Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Playing out diplomacy: gamified realization of future skills and discipline-specific theory

  • Teaching and Learning
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Future horizons, shaped by unpredictable ecosystems and exponential automation, require discipline-specific as well as transdisciplinary skills to navigate. In the context of political science education, negotiation simulations, for example in the form of board games, can aid in developing both. As a plausibility probe for wider investigations, we set out to research whether an International Relations course concept utilizing the classical board game Diplomacy with pedagogically altered rules and gaming conditions enhances students’ (n = 23) understanding of discipline-specific knowledge and future skills. We utilized a conceptual pre-post measure as well as free-form learning diaries to investigate development in participants’ conceptual understanding and future skills along the course. The results tentatively suggest quantifiable and qualitatively observable changes in the discipline-specific conceptual, as well as more broad-based competence level. The gamified learning environment provided students with an activating and engaging learning environment that better acquainted them not only with discipline-specific theory, but more importantly, also with skills regarded important for their future.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asal, V. 2005. Playing games with international relations. International Studies Perspectives 6 (3): 359–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asal, V., I. Miller, and C.N. Willis. 2019. System, state or individual: Gaming levels of analysis in international relations. International Studies Perspectives 21 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekz018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., W.H. Freeman, and R. Lightsey. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H.S. 1996. 1996 Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1996 (68): 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., and M. Scardamalia. 2003. Learning to work creatively with knowledge. Powerful learning environments. In Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments, ed. E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, and J. van Merriënboer. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridge, D., and S. Radford. 2014. Teaching diplomacy by other means: Using an outside-of-class simulation to teach international relations theory. International Studies Perspectives 15 (4): 423–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, V.A., J.A. Harris, and J.Y. Russell, eds. 2010. Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity, flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, P., and K. Sung. 2011. Teaching introductory programming with popular board games. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on computer science education, pp. 619–624. https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953338.

  • Eckstein, H. 1975. Case study and theory in political science. In Handbook of political science, ed. F.I. Greenstein and N.W. Polsby. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein, H. 2000. Case study and theory in political science. In Case study method: Key issues, Key texts, ed. R. Gomm, M. Hammersley and P. Foster, 119–164. London: SAGE.

  • Eskin, B. 2004. World domination: The game. Washington: Washington Post.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, A. 2012. Gaming the game: A study of the gamer mode in educational wargaming. Simulation and Gaming 43 (1): 118–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, C.B., and M.A. Osborne. 2017. The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114: 254–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M.L., and K.J. Holyoak. 1983. Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology 15 (1): 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, M., and T. Honkela. 2019. Co-operation as an asymmetric form of human-computer creativity. Case: Peace machine. In Proceedings of the first workshop on NLP for conversational AI, pp. 42–50.

  • Head, B.W. 2008. Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy 3 (2): 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, F., and D. Reisberg. 1992. Emotion, arousal, and memory for detail. In The handbook of emotion and memory: Research and theory, ed. Sven-Åke Christianson, 151–180. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., and V. Anderson. 1986. Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research 56 (4): 473–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., K.A. Renninger, and A. Krapp. 2004. Interest, a motivational variable that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In Motivation, emotion, and cognition, ed. D. Yun and R. Sternberg, 103–130. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honkela, T. 2017. Rauhankone: Tekoälytutkijan testamentti [Peace machine: A testament of an AI researcher]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P.N. 2020. Lie machines: How to save democracy from troll armies, deceitful robots, junk news operations, and political operatives. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, V.M., and B.S. Day. 2019. Foreign policy analysis: Classic and contemporary theory. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ito, M., K. Gutiérrez, S. Livingstone, B. Penuel, J. Rhodes, K. Salen, J. Schor, J. Sefton-Green, and S.C. Watkins. 2013. Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R., G. Sørensen, and J. Møller. 2019. Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketonen, E. 2017. The role of motivation and academic emotions in university studies: The short- and long-term effects on situational experiences and academic achievement. Helsinki: Faculty of Educational Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruskopf, M., K. Hakkarainen, S. Li, and K. Lonka. 2020. Lessons learned on student engagement from the nature of pervasive socio-digital interests and related network participation of adolescents. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J.S. 2008. Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science 25 (1): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loggins, J.A. 2009. Simulating the foreign policy decision-making process in the undergraduate classroom. PS: Political Science and Politics 42 (2): 401–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonka, K., and E. Ketonen. 2012. How to make a lecture course an engaging learning experience? Studies for the Learning Society 2 (2–3): 63–74. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10240-012-0006-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonka, K. 2018. Phenomenal learning from Finland. Helsinki: Edita.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonka, K., and K. Ahola. 1995. Activating instruction: How to foster study and thinking skills in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education 10 (4): 351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1976. On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46 (1): 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattlin, M. 2018. Adapting the DIPLOMACY board game for 21st century international relations teaching. Simulation and Gaming 49 (6): 735–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118788905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattlin, M. 2021. Anarchy is what students make of it: Playing out Wendt’s three cultures of anarchy. Journal of Political Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2020.1861457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messerli, P., E. Murniningtyas, P. Eloundou-Enyegue, E.G. Foli, E. Furman, A. Glassman, G. Hernández Licona, E.M. Kim, W. Lutz, J.-P. Moatti, K. Richardson, M. Saidam, D. Smith, J. Kazimieras Staniškis, and J.-P. van Ypersele. 2019. Global sustainable development report 2019: The future is now—science for achieving sustainable development. Department of Economic and Social Affairs: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messner, D., S. Schlacke, M. Fromhold-Eisebith, U. Grote, E. Matthies, K. Pittel, and R. Blake-Rath. 2019. Towards our common digital future. Flagship report. German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU).

  • Muis, K.R., R. Pekrun, G.M. Sinatra, R. Azevedo, G. Trevors, E. Meier, and B.C. Heddy. 2015. The curious case of climate change: Testing a theoretical model of epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and complex learning. Learning and Instruction 39: 168–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedelkoska, L., and G. Quintini. 2018. Automation, skills use and training (No. 202). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2018. Putting faces to the jobs at risk of automation, policy brief on the future of work. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2019. Future of education and skills 2030: OECD learning compass 2030—A series of concept notes. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/.

  • Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R. 2014. Emotions and learning. Educational Practices Series-24, UNESCO International Bureau of Education.

  • Rajaraman, A., and J.D. Ullman. 2011. Data mining. In Mining of massive datasets, pp. 1–17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139058452.002.

  • Raymond, C., J. Tawa, G. Tonini, and S. Gomaa. 2018. Using experimental research to test instructional effectiveness: A case study. Journal of Political Science Education 14 (2): 167–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittinger, E.R. 2020. Inspiring students to think theoretically about international relations through the game of diplomacy. Journal of Political Science Education 16 (1): 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosario, R.A., and G.R. Widmeyer. 2009. An exploratory review of design principles in constructivist gaming learning environments. Journal of Information Systems Education 20 (3): 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R.K. 2011. Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., and C. Bereiter. 2014. Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy and technology. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, pp. 397–417.

  • Schrodt, P.A. 2011. Forecasting political conflict in Asia using latent Dirichlet allocation models. Dublin: In Annual Meeting of the European Political Science Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silge, J., and D. Robinson. 2017. Text mining with R: A tidy approach. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundararajan, N., and O. Adesope. 2020. Keep it coherent: A meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09522-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voros, J. 2003. A generic foresight process framework. Foresight 5 (3): 10–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., ed. 2009. International handbook of research on conceptual change. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, E.J., D.T. Campbell, R.D. Schwartz, and L. Sechrest. 1966. Unobtrusive measures; nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J.M. 2006. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49 (3): 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland for project funding support for Milla Kruskopf (6605844 & 327242), the Academy of Finland for project funding support for Elina Ketonen (308352), the Turku Institute for Advanced Studies (TIAS) for funding support for Mikael Mattlin, as well as the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, for Elina Ketonen’s mobility funding. Elina Ketonen also wishes to express her gratitude to the Department of Education at the University of Oxford for hosting her during her Fellowship at Oxford. The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees, as well as Tiina Airaksinen, Tuomas Forsberg, Johanna Kaakinen, Antti Pajala, Teemu Rantanen, Elina Sinkkonen, Sami Torssonen, Henri Vogt, Juha Vuori, Matti Wiberg and Xenia Zeiler for comments on the manuscript. The authors would also like to especially thank the three anonymous professors, who assisted in grading the pre/post-tests of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 5 A, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Milla Kruskopf & Elina E. Ketonen

  2. Department of Philosophy, Contemporary History and Political Science, University of Turku, Assistentinkatu 7, 20014, Turku, Finland

    Mikael Mattlin

Authors
  1. Milla Kruskopf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elina E. Ketonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mikael Mattlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milla Kruskopf.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This is a study based on the written informed consent of subjects who are over 18 and to whom the research design poses no harms or threats. The Finnish National Board on Research Integrity has stated that no formal ethical approval is required for research that adheres to the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, as this research does.

Availability of data and material

The anonymized data and materials used are available by request to the authors 10 years from their collection.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kruskopf, M., Ketonen, E.E. & Mattlin, M. Playing out diplomacy: gamified realization of future skills and discipline-specific theory. Eur Polit Sci 20, 698–722 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-020-00305-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-020-00305-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation