DARWARS Training Impact Group 1 November 2005 1 From Gaming to Training: A Review of Studies on Fidelity, Immersion, Presence, and Buy-in and Their Effects on Transfer in PC-Based Simulations and Games Amy L. Alexander 1 , Tad Brunyé, Jason Sidman, and Shawn A. Weil Aptima, Inc. Woburn, MA INTRODUCTION The volatile global security environment has changed warfighting. Battles in the arena of terrorism demand mature judgment, decision-making, and collaboration of warfighters who are often young, and often “part-time” (Reserve or National Guard) soldiers. Traditional methods of training are strained by logistical challenges, geographic distribution of personnel, and limited resources that preclude frequent field training. This situation is changing the way we train warfighters. Reaching high levels of skill requires novel approaches to training (DoD, 2004) to ensure that training resources are allocated in a cost-effective manner that optimizes skill acquisition and retention (Ricci, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2002). There are two traditional approaches to training in the military. Classroom education provides valuable declarative knowledge to warfighters. Such education is often supplemented today by web-based distance learning courses, for which the Department of Defense has defined the current industry format standards (Advanced Distributed Learning, 2004). However, warfighters also need practice applying the complex skills they study, and practicing them to proficiency. This training is typically delivered in field exercises that expose warfighters to battle environments and stressors, and give them experience interacting in battle environments. However, exercises are expensive, logistically cumbersome, and often dangerous. Computer-based alternatives to live training have become more common in recent years. These alternatives are simulators, computer-based training systems, and video games. Simulators are systems that emulate visual stimuli and physical controls from the operational environment (Bonk & Dennen, 2005), common examples being flight and driving simulators. Computer-based training systems, sometimes referred to as “lightweight simulations,” are web- or PC-based systems designed to provide individual instruction on specific mission skills. These systems represent the physical and behavioral characteristics of military systems with very high fidelity. PC flight simulators such as AirBook ® and LiteFlite ® are representative examples (SimiGon 2005; SDS International, 2005). These differ slightly from video games, which are also web- or PC-based systems. Video games are most often played using a handheld device or controller, and are designed primarily for entertainment purposes under current usage standards. However, the applications underlying video games may be identical to those used in lightweight simulations. Lightweight simulators and video games offer a number of benefits for training: • Video game simulation engines can be readily adapted for training. To the player, a video game consists of a playing environment, characters, tools (e.g., weapons), and missions (or story lines). Many of these elements, such as complex stories or gratuitous violence, are designed to increase entertainment value and sales, not training effectiveness. However, the infrastructure underlying these elements—a simulation engine—can be repurposed for training. MMPGs and lightweight simulators share a common set of enabling technologies (e.g., real-time 3D graphics, artificial intelligence, and networking; Fong, 2004). The military, in fact, has leveraged on these commonalities in developing a number of training games: Marine Doom to sharpen teamwork and coordination skills within four-soldier fire teams (Riddell, 1997), America’s Army to train West Point officers, and Full Spectrum Warrior to train squad leaders in urban warfare combat tactics (Reuters, 2003; Roth, 2003). Several commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) games (e.g., Delta Force 2, Steel Beasts, and Falcon 4.0) have also been adapted by various armed forces to address military training requirements (Calvert, 2003; Macedonia, 2002; Zyda & Sheehan, 1997). 1 Corresponding Author. For inquiries, please contact Amy Alexander at aalexander@aptima.com