Advertisement

European Political Science

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 218–227 | Cite as

building resources for simulations: challenges and opportunities

  • simon usherwood
Symposium

Abstract

One of the most notable challenges of getting colleagues to try out simulations in European studies teaching is the overcoming of start-up costs. In particular, the creation of a scenario from scratch or the adaptation of an existing game can be daunting. The article discusses these challenges and their origins in the fundamental assumptions that simulations make about both the world and pedagogy. In particular, the tension between the simple rules that are understood to capture real-world phenomena and the complexity that those rules produce creates not only an excellent learning opportunity but also a barrier to developing useful resources for simulation designers. The article offers a number of ways that such a barrier can be overcome, including the development of a simulation designer community, use of online guides and the creation of simulations that teach about simulation design. These ideas are illustrated with a number of practical examples.

Keywords

simulation games pedagogic resources curriculum design theory of simulation games 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at the American Political Studies Association Learning and Teaching Conference, February 2013, Long Beach, and at the EU simulations workshop, Mainz. Thanks to Victor Asal, Peter Bursens, Petra Guasti, Nina Kollars, Heidi Maurer, Arne Niemann, Chad Raymond, Amanda Rosen, Gretchen van Dyke and others for comments on the article.

References

  1. Asal, V., Kollars, N., Raymond, C. and Rosen, A. (eds) (2013) ‘Thematic issue: simulations in political science’, Journal of Political Science Education 9 (2): 129–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asal, V. and Kratoville, J. (2013) ‘Constructing international relations simulations: examining the pedagogy of IR simulations through a constructivist learning theory lens’, Journal of Political Science Education 9 (2): 132–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baranowski, M. (2006) ‘Single session simulations: the effectiveness of short congressional simulations in introductory American government simulations’, Journal of Political Science Education 2 (1): 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baroncelli, S., Fonti, F. and Stevancevic, G. (2014) ‘Mapping Innovative Teaching Methods and Tools in European Studies: Results from a Comprehensive Study’, in S. Baroncelli, R. Farneti, I. Horga and S. Vanhoonacker (eds.) Teaching and Learning the European Union, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandes, D. and Ginnis, P. (1996) A Guide to Student-Centred Learning. Nelson Thornes.Google Scholar
  6. Brunazzo, M. and Settembri, P. (2014) ‘Experiencing the European Union: a simulation game on the European citizens’ initiative’, available at: http://www.sisp.it/files/papers/2013/marco-brunazzo-and-pierpaolo-settembri-1500.pdf, accessed 14 November 2014.
  7. Chasek, P. (2005) ‘Power politics, diplomacy and role playing: simulating the UN security council’s response to terrorism’, International Studies Perspectives 6 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chin, J., Dukes, R. and Gamson, w. (2009) ‘Assessment in simulation and gaming: a review of the last 40 years’, Simulation & Gaming 40 (4): 553–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crossley-Frolick, K. (2010) ‘Beyond model UN: simulating multi-level, multi-actor diplomacy using the millennium development goals’, International Studies Perspectives 11 (2): 184–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorn, D.S. (1989) ‘Simulation games: one more tool on the pedagogical shelf’, Teaching Sociology 17 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feinstein, A. and Cannon, H. (2003) ‘A hermeneutical approach to external validation of simulation models’, Simulation & Gaming 34 (2): 186–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frederking, B. (2005) ‘Simulations and student learning’, Journal of Political Science Education 1 (3): 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gredler, M. (1992) Designing and Evaluating Games and Simulations: A Process Approach, London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  14. Guasti, P., Muno, W. and Niemann, A. (2015) ‘Introduction – EU simulations as a multi-dimensional resource: from teaching and learning tool to research instrument’, European Political Science, in press.Google Scholar
  15. Guetzkow, H. and Jensen, L. (1966) ‘Research activities on simulated international processes’, Background 9 (4): 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heitzmann, W. (1973) ‘The validity of social science simulations: a review of research findings’, Education 94 (2): 170–174.Google Scholar
  17. Iyengar, S.S. and Lepper, M.R. (2000) ‘When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing?’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (6): 995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katz, S. (2000) ‘Competency, epistemology and pedagogy: curriculum’s holy trinity’, Curriculum Journal 11 (2): 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaunert, C. (2009) ‘The European Union simulation: from problem-based learning (PBL) to student interest’, European Political Science 8 (2): 254–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lantis, J. (1998) ‘Simulations and experiential learning in the international relations classroom’, International Negotiation 3 (1): 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lea, S.J., Stephenson, D. and Troy, J. (2003) ‘Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: beyond ‘educational bulimia’?’ Studies in Higher Education 28 (3): 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lean, J., Moizer, J., Towler, M. and Abbey, C. (2006) ‘Simulation and games: use and barriers in higher education’, Active Learning in Higher Education 7 (3): 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Randolph, W.A. and Posner, B.Z. (1979) ‘Designing meaningful learning situations in management: a contingency, decision-tree approach’, The Academy of Management Review 4 (3): 459–467.Google Scholar
  24. Raymond, C. and Usherwood, S. (2013) ‘Assessment in simulations’, Journal of Political Science Education 9 (2): 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, E. and Boyer, M. (1996) ‘Designing in-class simulations’, PS: Political Science and Politics 29 (4): 690–694.Google Scholar
  26. Sonnenberg, F.A. and Beck, J.R. (1993) ‘Markov models in medical decision making a practical guide’, Medical Decision Making 13 (4): 322–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Starkey, B. and Blake, e. (2001) ‘Simulation in international relations education’, Simulation & Gaming 32 (4): 537–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Usherwood, S. (2009) ‘Enhancing student immersion in negotiation-based learning environments’, International Journal of Learning 16 (7): 607–614.Google Scholar
  29. Winham, G. (1991) ‘Simulations for Teaching and Analysis’, in V.A. Kremenyuk (ed.) International Negotiation: Analysis, Approaches, Issues, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 409–423.Google Scholar
  30. Wu, S.M., Chao Yu, Y.M., Yang, C.F. and Che, H.L. (2005) ‘Decision‐making tree for women considering hysterectomy’, Journal of Advanced Nursing 51 (4): 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Websites

  1. ‘Pedagogical pattern collector’, available at: http://thor.dcs.bbk.ac.uk/projects/LDSE/Dejan/ODC/ODC.html.
  2. ‘Archive for simulations and games for the enhancement of the learning experience’, available at: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Simulation_and_Gaming_Archive.
  3. ‘UCIS: Resource guides for teaching the EU’, available at: http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/euce/node/52.

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • simon usherwood
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PoliticsUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations