Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Acting, Knowing, Learning, Simulating, Gaming

2008, Simulation & Gaming

Abstract

C lassrooms symbolize knowledge; professions represent action. The distance between knowledge and action can be seen in various ways: as a gap to fill, as corridors to move between, or as intertwined processes that are mutually supportive. Arthur Koestler's (1945) dichotomous characterization of the Yogi (seeker of truth) and Commissar (action and adventure) nicely captures the tension between action and knowledge. Koestler himself was a man of immense knowledge and effective action. Following Koestler, our job as educators, trainers, researchers, and practitioners is to understand the complex relationship between action and knowledge. The distinction between knowledge and action has long been studied by epistemologists and sociologists, but more from an academic angle, less from the perspective of improving human performance in action. Some early work (e.g., Polanyi, 1958; Ryle, 1949) looked at the distinction between knowledge that (declarative, propositional) and knowledge how (procedural, skill). Since then, the knowledgeaction distinction has become a prominent part of education and of industry, and their separation can lead to dysfunction and even to tragedy. This symposium examines the ways in which learners and trainees can be encouraged to use their knowledge to become more effective actors, and to generate knowledge from their action. It is a two-way interaction. In some countries-France is a prime example-one widespread method, sometimes imposed by law, that aims to bring knowledge and action closer together for students, is to require them to spend time on the other side of the "gap." The various systems are known by several terms: on-the-job training, internship, work placement, and others. Simulation/games and internships share a number of features. Both provide experience that can be processed through reflection (debriefing). Both are relatively inexpensive, compared to the 'real' thing, especially in terms of error consequence, often inappropriately termed low risk; it is not so much the level of risk that changes but the severity of the impact on the non-simulation world (see, e.g., discussions in