student diversity in a cross-continental EU-simulation exploring variation in affective learning outcomes among political science students

Abstract

Current research struggles to illuminate significant learning outcomes of role-play simulations, such as Model European Union (MEU) and Model United Nations (MUN). In this study, we introduce a model for measuring simulation effects, distinguishing between cognitive, affective and regulative learning outcomes. In particular, we introduce the MISS-model (Motivation, Interest and Self-efficacy in Simulations), which enables measuring affective learning outcomes more in depth and connects these with other learning outcomes. To get more insight in how students vary with respect to affective learning outcomes, we apply the MISS-model in a cross-continental simulation context. Study participants included 133 students. Students’ differences were explored using independent t tests, one-way ANOVA and ANCOVA. Results show student variation for all affective learning outcomes and thus support for applying the MISS-model to measure affective learning outcomes of simulations more in depth. Findings are discussed with regard to simulation practice and future research on simulation effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

References

  1. Andonova, L.B. and Mendoza-Castro, R. (2008) ‘The next climate treaty? Pedagogical and policy lessons of classroom negotiations’, International Studies Perspectives 9(3): 331–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988) ‘On the evaluation of structural equation models’, Academy of Marketing Science 16(1): 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baranowksi, M.K. and Weir, K.A. (2015) ‘Political simulations: 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 

  5. Biziouras, N. (2013) ‘Bureaucratic politics and decision making under uncertainty in a national security crisis: Assessing the effects of international relations theory and the learning impact of role-playing simulation at the U.S. Naval Academy’, Journal of Political Science Education 9(2): 184–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Black, A.E. and Deci, E.L. (2000) ‘The effect of instructor’s autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective’, Science Education 84(6): 740–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bong, M., Lee, S.K. and Woo, Y.-K. (2015) ‘The role of interest and self-efficacy in pursuing mathematics and science’, in K.A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt and S. Hidi (eds.) Interest in Mathematics and Science Learning, Washington DC: American Educational Research Association, pp. 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Byrne, B.M. (2010) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education (7 th edition), New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Davison, S.E. (1975) Gaming: An Annotated Catalogue of Law-Related Games and Simulations, Chicago: ABA Special Committee on Youth Education for Citizenship.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000) ‘The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goals pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination behavior’, Psychological Inquiry 11(4): 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. DiCicco, J.M. (2014) ‘National Security Council: Simulating decision-making dilemmas in real time’, International Studies Perspectives 15(4): 438–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Coertjens, L., Van Daal, T. and Van Petegem, P. (2013) ‘Differential use of learning strategies in first-year higher education: The impact of personality, academic motivation, and teaching strategies’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 83(2): 238–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guay, F. (2016) ‘The virtue of culture in understanding motivation at school: Commentary on the special issue on culture and motivation’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 86(1): 154–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hall, N. and Webb, D. (2014) ‘Instructor’s support of student autonomy in an introductory physics course’, Physical Review Special TopicsPhysics Education Research 10(2): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hatcher, L. (1994) A Step-By-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modelling, North Carolina: SAS Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hidi, S. and Renninger, K.A. (2006) ‘The four-phase model of interest development’, Educational psychologist 41(2): 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hoffmann, L. (2002) ‘Promoting girls’ interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners’, Learning and Instruction 12(4): 447–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999) ‘Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives’, Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones, R. and Bursens, P. (2014) ‘Assessing EU simulations: Evidence from the trans-atlantic EuroSim’, in S. Baroncelli, R. Farneti, I. Horga and S. Vanhoonacker (eds.) Teaching and Learning the European Union: Traditional and Innovative Methods, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London: Springer: pp. 157-185.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jones, R. and Bursens, P. (2015) ‘The effects of active learning environments: How simulations trigger affective learning’, European Political Science 14(3): 254–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jozwiak, J. (2012) ‘‘Vegelate’ and Greece: Teaching the EU through simulations’, European Political Science 12(2): 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Krain, M. and Lantis, J.S. (2006) ‘Building knowledge? Evaluating the effectiveness of the global problems summit simulation’, International Studies Perspectives, 7(4): 395–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kusurkar, R.A., Ten Cate, T.J., Vos, C.M., Westers, P. and Croiset, G. (2013) ‘How motivation affects academic performance: A structural equation modelling analysis’, Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice 18(1): 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kyndt, E., Coertjens, L., van Daal, T., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., and Van Petegem, P. (2015) ‘The development of students’ motivation in the transition from secondary to higher education: A longitudinal study’, Learning and Individual Differences 39: 114–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Landriscina, F. (2013) Simulation and Learning: A Model-Centered Approach, New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Leigh, E. and Spindler, L. (2004) ‘Simulations and games as chaordic learning contexts’, Simulation and gaming 35(1): 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mandel, R. (1987) ‘An evaluation of the ‘Balance of power’ simulation’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31(2): 333–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Niemivirta, M. and Tapola, A. (2007) ‘Self-efficacy, interest, and task performance’, Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 21(3/4): 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Obendorf, S. and Randerson, C. (2013) ‘Evaluating the Model United Nations: Diplomatic simulation as assessed undergraduate coursework’, European Political Science 12(3): 350–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pajares, F. (2003) ‘Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature’, Reading and Writing Quarterly 19(2): 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pintrich, P.R. (2003) ‘A motivational perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts’, Journal of Educational Psychology 95(4): 667–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Raymond, C. (2010) ‘Do role-playing simulations generate measurable and meaningful outcomes? A simulation’s effect on exam score and teaching evaluations’, International Studies Perspectives 11(1): 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Renninger, K.A. and Hidi, S.E. (2016) The power of interest for motivation and engagement, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Richardson, M., Abraham, C. and 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 

  40. Riconscente, M.M. (2013) ‘Effects of perceived teacher practices on Latino high school students’ interest, self-efficacy, and achievement in mathematics’, The Journal of Experimental Education 82(1): 51–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rotgans, J.I. (2015) ‘Validation study of general subject-matter interest measure: The individual interest questionnaire (IIQ)’, Health Professions Education 1(1): 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rotgans, J.I. and Schmidt, H.G. (2011) ‘Situational interest and academic achievement in the active-learning classroom’, Learning and Instruction 21(1): 58–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rotgans, J.I. and Schmidt, H.G. (2012) ‘The intricate relationship between motivation and achievement: Examining the mediating role of self-regulated learning and achievement-related classroom behaviors’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 24(2): 197–208.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rotgans, J.I. and Schmidt, H.G. (2014) ‘Situational interest and learning: Thirst for knowledge’, Learning and Instruction 32:37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) ‘Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions’, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1): 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sauvé, L., Renaud, L., Kaufman, D. and Marquis, J.-S. (2007) ‘Distinguishing between games and simulations: A systematic review’, Educational Technology and Society 10(3): 247–256.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Shellman, S.M. and Turan, K. (2006) ‘Do simulations enhance student learning? An empirical evaluation of an IR simulation’, Journal of Political Science Education 2(1): 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Schiefele, U., Wild, K.-P. and Krapp, A. (1995) ‘Course-specific interest and extrinsic motivation as predictors of specific learning strategies and course grades’, paper presented at the 6TH Earli conference; 26-31 August 1995; Nijmegen, NL.

  49. Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2010) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling (Third edition), New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schunk, D.H. and Pajares, F. (2008) ‘Self-efficacy theory’, in K.R. Wentzel and A. Wigfield (eds.) Handbook of Motivation at School, New York/London: Routledge: pp. 35–53.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Smith, E.T. and Boyer, M.A. (1996) ‘Designing in-class simulations’, Political Science and Politics 29(4): 690–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tang, M., Addison, K.D., LaSure-Bryant, D. and 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 

  53. Usherwood, S. (2013) ‘Constructing effective simulations of the European Union for teaching: Realising the potential’, European Political Science 13(1): 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Vallerand, R.J., Fortier, M.S. and Guay, F. (1997) ‘Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72(5): 1161–1176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Van Dyke, G.J., Declair, E.G. and Loedel, P.H. (2000) ‘Stimulating simulations: Making the European Union as classroom reality’, International Studies Perspectives 1(2): 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K. and Lens, W. (2009) ‘Motivational profiles from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters’, Journal of Educational Psychology 101(3): 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Vecchione, M., Allessandri, G. and Marsicano, G. (2014) ‘Academic motivation predicts educational attainment: Does gender make a difference?’, Learning and Individual Differences 32: 124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Vermunt, J. and 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 

  60. 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 

  61. Zaino, J.S. and Mulligan, T. (2009) ‘Learning opportunities in a department-wide crisis simulation: Bridging the international/national divide’, Political Science and Politics 42(3): 537–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 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

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorothy Duchatelet.

Appendix

Appendix

Measuring motivation, interest and self-efficacy in simulations*

  Autonomous motivation
  I’m motivated for my field of study because…
1. … I want to learn new things
2. … I am highly interested in doing this
3. … it is personally important to me
4. … I enjoy doing it
5. … this represents a meaningful choice to me
6. … it’s fun
7. … this is an important life goal to me
8. … it’s an exciting thing to do
  Individual interest
9. I am very interested in the European Union, including issues of negotiation and decision-making
10. Outside of school, I read a lot about the European Union (newspapers, Internet…)
11. I always look forward to ‘European Union’ classes, because I enjoy them a lot
12. I am interested in the European Union since I was young
13. I watch a lot of European Union-news on TV or the Internet
14. Later in my life, I want a European Union-related job
15. When I am reading or watching news about the European Union, I am fully focused and forget everything around me
  Situational interest
  Topic: EU decision-making process, EU negotiation, or EU refugee and asylum policy
16. I want to know more about this topic
17. I enjoy working on this topic
18. I think this topic is interesting
19. I expect to master this topic well
20. I am fully focused on this topic; I am not distracted by other things**
21. Presently, I feel bored by this topic
  Self-efficacy
22. I think I’m a good negotiator
23. Compared to some other students, I think I’m a considerably good negotiator
24. I’m satisfied with my negotiating skills
25. I’m confident with my ability to negotiate
  1. *Adapted from Donche et al, (2012), Rotgans (2015), Rotgans and Schmidt (2011), and Vansteenkiste et al, (2009); **Item SI5 was excluded after CFA-analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duchatelet, D., Bursens, P., Donche, V. et al. student diversity in a cross-continental EU-simulation exploring variation in affective learning outcomes among political science students. Eur Polit Sci 17, 601–620 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-017-0116-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • higher education
  • simulations
  • affective learning outcomes
  • political science