Thanks for extending the non-meteorology aspect of our conference. (For those less interested in these potential digressions, the stuff on applications to meterorology follow the dashed line below)
(Did you know that The Truman Show and The Matrix were release within months of one another in the US? Is that a coincidence, or the zeitgeist at work?)
We should discuss more the semiological applications to simulation, and instructional design in general, in another venue (several coffees at the next Eumetcal?) How do we use synechdoche to enhance fidelity/verisimilitude for learners? Semiology has other contributions to ID, like in interface design. Would you believe that some don't distinguish indexical from symbolic signs? :)
Mauvaise foi has implications to the root of ID as well. A fundamental principle of ID since the 1960's has been Alignment of Leaning Objectives with Instruction and Assessment. It is a very common bad faith that trainers and educators demonstrate when they fail to make the connection between these. In simulation, it takes greater significance--you better have students practice and make decisions about your intended learning objectives. In real life, you are right. "Bad faith" as a fundamental guideline becomes just as fruitless as stereotype. We need both order and the freedom to violate it. Humans are not purists, and life is too messy for the pure of mind to survive long.
Narrative is an important topic for instruction, where it is often ignored. Experiences are narrative in nature, but I am not sure how fundamental are the differences between narrative forms. They all have beginnings, middles, and ends, even games. Even simlutations. I think that simulations are one of the most clearly narratively structured learning activities. All narratives are interactive, not just games and simulations, because they all generate dramatic questions in the reader/viewer that must then be answered. I think the differences between forms are less fundamental than the simularities.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sorry, only a few meteorogly-specific applications to talk about.
Making a weather forecast can certainly be seen as an unfolding narrative. And I think case studies, and simlations, too often ignore the human aspects of those narratives. Heleen, and Kathy-Ann as well, have told about about ways that simulations introduce the stress of human interactions and not just scientific decisions. That is key in my mind. Kudos to them.
I think we have both a a spectrum of fidelity (to use Tsvet's term) and a spectrum of operational/physical (how to/about) nature in simluations, as mentioned in another post. Fidelity we talked about. Passing out products on paper and discussing them lacks some physical fidelity, even it it has temporal or sequence fidelity, is at the low end of the fidelity spectrum, but still highly useful. A simulation system like Heleen's gets pretty close to fidelity.
Then we have simlulations that just help people understand the physical conceptual models at work (also a step in operations)(About), and those that help people with the rest of forecating procecures, like making a prognosis (How to).
I guess my advice to those deciding how and whether to use simulations is to use them, but don't get hung up on complete fidelity if that might cause you not to use simluation. Simplication is ok if it helps novice learners focus on a few things to learn at a time, of course, but also if it helps you get the workshop prepared on time and on budget. Check out Heleen's tools, and don't forget that just showing slides of products and asking students to think about them and make forecast decisions can also be built into a simulation of sorts with similar learning outcomes. Getting learners thinking and making decisions is the goal.
Pat