Interview with Marieke de Wijse
BEKIJK DE NEDERLANDSE VERSIE HIER
Imagine this: you are facilitating an intensive simulation game. Players make decisions, struggle with challenging scenarios, and try to solve complex problems. Meanwhile, you wonder: how can I actually see what they are really learning? This is precisely what Marieke de Wijse focuses on. As a PhD researcher at Radboud University in Nijmegen, she investigates how facilitators can enhance and support the learning process during serious games.
Marieke brings a unique combination of practical experience and academic knowledge. Before starting her doctoral research, she worked as a game designer and consultant in the field of organizational change. This makes her not just a scientist but someone who understands how games can help tackle real-world problems. Moreover, she is a dedicated board member of the International Simulation and Gaming Association (ISAGA), where she has been active for many years, and one of the veterans of SAGANET. Here, she plays a crucial role in promoting knowledge exchange between game practitioners and researchers. Marieke is also the driving force behind various international Special Interest Groups (SIGs) on topics such as games and sustainability and is involved in organizing summer schools on serious games, facilitation design, and evaluation.
We interviewed her via email, with a little help from AI.
Marieke facilitates Dick Duke’s game Hexagon at 40 degrees Celsius during ISAGA 2023
Marieke, you research how to measure what people learn while playing serious games. How exactly do you do that during the game?
First, you look at what is already present in the game in terms of useful feedback mechanisms or formative assessment mechanics. These can help players reflect during the game. Sometimes mechanisms are already built in that you can use for the feedback system, such as log forms where a participant or group records decision information and justifications. This allows you to track the reasoning participants use, why they make certain decisions, and how they deal with the consequences.
If there is nothing useful in the game, or if you want to add extra reflection, you can use open and structured questions. This reinforces learning. Think of questions like: “What went well?”, “What didn’t go so well?” and “What do you need to achieve your goals?” We have researched the effects of these questions, and they showed a significant positive learning effect, especially when used during reflection moments or prior to a debriefing (Alf et al., 2023).
We intentionally leave out game scores because they often give a distorted view of the learning effect. For example, due to beginner’s luck or high-performing teams that don’t necessarily learn more. It turns out that the teams that struggle the most and experiment—without giving up—also learn the most. They take on the most challenges and thus receive the most feedback.
This method of measuring is also widely applicable beyond game simulations. We use it in other forms of intervention studies and learning programs.
You often talk about ethical challenges in simulation games. What do you see as the biggest challenge for someone facilitating such a game?
The biggest challenge is being able to switch and deal with the complexity and uncertainty inherent in simulation games and their players. You cannot see inside people’s minds, you cannot fully follow or direct their learning processes, and anything can happen. For instance, you may unknowingly trigger projections or encounter sensitivities within a team or between players that you weren’t aware of beforehand.
Debriefing time is often limited, and it’s not always the participants with the most interesting learning experiences who speak up. To still bring those deeper insights to light, you can have people reflect individually on structured, open questions such as: “What worked for you?” and “What would you advise someone else playing this game?” This way, people aren’t immediately influenced by the group, and you get the most valuable perspectives.
After that, you can have these insights discussed in subgroups. As you walk around, you get a good sense of what is going on. This allows you to bring up interesting points during the plenary debriefing. Stay engaged with the process, as subgroups can also lead to conflicts. If that happens, isolate and address them before they take over the plenary group’s attention.
You mention a ‘valley of despair’ in simulations. What does that mean, and what effect does it have on players?
Learning isn’t always fun, and thinking deeply about processes that don’t go as expected is often difficult for people. But the satisfaction is all the greater when it finally works, and the ‘dopamine boost’ comes when an expectation is met.
In simulations, you often see that ‘valley of despair’: the moment when players realize that achieving goals is harder than they thought. This is, however, the moment when they are optimally challenged. You must be careful not to push too far; otherwise, they might give up. By preparing people for such a moment, they can handle it better and move through this phase more quickly without blaming the game or the facilitator. It also helps if they can discuss these difficulties within their team and have trust-based contact with the facilitator.
I often say: if it wasn’t challenging, you haven’t fully utilized the session.
How do you collect feedback from players during a simulation, and how do you use it to help them learn better?
We call this formative assessment. I have written about this several times (you can google me, “Wijse van Heeswijk”—much of my work is open access, and if you can’t find something, email me at marieke @ isaga.net). Feedback can come through game mechanics, such as logbooks or decision-making moments, but also through reflection questions after each round, like “What went well?” and “What didn’t go so well?”.
Additionally, you can design specific learning cycles in the game context where you collect feedback. Think of a pre-planning phase for each round, where participants share their intentions and strategies and reflect on the previous round.
You created a special model for ethically facilitating simulations. Can you explain how it works and why it’s important?
This model is essentially based on Aristotle’s philosophy. He posited that you can never know everything, especially in complex situations. It is important to gather different perspectives to get a complete picture and gain experience. You can never be the all-knowing expert; the key is to create shared meaning of what happens—that’s what we call social constructivism.
Aristotle found developing a sensitivity to the specific context of a situation crucial. You develop this by gaining experiences, experimenting, and conducting facilitation sessions. Additionally, you must actively seek multiple perspectives to better understand the situation. He acknowledged that every situation is unique, but by gaining experience and continuously gathering different insights, you develop a tactical sense of how to deal with ethical challenges. His advice was always to remain learning and exploring—you don’t need to know everything, but stay open to new experiences and perspectives.
In simulations that are very complex, how do you ensure that players don’t feel overwhelmed by all the difficult elements?
This is a very good question. A game can be internally complex, for example, due to extensive rules, procedures, and dependencies, which can lead to noise, difficult communication, and lack of oversight. This can disrupt learning processes. For example, read the book “Organizations as Social Systems Conducting Experiments” by my former professor Jan Achterbergh, which explains this brilliantly.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have open simulations, such as the policy simulations described by Jan Klabbers in Magic Circle. These games generate great external complexity. In the upcoming book on gaming and transfer (Transferring Gaming and Simulations to the Real World, which I co-edit with Toshiko Kikkawa, Willy Kriz, and Junkichi Suigura), I discuss how to weave a thread of learning objectives through a simulation using formative assessment mechanics. This helps players focus on their own learning objectives and actively gather feedback, significantly reducing complexity.
You often work with temporary teams in simulations. What is the advantage of this setup compared to traditional lessons?
Temporary teams promote social cohesion and safety because everyone is in the same boat. This helps learning, especially when there are different opinions within a group. People are social beings, and there is much to learn from social dynamics. Where knowledge and data processing were once crucial, the advantage now lies in handling socio-technical challenges. This is not just about social interaction but also about the systems we are part of.
I am always proud when I see how students at Radboud University deal with complexity and collaborate during a game. They are not yet entrenched in organizational cultures, and the potential they show, especially in the field of sustainability, is immense.
I often hear you talk about Richard ‘Dick’ Duke, the recently deceased pioneer of serious gaming. Did you ever meet him, and what do you think of his games?
Yes, Professor Richard Duke, or as we ISAGAns always called him, Dick, was incredibly beloved. Not just for his vast knowledge and experience but also for his warmth. He was always open to everyone, whether you were a student or a professor, and he did so in a very supportive way. I first met him during the first ISAGA Summer School in 2004 in Munich, an experience followed by a conference that was very memorable for me. And for everyone reading this: later this year, there will be another conference in Stuttgart—it’s highly recommended! It’s inexpensive, but you gain so much knowledge, contacts, and inspiration.
Dick not only laid the foundations for Game Science as we know it today but also shaped the culture within the ISAGA network: friendly, accessible, and focused on collaboration, with attention to detail and context. I was already familiar with his games through my professor at Radboud University, Dr. Vincent Peters. I had questions about the structure of his games, such as SLOGAN (a management game that examines the influence of organizational structures) and Hexagon (a multifunctional policy simulation, still my favorite game). I suggested to Dick that these games could be made more accessible and simpler, and he was immediately enthusiastic. We stayed in regular contact after that, even up to shortly before his death—and he was already in his 90s. It shows how captivating this field is, as people often remain actively involved long after their retirement. I hope to continue myself until I no longer can! For those interested, you can find some of Dick Duke’s books for free on the ISAGA website, including a collaboration with Professor Jac Geurts (https://isaga.com/networking-and-resources/publications-and-media/).
During ISAGA 2023, I participated in a demo you gave of the crisis simulation ‘Hexagon’ by Dick Duke. I noticed how easily you improvised and added roles to the game that strengthened the experience. Can you tell us more about improvising?
Yes, I’ve been fortunate to learn a lot in the 25 years I’ve worked with simulations, and I’ve always been surrounded by fantastic people. Thanks to the ISAGA network, I have experimented extensively, tested various approaches, and gathered scientific evidence to support my intuitions. I have also often attended colleagues’ sessions, observing what worked and what didn’t. Sometimes, we had to make extreme adjustments, like when the game board didn’t arrive with the flight or when we unexpectedly had five instead of 25 participants. In those situations, you need to be creative: “Oh no, the game board is broken? Well, then the country is now facing a hurricane!”
The beauty of Hexagon is that it is an incredibly robust game. In the 1960s, developing such a game could take half a year to a full year, which means it’s so well-designed that you can improvise quite a bit without losing its effectiveness. What helps me is that I know the game inside out, allowing me to adapt flexibly to what is needed at the moment. My background in business administration and sociology also helps, as I learned how organizational structures affect people. A strategy I often use is “depersonalizing” problems. This means quickly identifying whether problems stem from structure or culture, and by making that distinction, I enhance the learning process. Once you separate issues from egos, you can better observe the system-level dynamics.
I once facilitated Hexagon with a group of consultants to demonstrate that the game can “explode” if not guided correctly. If you make the wrong choices in facilitation, the entire learning process can derail. A golden rule is that feedback must be timely. If this can’t be done through the game system, organize it in other ways, such as through simple reflection questions. Give people space to create their own meaning, and they’ll be more willing to experiment and learn. In summary, a well-designed game is robust enough to adapt to different conditions, making it invaluable.
Serious games and simulations clearly play a major role in your life. What else brings you joy?
Haha, yes, my work is definitely my biggest hobby! But there are also so many great people involved, which keeps things lively. Additionally, there’s still so much to discover and develop in the field of game science and facilitation design. I often receive questions for which there is no existing theory or knowledge, prompting my colleagues and me to start writing again. I genuinely want to elevate the level of simulation games in and beyond the Netherlands. Games are incredibly powerful tools but can be tricky if not used properly. This is why I am also involved with the Special Interest Group (SIG) on facilitation and evaluation. We’re compiling all the knowledge we have gathered and making it available in an open-source book. We’re also planning to organize training sessions for facilitators—feel free to contact Jennifer at saganet.nl!
But what else makes me happy? I read a lot of professional literature and thoroughly enjoy the online lectures from colleagues worldwide, which you can find on the ISAGA website. I’m also looking forward to the ISAGA Summer School in Stuttgart and, of course, the conference, which promises many fascinating tracks.
Oh, and cooking! Especially with organic vegetables from Gordon’s Spoor in Groesbeek. Honestly, you can only talk to me about games and food, I’m afraid…