|
Article |
De la Teoría a la Acción: El Poder del Aprendizaje
Basado en Casos y los Juegos de Guerra en la Formación Militar
Víctor Xavier Enríquez Champutiz[*]
Gabriela Espinosa Arreaga*
Abstract
Contemporary operational environments require military
personnel to interpret incomplete information, coordinate specialized
knowledge, and make timely decisions under pressure, which calls into question
training models focused exclusively on the transmission of doctrine. The
objective was to identify case-based and game simulation learning methodologies
used in military training through a literature review. A narrative review was
conducted in Scopus and Web of Science, covering articles published between
2011 and 2026, of which 18 were included. The main results showed that these
methodologies promote cognitive engagement, the analysis of alternatives, safe
experimentation with error, team coordination, and reflective feedback. It is
concluded that both methodologies form an experiential pedagogical continuum
capable of transforming doctrine into informed decisions; future research
should examine longitudinal effects, transfer of learning, and the responsible
use of artificial intelligence.
Keywords: case-based learning; war games; professional military
education; decision-making under uncertainty; experiential simulation
Resumen
Los entornos operacionales
contemporáneos exigen que el personal militar interprete información
incompleta, coordine conocimientos especializados y adopte decisiones oportunas
bajo presión, lo que cuestiona los modelos formativos centrados exclusivamente
en la transmisión doctrinaria. El objetivo fue identificar las
metodologías de aprendizaje basado en casos y simulaciones de juego utilizadas
en la formación militar mediante una revisión de literatura. Se realizó
una revisión narrativa en Scopus y Web of Science con artículos
publicados entre 2011 y 2026, de los cuales se incluyeron 18
artículos. Los resultados principales mostraron que estas
metodologías favorecen la activación cognitiva, el análisis de alternativas, la
práctica segura del error, la coordinación de equipos y la retroalimentación
reflexiva. Se concluye que ambas metodologías conforman un continuo pedagógico
experiencial capaz de transformar doctrina en decisiones fundamentadas;
futuras investigaciones deberán examinar efectos longitudinales,
transferencia y uso responsable de inteligencia artificial.
Palabras clave: aprendizaje basado en
casos; juegos de guerra; educación militar profesional; toma de decisiones bajo
incertidumbre; simulación experiencial
Introduction
The technological, political, and social
transformation of conflict has expanded the cognitive demands of the military
profession. The conduct of operations is no longer limited to applying
predefined procedures; rather, it requires interpreting ambiguous signals,
integrating information from multiple domains, and coordinating decisions with
strategic, operational, and tactical implications. In this scenario, a rapid
response is valuable only when accompanied by professional judgment, contextual
understanding, and the ability to adapt. Evidence on military training through
simulation shows that the most significant training outcomes are related to the
integration of knowledge, skills, individual reasoning, and team coordination,
while studies on immersion indicate that prior experience and adaptability
substantially alter the way participants respond to simulated environments
(Biggs et al., 2025; Niu et al., 2022). In turn, the incorporation of
artificial intelligence into military simulators promises more dynamic
scenarios, although it also introduces issues of realism, explainability,
documentation, and scalability that must be addressed as pedagogical—not merely
technological—matters (Saastamoinen & Nuutinen, 2025).
This shift necessitates a reevaluation of
professional military education models; while doctrinal instruction remains
indispensable because it provides a common language, principles of action, and
criteria for organizing planning, its declarative learning does not guarantee
that an officer will be able to apply that knowledge when faced with an
unprecedented problem. In other areas of higher education, case-based learning
has been used precisely to bridge the gap between concepts and decisions (Sapeni & Said, 2020). Available reviews show that cases
can stimulate reasoning, discussion, and problem-solving, although their
effectiveness depends on how learning situations are selected, sequenced, and
facilitated (Yao et al., 2023). Empirical evidence also suggests improvements
in critical thinking when students analyze contextualized problems and must
justify their answers, but these effects should not be generalized without
considering the course design, the type of measurement, and the quality of the
comparison used (Mu & Hatch, 2024).
Case-based learning can be defined as an active
methodology in which an authentic or plausible situation serves as the
organizing framework for the learning process; this is because, rather than
receiving a ready-made answer, the participant identifies the problem,
distinguishes relevant information, formulates alternatives, justifies a
decision, and evaluates its consequences. This sequence is particularly
relevant in professions where the solution is rarely unique and where judgment
must integrate technical knowledge, institutional constraints, and ethical
considerations. Yao et al. (2023) highlight that case studies promote active
and reflective learning, but note significant variability in their design and
implementation. Similarly, Mu and Hatch (2024), in their review of 112
empirical studies on the case method, found promising benefits, albeit
accompanied by theoretical and methodological weaknesses. Pilz et al. (2024)
point out a significant tension: although academic discourse attributes to case
studies the ability to develop social and decision-making skills, in practice
many instructors use them primarily to convey content, which reduces their
transformative potential.
Serious games and simulations extend this logic by
introducing interaction, constraints, consequences, and feedback. Marsh (2011)
proposes understanding them as a continuum between purpose-oriented games and
purpose-designed experiential environments—a perspective that avoids the
assumption that every effective activity must possess a high density of playful
elements. This distinction is crucial for military education: the value of a
simulation lies not in entertaining, but in representing meaningful decision-making
relationships with a level of fidelity consistent with the learning objective.
Guillén-Nieto and Aleson-Carbonell (2012) demonstrated that a serious game can
bring about changes in complex competencies when it integrates narrative,
practice, and explicit objectives; however, Stathakarou
et al. (2026) found that the literature on military education regarding trauma
rarely establishes an explicit relationship between each game element and a
specific learning outcome. Therefore, gamification cannot be treated as a
generic solution, but rather as an architecture that must be pedagogically
justified.
Wargaming is a specific type of simulation focused
on competitive or adversarial decision-making under conditions of uncertainty,
where its structure may incorporate maps, game pieces, digital systems, teams,
rules, exercise control, and adjudication mechanisms; however, its defining
feature is the interaction among decisions that alter the initial problem. In
the field of strategy, Schwarz (2013) argues that wargaming offers a
sufficiently rigorous structure for examining courses of action and, at the
same time, the flexibility necessary to represent dynamics, creativity, and
debate. In military education, Lorusso et al. (2023) emphasize the importance
of debriefing in translating actions into understandable consequences, while
Hongisto and Saastamoinen (2023) demonstrate that even technologically simple
tools can support tactical wargaming when they facilitate the pace,
visualization, and coherence of the exercise. Technical sophistication,
therefore, does not replace pedagogical design or the professional judgment of
those leading the activity.
From a cognitive perspective, war games force
participants to operate with incomplete information, limited time, finite
resources, and adaptive opposition. These conditions encourage the comparison
of alternatives and reveal the assumptions that normally remain implicit in a
theoretical discussion. Schubert et al. (2015) demonstrated that simulation can
be used to explore thousands of variations of an operational plan and identify
particularly influential or risky actions. However, in an educational context,
the purpose is not merely to select an optimal option, but to understand why a
decision seemed reasonable, what information was prioritized, how the
adversary’s response was interpreted, and what adjustments should be made.
Lorusso et al. (2023) and Schwarz (2013) agree that the usefulness of wargaming
depends on the decision-making process being observable and open to discussion,
not on the exercise producing an exact prediction of the future.
The authenticity of the scenario is another central
component, given that the activity can be visually realistic yet pedagogically
poor if decisions have no meaningful consequences or if the participant does
not understand the relationship between their actions and the outcomes. In
shooting simulations, Biggs et al. (2025) found that the combat experience was
associated with greater immersion and that this was related to performance,
although adaptability emerged as a decisive factor. In virtual reality- -stress
training, Vianez et al. (2025) identified favorable
effects on stress and anxiety, but also noted the need for design criteria
validated by specialists. In virtual patient simulations for military
healthcare personnel, Stathakarou et al. (2024)
observed that challenges, scoring, and feedback can sustain engagement and
confidence, provided they do not shift attention away from clinical and
tactical reasoning toward the superficial accumulation of points.
Safe error and repetition are decisive advantages of
these methodologies. In real-world operations, a poor decision can have
irreversible human, political, and material consequences; in a well-designed
simulation, error can serve as evidence to review assumptions, practice new
responses, and improve coordination. The study by Niu et al. (2022) found that
simulation-based training strengthened knowledge, skills, individual thinking,
communication, and teamwork in military nursing. Zhu et al. (2024) compared a
serious game with audiovisual training in tactical casualty care and reported
advantages of the game in terms of efficiency, acceptance, self-perception, and
overall performance. These findings are consistent with the literature on
case-based learning, which emphasizes the value of participation, but they also
show that practice must culminate in feedback and reflection to prevent
repetition from reinforcing inappropriate strategies (Li et al., 2019).
The collaborative dimension is equally relevant;
complex military decisions are typically made in general staffs or
multidisciplinary teams where each member contributes partial information and
where the quality of the outcome depends on coordination, reasoning, and trust.
War games allow us to observe how attention is distributed, which voices
dominate the discussion, how disagreements are resolved, and what information
is left out of the process. Evidence on military simulation synthesized by Niu
et al. (2022) points to improvements in communication and teamwork, while
virtual patient designs studied by Stathakarou et al.
(2024) show that learning can integrate technical and tactical decisions within
the same scenario. However, Pilz et al. (2024) point out that the use of case
studies does not automatically lead to social skills: it is necessary to assign
roles, clarify rules of interaction, evaluate the quality of reasoning, and
facilitate subsequent reflection on the team’s performance.
In this regard, debriefing serves as the mechanism
that transforms the activity into transferable learning. The experience, on its
own, can be intense without leading to understanding; feedback must help
reconstruct the sequence of decisions, identify biases, distinguish between
outcome and process quality, and connect what happened with doctrinal
principles (Sapeni & Said, 2020). Studies on
serious games highlight that timely feedback and structured reflection improve
the perception of learning and the acquisition of competencies (Guillén-Nieto
& Aleson-Carbonell, 2012). At the same time, research by Stathakarou et al. (2026) shows that many studies describe
game mechanics without explaining how they produce specific outcomes, which
hinders the accumulation of knowledge. This problem is exacerbated when
evaluation is limited to satisfaction or confidence—indicators that are useful
but insufficient to demonstrate transfer to real-world decisions.
Recent research also highlights the role of
artificial intelligence as part of generative systems and adaptive agents that
can diversify scenarios, represent less predictable adversaries, automate part
of the scoring process, and provide individualized feedback, according to
Saastamoinen and Nuutinen (2025). They also believe that these capabilities can
improve military preparedness, although they emphasize the limitations
regarding realism, scalability, and documentation. Schubert et al. (2015) show
that computational models are useful for exploring alternatives and conducting
sensitivity analyses, but such analytical capability does not equate to
pedagogical authority. A model’s opacity, data biases, or a plausible yet
doctrinally incorrect response can lead to flawed learning; therefore,
artificial intelligence must be integrated with expert oversight, decision
traceability, scenario validation, and clear protocols regarding when the
system makes recommendations, makes decisions, or simply generates inputs
(Saastamoinen and Nuutinen, 2025).
From another perspective, evaluation constitutes
another critical point: in a complex exercise, a favorable outcome may be due
to a well-founded decision, chance, asymmetric information, or lenient
adjudication; similarly, an unfavorable outcome does not necessarily prove that
the reasoning was deficient. Therefore, evaluation criteria must distinguish
between the outcome and the process and consider problem identification, the
use of evidence, the formulation of assumptions, the quality of reasoning,
adaptation, and coordination. Mu and Hatch (2024) caution that case study research
loses its strength when it uses ambiguous indicators or weak designs, while Stathakarou et al. (2026) point out that the absence of
relationships between elements and outcomes prevents an understanding of the
educational mechanism. Lorusso et al. (2023) add that a coherent evaluation is
necessary for the outcome to be interpreted and discussed. Thus, evaluating a
war game requires examining how decisions were made, not merely who won the
exercise.
The facilitator’s role spans all phases: before the
exercise, they must set objectives, prepare the case, adjust the level of
complexity, and ensure that participants understand their roles and the rules.
During the activity, they need to maintain participants’ decision-making
autonomy without allowing technical errors or design ambiguities to derail the
learning process. Afterward, they lead the reflection and link the experience
to the theory. Pilz et al. (2024) show that teaching practices can reduce the
case method to mere content delivery; Yao et al. (2023) highlight the
variability in implementation methods; and Zhu et al. (2024) demonstrate that
acceptance and performance improve when the environment provides meaningful
feedback. The facilitator is not a peripheral observer but rather a component
of the design whose competence influences the quality of the experience and the
possibility of transferring it.
For Latin American military education, these issues
hold additional relevance, as institutions often combine doctrinal traditions,
uneven technological resources, and specific operational needs; therefore, the
adoption of external models cannot be reduced to simply replicating platforms
or formats. The findings of Hongisto and Saastamoinen (2023) indicate that
simple tools can be effective when they serve their purpose, while Saastamoinen
and Nuutinen (2025) show that advanced solutions require infrastructure,
documentation, and validation. Evidence on case-based learning also confirms
that the implementation context influences outcomes (Pilz et al., 2024).
Consequently, the challenge is not to choose between low-tech and high-tech
approaches, but rather to develop a sustainable, doctrinally relevant, and
assessable methodology within each military education system.
Despite the growth of this literature, a knowledge
gap persists. Studies are scattered across military education, tactical
healthcare, computer simulation, management, and higher education; they employ
heterogeneous designs, populations, and outcomes, making it difficult to
determine which components actually account for effectiveness. Mu and Hatch
(2024) identify methodological weaknesses in case-method research, while Stathakarou et al. (2026) point out the absence of explicit
links between game elements and learning outcomes. In military studies,
measurements of knowledge, perception, immersion, or immediate performance
predominate, with little longitudinal evidence on transfer to professional
practice. Furthermore, the available Latin American scientific literature on
these topics is limited, making it difficult to determine how doctrine,
organizational culture, technological resources, and the characteristics of
each country’s military education system influence outcomes.
In light of this gap, the following research
question was formulated: How do case-based learning, wargames, and
decision-making simulations contribute to military training? The objective of
this manuscript was to identify the case-based learning and game simulation
methodologies used in military training through a literature review.
Materials and methods
A narrative literature review with a critical and
integrative orientation was conducted; this approach was selected because the
research problem brings together research traditions on case-based learning,
serious games, military simulation, virtual reality, computational decision
support, and professional education. The narrative review allowed us to examine
conceptual relationships, compare designs, and organize pedagogical mechanisms
without reducing incomparable results to a single effect. To ensure
transparency, the information sources, time period, search terms, eligibility
criteria, data extraction categories, and synthesis procedure were defined in
advance.
The search was conducted in databases such as Scopus
and Web of Science on July 20, 2026, and included publications from January
2011 through July 2026. These databases were selected due to the restrictions
established for the manuscript and because of their coverage of journals and
scientific series related to education, simulation, human factors, computer
science, and high-responsibility professions. Search terms were entered in
English, as the majority of the literature was in that language.
The search queries were: (“wargaming” OR “war game”
OR “military simulation” OR “serious game”) AND (“military education” OR
“military training” OR “decision making” OR “critical thinking”); and
(“case-based learning” OR “case method”) AND (“critical thinking” OR “problem
solving” OR “decision making”). Supplementary searches were also conducted
using “virtual patient,” “combat casualty care,” “operational plans,”
“adjudication,” “immersion,” and “artificial intelligence.” A total of 385
articles were retrieved.
Original articles, systematic reviews, scoping
reviews, and works published in peer-reviewed scientific journals were included
if they met at least one of the following conditions: directly addressing
military education or training; examining wargames, simulations, or serious
games applied to high-stakes decision-making; or providing transferable
evidence on case-based learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving in
higher education. Excluded were doctrinal manuals, books, editorials, abstracts
without full text, unpublished institutional documents, studies focused on
entertainment without an educational purpose, and works that described
technology without analyzing its educational or decision-making use.
The selection process took place in three stages.
First, titles and abstracts were reviewed to identify their relevance to the
research question. Second, the available text was read to verify that each
study provided information on the population, intervention or setting,
outcomes, implementation conditions, or limitations. Third, a complementary
theoretical sampling approach was applied: when a military article presented a
pedagogical mechanism that was insufficiently explained, case-based learning
studies or serious games were incorporated to help interpret that mechanism.
This decision was not intended to equate different professions but rather to
distinguish between direct evidence and transferable evidence. The final result
consisted of 18 articles: 10 directly related to military or operational
contexts and 8 from higher education or simulation with conceptual utility for
military training.
To ensure bibliographic traceability, the following
were recorded: title, authors, year, journal or series, volume, page numbers or
article number, DOI identifier, and access URL. The rigor of the review was
maintained through four decisions. First, direct evidence from military
contexts was separated from transferable evidence. Second, inferring causality
was avoided when studies were descriptive, qualitative, or based on self-reports.
Third, positive findings were cross-checked against reviews reporting
heterogeneity, design weaknesses, or the absence of explicit relationships
between mechanisms and outcomes. Fourth, only claims supported by the selected
sources were retained.
Since this was a literature review based on publicly
available documents, neither informed consent nor the involvement of a human
research ethics committee was required.
Results
Table 1. Summary of the articles included in the narrative review
|
Authors and year |
Objective |
Methodology |
Key
Findings |
|
Marsh (2011) |
To propose a conceptual continuum for distinguishing
serious games from purpose-driven experiential environments. |
Conceptual article based on an analysis of
approaches to computer-based entertainment, learning, and experience design. |
The study argues that serious games and experiential
environments should be understood as part of a continuum, rather than as
completely separate categories. Educational effectiveness does not depend on
incorporating a large number of playful components, but rather on
establishing a clear correspondence between the educational purpose, the
actions performed by the participant, and the context in which the experience
takes place. This perspective is relevant to military training because it
allows for prioritizing the pedagogical functionality of the scenario over
its technological or recreational appeal. |
|
Guillén-Nieto and Aleson-Carbonell (2012) |
Evaluating the effectiveness of a serious game for
the development of intercultural competence. |
An empirical study in higher education, involving
the use of a serious game and the assessment of various learning outcomes. |
The results showed differentiated improvements in
the components of intercultural competence, indicating that a serious game
can foster complex learning when it integrates a coherent narrative,
contextualized decisions, and opportunities for practice. The study also
showed that not all outcomes develop at the same rate; therefore, assessment
must distinguish between knowledge, attitudes, and performance. From a
pedagogical perspective, it is emphasized that the value of the game stems
from the integration of objectives, feedback, and experience—and not solely
from interaction with the platform. |
|
Schwarz (2013) |
Examining business wargaming as a methodology for
teaching strategic formulation. |
Applied analysis of the use of wargames in strategic
education and organizational decision-making processes. |
The study identifies wargaming as a methodology
capable of structuring the exploration of uncertain scenarios and forcing
participants to consider the responses of actors with conflicting interests.
Its application fosters strategic creativity, reasoned debate, and the
comparison of courses of action before a decision is made. Furthermore, it
allows for the questioning of assumptions that often remain implicit in
conventional planning exercises. The author cautions, however, that its
usefulness depends on proper scenario preparation, active participation, and
subsequent reflection that transforms the experience into learning. |
|
Schubert et
al. (2015) |
Developing a simulation-based decision support
system to evaluate operational plans. |
Event modeling and simulation, supplemented by
sensitivity analysis and regression trees to compare operational
alternatives. |
The simulation made it possible to examine a large
number of plan variants and identify actions that had a significant influence
on overall results. The procedure facilitated the identification of critical
decisions, risks, and relationships between variables that might go unnoticed
in an exclusively qualitative assessment. The authors show that these types
of tools can expand the analytical capabilities of planners; however, their
results should be interpreted as supporting professional judgment and not as
automatic substitutes for human decision-making. |
|
Li et al.
(2019) |
To compare the effect of a course based on
case-based learning on students’ critical thinking. |
A comparative study with nursing students, aimed at
assessing changes in critical thinking and academic engagement. |
The case-based course was associated with improved
critical thinking and more active participation in the analysis of the
problems presented. Participants had to identify relevant information,
formulate explanations, and justify possible answers, which shifted learning
from the reception of content toward the development of arguments. The
findings suggest that case studies are particularly useful when they present
ambiguous situations and require reasoned decisions; however, their effect
depends on the quality of the questions, the facilitation, and the way in
which reasoning is assessed. |
|
Sapeni
and Said (2020) |
To synthesize the available evidence on the
relationship between case-based learning and critical thinking. |
A literature review focused on nursing education and
outcomes associated with critical reasoning. |
The review concluded that case-based learning has
the potential to strengthen critical thinking, as it exposes students to
contextualized problems and requires them to relate prior knowledge to new
evidence. Benefits were also identified regarding discussion,
problem-solving, and decision-making. However, the available empirical
evidence had limitations related to the diversity of study designs,
instruments, and sample sizes. Therefore, the authors recommended more
rigorous research to more precisely establish the conditions under which
these outcomes occur. |
|
Niu et al.
(2022) |
To evaluate the effectiveness of simulation-based
training on military nursing competencies. |
A systematic review of 10 studies that examined
simulation interventions in military healthcare training contexts. |
The synthesis showed favorable effects on knowledge,
technical skills, individual thinking, communication, teamwork, and
professional competence. Simulation allowed for the practice of procedures
and decision-making in a controlled environment, with the possibility of
repetition and correction without exposing patients or staff to real risks.
The results also showed that the interventions varied in duration, modality,
and evaluation, making it difficult to determine which components account for
the benefits. Consequently, the need for more standardized protocols and
indicators that measure transfer to professional performance is emphasized. |
|
Yao et al.
(2023) |
To review the design, implementation, and outcomes
of case-based learning in theoretical courses. |
A review of interventions developed with university
nursing students, including an analysis of design characteristics and
educational outcomes. |
The reviewed studies indicated that case studies
promoted active learning, reflection, the integration of theory and practice,
and problem-solving. However, considerable variability was identified in how
cases were selected, discussions organized, time allocated, and outcomes
assessed. This heterogeneity prevents case-based learning from being
considered a uniform intervention. The review concludes that its
effectiveness depends on the authenticity of the situations, the degree of
student participation, and the provision of systematic guidance and feedback. |
|
Hongisto and
Saastamoinen (2023) |
Evaluating an Excel-based simulator to support the
development of tactical wargames. |
Development of a computer tool and analysis of its
use to support manual wargaming exercises. |
The tool facilitated the representation of tactical
variables and streamlined certain calculations that, when performed manually,
could slow down the exercise. Its incorporation helped maintain the pace of
the game and presented the consequences of the decisions made more clearly.
The authors demonstrated that a technologically simple solution can add value
when it addresses specific needs of the scenario and is understandable to
users. This finding challenges the notion that the quality of wargaming necessarily
depends on complex simulators or significant technological investment. |
|
Lorusso et al.
(2023) |
To analyze the adjudication of wargames in Air Force
education and other military training settings. |
Study of the design and implementation of a tool
aimed at supporting resolution processes during wargames. |
The research highlights that adjudication is the
mechanism through which participants’ decisions translate into effects and
changes within the scenario. Consistent and understandable adjudication
increases the exercise’s credibility, allows actions to be linked to their
consequences, and provides material for subsequent discussion. The study also
notes that arbitrary adjudication reduces participants’ trust, while overly
predictable rules diminish uncertainty. Therefore, it proposes striking a
balance between transparency, consistency, and professional flexibility. |
|
Zhu et al.
(2024) |
To develop and evaluate a serious game focused on
tactical decision-making regarding combat casualties. |
A randomized controlled trial with 148 participants,
in which the serious game was compared with an audiovisual training modality. |
Serious games demonstrated advantages over
audiovisual resources in terms of knowledge acquisition, self-perceived
competence, acceptance of the training strategy, and overall performance.
Interaction with tactical scenarios allowed participants to practice
decision-making and relate medical procedures to changing operational
conditions. The results suggest that active participation and immediate
feedback promote a more applied understanding than passive observation.
However, the interpretation must take into account that several indicators
corresponded to immediate results and that retention and transfer must be
evaluated at later time points. |
|
Pilz et al.
(2024) |
To compare faculty expectations with the practical
application of the case method in higher education. |
A survey was administered to 214 faculty members in
the field of management to assess their objectives, methods of use, and
perceptions regarding the case method. |
Faculty members widely recognized the value of case
studies in connecting theory and practice and in developing analytical
skills. However, the research revealed a gap between expectations and
implementation: in many courses, case studies were used primarily as examples
to explain content, rather than assigning students the responsibility to
analyze, debate, and make decisions. This discrepancy limits the development
of social, argumentative, and decision-making skills. The study demonstrates
that the method’s potential depends less on its nominal presence in the
curriculum than on the specific way in which the activity is organized. |
|
Mu and Hatch
(2024) |
To examine the effectiveness of the case method in
higher-level business education. |
A scoping review of 112 empirical studies published
between 2000 and 2022. |
The review found generally promising results in
learning, engagement, critical thinking, and knowledge application, although
the conclusions were mixed and not always comparable. Recurring weaknesses
were identified, such as designs lacking comparison groups, inconsistent
measurement instruments, incomplete descriptions of the intervention, and
insufficient theoretical frameworks. These limitations make it difficult to
attribute the results exclusively to the case method. The authors recommend
research with greater conceptual clarity, better performance measures, and a
precise description of how cases are implemented and facilitated. |
|
Stathakarou
et al. (2024) |
To analyze the use of gamification elements in
virtual patients designed for the training of military healthcare personnel. |
Interaction analysis and semi-structured interviews
on the use of virtual patients in military trauma scenarios. |
Challenges, scoring, and feedback helped maintain
engagement and strengthen users’ confidence during practice. Virtual patients
allowed for the integration of clinical and tactical decisions, providing a
safe space to rehearse responses without real-world consequences. However,
participants noted that game elements should remain subordinate to the
professional objective, as an excessive emphasis on scoring could divert
attention from reasoning. The study highlights the importance of designing
gamification to support decision-making rather than as an end in itself. |
|
Saastamoinen
and Nuutinen (2025) |
To explore the potential applications of artificial
intelligence in military simulators and war games. |
Analysis applied to the Finnish context, accompanied
by recommendations for the development of next-generation training systems. |
Artificial intelligence was identified as a
technology capable of generating variable scenarios, representing adaptive
adversaries, and supporting feedback and debriefing. These functions could
increase the diversity of situations and reduce reliance on completely
predetermined scripts. However, the authors point out challenges related to
realism, scalability, documentation, traceability, and confidence in the
results. Therefore, they recommend that AI be incorporated under expert
supervision, with validation criteria, and without replacing the
responsibility of the instructor or military decision-maker. |
|
Biggs et al.
(2025) |
To examine the relationship between combat
experience, immersion, and performance in shooting simulations. |
A study involving 169 male military participants in
advanced training, designed to analyze variables related to immersion,
adaptability, and performance. |
Combat experience was associated with higher levels
of immersion in the simulation, and immersion was associated with observed
performance. However, adaptability emerged as one of the most relevant
factors, indicating that training effectiveness does not depend solely on the
sense of realism. The findings suggest that participants interpret and make
use of the scenario based on their prior experience and their ability to
adapt to changing conditions. This justifies designing exercises with
progressive difficulty and considering individual differences when evaluating
results. |
|
Vianez
et al. (2025) |
To evaluate military stress management training
using virtual reality and establish design principles. |
Systematic review of 13 studies, supplemented by a
Delphi method applied to specialists. |
The reviewed evidence showed favorable results in
reducing stress and anxiety associated with training situations, although the
studies differed in terms of devices, duration, intensity, and variables
assessed. Through the Delphi process, a 97% consensus was reached on
principles relevant to the design of these experiences. The authors emphasize
the need to gradually increase exposure, ensure the relevance of stimuli, and
provide professional guidance during the training. Virtual reality can
support psychological preparation, but it requires validated protocols and
careful control of the emotional load. |
|
Stathakarou
et al. (2026) |
To synthesize the use of game elements in military
education focused on trauma care. |
A systematic review of 42 studies published between
1986 and 2025. |
The review identified widespread use of simulations,
challenges, feedback, scoring, and other game elements in military trauma
training. However, none of the studies explicitly established which
individual element produced a specific educational outcome. This lack of
traceability makes it difficult to identify the mechanisms responsible for
improvements and limits the ability to replicate effective designs. The
authors conclude that future interventions should be grounded in theory,
precisely describe their components, and evaluate distinct outcomes, such as
knowledge, performance, collaboration, retention, and transfer. |
The results suggest that case-based learning and war
games contribute to military training when they transform doctrinal knowledge
into an activity involving interpretation, choice, action, and reflection; this
paper should not be interpreted as establishing an automatic link between the
use of simulation and improved performance. The reviewed studies show that the
relevant mechanism is the requirement to justify decisions in the face of
incomplete information and observable consequences. In this regard, the
findings of Li et al. (2019), Yao et al. (2023), and Sapeni
and Said (2020) agree in attributing to the case a role in stimulating critical
thinking. The works of Schwarz (2013), Schubert et al. (2015), and Lorusso et
al. (2023) expand on this mechanism by incorporating opposition, dynamism, and
adjudication. Wargaming can therefore be understood as an adversarial extension
of case-based learning: it retains the contextualized problem but adds time,
interaction, uncertainty, and responses from other actors.
This interpretation helps distinguish between two
levels that are often conflated: just as case-based learning organizes the
analysis of a situation, wargaming organizes a system of interdependent
decisions. A case study may stop at formulating a course of action, whereas a
wargame forces participants to confront it with constraints and emerging
responses; this is where their complementarity proves pedagogically valuable: the
case study can be used to build foundations, vocabulary, and criteria prior to
the simulation, and the wargame can test the soundness of those criteria.
Subsequently, the debriefing allows participants to revisit the case using
evidence generated by the participants themselves; this sequence explains why
the activity gains greater value when integrated into a curriculum rather than
when presented as a standalone event.
The findings also align with the literature that
conceives of serious games as purpose-driven experiential environments. As
described by Marsh (2011)—who questions the equation of effectiveness with the
number of game-like elements—and by Guillén-Nieto and Aleson-Carbonell (2012),
who show that learning depends on the integration of narrative, practice, and
objectives; in the military context, Stathakarou et
al. (2024) observed that scoring and challenges could sustain engagement but
must be subordinate to clinical and tactical reasoning. The consistency among
these studies suggests that an understandable and functional design may be more
useful than a spectacular simulation if it represents key decisions, provides
sufficient information to act, and generates comprehensible feedback.
Evidence regarding critical thinking should be
interpreted with caution; positive results were found here in the studies by Li
et al. (2019), as well as by Sapeni and Said (2020)
and Yao et al. (2023), who support the usefulness of case studies; however, Mu
and Hatch (2024) caution that many studies feature limited samples, weak
comparisons, or insufficient theoretical frameworks. Pilz et al. (2024) also
show that the stated pedagogical intent does not always align with practice:
case studies can become lengthy examples used to explain content, without
students making decisions or discussing alternatives; this discrepancy helps
explain why similar studies produce different results.
Regarding decision-making, the literature provides
evidence that simulation allows for the exploration of alternatives and
sensitivity analysis, as demonstrated by Schubert et al. (2015). However, the
criterion for educational success cannot be reduced to the closeness of a
student’s response to a computational solution, given that military decisions
involve doctrinal assumptions, political constraints, human coordination, and
risk acceptance. Therefore, the scoring described by Lorusso et al. (2023) must
be transparent and sufficiently explainable to support further discussion; if
the participant perceives the result as arbitrary, the simulation loses
legitimacy; if the rules are entirely predictable, it ceases to represent
uncertainty, and the design must balance consistency and surprise.
Immersion emerges as a relevant condition, though
not necessarily linear; this is why Biggs et al. (2025) show that prior
experience influences immersion and that adaptability is strongly related to
performance, implying that the same scenario can be challenging for one
participant and routine or confusing for another. Vianez
et al. (2025) found favorable results in stress training using virtual reality
and consensus on design principles, but exposure to pressure must be calibrated
to avoid saturation, superficial habituation, or responses unrelated to the
objective. Pedagogical authenticity requires that difficulty be progressive and
that the scenario represent relevant stresses, not that it indiscriminately
reproduce all stimuli from the real environment.
Debriefing emerges as the primary mediator between
experience and learning. The findings of Zhu et al. (2024) and Stathakarou et al. (2024) demonstrate the value of
feedback, while Stathakarou et al. (2026) highlight a
persistent weakness: the literature describes game elements without specifying
which outcome each is intended to produce. A structured debriefing can
partially compensate for this weakness by reconstructing the sequence of events,
comparing intention and effect, and linking decisions to concepts. However, its
quality depends on facilitators capable of asking questions, managing
disagreements, distinguishing chance from decision-making quality, and
preventing the game’s outcome from being interpreted as an absolute verdict.
Trainer training should be considered part of the intervention.
Regarding technology, the findings reject both
optimistic determinism and indiscriminate resistance. Hongisto and Saastamoinen
(2023) show that an Excel-based solution may be sufficient to support a
tactical game, while Saastamoinen and Nuutinen (2025) describe opportunities
for artificial intelligence in terms of adaptability and scenario generation.
The choice of technology must follow the objective: to automate calculations,
represent consequences, manage information, or generate adversaries. AI can expand
variability and feedback, but it can also produce opacity, bias, and
dependency. In military education, where traceability and accountability are
essential, any automated adjudication function must be auditable and remain
under human control.
The integrative contribution of this review is to
propose a pedagogical continuum consisting of six stages: doctrinal
contextualization, case analysis, formulation of alternatives, simulated or
adversarial interaction, assignment of consequences, and reflective debriefing.
This continuum allows for the placement of activities with varying levels of
complexity without reducing them to a dichotomy between traditional classroom
instruction and games. It also offers an assessment framework: each stage must be
linked to observable evidence, such as problem identification, quality of
arguments, use of information, coordination, adaptation, and subsequent
learning. The novelty lies not in asserting that war games are useful, but in
specifying that their effect depends on a chain of mechanisms that can be
designed, observed, and evaluated.
The review has limitations. The search was
restricted to ScienceDirect, which may have excluded relevant studies published
on other platforms, in specialized military journals, and in doctrinal
documents. The corpus combined direct and transferable evidence, particularly
from nursing, management, and simulation, which enhances understanding of
mechanisms but limits generalizability. The studies employed heterogeneous
designs and— —frequently measured satisfaction, self-perception, or immediate
performance; longitudinal designs and measures of transfer to real-world work
were scarce. There were also potential biases related to publication, language,
and text availability. Finally, the limited representation of Latin American
studies prevented an in-depth analysis of institutional and cultural variables
specific to the region.
Based on these limitations, four questions are posed
for future research. What combination of authenticity, opposition, time
pressure, adjudication, and debriefing produces the greatest transfer to
operational performance? To what extent does structured debriefing mediate the
relationship between participation in a war game and improvements in critical
thinking or decision-making quality? How do prior experience, team composition,
and leadership style moderate learning outcomes? Can artificial intelligence used
as an adversary, scenario generator, or adjudication support increase realism
without introducing opacity, bias, or a loss of professional accountability?
These questions require mixed-methods designs, repeated measures, behavioral
indicators, and longitudinal follow-up.
Air War
College. (2026). Historical Basis of War Games and Integrated Joint Staff Work
in the Joint Staff Course (1996–2026). Unpublished institutional document.
Ecuadorian Air Force.
Biggs, A.
T., Ives, B., Hickmann, S., Turori, D., & Kelly,
K. R. (2025). Immersion in shooting simulations following real-world combat
experience. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 110, 103846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2025.103846
Ecuadorian
Air Force. (2024). Institutional Strategic Plan 2024–2033. General Command of
the Ecuadorian Air Force.
Ecuadorian
Air Force. (2025). Aerospace Doctrine of the Ecuadorian Air Force. General
Command of the Ecuadorian Air Force.
Guillén-Nieto,
V., & Aleson-Carbonell, M. (2012). Serious games and learning
effectiveness: The case of It’s a Deal!. Computers & Education, 58(1),
435–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.015
Hongisto,
T., & Saastamoinen, K. (2023). Using an Excel-based war simulator to
support tactical wargaming. Procedia Computer Science, 225, 912–921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.10.078
Li, S., Ye,
X., & Chen, W. (2019). Practice and effectiveness of the “nursing
case-based learning” course on nursing students’ critical thinking ability: A
comparative study. Nurse Education in Practice, 36, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2019.03.007
Lorusso,
L., Gernhardt, D., & Novak, D. (2023). Wargaming adjudication in the Air
Force and other military areas of education. Transportation Research Procedia,
73, 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2023.11.909
Marsh, T.
(2011). The serious games continuum: Between games for purpose and experiential
environments for purpose. Entertainment Computing, 2(2), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2010.12.004
Mu, F.,
& Hatch, J. E. (2024). The efficacy of the case method in tertiary business
education: A scoping review: 2000–2022. The International Journal of Management
Education, 22(2), 100983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2024.100983
Niu, A.,
Ma, H., Zhang, S., Zhu, X., Deng, J., & Luo, Y. (2022). The
effectiveness of simulation-based training on the competency of military
nurses: A systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 119, 105536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105536
Pilz, M., Tögel, J., Albers, S., van den Oord, S., Cramer, T., & Vítečková, K. (2024). Teaching with business cases in
higher education: Expectations and practical implementation by management
instructors. The International Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 101068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2024.101068
Saastamoinen,
K., & Nuutinen, J. (2025). Next-generation readiness: Applying AI to
military simulators and wargaming in Finland. Procedia Computer Science, 270,
3479–3487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2025.09.473
Sapeni, M. A.-A. R., & Said, S.
(2020). The effectiveness of case-based learning in increasing critical
thinking among nursing students: A literature review. Clinical Nursing,
30(Suppl. 2), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfcli.2019.07.073
Schubert,
J., Moradi, F., Asadi, H., Luotsinen, L., Sjöberg,
E., Hörling, P., Linderhed, A., & Oskarsson, D.
(2015). Simulation-based decision support for evaluating operational plans.
Operations Research Perspectives, 2, 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2015.02.002
Schwarz, J.
O. (2013). Business wargaming for teaching strategy making. Futures, 51, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.06.002
Stathakarou, N., Kononowicz, A. A., Mattsson, E., & Karlgren, K. (2024).
Gamification in the design of virtual patients for Swedish military medics to
support trauma training: Interaction analysis and semistructured
interview study. JMIR Serious Games, 12, e63390. https://doi.org/10.2196/63390
Stathakarou, N., Kononowicz, A. A., Harjani, M. G., Swain, C., &
Karlgren, K. (2026). Game elements in military trauma care education:
Systematic review. JMIR Serious Games, 14, e79163.
https://doi.org/10.2196/79163
U.S. Army.
(2022). Field Manual (FM) 3-0: Operations. Department of the Army.
U.S. Naval
War College. (2023). Educational philosophy and curriculum. U.S. Naval War
College.
Vianez, A., Marques, A., Loureiro,
J., & Gomes, P. V. (2025). Military stress management training using virtual
reality: A systematic review and Delphi method. Computers in Human Behavior
Reports, 19, 100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100734
Yao, J.,
Fu, R., Zhu, M., Jia, L., Dong, X., Shi, Y., Zhang, X., & Yuan, H. (2023).
Case-based learning interventions for undergraduate nursing students in a
theoretical course: A review of design, implementation, and outcomes. Journal
of Professional Nursing, 46, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.03.007
Zhu, S.,
Li, Z., Sun, Y., Kong, L., Yin, M., Yong, Q., & Gao, Y. (2024). A serious
game for enhancing rescue reasoning skills in tactical combat casualty care:
Development and deployment study. JMIR
Formative Research, 8, e50817. https://doi.org/10.2196/50817
Lieutenant
Colonel, Technical Staff; Electronic Engineer in Instrumentation and Control;
Master’s Degree in Quality and Productivity Systems Engineering.
Ministry
of National Defense.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6211-8977
Medical
Doctor, Master’s Degree in Health Services Management.
University
of Guayaquil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9360-9015