In the iteration study, students were no longer required to make use of Twitter with respect to their group assignment; yet students were encouraged to do so.
In the second iteration, the students change places.
One of the Iteration 4 students noted how the Role Profiles helped: "The description of the role was most helpful, [I had a] clear understanding of my role, responsibilities and whom I needed to communicate with" (Iteration 4, Duty Manager).
Despite the training about "how to use Twitter", which had been expanded from a 10- to a 40-min introduction in the iteration study, students (still) referred to the fear of sending "wrong" Twitter messages and their limited knowledge of specific Twitter functionalities.
The development of the simulation focused on three major components: reducing the individual and collective cognitive load of the students (Iteration 1 and 2), increasing role and team authenticity (Iteration 1 to 3), and improving the students' communication skills (Iteration 3 and 4).
In each iteration, we observed students gradually acquiring familiarity with the correct protocols and a level of comfort with this structure.
In Iteration 1 4, the students expressed times when the team communicated effectively and times when communication within and between teams was not effective.
The evidence-based approach of this study reveals the applicability of human behavior simulation for the students' iteration and in-depth learning in the search for an optimal match between built environments and human activities in architectural design.
In Iteration 1, the students were assigned roles and were expected to research their job titles, organisation protocols, and media release writing using online resources (which we provided to them).
An experiment we conducted after our design iterations showed that students who used the modules learned more about the target content, fractions.
