Navy ILE PC Modeling and Simulation Guidelines - Volume 2: PC Simulation - A Decision Process
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
Navy ILE PC Modeling and Simulation Guidelines
Volume 2: PC Simulation – A Decision Process
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
10 April 2007UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
List of Effective Pages
Section Page(s) Affected paragraph(s)
UNCLASSIFIED iUNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
Change Record
Paragraph Description of Change Date Authorized By
Not Applicable Changed title page 10 Apr 07 J. Aplanalp
graphic and distribution
statement
**This version replaces MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5
UNCLASSIFIED iiUNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
Acronyms, Abbreviations, Definitions
See the ILE website for a list of acronyms, abbreviations and definitions.
UNCLASSIFIED iiiUNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................ 2
1.1 Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................... 4
1.2 Definitions...................................................................................................... 4
1.2.1 Definition of Simulation.............................................................................. 4
1.2.2 Definition of PC-based Simulation............................................................. 4
1.2.3 Definition of Gaming .................................................................................. 5
1.3 Military’s Use of Simulation ........................................................................... 6
2.0 PC-Based Simulations ...................................................................................... 7
2.1 PC Simulation Types ..................................................................................... 8
2.1.1 Cognitive Support Simulation .................................................................... 8
2.1.2 PC Software Simulation............................................................................. 8
2.1.3 Situational Simulation ................................................................................ 9
2.1.4 Procedural Simulation ............................................................................... 9
2.1.5 Virtual Worlds ............................................................................................ 9
2.2 Factors Affecting the Complexity of Developing PC Simulations .................. 9
2.2.1 Levels of Fidelity...................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Levels of Interactivity ............................................................................... 11
2.2.3 Levels of Immersion ................................................................................ 12
2.2.4 Deployment Platforms ............................................................................. 12
2.3 Benefits of PC-based Simulations ............................................................... 14
2.3.1 Advantages of PC-Based Simulations for Specific Deployment Platforms
20
2.3.2 Challenges of PC-Based Simulations...................................................... 21
3.0 Identifying PC-Based Simulations As The Appropriate Instructional Strategy
and Medium ................................................................................................................ 22
3.1 Support for Simulations as an Instructional Strategy from Learning Theories
22
3.1.1 Instructional Design and Constructivism ................................................. 23
3.1.2 Problem-Based Instructional Design Theory and Model ......................... 24
3.1.3 Anchored Instruction and Situated Cognition .......................................... 26
3.1.4 Transfer of Learning ................................................................................ 27
3.1.5 Information Processing Models ............................................................... 28
3.2 Learning Goals Appropriate for Simulation Strategies ................................ 29
3.3 Considering Learner Characteristics When Choosing PC-based Simulations
34
3.4 Organizational Characteristics and Learning Environment Considerations 35
3.5 Appropriateness of the PC for Delivering Simulations................................. 36
3.6 Economic Considerations (Cost Avoidance) ............................................... 41
UNCLASSIFIED ivUNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
3.6.1 Acquisition of Simulator Software............................................................ 43
3.6.2 Tangible Benefits..................................................................................... 44
3.6.3 Intangible Benefits ................................................................................... 47
3.7 Business Case Analysis .............................................................................. 49
3.7.1 Extent To Which PC Simulation Is Used ................................................. 49
3.7.2 Cost and Complexity of Developing PC Simulation................................. 50
3.7.3 Remaining Operational Life of Equipment............................................... 50
3.7.4 Number of Systems in the Fleet .............................................................. 51
3.7.5 Travel and Per-diem Costs...................................................................... 51
3.7.6 Acquisition Cost of the Operational Equipment ....................................... 51
3.7.7 Maintenance Costs.................................................................................. 51
3.7.8 Business Case Worksheet ...................................................................... 52
3.8 A Worksheet for Consideration of Instructional Issues.................................. 53
3.9 Design Difficulty Calculation.......................................................................... 54
4.0 A Criterion-based Approach for Justifying Use of PC-based Simulations ....... 54
References...................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix A: PC-Simulations: Instructional Issues ......................................................... 61
Appendix B: Design Difficulty Determination................................................................... 64
UNCLASSIFIED vUNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
List of Figures
Figure 1: Question Construction Wheel ......................................................................... 31
UNCLASSIFIED viUNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
List of Tables
Table 1: Features of PC-based Simulations and Their Advantages and Benefits ......... 19
Table 2: Bloom’s Categories of Learning Outcomes and Associated Verbs.................. 30
Table 3: Sample Learning Levels for PC Simulation Consideration ............................... 32
Table 4: Types of Training Benefited by PC Simulation................................................. 33
Table 5: Problem Category and Media Use (Dijkstra, 2001).......................................... 39
Table 6: Estimated Hours of Development for 1 Hour of ICW Level of Presentation..... 44
Table 7: Business Case Worksheet ............................................................................... 53
UNCLASSIFIED viiUNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
Executive Summary
This report is part of an initiative to define the processes, metrics, and templates by
which the Navy can objectively determine the merits and advisability of pursuing an
approach to training that takes advantage of PC-based modeling and simulation.
The Revolution in Navy Training focuses on the development and implementation of
performance-based training to give Sailors the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to
accomplish the Navy’s mission. As part of this effort, the Navy is considering deployment
of PC-based modeling and simulation in Navy training programs to support the
transformational goal of leveraging technology to improve learning deliver systems,
reduce costs, and improve performance.
Historically, the Navy has not had a consistent approach to simulation development that
addresses other major courseware initiatives such as re-use, interoperability, and share-
ability. To correct this situation, NETC and the Human Performance Center (HPC) are
working with the training industry and academia to establish simulation development and
delivery guidelines that support these initiatives and are consistent with Navy learning
strategies. Earlier this year, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Orlando’s Special
Emphasis Program Directorate (PDSE) published a report that addresses many of these
issues, entitled PC Simulation: Proposed Categorization, Architecture and Business
Case Analysis (Scanlon, 2003). In addition NETC, working with NIST, published PC
Modeling and Simulation Guidelines (McLean, 2003). These documents, together with
the SLQ-32 Analysis Report (Gillies et al, 2003), were used as a starting point for this
effort. The following report builds on these reports and formulates a prototype business
case methodology for PC-based simulation efforts.
This report addresses the instructional design and development aspects of PC-based
simulations, overviews theoretical and research-based support for implementation of
simulations, and outlines a criteria-based approach for decision makers to use when
assessing the appropriateness of PC-based simulations as the instructional strategy and
medium of choice. This approach includes economic considerations applied within a
business case analysis. All elements are important ingredients in determining the
viability of introducing PC-based simulations into any Navy learning curriculum.
UNCLASSIFIED 1UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
1.0 Introduction
There have been many changes in the last decade in the implementation of PC-based
simulations and computer games, including game development, usage in fixed locations,
and event-based experiences both in the military and commercial sectors. Currently,
there are no global or national standards for simulation development and only recently,
educators were able to realize the full potential of simulation and gaming for use in
training and education given the growing capabilities of personal computers to provide
for learning environments that could more closely match reality.
In military environments, senior officers are realizing that at least half of their current
enlisted soldiers and officers, to include recent recruits, are from generations that grew
up playing computer games. Maguire, et. al. (2002) estimate that by the time an
individual of this generation reaches 20 years of age, he/she has played over 10,000
hours worth of computer games. In attempting to communicate in the language of this so
called “Games Generations,” all the branches of services are now employing a variety of
games for almost everything the military does. Among the areas where the military
currently uses simulations/games are Recruitment, Readiness, Rehearsal, and
Retention.
Simulations are considered strong copies of reality and not a true form of reality itself.
Inevitably, you cannot discuss simulations without gaming; therefore, gaming will also be
discussed within the context of simulations. Simulations have many important uses in
military education and training. Simulations allow users the ability to practice in a safe
and non-threatening environment when the stakes of errors while learning can be costly.
In some instances this is accomplished at a lower cost. Simulations also allow for “what
if” experimentation. However, even with high fidelity, it is difficult to motivate individuals
to use simulations again once the initial novelty wears off. Games, on the other hand,
are considered extremely good at stimulating and maintaining motivation among users.
So, one way to maintain the motivation needed for users is to turn simulations into
games. This involves adding additional structural elements, such as assuming roles and
characters, rules, goals, winning, and competition. Military simulations in the past have
traditionally had different objectives from entertainment simulation games. Military
simulations focused on the education and training aspects and worked hard to be as
“physically” correct as possible. Entertainment industries have been focusing on
excitement and fun so that individuals will pay to use them over and over. Dangerous
and unrealistic situations, exaggeration of hazards, multiple lives, and heroics have been
acceptable and even desirable to increase the excitement of entertainment games, while
military simulations have typically stressed realistic environments and engagements,
seriousness, heavy dependence on environmental factors, and relied heavily on the
user's ability to coordinate actions with others (Pratt & Beasley, 1997).
Designers and instructors need to select a medium for use in their teaching and
instruction. How do they make the selection and why? A general condition is that the
medium should appropriately represent and use the content in such a way that the
intended goals of the instruction are likely to be supported and attained. The selection
and use of a proper medium should be accomplished while keeping in mind the effect of
a certain medium on learning (Hasan, 2001). The rules for the selection of an adequate
UNCLASSIFIED 2UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
medium have been designed and developed in relation to different learning theories and
are presented in different instructional design models (e.g., Cantor, 1988; Reiser &
Gagné, 1983; Reynolds & Anderson, 1992; Romiszowski, 1988).
Since media have been considered as merely a vehicle (Clark, 1983) for the
presentation of information, research on media has been merged with the study of the
effects of each type of medium on the cognitive processes and learning results in
comparison to the performances of a control group. This research approach has been
criticized (Jonassen, Campbell & Davidsen, 1994; Kozma, 1991). Instead Jonassen,
Campbell, and Davidson (1994) suggest the effect of media should be studied in the
context in which the medium is presented or selected or used. The effect should be
studied as a result of media characteristics: technology, symbol systems, and
processing capabilities (Kozma, 1991). The contention is that the design of the learning
and instructional context contain epistemological assumptions: about knowledge, about
conditions for understanding that knowledge and for skill acquisition, about the content
of a subject to be presented, about the instructors’ and learners' tasks, about the means
of communication, and about the representation of the reality. The decision has to be
made whether to use the real object or a representation of the object, or both. These
aspects have to be combined into an integrated theory and model that prescribes how to
design instruction (Hasan, 2001).
Hasan (2001) noted that the content of a subject consists of a description of the reality
that can be examined as concepts, principles, assumptions and theories of that domain.
For the development of these concepts, principles, assumptions and theories by the
students, problems have to be designed. The solution of the problems fosters the
development of knowledge and skills. Such problems can be designed in special
contexts (Bransford, Sherwood, Hasselbring, Kinser & Williams, 1990). The instructor
has to develop learning environments, including media, to represent the objects in a
problem or problems. Students have to be active learners and solve problems to acquire
the intended knowledge and skills. Therefore, media selection and use has to be
incorporated in an integrative instructional technology. Such a technology should take
the aforementioned aspects into account. The selection of instructional media is
considered to be one of the main phases or activities in the design of instruction. The
selection of the medium should be grounded in an instructional-design theory, and be
one of the components of the instructional-design model. The selection of a specific
medium may be a difficult task for instructional designers and instructors because only a
few rules are known about what the most adequate media will be in a given
circumstance and when to use them (Dijkstra, 2001) and because of the numerous
criteria that have to be taken into account (Dörr & Seel, 1997).
UNCLASSIFIED 3UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
1.1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this report is twofold. First, this paper will describe the characteristics of
PC-based simulations and discuss the benefits and challenges of PC based simulations
as an integral part of military education and training goals to support instruction and
achieve optimum human performance. Second, this paper will provide a media selection
approach that is both research-based and criteria-based. Such an approach should be
followed for identifying learning goals that are candidates for simulation development.
The paper is intended to be used by decision-makers to make recommendations
regarding the applicability of PC-based simulations and to provide a clear rationale for
decisions made.
The research-based approach used in this paper includes analysis of the following:
• Support for the use of simulations from learning theory research
• Media selection and rationale research identifying learner characteristics and
learning tasks most appropriate for simulation development
• Design, development, and implementation considerations grounded in research and
practicality
1.2 Definitions
To ensure all readers are working with the same terminology in mind, definitions for
simulation, PC-based simulation, and gaming follow.
1.2.1 Definition of Simulation
The Department of Defense defines simulation as a “model that represents activities and
interactions over time. “ McLean (2003, p11) stated that simulations can be fully
automated or could be interactive or interruptible. He further stated that simulations are
real-world or hypothetical events and processes represented by operating representation
of selected features. A simulation can be as simple as an animation showing mechanical
movement and as complex as a high-immersion virtual world. Andrews and Bell (2000)
stated that simulations attempt to represent, mimic, or replicate something’s stimuli, cue,
responses, and interactions. That something could take on various forms such as a
person, a piece of equipment, a task, a phenomenon process, or an environment.
1.2.2 Definition of PC-based Simulation
Scanlon (2003) defined PC-based simulation as:
A desktop or laptop computer software program that strives to mimic a
phenomenon, experience, equipment, or environment that is based on reality
(purposely excludes fantasy games). The PC Simulation, when applied to
training domain, serves to provide the user with the opportunity for learning in a
robust, motivating, and engaging environment, wherein the presentation of the
material is optimized by a high degree of user interactivity, fidelity, and
immersion, and where context and practice are key to learning.
UNCLASSIFIED 4UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
Gillies, MacDonald, Deal, and Cartwright (2003) stated that PC-based simulations,
developed for delivery on a personal computer, can range from simple, automated
demonstrations meant for passive viewing to highly interactive training modules that
engage learners to practice their skills.
The descriptor ‘PC-based’ provided here limits the discussion in this paper to those
simulations being considered for development on the selected medium of a desktop or
laptop computer system. While such computer systems continue to expand their
capabilities there are still many limitations introduced in comparison to larger full-up
simulator systems, such as flight simulators, that require such a distinction from other
simulations commonly used in military education and training. Most specifically, issues
related to levels of fidelity and levels of immersion will arise. These factors affecting
development of PC simulations will be discussed further in later sections.
1.2.3 Definition of Gaming
Huizinga (1938) in his classical work Homo Ludens gives the following definition for
game:
[Game] is an activity which proceeds within certain limits of time and space, in a
visible order, according to rules freely accepted, and outside the sphere of
necessity or material utility. The play-mood is one of rapture and enthusiasm,
and is sacred or festive in accordance with the occasion. A feeling of exaltation
and tension accompanies the action, mirth and relaxation follow.
An encyclopedia defines game as a universal form of recreation generally including any
activity engaged in for diversion or amusement and often establishing a situation that
involves a contest or rivalry. A game seems to involve three components:
Players who are willing to participate in the game (e.g., for enjoyment, diversion
or amusement),
Rules which define the limits of the game, and
Goals which give arise to conflicts and rivalry among the players.
Although Huizinga defines game more in terms of internal feeling, he nonetheless
focuses more on the affective domain – motivation, satisfaction, etc. Computer gaming
typically means all forms of single or multi-player interactive software controlled
applications, consisting of audio-visual animated displays, intended primarily for
entertainment purposes in the home, and which operate through a programmable
microprocessor controlled device, in which the end user must interact with the
application and/or with other end users to achieve progressively more challenging
results and outcomes.
A comprehensive review of definitions and terms related to the above terms concludes
that PC-based simulations are often portrayed as games focusing on realism. Especially
for the purpose of this paper, PC-based simulations set heavy demands and help
players to understand and remember complex principles and relations.
UNCLASSIFIED 5UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
1.3 Military’s Use of Simulation
The military is heavily involved in using simulations as a training and education tool.
According to Gen. James L. Jones, former Marine Corps Commandant, many
simulations used by the Marine Corps at its facilities in Quantico, VA, rely on commercial
video games, especially those that are PC based. The following provides samples of
some of the simulation projects each service employs. It is not intended as a
comprehensive discussion of all simulation training tools the military uses.
The military utilizes multiple PC flight simulation games and provides a good illustration
of how commercial game software can be modified for military use. An example is the
Navy’s modification of Microsoft’s Flight Simulator 98 computer game for undergraduate
pilot training. The software has been incorporated into a high end workstation with a 29”
display and realistic input controls, leading to a significant perception of immersion in the
scenario. There has been strong acceptance of this workstation and plans are to
implement a formal training program around the flight simulating software (Dunlap &
Tarr, 1999, as cited in McGuire et. al., 2002). This is an example of an existing
commercial off the shelf game purchased for use in military training.
A specific finding from a Naval Operations (OPNAV) funded and Commander, Fleet
Forces Command (CFFC)-directed analysis completed April 2002 was a need to “use
PC-based simulations to support training objectives that don’t require full mission
trainers, at much lower costs, and are more likely to be deployable for use to refresh
perishable skills.” The underlying theme is that schoolhouse simulations could be re-
used to support individual training during pre-deployment work-ups if they were
configured like the Fleet systems. PC-based simulations that are re-configurable and
deployable on IT-21 compatible microcomputers aboard ship would meet the Fleet
requirement and enhance relevance, quality and timeliness of training. Baseline
Assessment Memorandum (BAM) 04 projected savings and cost avoidances of $59M in
Technical Training Equipment (TTE) maintenance costs over the Future Year Defense
Programs (FYDP). PC-Simulations will be employed to reduce or offset TTE
maintenance costs.
While a final decision on who will build the Army’s battlefield communications system of
the future is still many months away, the two teams competing for the Warfighter
Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) contract are already hard at work defining the
architecture and assessing the technological readiness of the proposed system. Both
teams are actively developing simulation games to provide demonstrations of possible
prototype systems for testing by Army users (Gourley, 2003).
In late May 2002, the Air Force announced that they were able to successfully fly a
pilotless combat jet - an aircraft whose performance had left them more than pleased. It
was the X-45A Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV), whose nonflying version had
been rolled out for public view less than two years before. Officials were satisfied by the
first demonstration. "The aircraft from liftoff was very, very stable in all regards," Boeing's
Alldredge said. "The whole flight path went just as we had expected, as we had seen in
UNCLASSIFIED 6UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
our simulations. We limited the bank angle to 20 degrees, and it performed just as
expected in the simulation room (Walsh, 2002).
US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is also involved in using simulations as
a training tool. USSOCOM has approved a joint operational requirement document
(JORD) for a special operations air ground interface simulator (SAGIS). This allows
Combat Control Team (CCT) air traffic control (ATC) skills to continue to be perfected.
Once funded and developed, SAGIS will meet CCT mission training requirements: ATC
tower operations, ATC in fluid tactical assault zone operations and TAC operations.
SAGIS will enable Special Tactics (ST) operators to conduct mission rehearsal using
tailored dynamic scenarios that are relevant to mission tasking. The system will have the
capability to link with multiple simulators and network with other command and service
simulators. Networking to aircraft and ground simulators for mission rehearsal or joint
exercises in the virtual battle space will enable forces involved in operations to simulate
and evaluate mission options. The simulator will supplement field training to provide
realistic introductory, upgrade and proficiency training; reduce training costs associated
with live exercises; and enhance mission success by providing mission rehearsal in the
joint synthetic battle space. Providing realistic ATC and TAC training will improve both
flight safety and accuracy and safety in weapons delivery. The system design will
include the capability for the ST operator to use his own tactical gear in the synthetic
battle space. This capability will allow test and evaluation of new tactics, techniques and
procedures in the simulated combat environment (McKaughan, 2003).
This brief overview provides a glimpse of some of the military’s initiatives in using PC
simulations as a training model. However, implementation of PC-based simulations is
still limited and, for some, questions still remain about the effectiveness, efficiency, and
cost of utilizing such a model across a wider range of learning goals. The rationale and
some of the advantages of using simulations will be discussed in later sections.
2.0 PC-Based Simulations
Research by Brandon Hall (brandonhall.com, 2002) identified five categories of PC-
based simulations with varying/increasing levels of complexity. These categories are:
Cognitive Support Simulations
PC Software Tutorial Simulations
Situational Simulations
Procedural Simulations
Virtual Worlds
Cognitive support simulations use simple 2D or complex 3D animations to visually depict
complex concepts. Software tutorials, using screen captures from PC-based
applications, may be passive demonstrations of application functionality or highly
interactive modules. In situational simulations, the learner plays a role in a scenario.
Situational simulations are typically used to provide training in problem solving, soft
skills, and team dynamics. Procedural simulations are ideal for teaching
systems/equipment operation and maintenance. Students can learn and practice start-
UNCLASSIFIED 7UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
up procedures and task sequence in a safe, yet realistic environment and immediately
see the results of their actions. Virtual worlds are the most complex simulations and the
most expensive to develop. They use a photo-realistic interactive environment and
various sensory inputs to create the perception of a real-life experience.
Three primary concerns when considering development of a PC-based simulation are
fidelity, interactivity, and immersion (McLean, 2003). Fidelity is the degree to which a
simulation replicates real life. Interactivity is the level of user interaction with the
simulation. Immersion is the extent to which a user is cognitively, physically, and
affectively engrossed in the simulation. Generally, as the level of fidelity, interactivity,
and immersion increase, so does the cost of production. On the other hand, the cost of
simulation development must be weighed against the cost of acquiring actual systems
for practice and/or the cost of physical experimentation on actual equipment or in a real-
life situation.
People generally consider that the closer a simulation experience emulates real life, the
better it is. Therefore, simulation developers will often seek the highest levels of fidelity,
interactivity, and immersion they can afford without considering whether what they are
developing is appropriate for the intended learning goal. The development and
implementation costs of any simulation must be weighed against the value added to
training.
2.1 PC Simulation Types
When considering the possibility of implementing a PC-based simulation as a training
tool, the different types of simulations available to the developer and user are necessary
to distinguish and understand. One type of simulation might serve a learning need better
than another. A combination of types may be used to meet multiple learning objectives.
Each type of simulation brings about considerations for design, development, and
implementation. These PC-based simulation types bring different requirements for
separate yet inter-related consideration of fidelity, interactivity, immersion, and applied
PC simulation deployment platform.
2.1.1 Cognitive Support Simulation
Based on the principle of “a picture is worth a thousand words,” Cognitive Support
Simulations assist in modeling complex concepts to assist the mental process or faculty
of knowing --including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, language,
memory and judgment. These types of simulations can range from simple graphic
animations to complex 3D models. The goal of Cognitive Support Simulations is to assist
learners to acquire, organize, and apply knowledge. These simulations usually rely upon
motion to better explain complex concepts; are perhaps the simplest to construct; and
lend themselves to re-use in various training products (Scanlon, 2003).
2.1.2 PC Software Simulation
PC Software Simulations can be used to demonstrate step-by-step instructions on using
an application resident on a PC. With the use of anonymous browser viewers, this model
can be extended to capturing still screen shots of Unix-based workstations in order to
UNCLASSIFIED 8UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
demonstrate the use of applications in other environments, for example, C4 systems
(GCCS, TBMS, etc.). Developing these types of PC Simulations is for the most part
simple and inexpensive. These simulations can range from simple demonstrations of
applications intended for passive observation through highly interactive lessons which
engage the learner to practice their skills in using PC Software. Combining this type of
PC Simulation with techniques from Procedural Simulation could provide refresher
System/Equipment Operator training (McLean, 2003).
2.1.3 Situational Simulation
Situational simulations are typically developed to assist learners in problem solving, soft
skills and team dynamics training and are usually based on role-playing simulations and
case-based scenarios. Situational Simulations are ideal for Mission Rehearsal. Learners
are typically members of the environment in these simulations, rather than being some
external force that manipulates variables at will. They typically incorporate situations in
which participants react to many decision alternatives and feature a best—or optimal—
sequence of right or wrong decisions (Brandon-Hall). Situational Simulations will likely
use complex flowcharts or state tables to map out the desired role-playing scenarios.
When using Situational Simulations for team coordination and collaboration training
wherein human interaction is critical to mission rehearsal, augmentation with audio/video
collaboration tools would be desirable (McLean, 2003).
2.1.4 Procedural Simulation
Procedural Simulations are ideal for systems/equipment operator and maintainer
training. Start-up procedures, task sequence and other drill and practice procedural
training are ideal candidates for Procedural Simulation. This type of PC Simulation
appears to be ideal for potentially replacing Technical Training Equipment (TTE) in Navy
School houses. Procedural Simulations afford a safe, realistic environment to resemble
the actual experience of systems/equipment operation and maintenance as closely as
possible, and allow learners to immediately see the results of their actions (learning by
making mistakes). These simulations can be designed to use very advanced state
tables, variable tracking and triggers that change the states of the modeled
system/equipment as the learner performs various activities. The costs for developing
Procedural Simulations are directly proportional to the level of fidelity, interactivity and
student/instructor control over the objects, events, and pre-programmed faults, in
addition to the number of system/equipment functions, objects, faults, and feedback
mechanisms modeled (McLean, 2003).
2.1.5 Virtual Worlds
A Virtual World simulation involves navigation in a synthetic space. Virtual worlds use a
photo-realistic computer-generated interactive environment, these simulations attempt to
achieve the same sense of space as in the real world through motion and visual cues.
Measures of spatial perception supplementary to accurate geometry, illumination, and
task performance, reveal the actual cognitive mechanisms in the perception of a virtual
environment that are not otherwise apparent (McLean, 2003).
2.2 Factors Affecting the Complexity of Developing PC
Simulations
UNCLASSIFIED 9UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
Simulations in general are characterized by levels of fidelity, interactivity, and immersion.
A determination of the desired levels of each of these characteristics directly affects the
complexity of the design and development of the PC-based simulation. Such decisions
also affect the effectiveness and cost of the simulation. In addition, the deployment
platform utilized for the PC-based simulation will affect not only the complexity of
developing the simulation but also other considerations such as scheduling (if classroom
labs are used) and user access (if deployed via Internet) among others. Each of these
issues is outlined in the following sections.
2.2.1 Levels of Fidelity
Fidelity is the accuracy with which a PC-based simulation replicates the appearance and
function of the situation or system being simulated. It is difficult to establish accurate
definitions for levels of fidelity. Typically, people speak in terms of high, medium, and low
fidelity. Without further definition, these terms are not satisfactory because they lack
objectivity and discrimination. What one person considers high fidelity may be medium
fidelity to another. In defining the level of fidelity required, one must consider various
attributes of the simulation.
• Accuracy: The degree to which parameters or variables in the simulation match
those in the actual system or situation
• Capacity: The number of instances of an object or detail that are simultaneously
represented by a model or simulation
• Error: The difference between an observed, measured, or calculated value and a
correct value
• Fitness: The degree to which a simulation provides the capabilities needed to
meet training needs
• Precision: The clarity with which the system or situation is depicted; the degree
of variance in results of processes performed using the model or simulation
• Resolution: The degree of detail used to represent the system or situation; the
separation or reduction of something into its constituent parts
• Sensitivity: The degree of a component, model, or simulation to respond to a
stimulus
• Tolerance: The difference between the maximum permissible error or the
maximum and minimum allowable values in the properties of a model or
simulation and those of the actual system
• Validity: The degree to which a simulation is appropriate to the training situation;
the degree to which maintained data used by the simulation is acceptable for the
given use
•
A certain level of abstraction is inherent in all simulation, no matter how high the level of
fidelity. Identifying specific points of abstraction that are irrelevant to the training
objective are a critical part of any simulation analysis. Scanlon (2003) and Gillies, et. al.
(2003) discuss high, medium, and low fidelity in the context of a measurement of
accurately reproducing a sound or image of real world representations and focuses
specifically on audio and visual fidelity and identification of specific technologies,
UNCLASSIFIED 10UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
techniques and formats typically used within low, medium, and high fidelity simulations.
Creating high fidelity PC simulations is likely to eliminate one or more deployment
platform possibilities due to bandwidth limitations. Generally speaking, the level of fidelity
must be the minimum necessary to achieve the learning objective. The increased costs
of a higher level of fidelity must be justified by documentable gains in learning.
2.2.2 Levels of Interactivity
Simulations can also be defined by their level of interactivity. As with fidelity, the higher
the level of interactivity is, the greater the cost. The following descriptions are based on
the Joint Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory definitions.
• Passive. This level of simulation consists of still graphics with transitional effects
and/or vector-based animations depicting process, operation, or a real-world
situation. Graphics are usually accompanied by voice-over or text explanation.
Passive simulations are generally presented in a linear fashion and require little
or no user interaction.
• Limited simulation. This level of simulation is characterized by greater student
control and interactivity. For instance, a limited simulation of an equipment
console may allow the user to click on a push button to initiate an action or click
on a rotary button and drag it to the left or right to change a setting. It may also
include simulated input elements in addition to point-and-click and drag-and-drop
functionality. Data input requires that the simulation developer clearly define the
data to be input and the level of accuracy required. Limited simulations engage
learners through practice and usually provide feedback on user actions. They are
useful for teaching equipment familiarity and procedural tasks.
• Multiple paths. In this level of simulation, the user has several options for
completing a task. The user’s choice affects the path and outcome of the training,
thereby more closely emulating the freedom of choice in the real world without
real-world consequences for mistakes and errors in judgment. Although multiple-
path simulations are highly engaging, this level of complexity adds considerably
to development time and cost.
• Full simulation. This level involves complex equipment modeling with events and
fault conditions or immersion technology. The user has complete control of the
simulation experience. Training scenarios can be complex and may require the
user to process a large amount of information. This level of interactivity requires
considerable research into the equipment or situation to be simulated and is very
expensive and time consuming to produce.
UNCLASSIFIED 11UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
2.2.3 Levels of Immersion
According to Slater and Wilbur (as cited in Mania & Chalmers), immersion is the extent
to which the visual display is inclusive, extensive, surrounding, and vivid. These terms
may be defined as follows:
• Inclusive: The degree to which the user feels that he or she is a part of the
scenario
• Extensive: The degree to which the simulation replicates the parameters of the
real world
• Surrounding: The degree to which the simulation environment envelops the user
so that external stimuli are not experienced during the simulation
• Vivid: The degree to which the total sensory experience reflects real life
Simulations that involve 2D animations with no user interactions obviously have a low
level of immersion. Simulations that allow the user to interact with a three-dimensional,
computer-generated model or environment can have varying degrees of immersion
depending on the delivery platform and the level of fidelity. Delivery platforms include
PCs, head-mounted displays (HMDs), and virtual environments (VEs), such as flight
simulators. A PC desktop display is generally less immersive than an HMD or VE
because the degree of immersion depends on user perceptions. However, because of
technical limitations and cost factors, HMDs and VEs are usually used only when the
training objective requires total immersion (Mania & Chalmers, 2001).
In terms of PC-based simulations, the level of immersion is largely dictated by the fidelity
of the simulation. A low-fidelity PC simulation will also have a low level of immersion
because of the differences between the programmed experience and real life. A high-
fidelity PC simulation, with realistic visuals, interactions, and parameters will have a
much higher level of immersion, though not as high a level as can be provided through
HMD or VE. Generally, the higher the level of fidelity is, the higher the level of immersion
(Mania & Chalmers, 2001).
Generally speaking, there are three levels of immersion for PC-based simulations:
• Low. A low-level PC-based simulation is characterized by any combination of the
following: lack of visual fidelity, lack of interaction or very limited interaction,
and/or low degrees of accuracy, capacity, and precision.
• Medium. A medium-level PC-based simulation is characterized by high-fidelity
graphics, realistic user interactions, and realistic sensory inputs (such as
recorded audio or changes to the visual based on user interactions).
• High. A high-level PC-based simulation has the level of fidelity of a medium-level
simulation plus additional sensory inputs to increase the fidelity of the total
experience. Earphones, joysticks, additional displays, or other peripheral devices
may provide these additional sensory inputs.
2.2.4 Deployment Platforms
PC Simulations are intended to be deployed using several training technologies. Each
UNCLASSIFIED 12UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
deployment platform impacts different design and implementation considerations such
as use of graphics and interface capabilities with Learning Management Systems (LMS),
Content Repositories, and Computer-Managed Instruction (CMI).
Scanlon (2003) summarizes the deployment platforms intended to be used for PC-based
Simulations as:
• Electronic Classroom Asynchronous (ECA). This environment is afforded to Navy
learners having access to Navy Advanced Electronic Classrooms (AEC) wherein
an instructor-facilitator model is used vice an instructor-led training model.
Learning Resource Centers (LRC) also fall under this category. PC Simulations
developed for ECA will need to make use of a highly granular CMI and will have
limited LMS requirements.
• Electronic Classroom Synchronous (ECS). This environment is afforded to Navy
learners having access to Navy Advanced Electronic Classrooms (AEC) wherein
an instructor-led training model is used. PC Simulations developed for ECS will
need to make use of a minimal CMI and will have some LMS requirements. More
importantly, the PC Simulation used in the ECS environment would ideally give
control to an instructor on selecting preprogrammed faults, features, and object
parameters to tailor the lesson to individual students and take advantage of other
AEC functionality.
• Stand-alone PC. Taking courseware on a stand-alone PC allows the learner
ultimate control over self-paced lessons. This type of training technology is also
known as Interactive Courseware (ICW) or sometimes Interactive Multimedia
Instruction (IMI). PC Simulations developed for a Stand-alone PC are
advantageous in that the learner can make use of the instruction virtually
anytime, anywhere, but there are some disadvantages that need to be
considered such as home access and security of information among others.
Most PC Simulations developed for stand-alone delivery have not, in the
past, provided a means of linking student accomplishments to the Navy LMS.
Any future PC Simulations provided in this media would be required to report
student progress, scores, completion, etc., to the Navy LMS. Distribution
mechanisms can be unnecessarily expensive and unwieldy (CD-ROM). In
addition, with many Navy PCs being converted to the Navy Marine Corps Intranet
(NMCI), users can no longer install this type of courseware to their desktop
computers. Future PC Simulations delivered for stand-alone PCs will likely need
to be self contained and will need to execute from the CD-ROM vice relying on
transfer of files or run-time executables to the desktop.
• Internet Delivery. Any PC Simulation destined to be delivered via the Internet will
likely be accessed on the Navy Knowledge Online (NKO) site and integrated
with the Navy LMS and LCMS. Shareable Content Object Reference Model
(SCORM) conformance will also be a requirement. Bandwidth limitations may
limit the level of fidelity in these products, but should not limit the level of
interactivity afforded. It is anticipated that Internet and Intranet delivery of PC
Simulations will need to take advantage of Mobile Code technologies and web
browser based self-contained application technologies to provide increasing
levels of fidelity and interactivity. Although not appropriate for every type of PC
Simulation product, it is believed that an adequate level of fidelity, interactivity,
and immersion, and the ensuing desire to provide robust, engaging and
UNCLASSIFIED 13UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
motivating training content can be met with the use of anonymous browser
technologies.
• Intranet Delivery. Intranet Delivery of PC Simulations can increase the level of
fidelity applied over Internet delivery and approach the level of fidelity that can be
derived from Stand-alone PC, ECA, and ECS. With this type of delivery, it is
anticipated that training modules will be installed on shipboard and shore-based
Navy servers that may or may not contain a distributed installation of the Navy
LMS. Collected results for student tracking must later be updated to the Navy
LMS. As noted above, it is anticipated that Internet and Intranet delivery of PC
Simulations will need to take advantage of Mobile Code technologies and web
browser based self-contained application technologies to provide increasing
levels of fidelity and interactivity.
• Personal Digital Assistants (PDA). PDAs could be considered for some types of
PC Simulation if the platform is available in the intended training environment.
The PC Simulation would need to include a mechanism for updating any
collected results for student tracking back to the Navy LMS in the case of an
actual training course is being deployed vice an implementation of a simple job
performance aid or refresher module.
2.3 Benefits of PC-based Simulations
This document proposes a roadmap for determining when PC-based simulations are
appropriate as the instructional strategy and media of choice and the potential benefits
to be gained from implementation of a PC-based simulation. PC Simulations can benefit
any type of training wherein practice is required to become proficient at a skill. The more
critical it is for the practice to take place in job context, the more PC Simulations will
benefit training. The PC-based, Internet-based simulation games vision of training is
growing in popularity in the commercial simulation marketplace. Conferences on
Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) based on this training concept have been
launched in the US and Europe. At I/ITSEC 2000 and since, there is an increased
presence of companies exhibiting their ADL offerings. Technology has made the ADL
evolution feasible. The recent advances in PC processing power, the availability of low-
cost 3D PC-based rendering products and accessibility of high bandwidth commercial
internet connection from DSL and cable modem services make this vision of training a
possibility.
Alan Davenport, the founder and president of Primary Image, stated in an interview that
the direction is largely right for PC simulations. He stated that this is a result of market-
pull rather than industry-push. He further elaborated that many of the “players” have
resisted the move toward PC simulation and just don’t have the corporate structure to
survive long term in the PC dominated world. However, he sees continued move toward
PC-based training. He cautioned, however, that it is wrong to expect the same rapid
advances in PC graphics of recent years to continue. Davenport stated that the
industries have just been lucky and that the surges in performances year after year
happened to match with simulation requirements. That was a coincidence and PC
graphics will develop to suit the volume market, not the simulation market. Nevertheless,
PC quality and price-point have achieved a level where many requirements will embrace
PC-based simulations (Davenport, 2003).
UNCLASSIFIED 14UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
Given that the technical capabilities of personal computers and Internet access make
PC-based simulations a more viable instructional strategy than ever before and given
that the commercial marketplace is more open than ever before to consider PC-based
simulations as desirable and marketable, decision makers must look beyond these
hindrances of the past and toward the benefits of choosing PC-based simulations as
their media and strategy for appropriate learning goals. Several benefits are outlined
below with specific examples of how the military can and is taking advantage of
simulation and PC-based simulation technology.
UNCLASSIFIED 15UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
• Reduction in training cost
Warren Katz, the chief operating officer and co-founder of MäK Technologies, in 2001
stated that "Standard simulators are a great way to train. But they are expensive."
According to Katz, a domed flight simulator can cost $10,000 per hour to train whereas,
a web-based training system (PC based) costs about 24 cents an hour to operate. Katz
also stated that typical costs of traditional training are not just the cost of hardware for
the military. It involves the cost of travel, the challenges of scheduling, the need for
students to leave their families, and others. By making the training available any time -
any place and making it fun with video game technology, you make training available
and attractive to the learners while at the same time reducing a multitude of costs (ETS,
2001).
• Reduction in training time
Simulations give the user the ability to compress or expand time, meaning a function or
task can be sped up or slowed down so that the learner can investigate the phenomena
and better understand it which leads to better learner outcome.
Lines (2003) stated that simulations offer an affordable way to replicate a complex
network on a single PC with minimal system requirements. The author further stated that
the PC based simulation software helps save time for the learners. The time is saved
because learners can practice their skills anytime, any where and on any PC.
Tim Young, a missile training analyst at Primary Image Ltd, outlines the many benefits of
the TOW trainer in an ETS-news article. He interviewed users of the TOW simulations.
Major Phil Cook, AAC-HQ, stated “the training and realism provided by the TOW
simulation trainer has increased our TOW operational capacity by 200%. Without this
system, operators would be limited to firing a single missile every 18 months. Now they
are able to fire over 40 simulated engagements every month. Since receiving the
Primary Image solution, students have not missed a single target on the live fire range.”
The same time it reduces training time, simulations can also increase actual training
experience.
• Can better mimic the actual work environment, thus producing better retention
of learned skills
According to Dr Allan Bignell, Vice President, Marketing and Sales, Government
Systems Group, L-3 Communications, a study conducted in 1993 indicates simulation
provides the greatest level of knowledge retention and is arguably the fastest route to
proficiency in learning. It creates the complete sensory context of the skill being learned
so that the information grasped through experience is internalized as genuine
knowledge. Simulation, ranging from the 'fire drill' to the ubiquitous sports scrimmage
and exhibition game to complex immersive full flight simulation, is a well-trodden path to
knowledge and proficiency. In the pedagogical sense, flight training represents the
highest level of learning intensity: actual proficiency, and so justifies the cost. (ETS,
2001).
• Allows the practice of hazardous procedures
Learning by doing is undoubtedly the most effective approach to learning as it is the
experience in a pseudo-real world context that jumps the gap from information to
knowledge and proficiency. Unfortunately, many high cost/risk situations are better
not attempted by novices. Nevertheless, there is no way to properly learn to fly a jet
aircraft without practice in the environment and context of real flight. Thus the need
UNCLASSIFIED 16UNCLASSIFIED MPT&ECIOSWIT-ILE-GUID-5A
for immersive simulation or learning by doing is essential in the learning process.
Operators can be exposed to high risk hazardous operations in a risk free
environment (ETS, 2001).
• Provides a safe environment for exercising ‘what-if’ scenarios or learning from
one’s mistakes –not possible on tactical equipment.
Companies such as Lockheed Martin were able to demonstrate through simulations that
increased availability of transport aircraft, both strategic and tactical, has a dramatic
effect on combat metrics including increase in enemy kills, reduction in own force losses,
and even the cost of waging war. While risk of damage would be high with “on-the-job-
training,” learning would be unfathomable and the results catastrophic. Simulations allow
for a safe and economic way of gathering possible outcome measures (ETS, 2001).
• Able to mimic real time or non-real time events
The Air Force’s CV-22 team spent most of its time in the summer of 2003 testing the
hybrid’s electronics at the base’s Benefield Anechoic Facility, where suspension of the
aircraft from the ceiling allows realistic electronics systems tests without taking the
aircraft aloft. According to John Haire, spokesperson for the project, “The test program
has been alive, because of the modeling and simulation capabilities that exist in our
Electronic Warfare Test Directorate, we can do a wide array of testing without having to
fly the aircraft. Every thing I have been told indicates that all the test points that were
done gave good data” (McCarter, 2002).
• Can allow learning to take place without the need for using expensive
operational equipment, thus reducing life-cycle costs
Canada is also utilizing technology simulations to further their country’s military. In late
2002, the Canadian Forces began a project to conduct concept development and
experimentation with UAVs. The objectives of this project are to evaluate the potential
for UAVs to be used in service and to help the Canadian Forces develop expertise that
would eventually lead to the purchase of UAVs. To support the concept development
and experimentation project, Defence Research and Development Canada, Ottawa,
(DRDC Ottawa) is making extensive use of modeling and simulation technologies to
support and improve the eventual acquisition process. The UAV Research Test Bed
project is designed to ensure the Canadian Forces have a disciplined and thorough
understanding of UAVs before committing limited budgets and resources. The RVCS
product is designed to assist other potential UAV users to do the same. The basis for
this low risk approach to UAV evaluation, acquisition and operation is modeling and
simulation technology, which is now finding applications beyond traditional training
systems and is being used extensively throughout program lifecycles (Kennedy, 2000).
• Specifically, in a military setting, PC war games are no substitute for realistic
field training but can help achieve the following:
• Mission rehearsals: They are useful for complex maneuvers used in urban
fighting or night combat.
• Decision-making: They train commanders to think through various procedures
used to command, deploy, and control their troops and firepower.
• Development of new fighting concepts: They allow army commanders to
experiment with different weapons and force structures to see how such changes
affect the effectiveness of their units.
UNCLASSIFIED 17You can also read
