Alessi (2000), Alessi & Trollip (2000) & Shaffer (2006)

When I read the Schaffer's chapter, the main question coming up in my mind is the transfer issue. In other words, can learners successfully transfer what they "learned" from the game (or simulation) and transfer their learning to the "real world context". Are the learners only learned declarative knowledge and/or procedural knowledge in simulation? Then, I found some answers in Alessi (2000) & Alessi & Trollip (2000).

First, Schaffer's focus was in game which matches pretty well with using simulation. And, Alessi (2000) suggested, building simulation is more appropriate for problem-solving goals. The goals of using simulation can be either skill performance or skills required interpersonal interactions. In other words, game (or using simulation) should not be treated as a silver bullet. Instead, it has specific advantage for specific instructional goals. Alessi (2000) also addresses other factors such as complexity of the problem, learners' prior knowledge, efficiency of learning, and knowledge type, which has an effect on the choice of simulation.

I really like the model that is depicted figure 7.17 in Alessi & Trollip (2000, p, 235). Again, it answers my question regarding to transfer of learning. The model suggested fidelity, perceived fidelity, motivation, and initial learning are some key factors affecting transfer of learning. Some dimensions of fidelity such as fidelity of presentatation, fidelity of model, fidelity of use actions, and fidelity of time scale, are also given in both Alessi & Trollip (2000) and Alessi (2000) . The authors also suggest using Malone's motivation theory and Keller's motivation theory to enhance motivation. Currently, our research project is trying to come up with a framework to evaluate games. If transfer of learning is the ultimate goal, we may use the model depicted by Alessi & Trollip (2000) as our rubric.

Schaffer (2006) also discussed a concept called "facilitating communities of learners" (I could not locate the exact reference, but I think it is probably in Brown & Campione, 1996, 1998). Schaffer pointed out one key point from Brown & Campione study is that learning ONLY take places as a part of a coherent system, but not getting something from group A, and something from group B on a menu. The idea sounds very convincing. However, what is a coherent system? How can we fit our game/simulatoin discussion into this coherent system?

I feel that Schaffer's (2006) book not only trying to tell us game can be part of the educational solutions, but we also need to think about education differently. We should try to prepare the students to face the challenge in the information age (or whatever age that coming up for them). The question is whether we know enough how to achieve this goal or not? Is not, what are the missing pieces?