Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Simulations Are No ‘One-for-All’ Experience: How Participants Vary in Their Development of Self-efficacy for Negotiating

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Simulations of Decision-Making as Active Learning Tools

Part of the book series: Professional and Practice-based Learning ((PPBL,volume 22))

Abstract

This chapter aims at elucidating that attention should not solely be given to simulations’ final learning outcomes but also to the development of individual learners during the simulation. More specifically, we introduce self-efficacy for negotiating as a relevant learning outcome of simulations of decision-making. This chapter uses data from a 4-day Model United Nations simulation to explore the development of self-efficacy, taking into account participants’ individual characteristics. Results show, on average for the full sample, an increase of self-efficacy for negotiating during the course of the simulation. However, probing more into individual differences among participants, results also point to variation in simulation experience and in how self-efficacy for negotiating develops.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more information: http://www.antwerpmun.be/

  2. 2.

    Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had not been violated (χ 2(5) = 9.25, p = 0.100).

  3. 3.

    Shapiro-Wilk tests and Levene’s tests were used for checking the underlying assumptions of normal distribution and homogeneity, which were not violated.

  4. 4.

    Checking the sample of male and female students for the assumption of sphericity, Mauchly’s test indicated that this had not been violated (χ 2(5) = 9.66, p = 0.087; χ 2(5) = 7.99, p = 0.158).

References

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baranowski, M., & Weir, F. (2015). Political simulation: What we know, what we think we know and what we still need to know. Journal of Political Science Education, 11(4), 391–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivée, S. (1991). Influence of self-efficacy on self-regulation and performance among junior and senior high-school age students. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 14(2), 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, M. A., Urlacher, B., Hudson, N. F., Niv-Solomon, A., Janik, L. L., Butler, M. J., Brown, S. W., & Ioannou, A. (2009). Gender and negotiation: Some experimental findings from an international negotiation simulation. International Studies Quarterly, 53(1), 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunazzo, M., & Settembri, P. (2014). Teaching the European Union: A simulation of Council’s negotiations. European Political Science, 14(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassidy, S. (2015). Resilience building in students: The role of academic self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1781). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01781.

  • Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (cuse) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. A., & Usher, E. L. (2013). Profiles of the sources of science self-efficacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coertjens, L., Van Daal, T., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). Analysing change in learning strategies over time: A comparison of three statistical techniques. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley-Frolick, K. A. (2010). Beyond model UN: Simulating multi-level, multi-actor diplomacy using the millennium development goals. International Studies Perspectives, 11(2), 184–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dack, H., van Hover, S., & Hicks, D. (2016). “Try not to giggle if you can help it”: The implementation of experiential instructional techniques in social studies classrooms. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 40(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donche, V., Coertjens, L., Vanthournout, G., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Providing constructive feedback on learning patterns: An individual learner’s perspective. Reflecting Education, 8(1), 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duchatelet, D., Bursens, P., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., & Spooren, P. (2017). Student diversity in a cross-continental EU-simulation. Exploring variation in affective learning outcomes among political science students. European Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-017-0116-9

  • Egenberg, S., Øian, P., Eggebø, T. M., Arsenovic, M. G., & Bru, L. E. (2016). Changes in self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and patient outcome following interprofessional simulation training on postpartum haemorrhage. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13666

  • Elias, A. (2014). Simulating the European Union: Reflections on module design. International Studies Perspectives, 15(4), 407–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lay, J. C., & Smarick, K. J. (2006). Simulating a senate office: The impact on students knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Political Science Education, 2(2), 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. H., Nam, S. K., Kim, A. R., Kim, B., Lee, M. Y., & Lee, S. M. (2013). Resilience: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Counseling and Development, 91(3), 269–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, E., & Spindler, L. (2004). Simulations and games as chaordic learning contexts. Simulation and Gaming, 35(1), 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariani, M., & Glenn, B. J. (2014). Simulations build efficacy: Empirical results from a four-week congressional simulation. Journal of Political Science Education, 10(3), 284–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, D. (2001). The uses and limits of model United Nations in an international relations classroom. International Studies Perspectives, 2(3), 269–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muldoon, J. P. (1995). The model united nations revisited. Simulation and Gaming, 26(1), 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obendorf, S., & Randerson, C. (2013). Evaluating the model united nations: Diplomatic simulation as assessed undergraduate coursework. European Political Science, 12(3), 350–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 135–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Continuities and discontinuities: Future directions for research in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 29(3), 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, L. (2014). Modelling factors for predicting student learning outcomes in higher education. In D. Gijbels, V. Donche, J. T. E. Richardson, & J. D. Vermunt (Eds.), Learning patterns in higher education: Dimensions and research perspectives (pp. 56–77). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, C., & Usherwood, S. (2013). Assessment in simulations. Journal of Political Science Education, 9(2), 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roloff, M. E., Putnam, L. L., & Anastasiou, L. (2003). Negotiation skills. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 801–833). Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, C. S., Rosenthal, J. A., & Jones, J. (2001). Preparing for elite political participation simulations and the political socialization of adolescents. Social Science Quarterly, 82(3), 633–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence perceptions and academic functioning. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85–104). New York: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35–53). New York/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, B. I. (2006). Resiliency in negotiation: Bouncing back from impasse. International Negotiation, 11(2), 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroben, F., Schröder, T., Dannenberg, K. A., Thomas, A., Exadaktylos, A., & Hautz, W. E. (2016). A simulated night shift in the emergency room increases students’ self-efficacy independent of role taking over during simulation. BMC Medical Education, 16(177). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0699-9

  • Tang, M., Addison, K. D., LaSure-Bryant, D., & Norman, R. (2004). Factors that influence self-efficacy of counseling students: An exploratory study. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44(1), 70–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tompson, G. G., & Dass, P. (2000). Improving students’ self-efficacy in strategic management: The relative impact of cases and simulations. Simulation and Gaming, 31(1), 22–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory self-efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usherwood, S. (2015). Building resources for simulations: Challenges and opportunities. European. Political Science, 14(3), 218–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Soom, C., & Donche, V. (2014). Profiling first-year students in STEM programs based on autonomous motivation and academic self-concept and relationship with achievement. PLoS One, 9(11), e112489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J. D., & Donche, V. (2017). A learning patterns perspective on student learning in higher education: State of the art and moving forward. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9414-6

  • Vermunt, J. D., & Vermetten, Y. (2004). Patterns in student learning: Relationships between learning strategies, conceptions of learning, and learning orientations. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 359–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watters, C., Reedy, G., Ross, A., Morgan, N. J., Handslip, R., & Jaye, P. (2015). Does interprofessional simulation increase self-efficacy: A comparative study. BMJ Open, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005472

  • Wright-Maley, C. (2015). Beyond the “Babel problem”: Defining simulations for the social studies. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 39(2), 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zepke, N., Leach, L., & Butler, P. (2010). Engagement in post-compulsory education: Students’ motivation and action. Research in Post-compulsory Education, 15(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Dorothy Duchatelet

Authors
  1. Dorothy Duchatelet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorothy Duchatelet .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Peter Bursens

  2. University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Vincent Donche

  3. University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    David Gijbels

  4. University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Pieter Spooren

Appendix: Schedule of the AntwerpMUN Simulation, Edition 2016

Appendix: Schedule of the AntwerpMUN Simulation, Edition 2016

 

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

8:30–9:00a

Registrationa

   

9:00–9:30

‘

Committee sessionb

Committee sessionb

 

9:30–10:00

‘

‘

‘

 

10:00–10:30

Opening ceremonya

‘

‘

 

10:30–11:00

‘

‘

‘

Committee sessionb

11:00–11:30

‘

Breaka

Breaka

‘

11:30–12:00

‘

Committee sessionb

Committee sessionb

Breaka

12:00–12:30

Reception/luncha

‘

‘

Committee sessionb

12:30–13:00

‘

‘

‘

‘

    

Time 4 c

13:00–13:30

Photo momenta

Luncha

Luncha

Luncha

13:30–14:00

Mock debateb

‘

‘

‘

14:00–14:30

Committee sessionb

Committee sessionb

Committee sessionb

‘

14:30–15:00

(Opening speeches)b

‘

‘

Committee sessionb

15:00–15:30

‘

‘

‘

(Final draft

15:30–16:00

Breaka

‘

‘

Resolutions)b

16:00–16:30

Committee sessionb

Breaka

Breaka

Closing ceremonya

16:30–17:00

‘

Committee sessionb

Committee sessionb

Awardsa

17:00–17:30

‘

‘

‘

 

17:30–18:00

‘

‘

‘

 
 

Time 1 c

Time 2 c

Time 3 c

 

21:00–21:30

Pub crawla

Quiza

  

21:30–22:00

‘

‘

  

22:00–22:30

‘

‘

Galaa

 

22:30–…

‘

‘

‘

 
  1. aInformal programme
  2. bFormal programme
  3. cMeasurements

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Duchatelet, D. (2018). Simulations Are No ‘One-for-All’ Experience: How Participants Vary in Their Development of Self-efficacy for Negotiating. In: Bursens, P., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., Spooren, P. (eds) Simulations of Decision-Making as Active Learning Tools. Professional and Practice-based Learning, vol 22. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74147-5_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74147-5_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74146-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74147-5

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation