What will you be able to do?
From outcomes to observable evidence
simulation-design · v0.1.0Intended outcomes
Knowledge
Distinguish teaching visualisations from validated models.
Skills
Design choices and outcome-changing conditions.
Ethics
Disclose fictional data and make activities accessible.
Character
Explore alternatives and explain revised reasoning.
Practise through an activity
Design a fictional three-route supply scenario, state at least three limitations and provide a text alternative to the 3D presentation. Run it twice, changing one information item.
Collect evidence for assessment
- Knowledge
A scope statement and list of unsupported claims.
SIM-K- Skills
A branching diagram with assumptions.
SIM-S- Ethics
Data labels and an equivalent non-animated activity.
SIM-E- Character
A comparison of decisions across two runs.
SIM-C
Project learning synthesis showing proposed outcomes, activity and evidence. This is not a university-endorsed assessment framework.
Module references:[who-simex-2017][who-aar-2019][sendai-2015]
Suggested preparation: HADR foundations and people-centred assistance Design a CPX from intended outcomes
An exercise is not automatically a forecast
WHO uses simulation exercises to practise roles and identify preparedness gaps; an exercise does not require a mathematical model or three-dimensional graphics. In this knowledge base, a 3D flood scene is an illustration of a fictional learning situation, not a hazard map or real flood forecast. Our design proposal is to state what each visual teaches, which data are invented and which questions it cannot answer, preventing visual polish from implying unsupported accuracy.
Choices need reasons and conditional consequences
Design proposal: begin with one decision, such as which information to obtain before choosing a supply route. Create plausible options and conditional consequences: a road may close after the last report. Ask learners to explain their reasoning before revealing the result, then show how changed assumptions affect the decision. A favourable outcome does not automatically prove competence because it may reflect a lucky guess. Assess verification and adaptation alongside the selected option.
Expose assumptions for exploration
Exercise proposal: maintain an assumption register covering routes, capacity, waiting time, communications and additional assistance needs. Change one factor at a time and compare outcomes. For any number, state its unit and source or label it a teaching parameter. Do not present a precise arrival time without a defensible basis. Ask learners what real data they would need and whether their conclusion changes substantially when a parameter shifts slightly.
Enable access and learning after exploration
Learning proposal: provide essential information in text and a two-dimensional diagram so keyboard users and people who disable animation can make equivalent decisions. After each run, ask which evidence was used, which assumption was missed and what should be checked next. WHO review guidance informs the reflection, but a short web activity is not equivalent to a complete AAR. Use reflections for classroom discussion; quiz scores alone do not certify operational readiness.
See the process at a glance
A synthesized learning diagram. Read it alongside the lesson and original sources.
Frame a decision
Choose a problem requiring reasoning, not just viewing.
Define conditions
State data, assumptions, choices and limitations.
Explore
Change a factor and compare reasoning across runs.
Reflect
Identify learning, remaining unknowns and real-context requirements.
Explore a decision
Fictional scenario: a 3D scene shows a green road, but route information predates the latest rainfall. What should the learner do?
The visual represents assumptions, not a guarantee of actual conditions. Checking data age is part of the exercise reasoning.
From knowledge to evidence
Design a fictional three-route supply scenario, state at least three limitations and provide a text alternative to the 3D presentation. Run it twice, changing one information item.
| Criterion | Proficient | Developing |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency | Every parameter has units and a source or fictional label | Presents teaching parameters as actual data |
| Decision quality | Explains evidence and effects of changed assumptions | Chooses without explanation |
| Accessibility | Text supports an equivalent substantive activity | Essential information exists only in animation |
A proposed rubric for educators to adapt, not a university accreditation standard.
Check your understanding
Answer all 5 questions, then review the explanations. This score is for self-study.
References & further verification
- WHO Simulation Exercise Manual ↗World Health Organization · 1 February 2017; WHO/WHE/CPI/2017.10
Publication overview; manual glossary (exercise project, exercise report); exercise planning/conduct/evaluation - Guidance for After Action Review (AAR) ↗World Health Organization · 1 April 2019; WHO/WHE/CPI/2019.4
Overview: purpose and four formats; accompanying AAR toolkits - Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 ↗United Nations / UNDRR · 2015; adopted 18 March 2015
Overview: four priorities for action; full framework paragraphs 23–34
Cite this module
PK-Research. (2026). Simulation scenarios and 3D for learning (simulation-design, v0.1.0). HADR–CPX Knowledge Commons. https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/modules/simulation-design/