Assessing the effectiveness of EU simulations: Do the characteristics of participants impact learning outcomes?

  • Ferran Davesa
  • Silviu Piros
Teaching and Learning


In January 2018, two different large-scale simulation games on the European Union’s decision-making process took place in Brussels. This study aims to bring systematic empirical evidence from both EuroSim and SUNY Model EU, two active learning experiences that gather around 300 international participants. The intention is to scrutinize whether specific student attributes generate differential effects on the learning outcomes. These involve cognitive outcomes and affective outcomes. The first type refers to participant’s level of knowledge and understanding about the EU policy-making dynamics. The second type reflects on participants’ overall interest and motivation upon the EU. The data were obtained through a post-game survey method based on stratified sampling. The results point at affective outcomes as the most salient learning outcomes of the simulations. In relation to participants’ features, the data reveal country of origin and gender as good performance-enhancers for students of non-EU origin and for the female cohort. All in all, in order to increase the usefulness of large-scale simulations, more attention needs to be given to participant selection and role attribution, as well as post-simulation debriefing or focus groups.


Effectiveness Learning outcomes Model European Union Simulation games Survey evaluation 



The authors would like to thank for the constructive comments received at the 46th ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, and the 48th UACES Annual Conference, as well as to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.


  1. Adelman, H.S. 1986. Intervention Theory and Evaluating Efficacy. Evaluation Review 10(1): 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, W.G. 1993. The Model European Community Exercise, Brockport: The New York Consortium for Model European Community Simulations, Department of Political Science, State University of New York.Google Scholar
  3. Armbruster, P., M. Patel, E. Johnson, and M. Weiss. 2009. Active Learning and Student-Centered Pedagogy Improve Student Attitudes and Performance in Introductory Biology. CBE Life Sciences Education 8(3): 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asal, V., and E. Blake. 2006. Creating Simulations for Political Science Education. Journal of Political Science Education 2: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bromley, P. 2013. Active Learning Strategies for Diverse Learning Styles: Simulations Are Only One Method. PS Political Science and Politics 46(4): 818–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckley, F., and T. Reidy. 2014. Practicing Politics: Student Engagement and Enthusiasm. European Political Science 13(4): 340–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buonanno, L., Dowley, K., and N. Nugent. 2017. SUNY Guide for the 12th SUNYMEU, Institute for European Union Studies at SUNY, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Duchatelet, D., Bursens, P., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., and P. Spooren. 2017. Student Diversity in a Cross-Continental EU-Simulation Exploring Variation in Affective Learning Outcomes Among Political Science Students. European Political Science.
  9. Dukes, R.L., and G. Victoria. 1989. The Effects of Gender, Status, and Effective Teaching on the Evaluation of College Instruction. Teaching Sociology 17(4): 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission. 2016. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to Register Entry and Exit Data and Refusal of Entry Data of Third Country Nationals Crossing the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 and Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011, COM(2016) 194 final.
  11. Feldman, K. 1992. College Students’ Views of Male and Female College Teachers: Part I. Evidence from Students’ Evaluations of their Classroom Teachers. Research in Higher Education 34: 151–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feldman, K. 1993. College Students’ Views of Male and Female College Teachers: Part II. Evidence from the Social Laboratory and Experiments. Research in Higher Education 33: 317–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frederking, B. 2005. Simulations and Student Learning. Journal of Political Science Education 1: 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodwin, L.D., and E.A. Stevens. 1993. The Influence of Gender on University Faculty Members’ Perceptions of ‘Good’ Teaching. Journal of Higher Education 64: 166–185.Google Scholar
  15. Gosenpud, J. 1990. Evaluation of Experiential Learning. In Guide to Business Gaming and Experiential Learning, ed. J.W. Gentry, 301–329. Asbury, IA: Nichols Pub Co.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, R., and P. Bursens. 2015. The Effects of Active Learning Environments: How Simulations Trigger Affective Learning. European Political Science 14(3): 254–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kolb, D.A., and R. Fry. 1975. Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning. In Theories of Group Process, ed. C. Cooper. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Lucal, B., C. Albers, J. Ballantine, J. Burmeister-May, J. Chin, S. Dettmer, and S. Larson. 2003. Faculty Assessment and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Knowledge Available/Knowledge Needed. Teaching Sociology 31(2): 156–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Manners, I., and B. Rosamond. 2018. A Different Europe is Possible: The Professionalization of EU Studies and the Dilemmas of Integration in the 21st Century. Journal of Common Market Studies.
  20. Muldoon, J.P. 1995. The Model United Nations Revisited. Simulation and Gaming 26(1): 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muno, W., and L. Prinz. 2015. Teaching and Learning with EU simulations: Evaluating Model European Union Mainz. Journal of Contemporary European Research 11(4): 370–397.Google Scholar
  22. Raiser, S., A. Schneider, and B. Warkalla. 2015. Simulating Europe: Choosing the Right Learning Objectives for Simulation Games. European Political Science 14(3): 228–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ranchhod, A., C. Gurǎu, E. Loukis, and R. Trivedi. 2014. Evaluating the Educational Effectiveness of Simulation Games: A Value Generation Model. Information Sciences 264: 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sax, L.J., S.K. Gilmartin, and A. Bryant. 2003. Assessing Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Web and Paper Surveys. Research in Higher Education 44(4): 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, M.K. 2010. David A. Kolb on Experiential Learning. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. 26 July 2018.
  26. Smith, E.T., and M.A. Boyer. 1996. Designing In-Class Simulations. PS Political Science and Politics 29(4): 690–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Usherwood, S. 2014. Constructing Effective Simulations of the European Union for Teaching: Realising the Potential. European Political Science 13(1): 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Dyke, G.J., E.G. Declair, and P.H. Loedel. 2000. Stimulating Simulations: Making the European Union as Classroom Reality. International Studies Perspectives 1(2): 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for European Studies (IES)Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations