmann, 2011
Randomly assigning learners to experimental conditions allows researchers to rule out alternative explanations for differences in learning outcomes between different conditions.
“Randomly assigning learners to experimental conditions allows researchers to rule out alternative explanations for differences in learning outcomes between different conditions.”
From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Sitzmann 2011
Quasi-experimental studies do not allow alternative explanations to be ruled out.
“However, quasi-experimental studies do not allow alternative explanations to be ruled out (Wouters et al. 2013;Sitzmann 2011).”
From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Sitzmann 2011
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 151 · Cited by 882
- Authors
- SITZMANN, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Denver (US)
- Corresponding author
- SITZMANN, TRACI
- ORCID
- SITZMANN, TRACI
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-05-27
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 489-528
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W2133483318
- Cited by
- 882
- References
- 151
- Citations by year
- 2026: 55 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 56.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Personnel Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methodologies in Social Sciences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
- Keywords
- teaching effectiveness, self-efficacy, declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, retention, publication bias, active learning, game-based training
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review