Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T05:09:33.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Active Learning Environments: How Simulations Trigger Affective Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Rebecca Jones and
Peter Bursens
Rebecca Jones*
Affiliation:
Widener University, One University Place, Chester, Pennsylvania, 19013, USA
Peter Bursens*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Universiteit Antwerpen, Sint Jacobstraat 2, Antwerpen, BE2000, Belgium
*
E-mail: rrjones@widener.edu
E-mail: peter.bursens@uantwerpen.be
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Simulations have become popular teaching tools in political science and EU studies curricula. Proponents point out that simulations match with constructivist theories of learning. They argue that students will better understand EU decision making when they combine theoretical knowledge about negotiation theory with knowledge about how the EU works and with the experience of negotiating as if they were EU actors. This article aims to validate the pedagogical claims by constructivists regarding simulations in two ways. It assesses the organisation of EuroSim, a four day comprehensive simulation of EU decision making organised by the Trans-Atlantic Consortium for European Union Studies & Simulations (TACEUSS) as an active learning environment. In addition, using data from pre- and post-simulation surveys among participants, the authors show that through participation in simulations students gained in the areas of affective learning, such as the ability for self-assessment, as suggested by the constructivist literature.

Keywords

active learningsimulationsaffective learningconstructivism

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
European Political Science , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2015, pp. 254 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 European Consortium for Political Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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
Barr, R. and Tagg, J. (1995) ‘From teaching to learning – A new paradigm for undergraduate education’, Change 27(6): 13-25.10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birenbaum, M. (2003) ‘New Insights Into Learning and Teaching and their Implications for Assessment’, in Dochy, F., Cascalar, E. and Segers, M. (eds.) Optimizing New Modes of Assessment: In Search for Qualities and Standards Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 13-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonwell, C.C. and Eison, J.A. (1991) ‘Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom’ ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC. The George Washington University School of Education and Development.Google Scholar
Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. (1989) ‘Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis’, Review of Educational Research 59(4): 395-430.Google Scholar
Brown, S.W. and King, F.B. (2000) ‘Constructivist pedagogy and how we learn: Educational psychology meets international study’, International Studies Perspectives 1(3): 245-254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunazzo, M. and Settembri, P. (2014) ‘Experiencing the European Union: A simulation game on the European Citizens’ Initiative’, available online, http://www.sisp.it/files/papers/2013/marco-brunazzo-and-pierpaolo-settembri-1500.pdf, accessed 20 October 2014.Google Scholar
Chin, J., Dukes, R. and Gamson, W. (2009) ‘Assessment in simulation and gaming. A review of the last 40 years’, Simulation and Gaming 40(4): 553-568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Corte, E. (2000) ‘Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology’, Learning and Instruction 10(3): 249-266.10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00029-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, B.K. (2003) ‘Byzantine politics: Using simulations to make sense of the middle east’, Political Science and Politics 36(2): 239-244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, D. and Ebner, N. (2013) ‘Games, claims, and new frames: Rethinking the use of simulation in negotiation education’, Negotiation Journal 29(1): 61-92.10.1111/nejo.12005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, A. (2013) ‘Simulating the European union: Reflections on module design’, International Studies Perspectives. advance online publication 15 April, doi: 10.1111/insp.12009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonti, F. and Stevancevic, G. (2014) ‘Innovativeness in Teaching European Studies: An Empirical Investigation’, 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. 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galatas, S.E. (2006) ‘A simulation of the council of the European union: Assessment of the impact on student learning’, PS: Political Science & Politics 39(1): 147-151.Google Scholar
Giovanello, S.P., Kirk, J.A. and Kromer, M.K. (2013) ‘Student perceptions of a role-playing simulation in an introductory international relations course’, Journal of Political Science Education 9(2): 197-208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosen, J. and Washbush, J. (2004) ‘A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness’, Simulation and Gaming 35(2): 270-293.10.1177/1046878104263544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenblat, C.S. (1973) ‘Teaching with simulation games: A review of claims and evidence’, Teaching Sociology 1(1): 62-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenblatt, C., Duke, R.D. (eds.) (1975) Gaming Simulations: Rationale, Design, and ApplicationsNew York, Halsted PressGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G.J., de Caluwé, L. and Peters, V. (2010) ‘Why simulation game works – In search of the active substance: A synthesis’, Simulation and Gaming 41(6): 824-843.10.1177/1046878110375596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. (2008) ‘Evaluating a Cross-Continent EU Simulation’, Journal of Political Science Education 4(4): 404-434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. and Bursens, P. (2014) ‘Assessing EU Simulations: Evidence from the Trans-Atlantic EuroSim’, in Baroncelli, S., Farneti, R., Horga, I. and Vanhoonacker, S. (eds) Teaching and Learning the European Union: Traditional and Innovative Methods Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London: Springer, 157-185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishiyama, J. (2012) ‘Frequently used active learning techniques and their impact: A critical review of existing journal literature in the united states’, European Political Science 11(1): 116-126.Google Scholar
Kaunert, Ch. (2009) ‘The European union simulation: From problem based learning (PBL) to student interest’, European Political Science 8(3): 254-264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muno, W., Messner, M.T. and Hahner, N. (2013) ‘Politikdidaktik and simulationen: Die EU simulation model European union Mainz’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 23(1): 159-171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. (2012) ‘Missing the trees for the forest? Learning environments versus learning techniques in simulations’, Journal of Political Science Education 8(1): 69-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. and Usherwood, S. (2013) ‘Assessment in simulations’, Journal of Political Science Education 9(2): 157-167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rünz, P. (2015) ‘Beyond teaching: Measuring the effect of EU simulations on European identity and support of the EU’, European Political Science, in press.10.1057/eps.2015.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shellman, S.M. and Kürşad, T. (2001) ‘Active learning in comparative politics: A Mock German election and coalition-formation simulation’, PS: Political Science & Politics 34(4): 827-834.Google Scholar
Shellman, S.M. and Kürşad, T. (2006) ‘Do simulations enhance student learning? An empirical evaluation of an IR simulation’, Journal of Political Science Education 2(1): 19-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnurr, M.A., De Santo, E.M. and Green, A.D. (2014) ‘What do students learn from a role-play simulation of an international negotiation?’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education 38(3): 401-414.10.1080/03098265.2014.933789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, K. (2003) ‘Ropes, poles and space. Active learning in business education’, Active Learning in Higher Education 4(2): 159-167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Schelfhout, W. and Gielen, S. (2006) ‘On the dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment’, Learning and Instruction 16(4): 279-294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szafran, R.F. and Mandolini, A.F. (1980) ‘Student evaluations of a simulation game’, Teaching Sociology 8(1): 21-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topping, K. (1998) ‘Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities’, Review of Educational Research 68(3): 249-276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usherwood, S. (2014) ‘Constructing effective simulations of the European union for teaching: Realising the potenial’, European Political Science 13(1): 1-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyke, G. (2014) ‘Educating for EU Citizenship and Civic Engagement Through Active Learning’, in Baroncelli, S., Farneti, R., Horga, I. and Vanhoonacker, S. (eds) Teaching and Learning the European Union: Traditional and Innovative Methods Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London: Springer, 39-53.10.1007/978-94-007-7043-0_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermetten, Y., Vermunt, J. and Lodewijks, H. (2002) ‘Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures’, Learning and Instruction 12(3): 263-284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar