{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01838879159369527, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017513134851138354, 'mean_word_length': 5.4576271186440675, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Lecture Versus Simulation: Testing the Long-Term Effects

Abstract Active learning techniques are being use with increasing frequency in the classroom and more time is being dedicated to designing and implementing them. However, the literature still suffers from a lack of rigorous empirical methods to test the effects of simulations. Most of the claimed benefits of utilizing simulations, and other active learning techniques, are improved soft skills and higher order thinking like empathy, confidence, public-speaking abilities, and interpersonal skills—all of which don’t lend themselves well to scientific measurement. This gap in the literature is especially troubling considering that time spent using simulations is time not spent using other methods. This article seeks to test the differing impacts of simulations versus traditional lectures over the long-term using a simple 30-minute simulation and rigorous experimental methods. The most important results show that students learn more initially from a lecture, but that students who were exposed to the simulation were better able to retain that information over the long-term.