Systematic Literature Review of Simulation-Based Learning for Developing Teacher SEL

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the literature review provides a relevantly comprehensive understanding regarding what is happening with using simulation for promoting SEL competencies.   

 

In the introduction, the authors state the purpose of this systematic literature review as below “ This systematic literature review seeks to clarify how simulations can effectively promote SEL competencies. ” But I am not convinced that the literature review study clarified how simulations can effectively promote SEL competencies, in my opinion the review is more to reveal a factual information of the application of simulation for SEL competencies promotion in terms of the types of simulation used and the SEL competencies target in those applications.   It might be better to rephrase the purpose of this study to be aligned with what is actually studied. 

 

The third research question could be modified slightly differently as there is a nuance between "differences" and "variations" in SEL competencies. Based on the findings reported on the page 13, I think the research is more exploring the variations instead of the differences. So for the third research questions, it could be revised as below “What are the variations in SEL competencies developed across different types of simulations in the teacher education literature  ?”

 

Also, teacher education as a specific context for this study, it might be better to clarify what the teacher education refers to in this study, especially for readers who are not familiar with the terms, so it will make it easier to understand that the review includes studies in both pre-service teacher preparation programs and in-service teacher professional development. 

 

There might be a difference regarding how effectively apply simulation-based learning for SEL competencies promotion between those two types of audiences (pre-service teachers vs. in-service teachers). This can be a point to discuss as well. 

Author Response

Reviewer no. 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the literature review provides a relevantly comprehensive understanding regarding what is happening with using simulation for promoting SEL competencies.   

Comment 1:
In the introduction, the authors state the purpose of this systematic literature review as below “ This systematic literature review seeks to clarify how simulations can effectively promote SEL competencies. ” But I am not convinced that the literature review study clarified how simulations can effectively promote SEL competencies, in my opinion the review is more to reveal a factual information of the application of simulation for SEL competencies promotion in terms of the types of simulation used and the SEL competencies target in those applications.   It might be better to rephrase the purpose of this study to be aligned with what is actually studied. 

Response 1:

Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the purpose statement in the introduction. We have carefully considered your feedback and agree that the original statement could be revised to better align with the actual focus of the review. Thus, we revised it on p. 1 as follows: “This systematic literature review aims to explore the application of simulations for promoting SEL competencies by examining the types of simulations used and the specific SEL competencies targeted in these applications.”

 

Comment 2:
The third research question could be modified slightly differently as there is a nuance between "differences" and "variations" in SEL competencies. Based on the findings reported on the page 13, I think the research is more exploring the variations instead of the differences. So for the third research questions, it could be revised as below “What are the variations in SEL competencies developed across different types of simulations in the teacher education literature?”

Response 2:

Thank you for your thoughtful observation regarding the nuance between "differences" and "variations" in SEL competencies. We appreciate your attention to detail and followed your suggestion to refine the third research question.

 

Comment 3:
Also, teacher education as a specific context for this study, it might be better to clarify what the teacher education refers to in this study, especially for readers who are not familiar with the terms, so it will make it easier to understand that the review includes studies in both pre-service teacher preparation programs and in-service teacher professional development. 

Response 3:
Thank you for highlighting the need to clarify the context of teacher education in the study. We have revised the introduction to define teacher education as encompassing both pre-service teacher preparation and in-service professional development. This addition ensures that readers unfamiliar with the terms can better understand the scope of the review.

 

Comment 4:
There might be a difference regarding how effectively apply simulation-based learning for SEL competencies promotion between those two types of audiences (pre-service teachers vs. in-service teachers). This can be a point to discuss as well. 

Response 4:
Thank you for your comment regarding the distinction between pre-service and in-service teacher education. We have clarified in the methodology section that the reviewed studies did not explicitly differentiate between simulations targeting pre-service teachers and those designed for in-service teachers. This lack of distinction is acknowledged as a limitation of the current review (see p. 17), and we have added a statement in the discussion suggesting that future research should investigate potential differences in the application and effectiveness of simulation-based learning for these two groups.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the excellent contribution. I can understand what the SEL concept entails and can also imagine how this takes place in simulations. In the theoretical part, however, a few sentences on implementation in training would be practical. Are such simulations part of individual events and courses or are they whole courses in themselves? What time frame do the interventions cover? An example would be good here.

I am missing an overview of the effect sizes in the results section. These should at least be given for the quantitative studies. For me, the question remains open as to how long the respective interventions are and how strong their effect is. I would have liked to know this, because as a practitioner I would otherwise not know when which simulation is worthwhile.

So I can not unterstand your following conclusion: "We propose that adapting various types of simulations to integrate a broader range of SEL competencies could significantly enhance the effectiveness of simulation-based learning."

The question here is how and which ones? I also believe that certain simulations complement each other, but on the other hand, different types can also be mutually exclusive. As long as I don't know exactly how they work, I wouldn't say that. I can also imagine that after a simulation the students no longer feel like it and there are even negative effects.

 

 

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1:

Thank you for the excellent contribution. I can understand what the SEL concept entails and can also imagine how this takes place in simulations. In the theoretical part, however, a few sentences on implementation in training would be practical. Are such simulations part of individual events and courses or are they whole courses in themselves? What time frame do the interventions cover? An example would be good here.

Response 1:

Thank you for your insightful comments and for highlighting the need to address the practical implementation of simulations in training. We have revised the manuscript to include a more detailed explanation of how simulations are typically employed in teacher education (see p. 3). We clarified the typical structure of simulations, which generally include an experiential phase followed by a debriefing phase, along with details about their usual timeframes. We also clarified that in most cases simulations are implemented as standalone, isolated events designed to address specific skills or competencies. However, we have also provided an example which describes an exceptional case where simulations were integrated into semester-long instructional curriculum, in which preservice teachers participated in weekly simulation workshops over 26 weeks. This unique approach allowed participants to engage with a variety of teaching scenarios, fostering their professional identities and preparing them for the complexities of the education field.

 

Comment 2:
I am missing an overview of the effect sizes in the results section. These should at least be given for the quantitative studies. For me, the question remains open as to how long the respective interventions are and how strong their effect is. I would have liked to know this, because as a practitioner I would otherwise not know when which simulation is worthwhile.

Response 2:

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your perspective, especially as a practitioner seeking practical insights. However, as this is a systematic literature review, our focus was to synthesise and analyse the existing body of research rather than conduct a meta-analysis. Moreover, narrowing our focus solely to quantitative effect sizes would not limit the richness of the data. Given the small sample of quantitative studies (e.g., only three findings for case studies, ten for clinical simulations, nine for immersive simulations, six for roleplay and 8 for virtual simulations), statistical comparisons or definitive conclusions about the strength of different types of simulations seem not appropriate. We have clarified these methodological considerations in the manuscript to ensure readers understand the scope and limitations of our study on p. 17.

 

Comment 3:
So I can not unterstand your following conclusion: "We propose that adapting various types of simulations to integrate a broader range of SEL competencies could significantly enhance the effectiveness of simulation-based learning." The question here is how and which ones? I also believe that certain simulations complement each other, but on the other hand, different types can also be mutually exclusive. As long as I don't know exactly how they work, I wouldn't say that. I can also imagine that after a simulation the students no longer feel like it and there are even negative effects.

Response 3:
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comment. We have carefully revised the conclusion to address your concerns and incorporate greater nuance. We now suggest that diversifying the use of simulations—rather than relying on a single type—might help address a broader range of SEL competencies. At the same time, we recognise that this approach requires careful planning to avoid unintended negative effects, such as decreased motivation or fatigue after repeated simulations.

Additionally, we acknowledge that the current review does not provide sufficient evidence to determine how and which specific simulation types should be adapted, combined, or sequenced to optimise outcomes. Certain simulations may complement one another, but others could be mutually exclusive or even counterproductive. This limitation has been added on p. 17 in the revised text, along with a recommendation for future research to explore how various simulation types interact, their potential synergies, and any risks associated with their application.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article presents a significant contribution to the field of teacher training, focusing on the potential of simulation-based learning for developing social-emotional skills. Through a comprehensive literature review of 68 articles, the study provides a current and in-depth overview of existing methods in the field. The research questions and procedure are formulated with clarity and systematic precision, enabling a nuanced understanding of the subject matter. The discussion critically examines the challenges in defining various simulation types, offering a thoughtful exploration of the conceptual complexities inherent in the field. The proposed definition of SEL-targeted simulations in education represents a significant theoretical advancement, providing a valuable framework for future research and practice. The study makes a substantial contribution to understanding the critical role of simulations in developing teachers' social-emotional skills, effectively raising awareness about the pivotal importance of this emerging field in professional educator development.

 

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

comment 1:

The article presents a significant contribution to the field of teacher training, focusing on the potential of simulation-based learning for developing social-emotional skills. Through a comprehensive literature review of 68 articles, the study provides a current and in-depth overview of existing methods in the field. The research questions and procedure are formulated with clarity and systematic precision, enabling a nuanced understanding of the subject matter. The discussion critically examines the challenges in defining various simulation types, offering a thoughtful exploration of the conceptual complexities inherent in the field. The proposed definition of SEL-targeted simulations in education represents a significant theoretical advancement, providing a valuable framework for future research and practice. The study makes a substantial contribution to understanding the critical role of simulations in developing teachers' social-emotional skills, effectively raising awareness about the pivotal importance of this emerging field in professional educator development.

 Response 1:
Thank you for your encouraging and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. We are truly grateful for your recognition of the significance of our contribution to the field of teacher training and simulation-based learning. Your comments regarding the clarity of our research questions and procedure, as well as the depth and relevance of our discussion, are highly motivating and affirming. We are especially pleased that you found value in our proposed definition of SEL-targeted simulations and that you see it as a meaningful theoretical advancement. It is our hope that this framework will indeed inspire further research and practical applications in this vital area of educator development.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript makes significant scholarly contributions and exhibits notable originality through its systematic typology of Simulation-Based Learning (SBL) and its focused exploration of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) development within teacher education. By classifying simulations into five distinct categories—case studies, virtual simulations, immersive simulations, role-play, and clinical simulations—the authors address conceptual ambiguities and inconsistencies in the existing literature, offering a robust and well-structured theoretical framework. Unlike prior studies, which predominantly emphasize classroom management or instructional strategies, this research distinguishes itself by mapping SEL competencies to various simulation types through the CASEL framework. This innovative approach bridges a critical research gap and provides educators and policymakers with actionable guidance for implementing simulation-based methods in teacher preparation programs, ultimately fostering emotionally responsive and resilient educators.

The manuscript defines simulation as “a means to replicate real-world scenarios for the development of specific skills, behaviors, and competencies through various modalities.” While this definition is comprehensive and aligns with contemporary educational understandings, it lacks explicit theoretical grounding or citations to established scholarship on simulation-based learning. Foundational works or seminal studies that address the conceptual underpinnings of simulation as a pedagogical tool are notably absent. This omission undermines the clarity and theoretical robustness of the study’s key premise. Additionally, the inclusion of role-play as a subtype of simulation introduces further conceptual concerns. While role-play shares the intent of replicating real-world scenarios, it fundamentally lacks the structured control, realism, and technological integration characteristic of immersive simulations. Role-play’s reliance on participant improvisation and subjective interpretation positions it as a lower-immersion modality. To avoid overgeneralization, the authors are encouraged to present role-play as a distinct, less-structured subset of simulations and to clarify its placement within the typology. Strengthening the conceptual framework with established theoretical references would enhance both precision and academic credibility.

The methodological approach, grounded in a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and adhering to PRISMA protocols, demonstrates rigor and comprehensiveness. The inclusion of reputable databases—APA Psych, ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science—ensures a robust foundation for the study. However, the review displays a publication bias by including only peer-reviewed English-language studies, thereby excluding potentially valuable non-English and unpublished research. This limitation restricts the generalizability and global relevance of the findings. Furthermore, while the study succeeds in categorizing simulation types, it does not sufficiently analyze specific design elements—such as feedback mechanisms, levels of immersion, and technological support—that are critical to understanding the direct impact on SEL competencies. To address these limitations, the authors could strengthen the theoretical foundation of their simulation definition by referencing established literature and clarifying its conceptual boundaries. Additionally, broadening the scope to include grey literature and multilingual studies would mitigate publication bias, enhancing the study's inclusivity and global applicability. The application of meta-analytic techniques could further quantify the relative effectiveness of various simulation types, offering a deeper empirical understanding of their impact on SEL development.

Overall, the manuscript provides a significant and original contribution to the study of simulation-based learning and its role in Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) development. By resolving the identified conceptual and methodological shortcomings, the study has the potential to enhance its theoretical precision, deepen its empirical insights, and strengthen its practical applicability. This would firmly establish the research as a key reference for advancing both scholarship and practice in teacher education.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript makes significant scholarly contributions and exhibits notable originality through its systematic typology of Simulation-Based Learning (SBL) and its focused exploration of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) development within teacher education. By classifying simulations into five distinct categories—case studies, virtual simulations, immersive simulations, role-play, and clinical simulations—the authors address conceptual ambiguities and inconsistencies in the existing literature, offering a robust and well-structured theoretical framework. Unlike prior studies, which predominantly emphasize classroom management or instructional strategies, this research distinguishes itself by mapping SEL competencies to various simulation types through the CASEL framework. This innovative approach bridges a critical research gap and provides educators and policymakers with actionable guidance for implementing simulation-based methods in teacher preparation programs, ultimately fostering emotionally responsive and resilient educators.

Comment 1:
The manuscript defines simulation as “a means to replicate real-world scenarios for the development of specific skills, behaviors, and competencies through various modalities.” While this definition is comprehensive and aligns with contemporary educational understandings, it lacks explicit theoretical grounding or citations to established scholarship on simulation-based learning.

Response 1:
Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the absence of foundational works addressing the conceptual underpinnings of simulations as a pedagogical tool. We have revised the manuscript to include a discussion on the theoretical frameworks that underpin simulations in teacher education (See p. 2). The pedagogical approach underlying simulations aligns closely with experiential learning models, such as Kolb’s (1984) cycle of experiential learning, which integrates four key elements: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation, and active experimentation. Simulations provide concrete experiences through realistic, hands-on scenarios, such as managing a disruptive student or conducting a parent-teacher meeting. These scenarios are followed by opportunities for reflective observation and feedback, enabling participants to conceptualise their learning and refine their skills through subsequent practice. Additionally, simulations draw from Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory, particularly the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), by offering structured yet challenging tasks within a supported environment. Simulations scaffold learners’ development of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) competencies by providing guidance, feedback, and opportunities to practice skills just beyond their current capabilities.

We have also referenced seminal works (e.g., Dieker et al. [29]; Chernikova et al. [5]; and Theelen et al. [6]) to further support the theoretical foundation of the study. These works highlight the role of simulations in bridging the gap between theory and practice and in preparing educators to navigate the complexities of real-world classrooms.

 

Comment 2:
Foundational works or seminal studies that address the conceptual underpinnings of simulation as a pedagogical tool are notably absent. This omission undermines the clarity and theoretical robustness of the study’s key premise.

Response 2:
Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the absence of foundational works addressing the conceptual underpinnings of simulations as a pedagogical tool. We have revised the manuscript to include a discussion on the theoretical basis for using simulations in teacher education. This addition highlights how simulations bring elements of real-world complexity into the controlled environment of teacher preparation programs, allowing educators to practice and refine their skills in realistic yet risk-free scenarios.

We have also referenced seminal works (e.g., Dieker et al. [29]; Chernikova et al. [5] and Theelen et al. [6]) to provide a more robust theoretical foundation for the study’s key premise. These works underscore the importance of simulations in bridging the gap between theory and practice, preparing educators to handle the complexities of real-world classrooms. We hope this addition addresses your concern and strengthens the clarity and theoretical robustness of the manuscript.

 

Comment 3:
Additionally, the inclusion of role-play as a subtype of simulation introduces further conceptual concerns. While role-play shares the intent of replicating real-world scenarios, it fundamentally lacks the structured control, realism, and technological integration characteristic of immersive simulations. Role-play’s reliance on participant improvisation and subjective interpretation positions it as a lower-immersion modality. To avoid overgeneralization, the authors are encouraged to present role-play as a distinct, less-structured subset of simulations and to clarify its placement within the typology. Strengthening the conceptual framework with established theoretical references would enhance both precision and academic credibility.

Response 3:
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding the inclusion of role-play as a subtype of simulation. We have revised the manuscript to clarify its position as a distinct, less-structured subset of simulations. The revised section highlights that role-play differs from immersive simulation modalities in its reliance on participant improvisation and subjective interpretation, as well as its lack of structured control, realism, and technological integration. Additionally, we explain that our typology was developed inductively, following studies retrieved through the search algorithm, which often included role-play within the broader category of simulations regardless of their specific characteristics. This approach aligns with prior systematic literature reviews, such as Ade-Ojo et al. [21].

 

Comment 4:
The methodological approach, grounded in a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and adhering to PRISMA protocols, demonstrates rigor and comprehensiveness. The inclusion of reputable databases—APA Psych, ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science—ensures a robust foundation for the study. However, the review displays a publication bias by including only peer-reviewed English-language studies, thereby excluding potentially valuable non-English and unpublished research. This limitation restricts the generalizability and global relevance of the findings. . Additionally, broadening the scope to include grey literature and multilingual studies would mitigate publication bias, enhancing the study's inclusivity and global applicability.

Response 4:
Thank you for your thoughtful comment and for recognising the methodological rigor of our study, including our adherence to PRISMA protocols and the use of reputable databases.

We appreciate your concern regarding potential publication bias due to the inclusion of only peer-reviewed English-language studies. The rationale for this decision stems from our commitment to maintaining a high scientific standard for the systematic literature review. By including only peer-reviewed potential publication bias due to the inclusion of only peer-reviewed English, we ensure that the studies included have undergone a rigorous and transparent review process. This approach aligns with established practices in systematic reviews, as seen in similar works that inspired our methodology (e.g., Chernikova et al., 2020; Theelen et al., 2019; Lindberg & Jönsson, 2023).

 

Comment 5:

Furthermore, while the study succeeds in categorizing simulation types, it does not sufficiently analyze specific design elements—such as feedback mechanisms, levels of immersion, and technological support—that are critical to understanding the direct impact on SEL competencies. To address these limitations, the authors could strengthen the theoretical foundation of their simulation definition by referencing established literature and clarifying its conceptual boundaries.

Response 5:
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. While we agree that a detailed analysis of design elements is important, it was beyond the scope of this study to comprehensively evaluate specific aspects such as feedback mechanisms, levels of immersion, and technological support. We have acknowledged this limitation on p. 17 and recommended that future research investigate how these design elements directly impact the development of SEL competencies. We appreciate your input and believe this addition clarifies the scope of the current study.

 

Comment 6:

The application of meta-analytic techniques could further quantify the relative effectiveness of various simulation types, offering a deeper empirical understanding of their impact on SEL development.

Response 6:

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion regarding the application of meta-analytic techniques to quantify the relative effectiveness of various simulation types. While we agree that a meta-analysis could provide valuable empirical insights, the current study is designed as a systematic literature review, focusing on categorising and analysing the breadth of existing research rather than synthesising effect sizes.

We appreciate your idea and believe it offers an excellent direction for future research. We have included a recommendation in the future directions section on p. 17 suggesting that subsequent studies could employ meta-analytic methods to build on the findings of this review and further explore the relative effectiveness of different simulation modalities on SEL development.

 

 

Comment 7:
Overall, the manuscript provides a significant and original contribution to the study of simulation-based learning and its role in Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) development. By resolving the identified conceptual and methodological shortcomings, the study has the potential to enhance its theoretical precision, deepen its empirical insights, and strengthen its practical applicability. This would firmly establish the research as a key reference for advancing both scholarship and practice in teacher education.

Response 7:

Thank you for your positive and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. We are delighted that you recognise its contribution to the study of simulation-based learning and its role in Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) development. We greatly appreciate your constructive suggestions for addressing the conceptual and methodological shortcomings. Your insights have been invaluable in refining the manuscript, and we are confident that these revisions will enhance its theoretical precision, deepen its empirical insights, and strengthen its practical applicability.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is my privilege to review this manuscript, which represents a noteworthy scholarly contribution to the field of teacher education. By systematically exploring simulation-based learning (SBL) and social-emotional learning (SEL), this study addresses a significant gap in the literature. The innovative typology of SBL and the thoughtful mapping of SEL competencies to various simulation types through the CASEL framework provide valuable insights that have the potential to guide both educators and policymakers in the design and implementation of effective teacher preparation programs.

Having carefully examined the revised manuscript, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your diligent efforts to engage with and incorporate the feedback provided during the review process. Your revisions demonstrate a commendable commitment to enhancing the quality and scholarly rigor of your work. Below, I provide my comments on the key revisions:

1. Strengthening the Theoretical Foundation:
   The manuscript has been substantially enriched by the integration of foundational theories, notably Kolb’s experiential learning model and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. These theoretical perspectives provide a robust framework for understanding the pedagogical value of simulations, thereby enhancing the conceptual depth and coherence of the study.

2. Clarifying the Conceptualization of Role-Play:
   You have effectively refined the typology by elucidating the distinct characteristics of role-play as a less-structured subset of simulations. By addressing its differences from more immersive simulation modalities in terms of structure, realism, and technological integration, you have significantly strengthened the conceptual clarity of the manuscript.

3. Demonstrating Methodological Rigor:
   The rigorous adherence to PRISMA guidelines and the inclusion of seminal works underscore the methodological thoroughness of the study. These enhancements lend credibility to your findings and position the manuscript as a reliable and well-founded contribution to the field.

4. Acknowledgment of Limitations:
   The thoughtful acknowledgment of limitations, particularly regarding publication bias and the inclusion of only English-language studies, reflects scholarly reflexivity. Your recommendations for future research addressing these constraints are well-articulated and demonstrate a balanced and reflective approach.

5. Future Research Directions:
   The manuscript’s suggestions for future research, including the application of meta-analytic techniques and a detailed examination of design elements such as feedback mechanisms, immersion levels, and technological support, are both insightful and strategic. These recommendations provide a clear roadmap for advancing research in this area.

I wish to commend your conscientious engagement with the feedback provided and your dedication to refining and elevating your work. The revisions have significantly enhanced the theoretical rigor, empirical depth, and practical relevance of the manuscript. I am confident that this study will serve as a valuable reference for advancing both academic discourse and practical applications in the field of teacher education.