A Comparison of Simulation-Based and Conventional Training Methods
Contributor(s)The Pennsylvania State University CiteSeerX Archives
Full recordShow full item record
Abstract“Conventional teaching methods are usually considered valid until proven otherwise, whereas the effectiveness of innovative methods must be amply demonstrated before they receive the support or approval they deserve. 1 ” A growing chorus of practitioners sing the praises of simulation-based training. As pinched budgets drive managers to scrutinize the return on their training investments, the question is, are simulationbased methods more effective than conventional training methods, such as classroom-based and traditional e-Learning? That is, do they result in greater retention, deeper understanding, higher levels of engagement, and better transfer of know-ledge to the job? This paper summarizes research that addresses this question. Comparison Conundrum Before going further, it’s important to recognize the inherent challenge in comparing simulation-based and nonsimulation-based training methods 2. The first challenge might be called the “apples-and-oranges ” effect: simulationbased training generally focuses on applying knowledge, while lectures and most elearning focus on imparting information and abstract knowledge (such as principles). If they teach different things, how can the outcome of one be meaningfully compared to the other? Studies must be very careful in how they equate outcomes.