Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Tone Vold
This idea phase was undertaken as a mini-workshop. A workshop is defined as “an educational
seminar or series of meetings emphasizing interaction and exchange of information among a usually
small number of participants” (Farlex 2011). The role playing was conducted using Fronter, and the
debriefing was done as an “After Action Review” (AAR). AAR is a method which gives the researcher
the ability to collate the responses from the participants. Often used in the army, this debrief is for
evaluating performances in an action, identify weaknesses and strengths, and for future action, find
ways to improve on the action (von der Oelsnitz and Busch 2006). The Learning Cycle of an AAR is
depicted in Figure 1.
Reflection on the
experiences from the
last action
Using the plan of
action in the next
action
Documentation and
reworking of a plan of
action with directions
of use and suggestions
for improvement
Figure 1: The learning cycle of an AAR (von der Oelsnitz &Busch, 2006)
The objective for this paper is to investigate the usefulness of Fronter during a role play simulation for
learning purposes. The paper presents the benefits and constraints found during the experiment.
2. Method/data collection
The study is a constructivist inquiry. The data are mainly qualitative and the collection methods
consist of questionnaires (with mainly qualitative questions), interviews, group interviews and field
notes. The interviews and group interviews are recorded for future reference due to the difficulties that
were likely to arise in contacting participants to confirm their responses. The results are discussed
with peers and fellow researchers in order to secure dependability (Guba and Lincoln 1989).
3. Theoretical foundation
Keeping the dialogue from the role play simulation is important for evaluation purposes. The written
dialogue helps in the assessment of how well they have executed the task; how well they have been
able to stick to the script and roles, and how constructively they have solved the problem.
A written input is different from an oral input. While the written word is static, the spoken word is
dynamic. There is more immediacy and less retention in the spoken word, and thereby requiring an
immediate feedback (Ferraro and Palmer 2011). It is easier to be more deliberate and thoughtful
when writing the dialogue (Hoel 2001).
Participant input was required during the creation of the scenario and roles to test whether early
involvement would encourage more participant involvement in experiential learning where there is
difficult or impossible to learn from experience in a work situation. Experiential learning is influenced
by the works of Kurt Lewin, Jean Piaget and John Dewey (Kolb 1984). An important feature that
842