One of the interesting parts of creating educational simulations is the role of nested feedback. At any given point, a learner should be getting feedback on short, medium, and long-term actions, all simultaneously.

This thinking is very foreign to traditional instructional designers, but very familiar to anyone who builds or uses computer games.

I like to think of feedback at intervals of Turn 1, Turn 3, and Turn 9. Turn 1 feedback happens after every turn. Turn 3 feedback reflects on the execution of simple strategies and ability to build capacity; we see the results of multiple tactics. Turn 9 gets to the biggest ideas of success or failure.

Here is a breakdown, focusing on specifics.

Turn 1 Feedback is around:

\*Do I understand my options at any given moment?

\*Can I map an action that I want to do/ would do in real life to the screen/ virtual world?

\*Do I know if I did something really wrong (not always possible)?

\*Do I know if I did something really right (not always possible)?

Turn 1 Feedback meets these learning objectives:

+Use of simple process

+Understanding options/tactics

Turn 1 Feedback Uses:

- Voices

- Graphics

Turn 3 Feedback is around (depending on the learning objectives/content/genre):

\*Can I influence/ optimize one (primary systems) variable?

\*Do I know if I am on the right track?

\*Do I know if I have blown any chance of success?

\*Do I know where I am losing ground/ need to triage?

\*Do I know if I am doing something rather wrong?

\*Do I know if I am doing something rather right?

\*Do I know what my long-term goal is?

\*How does what I do maximize some part of the system?

\*How do I traverse some part of the map?

\*How do I build some part?

\*How do I get some critical competency/ tool?

\*How do I control some territory,?

\*How do I build some important personal relationships

\*Given my strategy, am I executing against it?

Turn 3 Feedback meets these learning objectives:

+How actions impact a System

+Executing complicated process

Turn 3 Feedback Uses:

- Triggers at milestones reached

- Onscreen graphs and maps

Turn 9 Feedback is around (depending on the learning objectives/content/genre):

\*Did I win?

\*Can I optimize/ influence many (primary systems) variables

\*Did I build what I wanted to build?

\*Did I get to where I wanted to go?

\*What does victory actually look like?

\*Do I understand the trade-offs in my victory?

Turn 9 Feedback meets these learning objectives:

+Understanding Systems

+Use of Time

+Execution of Complex Strategy

Turn 9 Feedback uses:

- After action reviews

- Complex charts and graphs

- Multiple analyses of plays

- Advice for future plays

- Scores

- Consequences of actions taken

When learners first engage the sim, they are focused on Turn 1 Feedback. But after a few iterations, either replaying or continuing on to advanced levels, the learners increasingly focus on Turn 9 Feedback.

One necessity of building these nested feedback cycles is that we have to spend a lot more time thinking about failure than thinking about success. Our increasing challenge is how to help learners recognize, and then avoid, failure. This also gets to a concept of level design, again familiar to gamers and foreign to traditional instructional designers.

The bad news is that this is obviously a lot of work. The good news is that it produces formal learning experiences that teach much more, in much less time, in a format that meets the needs of the next generation of learners.