The Effectiveness of Negotiation Games in Citizenship Education: An Examination of Diplomatic Negotiation Game INDEPENDENCE DAY in a Japanese High School

  • Hiroki Baba
  • Masahiro Ohyama
  • Misaki Sato
  • Jun Yoshinaga
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10711)

Abstract

The aim of Citizenship education is cultivating citizens of future democratic society, as well as international society, based on the knowledge and understanding of social phenomena. It is important for citizenship education to make students become aware that society is filled with possibilities for the future. Furthermore, students have to face society through communication in citizenship education. This is a crucial factor which cultivates citizens of future society to arouse motivation in the students to change the future by their own communication. In this study, we insist that gaming/simulation to make students negotiate is effective in citizenship education. From the above, we developed INDEPENDENCE DAY as a negotiation game usable in citizenship education, and proved the effectiveness of the game through an experiment. INDEPENDENCE DAY is a negotiation game for students to virtually experience diplomatic negotiation between Japan and the United States after World War II. The results of the experiment indicated following three points: (1) students actively dealt with communication filled with uncertainty, (2) students gained awareness of various possibilities in their future society, (3) this game aroused students’ motivation to actively participate in the society.

Keywords

Citizenship education Communication for Plural Futures Negotiation game INDEPENDENCE DAY 

References

  1. 1.
    Rychen, D.S., Salganik, L.H.: Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society, 1st edn. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yoshinaga, J.: Social Studies’ Lessons Can Be Activated by Introducing ‘Uncertainty’, 1st edn. Toshindo, Tokyo (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duke, R.D.: Gaming: The Future’s Language, 1st edn. SAGE Publications, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luhmann, N., Becker, D.: Einfuehrung in die Systemtheorie, vol. 2, 1st edn. Carl-Auer-Systeme-Verlag, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ohyama, M., Baba, H., Yoshinaga, J.: Communication games for activating citizenship education in Japan. In: Hybrid Simulation and Gaming in the Network Society, ISAGA/JASAG 2015, Japan, pp. 928–943 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schelling, T.C.: The Strategy of Conflict, 1st edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1960)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Florea, N.B., Boyer, M.A., Brown, S.W., Butler, M.J., Hernandez, M., Weir, K., Meng, L., Johnson, P.R., Lima, C., Mayall, H.J.: Negotiating from Mars to Venus; gender in simulated international negotiations. Simul. Gaming 34(2), 226–248 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chin, J., Dukes, R., Gamson, W.: Assessment in simulation and gaming: a review of the last 40 years. Simul. Gaming 40(4), 553–568 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greenblat, C.S.: Designing Games and Simulations, 1st edn. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Randel, J.M., Morris, B.A., Wetzel, C.D., Whitehill, W.B.: The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: a review of the research. Simul. Gaming 23(3), 261–276 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroki Baba
    • 1
  • Masahiro Ohyama
    • 1
  • Misaki Sato
    • 1
  • Jun Yoshinaga
    • 1
  1. 1.Kobe UniversityKobe-CityJapan

Personalised recommendations