596100

research-article2015
SAGXXX10.1177/1046878115596100Simulation & Gaming XX(X)Hermann

This article is a part of a symposium titled: Theory to Practice in Simulation

Simulation & Gaming

2015, Vol. 46(2) 209220
Field Theory and Working 2015 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
With Group Dynamics in sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1046878115596100
Debriefing sag.sagepub.com

Kristina Hermann1

Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this article is to show how the group-dynamic
approach, as developed by the social psychologist Kurt Lewin in his field
theory, deepens learning during the debriefing phase.
Design/Methodology/Approach. This article offers insight into Lewins field theory
and its main principles for social learning within groups by addressing the
group dynamics of simulation and gaming. We discuss the potential gains of
using emerging group dynamics, and present concrete methodological
suggestions.
Findings. Seen from a systemic-constructivist view, group conflicts often mirror
those in organizational, contextual, or social settings. These conflicts and
contradictions can be made visible through emotions. Connecting emotions
and simulation dynamics makes the insights for participants more relevant
and easily transferable to real life situations.
Limitations/Implications. Lewins ideas have spread widely, and many researchers
have worked to develop them further. Lewins thoughts seem to be integral
to Simulation & Gaming, although links to his work are not often cited or
mentioned explicitly. Despite his theorys apparent impact on much of gaming
and simulation, many gamers still fail to integrate principles of group dynamics
in game and debriefing design.
Originality/Value. Group dynamics during simulations are often close to real life
experiences and can be very demanding. Facilitators may link group dynamics

1University of Applied Sciences and Arts FHNW, Basel, Switzerland

Corresponding Author:
Kristina Hermann, School of Social Work, University of Applied Sciences and Arts FHNW,
Thiersteinerallee 57, 4053 Basel, Switzerland.
Email: kristina.hermann@gmail.com
210 Simulation & Gaming 46(2)

to the content of the simulation, thereby deepening social learning and the
understanding of complex systems.

Keywords
debriefing, field theory, gaming, group dynamics, social learning, system approach,
team conflicts, emotions, systemic-constructivist approach, simulation, group,
Lewin, systems dynamics, complexity, facilitation, T-group, action learning, process-
orientation, behavioral change, self-regulation, emergent interaction, reflection-in-
action

Handling a high level of complexity within organizations requires the consideration of

many interacting factors during the decision-making process. Traditional economic
approaches often implement methods to reduce complexity and treat it as a disturbing
factor. The systemic-constructivist approach, however, accepts complexity as an
inherent quality of systems and promotes system thinking as a holistic approach (Kriz,
2010). Kolb (1984) defined experiential learning as the process whereby knowledge
is created through the transformation of experience (p. 41). Simulation/gaming can
create an environment in which people may learn from experience how to act effec-
tively in complex systems; their learning is cooperative, situational and self-organized.
Organizations tend to rely on teams to accomplish tasks, a trend with which this form
of teaching correlates well (Kayes, Kayes, & Kolb, 2005).
In gaming simulations, teams try actions and solutions and receive feedback regard-
ing the consequences. This feedback combines the knowledge of different scientific
disciplines and thus widens the individual perspective, encouraging the discovery of
interrelationships. The group dynamics involved in a simulation are often close to the
conditions experienced in real life. As such, these group dynamics may contain many
variables and be very demanding for facilitators; especially those who may be new to
gaming.
Facilitators who are new to gaming may find conflict uncomfortable to deal with
and may try to avoid it. Although most facilitators welcome positive and motivating
group dynamics, they usually attempt to suppress or eliminate negative and frustrating
dynamics in order to retain control of the situation. An insecure facilitator who feels
the need to exert more control to avoid dealing with negative emotions when group
conflicts arise may constrain the debriefing. This behavior is inconsistent with the goal
of creating a learning environment that self-organizes, and instead re-establishes a
classical teaching situation within which the role of the teacher is to deliver knowledge
rather than to facilitate learning.
Process-oriented facilitation is difficult to learn. Kolb, Kolb, Passarelli, and Sharma
(2014) compared becoming an experimental educator with a journey that can be chal-
lenging, surprising, frustrating, and ultimately rewarding (p. 205). They suggest that
the process of facilitation has deep intellectual roots in the trainer role of Lewins
Hermann 211

group dynamic training, the so-called T-group (Kolb, 1984 in Kolb et al., 2014). The
social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1944) explained that group processes are required to
promote learning in groups, as they provoke changes in mental models. This article
examines his field theory (Lewin, 1939) and the methodological approach of action
learning (Lewin, 1947).
Lewins work provides an ideal framework for constructive models that facilitators
should aim for when confronted with difficult group dynamics in gaming simulations.
This model is especially important for real and ongoing university and organizational
groups that use gaming. Group dynamic perspective is an important factor that should
not be neglected in these settings (Greenblat, 1980; Kayes et al., 2005).

The Main Aspects of Kurt Lewins Field Theory

The development of field theory was inspired by the Gestalt approach and contrasts
the associative approach of behaviorists. Lewins scientific questions and experiments
evolved from the search for both understanding and solving practical problems, espe-
cially in social psychology. Over the years, Lewin, his students, and his colleagues
carried out research on topics such as the effect of uncompleted or interrupted tasks,
the valence of objects, and reasons for inner psychic conflicts. One of Lewins first
insights was that our perception of the environment depends on our current needs
(Lewin, 1917). In practical terms: the perception of the situation in a restaurant differs
depending on whether the viewer is hungry, in search of calm, meeting someone, or
looking to flirt. Lewin defined the person as a complex energy field in which all behav-
ior is understandable as a change of the field during a certain timespan (Marrow,
1977).
The motivation for change to occur results from a tension. Energy is invested to
perform a mental or physical behavior to reduce the tension. In short, B = f(P, E). The
formula implies that behavior (B) is a function of or results from both the psychologi-
cal state (P or person) and the environment (E) of an individual (Lewin, 1943). Lewin
suggested that tension originates either from real (usually physiological) needs or
quasi-needs (intentions or wishes). The stimuli perceived in the environment can
either create tension or a direction. For example, seeing a commercial for chocolate
might cause the viewer to crave something sweet. Lewin referred to this as the valence
of stimuli.
Lewin created his field theory with close reference to Einsteins field equations
(Gephart, 2003). Einstein defined a field as the entity of existing and interacting paral-
lel facts. Analogously, Lewins definition of personal life space comprises the follow-
ing aspects (1936):

physiological, physical, and social conditions in the immediate environment of

a person
the psychological representation of those conditions in a person
the momentary valence of given circumstances
212 Simulation & Gaming 46(2)

All factors in the psychological field are interdependent and have a certain force
and tension. However, only those factors of the life space that psychologically exist for
a person can influence the behavior. All other factors are ignored and overlooked. In
any active psychological field, a representation of the temporal continuum is also pres-
ent. Lewin stated that everything condenses in the here and now. Experiences or mem-
ories represent the past, and the future also exists in the current field in the form of
wishes, hopes, or fears (Lewin, 1936).

The Field Theory Transferred to Groups

Lewin considered groups to be fields or psychological organisms in which various
forces are at work (Gephart, 2003). In a group, a psychological representation of the
perceived physical and social factors emerges and the group perception is influenced
by the momentary valence of the given circumstances. Here, the structure or pattern of
a group is not so much characterized by individual team members, but rather by the
relationships between them (Lewin, 1947). Bargal (2006, pp. 375-376) summarized
this relationship:

Individual and group behavior is analyzed in the context of the forces, which enhance
efforts to achieve goals, while there are inhibiting conditions that prevent it. Thus, reality
is characterized as an ongoing process of achieving equilibrium in a social unit, while the
process is being disrupted by the ever-changing field of forces.

In other words, group standards become the central force that keeps individuals in
line.
Lewin also explored how changes in attitudes and corresponding behavior arise. In
group studies aiming to change eating habits, he found that participatory processes
(e.g. group discussions) resulted in stronger shifts in opinion (Lewin, 1947). He
described the process of social change in three steps: Unfreezing, Moving to the new,
and Freezing (Lewin, 1947, p. 228). In the unfreezing stage, Lewin claimed that the
participating individuals need to be repeatedly stirred up emotionally in order to
break open the shell of complacency and self-righteousness (1947, p. 225).
With his action research and group-dynamic approach, Lewin developed a training
model in which the participants act and observe themselves at the same time. This
reflection-in-action approach investigates group dynamics collectively and uncovers
behavioral patterns. The training format, the so-called sensitivity training or the
T-group, is still one of the most intensive forms of learning. It prompts participants to
reflect on their characteristic patterns within an entirely unstructured situation.
Simultaneously, it challenges them to organize and coordinate the process. The way of
facilitation for this kind of training requires the trainers to be open to the full complex-
ity of the situation and to follow the group in an explorative way instead of trying to
structure and control it. As a result, Lewins explorative way of facilitation historically
constituted the experiential approach to learning in teams (Kayes et al., 2005; Kolb
etal., 2014).
Hermann 213

Table. Summary of Principles for Simulation and Gaming Arising From Lewins Concept.

Applying Lewins Concepts to Simulation and Gaming:

1 Unfreezing, Moving and Freezing are steps of behavioral change that participants
must pass through for the whole simulation/gaming session (big loop) as well as
during the debriefing (small loop).
2 Events in the here and now illustrate typical patterns from the past. These events,
taking place in the present, are possible turning points for future behavior (either
during the game or during the debriefing).
3 Different opinions or conflicts between team members indicate inconsistencies &
tensions in the field (simulation/scenario).
4 The different problem solving strategies among teams are an expression of
varying perceptions of the situation.
5 Even disturbing or conspicuous behavior has a hidden positive function; it can
indicate suppressed or ignored perspectives.
6 Learning cannot be ensured or planned through a teaching setting. Facilitators
can, however, provide a learning scenario, rules and questions that attracts and
stimulates the participants in preparation for examination.

Lewins Theory Applied to Gaming Simulation

More and more organizations are calling for diversity, self-regulation, and cooperation
through teamwork. These skills are crucial factors in the initiation of group or organi-
zational changes, and gaming offers a way to develop them (Kriz, 2003). As de
Caluw, Geurts, and Kleinlugtenbelt (2012, p. 618) stated: it is the magic of gaming
that it creates observable dynamics out of a seemingly chaotic initial conditions.
Observers and participants may perceive this dynamic in the emergent interaction
between the participants in the game. The game structure (the structures of conflict
and communication within the game) and socio-emotional context (e.g. existing rela-
tionship, personality, mood, cultural differences) provoke the emergence of this
dynamic (Ekman et al., 2012). Facilitators can perceive, address, and work with this
emergent interaction in an adequate manner by following Lewins concepts.
The Table provides a summary of Lewins concepts that are relevant to gaming and
simulation. The next section provides the theoretical background for the provided
methodological suggestions for debriefing.

1. The first aspect listed in the table refers to Lewins steps for change (Unfreezing,
Moving to the new level, and Freezing) (Lewin, 1947). These steps have to be
passed at least twice during the simulation. The whole simulation and gaming
process can be considered as a (big) loop (see also Clapper, 2014), and a well-
facilitated debriefing session passes the steps of the whole (small) loop again.

For the bigger loop that Clapper (2014) described, the unfreezing process starts
at the beginning of the lesson. The simulation scenario assists learners with
214 Simulation & Gaming 46(2)

transitioning to new levels and, in the end, aims to refreeze the performance of
the learners on the new standard using debriefing. During the debriefing ses-
sion (small loop), reflection unfreezes the participants gaming experiences in
order to help the participants understand dynamics on a deeper level and to
gain new mental models that they can transfer to daily life.
The resulting conceptual questions ask how to design the simulation pro-
cess (Instruction / briefing, simulation, debriefing) and facilitate the debriefing
session so that the loop of unfreezing, moving, and freezing is closed.

2. The second aspect in the table relates to Lewins thesis that the past (memo-
ries) and the potential future are both present in the here and now (Lewin,
1936). In the here and now, relevant events that illustrate typical patterns from
the past are happening. These events become possible turning points for future
behavior. Facilitators can help participants to gain important insights by work-
ing in the present, both during the game and during the debriefing.

Working in the here and now might mean that the facilitator interrupts an ongo-
ing discussion and switches to a reflection on the meta-level by asking: What
is going on right now? Kayes et al. (2005, p. 332) described this shift as the
pivotal role of reflective conversation. Kayes et al. also estimated this to be
one of the key insights for experiential team learning that emerges from
Lewins T-group approach. Therefore, the perception of minimal signs and
indicators should be reinforced.
In the attempt to understand systemic interrelationships, sensitivity is
required to recognize undesirable developments at an early stage. The partici-
pants should not only learn to examine mistakes themselves, but also acknowl-
edge intuition or gut feelings they may have experienced, and how they
handled these perceptions and feelings. One important learning effect of work-
ing in the here and now could be an acknowledgement of the role of intuitive
reasoning.

3. The third aspect listed in the table assumes that different opinions or conflicts
between team members indicate inconsistencies and tensions in the field (e.g.
contradictory demands in scenario or context) and can create specific group
patterns (Gephart, 2003). Thus, group members can be seen as representatives
of different positions or perspectives that are not in harmony.

When participants are reminded of the dimension of representation (mirroring

the system), the conflict dynamic can be relieved on a personal level, and
thus, systemic or organizational conflicts may be perceived more clearly. In
other words, when organizational dimensions are made clear, participants are
less likely to engage in personal quarrels. The reason is simple many inter-
personal conflicts are not truly personal. They are reflections of the dynamics
of the system. The contradictory demands and tensions of the simulated system
could remain undiscovered without representation in an interpersonal conflict.
Participants can experience how the recognition of group dynamics provides
Hermann 215

one way to understand the dynamics of the system by connecting the emergent
interaction to the game structure and context.

4. The fourth aspect in the table refers to the relationship between action strate-
gies and perception. Because groups are considered fields, they have a special
perception of the physical and social factors influenced by the actual situation.
In consequence, different strategies for problem-solving among teams are an
expression of different perceptions of the situation.

The facilitator guides participants through reflection on different perceptions,

group patterns, and strategies, as well as their relevance to the decision-making
process. During this process, they learn about the risks and limitations of team-
work within this special context in a remarkable way.
In real life, the decision-making process in complex and critical situations
is crucial. Teams in the finding or storming phase (Tuckman, 1965) and well-
settled teams who feel overly confident and exhibit unidirectional discussion
(the concept of group thinking) (Janis, 1972) can misjudge situations. As
Schattenhofer (1998) stated, the inability to reflect is the factor that limits the
degree of self-organization in groups. Participants of gaming simulations will
be more equipped to handle complex and confusing situations in a self-orga-
nized way, if we also address their ability to reflect and work on limitations or
obstacles that arise through group dynamics.

5. The fifth aspect mentioned in the table suggests being attentive to disturbing or
conspicuous behavior of individuals during the simulation or the debriefing.
Even disturbing behavior can have a hidden positive function and can point out
suppressed or ignored perspectives.

In a broader context, the existing disturbing behavior may fulfill the function
of balancing the system, and may mirror an aspect or a contradiction of the
simulation. The teams may restrict their perspective to a single view and
exclude anything that is contradictory. The result is an exclusionary group
dynamic. The opinions of individuals who critique the group perspective are
devalued and these critics are often treated as outsiders. Raoul Schindler (1957)
described this as scapegoat dynamic: by splitting off individual group mem-
bers it becomes possible to ignore perspectives that are contradictory to the
current group standard.
Although a persons behavior may be considered strange in the eyes of the
facilitator, it is important to pay attention to and strengthen these individuals. If
the facilitator takes time to consider the position the person in question supports,
the facilitator may discover a link to the system dynamics of a situation.
Subsequently, it is important to show the group that they limit their ability to
observe important perspective when they exclude fellow players. Above all, gain-
ing insights into different viewpoints is crucial in simulation learning (Petranek,
Corey, & Black, 1992). Perceiving and handling simulation complexity is linked
to a persons ability to perceive and accept the complexity of ones team.
216 Simulation & Gaming 46(2)

6. The sixth aspect discussed in the table is a general position towards learning
that has gained widespread acceptance (Kolb et al., 2014). It states that learn-
ing is self-regulated and cannot be externally controlled or forced. Lewins
basic statements allow the assumption that the motivation for behavior results
from the desire to reduce tension and evolves as an interaction or interactions
between environmental and individual factors (Lewin, 1943). The implication
is that one can only provide a learning arrangement (scenario, rules, and ques-
tions) that attracts and stimulates the participants for examination. This aspect
seems to be a core assumption of simulation and gaming, and justifies the need
for process-oriented facilitation.

Methodological Ideas and Suggestions

In the next step, methodological recommendations are made and possible questions
that can help to use the emotional depth of group dynamics in a profitable way during
the debriefing are listed. The following methodological suggestions focus primarily on
debriefing and are intended, for the most part, for gaming simulations that teach sys-
tem competence in a specific context and work with numerous teams over several
rounds.

Suggestions for the Instruction - Briefing Phase

During the briefing or instruction phase, the activation of existing knowledge can help
learners to unfreeze their existing frames and to establish situational interest (Clapper,
2014). Additionally the groups could be told that one task of the initial phase is to
consider how they may organize themselves as a team in preparation for the simula-
tion. This short task gives them the chance to reflect on the beginning of the session
and how the team achieved results.

Suggestions for the Simulation Phase

During the simulation, facilitators should observe the groups without attracting atten-
tion to themselves as active inactive participants (Kato, 2004; Kriz, 2010; Leigh &
Spindler, 2004). It is important to look for interesting group patterns that facilitators
can integrate into feedback during debriefing. Additionally, it could be interesting to
not only pay attention to dialogs and discussions, but also to observe the dynamics in
the use of media or materials, including participants body language.
Facilitators should avoid interfering in this process unless

a. it is necessary for running the game/simulation

b. the facilitator briefly joins the scenario
c. the facilitator interacts in a process-oriented way (e.g. by suggesting that par-
ticipants reflect on the decision-making process or regarding the roles within
the group if the teams seem to be stuck with regard to the instructional content).
Hermann 217

Alklind Taylor, Backlund, and Niklasson (2012) called this the coaching-by-
gaming approach, which is closely related to role-playing (Crookall, Oxford, &
Saunders, 1987). In role-play, the facilitator or confederate takes the role of a
commander, boss or coworker to guide the team to the objectives.

Facilitators may find it advisable and worthwhile to assign participants the follow-
ing reflection task for a short debriefing after the second or third round of the game.
This task may be particularly useful for scenarios that involve fixed teams of partici-
pants who work for several hours in simulation:

How is your teamwork? What are your roles and responsibilities?

To what extent does the teamwork support or hinder your results in the
simulation?

Suggestions for the Debriefing Phase

Emotional depth should be targeted by the facilitator at the beginning of the debriefing
process by linking emotions to group results (e.g. How satisfied are you with the
results and why?). Several authors (Lederman, 1984; 1992; Pearson & Smith, 1986;
Petranek et al., 1992; Thatcher, 1986) suggest that facilitators should ask for the emo-
tions that players experienced during the game as the second step after the players
describe the events, although Kriz (2010; in accord with Thiagarajan, 1993) suggested
exploring the emotional state of the participants as the first step.
Kriz and Thiagarajans approach is comparable to the unfreezing (small loop)
phase. It serves to let go of emotions that participants experienced during the game,
and can help to reveal and handle ongoing conflicts. At this stage, it is important to
carve out the present feelings in the debriefing in a process-oriented manner (Kolb
etal. (2014). The emotions of game participants should be validated, even when they
are harsh (Petranek et al., 1992). Concentrating on the here and now teaches partici-
pants to describe their behavior and feelings rather than to judge them. This focus on
the present helps the facilitator to ensure that the participants have fulfilled their ethi-
cal responsibilities and to create an evaluative atmosphere. Both of these aspects are
discussed by Lederman (1984).
Although staying close to the current emotional state is desirable, focusing on the here
and now also helps participants to detach from the evoked feelings by understanding them
as a current phenomenon instead of being the emotion. This way, the participants are dis-
couraged from considering their feelings as disturbing factors. They begin to reframe them
as important intuitive indicators. The facilitator can assist this process by explicitly show-
ing the connection or by encouraging and guiding group reflections.
The following are examples of interventions in the here and now during reflection
on the emotional state:

When I follow your discussion, your team does not seem to agree on your level
of satisfaction with your trial-and-error strategy. If we understand this as
218 Simulation & Gaming 46(2)

conflicting positions between trial-and-error and strictly planned action, and

then relate this to the simulated scenario, what do you see?
Considering your actual reasoning and your emotional state with which per-
son or position in the simulation do you identify with most?

Through such interventions in the debriefing phase, participants of a game on

change management may discover that the team atmosphere is similar to the atmo-
sphere in the simulated organization. The above may help them to understand why
they entered into a downward spiral and negative group dynamics. Patterns become
obvious when you compare different teams and their reactions. The group may also
realize that they may employ one of several possible strategies to deal with insecurity
and that each offers different outcomes. Individual and group-related limitations in
specific situations also become clearer.
In advance of debriefing, written questions can be given to teams to support the
collective reflection process. Later, they can share their insights and receive feedback
from the facilitator and other groups in a plenary session. For example, we might ask:

How was the atmosphere in your team over the rounds, and can you see con-
nections to the game?
Can you find a motto or a metaphor for your group and your style of working
together? (This is expandable e.g., by also letting groups find mottos for
each other, allowing a comparison and adjustment of the self-image and the
external view, and making clear the core patterns of each team.)

The advice and examples mentioned above illustrate the principles and do not sug-
gest specific methods for debriefing. For examples and detailed explanation of sys-
temic-constructivist debriefing methods, see Kriz (2010). In general, this approach is
close to the concept of dynamic debriefing as discussed by Greenaway (2007).

Summary
Lewins insights strongly influenced the development of the simulation and gaming
approach and provide a theoretical framework for facilitators. The field theory and
methodological approach of action learning argue for working in the present and using
reflection in group dynamics as a mirror or a sort of amplifier for indicators of con-
flicts or contradictions. This enables emotionally anchored learning experiences
instead of cognitive understanding only, and supports the behavioral change process.
Additionally, different positions and perspectives become clearer though the inter-
action between individuals, in turn allowing a deeper understanding of the system
dynamics. In this way, group dynamics that were at first interpreted as negative or
destructive can be seen as positive, and potentially even constructive.
A facilitator who incorporates and internalizes the listed principles can develop
more trust in the group and the process itself. This attitude corresponds to the sys-
temic-constructivist perspective and fulfills the requirement to base the debriefing on
the experiences and insights of the participants instead of giving lectures or showing
what the participants should have learned.
Hermann 219

Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Special
thanks go to Willy C. Kriz for his thoughts and advice, and to Timothy C. Clapper, the co-editor
of this special symposium, for his support and encouragement.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Alklind Taylor, A., Backlund, P., & Niklasson, L. (2012). A coaching-by-gaming approach in
serious games. Simulation & Gaming, 43, 648-672.
Bargal, D. (2006). Personal and intellectual influences leading to Lewins paradigm of action
research. Action Research, 4, 367-388.
Clapper, T. C. (2014). Situational interest and instructional Design: A guide for simulation
facilitators. Simulation & Gaming, 45, 167-182.
Crookall, D., Oxford, R., & Saunders, D. (1987). Towards a reconceptualization of simulation:
From representation to reality. Simulation/Games for Learning, 17, 147-171.
de Caluw, L., Geurts, J., & Kleinlugtenbelt, W. J. (2012). Gaming research in policy and orga-
nization: An assessment from the Netherlands. Simulation & Gaming, 43, 600-626.
Ekman, I., Chanel, G., Jrvel, S., Kivikangas, J. M., Salminen, M., & Ravaja, N. (2012). Social
interaction in games: Measuring physiological linkage and social presence. Simulation &
Gaming, 43, 321-338.
Gephart, H. (2003). Die Feldtheorie Kurt Lewins als Theoriebeitrag zur Gestaltsupervision [Kurt
Lewins field theory as theoretical framework for gestalt supervision]. Gestalttherapie,
17(1), 31-40.
Greenaway, R. (2007). Dynamic debriefing. In M. Silberman (Ed.), The handbook of experien-
tial learning (pp. 59-80). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Greenblat, C. S. (1980). Group dynamics and game design: Some reflections. Simulation &
Gaming, 11, 35-58.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and
fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kato, F. (2004). Facilitation and communication: Toward a study of an educational gaming
simulation. In R. Shiratori, K. Arai, & F. Kato (Eds.), Gaming, simulations and society (pp.
71-80). Tokyo, Japan: Springer.
Kayes, A. B., Kayes, D. C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation
& Gaming, 36, 330-354.
Kolb, A. Y., Kolb, D. A., Passarelli, A., & Sharma, G. (2014). On becoming an experiential
educator: The educator role profile. Simulation & Gaming, 45, 204-234.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kriz, W. C. (2003). Creating effective learning environments and learning organizations through
gaming simulation design. Simulation & Gaming, 34, 495-511.
220 Simulation & Gaming 46(2)

Kriz, W. C. (2010). A systemic-constructivist approach to the facilitation and debriefing of

simulations and games. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 663-680.
Lederman, L. C. (1984). Debriefing: A critical re-examination of the post-experience analytic
process with implications for its effective use. Simulations and Games, 15, 415-431.
Lederman, L. C. (1992). Debriefing: Toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice.
Simulation & Gaming, 23, 145-160.
Leigh, E., & Spindler, L. (2004). Researching congruency in facilitation styles. In W. C. Kriz &
Th. Eberle (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Transforming knowledge into action through gaming
and simulation (pp. 309-317). Munich, Germany: Sagsaga.
Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology. American Journal of
Sociology, 44, 868-897.
Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the Field at a given time. Psychological Review, 50, 292-310.
Lewin, K. (1944). Dynamics of group action. Educational Leadership, 1, 195-200.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social planning, and
action research. Human Relations, 1, 5-41.
Lewin, K. (1917). Kriegslandschaft [warscape]. Zeitschrift fr angewandte Psychologie, 12,
440-447.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Marrow, A. J. (1977). The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Pearson, M., & Smith, D. (1986). Debriefing in experience-based learning. Simulation/Games
for Learning, 16(4), 155-172.
Petranek, C. F., Corey, S., & Black, R. (1992). Three levels of learning in simulations:
Participating, debriefing and journal writing. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 174-185.
Schattenhofer, K. (1998). Gruppendynamik als Praxis der Selbststeuerung in sozialen Systemen
[The group dynamic approach as concept for self-regulation in social systems]. In K.
Schattenhofer & W. Weigand (Eds.), Die Dynamik der Selbststeuerung - Beitrge zur
Angewandten Gruppendynamik [The dynamic of self-regulation - Contributions to applied
group dynamics]. Opladen/Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Schindler, R. (1957). Grundprinzipien der Psychodynamik in der Gruppe [Basic principles of
psychodynamics within a group]. Psyche, 11, 308-314.
Thatcher, D. (1986). Promoting learning through games and simulations. Simulation/Games for
Learning, 16(4), 144-154.
Thiagarajan, S. (1993). How to maximize transfer from simulation games through systematic
debriefing. In F. Percival, S. Lodge, & D. Saunders (Eds.), The simulation and gaming
yearbook 1993 (pp. 45-52). London, England: Kogan Page.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63,
384-399.

Author Biography
Kristina Hermann works at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Northwestern
Switzerland (FHNW) in Basel. She is also engaged as a consultant and trainer at Coverdale
Switzerland, focusing on teamwork, gaming simulation, change management, group dynamics,
and conflict resolution. She has a degree in psychology and is a certified trainer for group
dynamics (DGGO) and is a gestalt therapist.
Contact: kristina.hermann@gmail.com