%20-%20https://sketch.com%20--%3e%3ctitle%3e3ECBBF50-FD08-412A-943D-2CFC5E025A16%3c/title%3e%3cdesc%3eCreated%20with%20sketchtool.%3c/desc%3e%3cg%20id='Stylesheet'%20stroke='none'%20stroke-width='1'%20fill='none'%20fill-rule='evenodd'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(-926.000000,%20-668.000000)'%20id='BUTTONS'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(100.000000,%20597.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='BTN-/-RIGHTS'%20transform='translate(816.000000,%2065.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='ICON-/-Rights'%20transform='translate(10.000000,%206.000000)'%3e%3cpath%20d='M13.5752841,0%20L1.34943182,0%20C0.59375,0%200,0.586666667%200,1.33333333%20L0,22.6666667%20C0,23.4133333%200.620738636,24%201.34943182,24%20L17.6505682,24%20C18.40625,24%2019,23.3866667%2019,22.6666667%20L19,5.36%20L13.5752841,0%20Z%20M13.5752841,1.89333333%20L17.0838068,5.36%20L13.5752841,5.36%20L13.5752841,1.89333333%20Z%20M1.34943182,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,5.36%20C12.1988636,6.10666667%2012.7926136,6.69333333%2013.5482955,6.69333333%20L17.6235795,6.69333333%20L17.6505682,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,22.6666667%20Z'%20id='Shape'%20fill='%23595959'%20fill-rule='nonzero'%3e%3c/path%3e%3ccircle%20id='Oval'%20stroke='%23595959'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20fill='%23595959'%20cx='9.5'%20cy='13.5355339'%20r='5.5'%3e%3c/circle%3e%3cpolyline%20id='Path-2'%20stroke='%23FFFFFF'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20transform='translate(9.500000,%2013.035534)%20rotate(45.000000)%20translate(-9.500000,%20-13.035534)%20'%20points='8%2016.0355339%2011%2016.0355339%2011%2010.0355339'%3e%3c/polyline%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
RATIONALE: WHY A DEPARTMENT-WIDE SIMULATION?
Not every student learns in the same way. In order to reach the widest audience possible, professors use a variety of pedagogical techniques. Active learning has proved to be an integral part of successful pedagogy (Kolb Reference Kolb1976; Endersby and Webber Reference Endersby and Webber1995; DeNeve and Heppner Reference DeNeve and Heppner1997; Brock and Cameron Reference Brock and Cameron1999; Ciliotta-Rubery and Levy Reference Ciliotta-Rubery and Levy2000; McCarthy and Anderson Reference McCarthy and Anderson2000). Studies show that simulation and role-play exercises increase student interest in politics and stimulate greater understanding of political actors and processes (McKeachie Reference McKeachie1986; Endersby and Webber Reference Endersby and Webber1995; Ciliotta-Rubery and Levy Reference Ciliotta-Rubery and Levy2000; Galatas Reference Galatas2006).
Typically, however, simulation and role-play exercises are divided along subfields. Most exercises, whether based on real or fictitious events, either place students in various roles within a particular country or have them represent the international interests of one country among others. As a result, many exercises fall specifically within the American, comparative, or international subfields. This is true of most model Congresses, model United Nations, moot courts, and Council of Europe games. In each of these examples, the concentration tends to be on either national or international interests, not both, and certainly not both simultaneously (Shellman Reference Shellman2001; Dougherty Reference Dougherty2003).
Answering the call to “internationalize the undergraduate curriculum” and to better reflect the realities of addressing national and international pressures, we have sought to bridge this gap by designing and implementing a department-wide interactive crisis simulation (Barber et al. Reference Barber, Cassell, Ingebritsen, Lamy, Leslie, Martin and Ward2007). Our simulation seeks to link subfields and give students a more realistic, if more complex, experience in role playing. Through their participation, students realize that increasingly congressional committees, cabinet members, heads of state, and United Nations delegates are unable to make decisions without taking into account varying competing interests and local and global consequences. As opposed to working within the subfields that traditionally divide our discipline, our simulation attempts to recognize this reality.
In addition to trying to capture and portray the complexities of political processes, our simulation utilizes new technology to prepare students for the simulation and to allow them to engage in real-time decision making during the course of the exercise.
This article explains how to design and execute a department-wide simulation. Drawing upon our experiences of five iterations over five semesters (2003 through 2007), we discuss the preparation, logistics, and challenges involved. We address the use of the Web-based Blackboard technology program to facilitate planning and student research during the course of the simulation to post real-time updates, resolutions passed, and any other pertinent information. We conclude with a discussion of the effectiveness of the department-wide simulation. Using a post-simulation assessment, we analyze the impact of the simulation on student learning.
DESIGNING A DEPARTMENT-WIDE SIMULATION
In order to expose students to some of the problems, pressures, opportunities, and limitations political actors face domestically and internationally, we chose classes within the political science department with related learning goals. Two of the four faculty members from the department organized and participated in the simulation. We selected three different classes to participate in the simulation: Introduction to American Government, Understanding Politics (an introductory course emphasizing themes normally found in comparative politics courses), and International Relations.
There were several reasons to choose these particular courses. Introductory courses tend to be larger at our institution and have a more diverse student population in terms of majors and interests, status in school (i.e., first year student versus senior), and experience and interest in politics of any kind. The American government class had 45 students and the Understanding Politics course had 40 students. These tend to be the students who may benefit the most from more diverse teaching methods. The IR course has more majors, more training in political science courses, and greater interest. The total number of students in this course was 30. We anticipated that this mix would represent a maximum number of viewpoints and perspectives. The total number of student participants was 115. Once the courses were set, we began to design assignments to prepare the students.
Preparation and Syllabi
Before the start of the semester, we met to select a date. We chose a Saturday because it was the only time that adequate classroom space was available and it would allow us to address competing needs of student schedules. We required one large venue for introductory and concluding remarks and many regular “smart” classrooms for meetings scheduled for the various committees, party caucuses, heads of state, and United Nations.
The next step was to incorporate the simulation into the syllabi for all of the courses involved. By agreement with the faculty, all syllabi stipulated that participation in the simulation was mandatory.
Additionally, the syllabi indicated that a written assignment and participation in simulation was a part of the students' overall grades. The syllabi designated three in-class sessions for simulation preparation. In these sessions, we explained how the crisis itself would be organized and what student expectations for the day should be. The research preparation, however, was done in the students' own time.
The syllabi also explained and emphasized that Blackboard is an important feature of all the courses and would be used extensively during the simulation. A special Blackboard site was created for the simulation separate from our regular course sites. Roles, assignments, and crisis information were to be posted on that site and all students were instructed to consult it on a regular basis for information regarding the simulation.
Crisis and Roles
There are two approaches to take when designing the crisis scenario. Instructors may create fictional events or crises that mirror real life, either contemporary or historical. In our most recent iteration, for example, we used fictionalized events and actors based loosely upon reality. As Table 1 shows, we constructed a scenario to approximate some of the problems, pressures, opportunities, and limitations facing political actors.
Crisis (Excerpt)
Next we identified a series of key states and actors. For this particular crisis scenario, we selected state and non-state actors to maximize the varieties of institutional design, identity, interests, views of collective security, and modes of problem solving. We also chose varying positions to represent different responsibilities and areas of expertise. The American government students, for instance, were assigned to represent the president and cabinet, including foreign ambassadors. Other students in the class represented members of several real-life Senate committees and party leadership for the Senate. The Understanding Politics course and IR course represented the remaining state actors, including Iran, Germany, Syria, Israel, North Korea, Great Britain, China, Japan, Pakistan, Iraq, South Korea, France, Saudi Arabia, Russia, a non-state actor, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and the United Nations.
Specific role assignment was a somewhat random process. We tried to break the groups down try to mix and match personalities and academic success within classes. Students were assigned roles and made aware of the roles via Blackboard and class discussion. The United States team included members of the executive branch and Congress. The other actors had about four members per group. They were heads of state, foreign minister, defense minister, UN ambassador, and ambassador at large. The UN had two students serving as secretaries-general. The preparation for these roles is discussed in detail below.
Assignments and Student Assessment: Pre-Simulation Day
By agreement with the faculty, all students were expected to complete pre-simulation-day assignments, although the nature and scope of the assignments varied by class and instructor. For each assignment, the professors provided guiding questions for the various roles.
As Table 2 shows, students in the Understanding Politics class and IR representing the states and PNA were asked to prepare a group memo nine to 10 pages in length.
International Relations Sample Assignment (Excerpt)
We allowed the students to divide up the topics according to their roles. In addition, within the class sessions designated for preparation, the students were asked to focus their research more narrowly on particular issues such as weapons of mass destruction and Palestinian independence.
Memos were due a week before the simulation. They were evaluated to ensure that all relevant topics had been addressed, that sufficient detail was included, and that the group had a clear understanding of the national and international interests at stake for their particular roles and the strategic calculations that might be necessary. The two students representing the United Nations had a somewhat different, though related, assignment addressing questions of UN procedure and current Security Council positions on issues such as WMD. In general, the assignments required students to consider questions routinely raised in these kinds of political science courses about identifying and pursuing national interests, the role of power in dictating decisions, and the kinds of solutions available in politics.
As Table 3 shows, the instructor for the American government classes asked the students to work individually to complete a research assignment in advance of the simulation. The assignment was designed to help the students get to know the officials they were playing, the institution they work in, and the issues of concern to them. The final product was a five- to six-page memo. As was the case with the other political science courses, the instructor further focused the students' research on more narrow topics during in-class sessions. For example, the students would be asked to consider their senators' positions on nuclear proliferation or Israeli/Palestinian relations.
American Government Sample Assignment 1 (Excerpt)
Implementation: Simulation Day
Prior to student arrival, we had a great deal of logistical preparation to do. We set up the individual classrooms as workspace for the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Security Council, individual country bases of operations (three to four per room), U.S. cabinet room, Senate committee rooms, party caucus rooms, and so on. With institutional support, we were able to purchase flags, name badges, placards, and door signs. We also had to set up the large venue for the introductory and concluding portions of the simulations.
Every room we used had smart-classroom capabilities. There were PCs and LCD projectors in all rooms to allow us to keep Blackboard up throughout the day. Blackboard access was necessary so that students would be able to monitor developments in real time. In essence, Blackboard served as our own version of CNN.
As Table 4 shows, we prepared a schedule of events for the day that intended to provide some structure for the students without constraining them too much. The schedule began with an opening session, and then designated specific meeting slots for the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, committee hearings, cabinet briefings, and party caucuses. There was unstructured time in between for students to convene meetings as necessary.
Schedule for the Day (Excerpt)
On the morning of the simulation, each student signed in and received a folder that contained the day's schedule, the crisis, memo forms to communicate with the instructors and other actors, a list of participants, relevant maps, and their name badges. At that point, we introduced the crisis to the group and provided an overview for the day. At the conclusion of those remarks, students adjourned to meet with their group members to assess the crisis, to deliberate possible responses, and to discuss how those responses might be executed. Because students had in-depth pre-simulation assignments to familiarize them both with their roles and with the issues that would be introduced in the crisis, they had a ready framework for proposing initial strategies and solutions.
At this point, we played a mostly mediating role. As the control station, we had a laptop logged into Blackboard in a central location to keep tabs on events as they unfolded. If students wanted to take any action, they had to complete a memo to control for approval. Anything went—invasions, coup plots, possible leadership shifts, the drafting of legislation, floor votes, even assassinations—if warranted, and with control approval. This was to ensure students were actually addressing the crises. We posted all developments to Blackboard. This created some confusion for students. They might have planned to back a piece of legislation, only to find out via Blackboard that international events made that legislation no longer viable or desirable. This real-time effect, however, served to sensitize them to the competing demands and pressures of politics.
Throughout the course of the simulation, we observed students to determine how engaged they were in the exercise and whether they remained true to form in their roles. This observation served as the remaining portion of the participation grade for each student.
At the end of the simulation, students convened to the assembly area to debrief and share their comments and observations, a very productive and enlightening discussion. At this point, evaluative assessments of the simulation were distributed to see how well we had done in meeting our objectives.
ASSESSING THE DEPARTMENT-WIDE SIMULATION
To determine how well the crisis simulation achieved our learning goals, at the conclusion of the simulation, the participants were asked to complete an anonymous survey and leave it in a designated area before they departed for the day. We feel that one of the most important tests of whether this simulation is worth the trade-off of some traditional classroom sessions is how much student interest, knowledge, and critical skills increase. One way to measure that is by asking the students themselves. While assessments have been administered every semester the simulation was conducted, this discussion primarily reflects results from the most recent iteration.
As the excerpt from the survey shown in Table 5 shows, the instrument was designed primarily to assess overall student levels of satisfaction.
Post-Simulation Assessment (Excerpt)
Seventy-one of the 115 participants in the fall 2007 simulation completed and returned the survey. This represents a response rate of almost 70%.
From a demographic perspective, the respondents were diverse in almost every way except age. Slightly more than half of the respondents were male (52%). Student participants were first years (6%), sophomores (29%), juniors (38%), and seniors (27%).
Approximately 83% of respondents had declared a major. Of those, almost 40% were political science or international studies students. The others spread across several disciplines within the School of Arts and Science, including criminal justice (15%), mass communication (13%), and finance/marketing/economics (13%). The remainder of the respondents (19%) represented disciplines as diverse as psychology, journalism, education, public relations, sociology, and religious studies.
Not surprisingly there was very little diversity in terms of the age of respondents, with almost 90% falling in the 18- to 22-year-old age bracket.
Overall Satisfaction
A series of close-ended questions asked about the participants' overall satisfaction with the simulation. The feedback provided by students on this point was generally positive. Almost all of the 115 respondents (97%) said they thought the simulation was generally “interesting.” Similarly, more than eight out of 10 students said that they were generally satisfied with the simulation.
Perhaps the most significant measure of overall satisfaction is reflected in whether the students would participate again and recommend the simulation to others. More than 80% of respondents said they would participate in the simulation again. While more than nine in 10 said they would recommend the simulation to other students.
The survey also assessed the participants' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the simulation as a learning tool. In terms of whether the assignments given by individual instructors prior to the simulation were helpful in preparing for the crisis day, almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents said that they were, while 8% said they were not, and the remainder (18%) said they could not answer the question.
Open-Ended Assessment and Recommendations
To complement the close-ended measures, students were also asked to respond to four open-ended questions. These questions were designed to elicit more detailed feedback and commentary regarding the best and worst aspects of the simulation and suggestions for improvement.
We found this aspect of the assessment to be the most fruitful in evaluating the overall experience. Not only did it allow participants to go beyond the pre-scripted answers in the close-ended portion of the survey and respond in their own words, but the information conveyed has been particularly useful.
Most Positive Aspects: Increased Awareness and Interaction
According to the open-ended question regarding what they appreciated most, the top two responses were increased knowledge and awareness of government and politics (41%) and the interactive component (32%).
More than four out of 10 (41%) students said that the most positive aspect of the simulation was that it increased their knowledge and awareness of government and politics. Respondents noted that the simulation allowed them to learn about various institutions, actors, nation/states, non-nation states, policies, and diplomacy in a way they might not have in a traditional classroom setting. In addition, several students noted that participating had the added effect of making them more sensitive to the pressures and other difficulties key actors face, as well as how difficult it is to get things done and how much compromise and bargaining is required to make even small gains.
More than three out of 10 students (32%) reported that the most positive aspect of the simulation was that it allowed them to interact with fellow students, faculty, and staff in a way they did not get a chance to in the classroom.
Beyond the learning and interactive components, 8% of students said they appreciated the pace of the exercise and another 8% focused on the freedom they were given to make decisions. This was followed closely by the technological aspect of the simulation. A full 7% of respondents identified the use of Blackboard and the discussion board in particular as their favorite aspect of the simulation.
Fifteen other aspects of the simulation were also identified as positive but none garnered recognition by more than 4% of respondents.
Negative Aspects
The open-ended questions indicated that while students had some concerns about the simulation, there was no consensus on the problems. The top two concerns focused on logistical aspects rather than substantive concerns. Some students reported that they would have preferred the simulation to start later in the day (16%) and others indicated that they would have liked it on a weekday (11%).
Recommendations
There were 24 separate recommendations by students, but no overriding consensus. Almost one in 10 students recommended changing the time, day, and location of the simulation (9%). Another 9% made more substantive recommendations regarding the simulation-preparation assignments. Still another 9% made specific recommendations for future crises and role assignments. A small number of students (5%) made suggestions regarding organizational aspects of the exercise. We are taking these under advisement as we design future exercises.
CONCLUSION
As political scientists, theory focuses our thinking in certain directions. In the classroom, one of the biggest challenges is trying to present theory to students and have them make the connection with the empirical world. Simulations are important in this regard. An introductory international relations course, for example, addresses some of the key approaches to understanding state behavior and goals such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Students read and absorb the key principles advanced by the primary scholars. But do they really know what they mean?
This challenge is obviously not unique to IR. Students in introductory American government courses or general political science courses are also presented with principles, concepts, and theories that may not be entirely clear to them. The research shows that when students are investigating problems and issues in a role-play simulation and are striving for solutions to problems, they obtain a better understanding of the theories, paradigms, and models we try to impart to them than in a traditional classroom environment alone.
Most simulation and role-play exercises, however, are divided along subfields and deal with strictly domestic or foreign policy issues. This is unfortunate. Students in American government courses cannot understand the decisions made at home unless they understand the foreign policy process and international pressures officials are working under. Likewise, students studying the United Nations Security Council, for example, cannot understand the decisions made on humanitarian intervention without understanding the constraints individual presidents, prime ministers, and parliaments face at home. Quite simply, the interaction of international and domestic politics is unavoidable and students today more than ever before must understand and appreciate this.
One way to both answer the call to internationalize the curriculum and to bridge the traditional divisions between subfields is to give students the opportunity to engage in a departmental-wide crisis simulation. Unlike traditional moot courts, model Congresses, model United Nations, and the like, this type of active-learning activity has the benefit of linking subfields and giving students a more realistic, if more complex, experience in role playing and the increasingly international world.
We find this cross-course exercise to be beneficial overall despite some of the constraints involved. Instructors do invest significant time and energy planning and executing the exercise and may have limited access to institutional resources. However, in staging one larger, more inclusive exercise, professors can actually maximize their utility rather than planning individual sessions. Moreover, the larger and more diverse student pool lends to more creative interpretations of events than might be the case with only political science majors. In short, we find that students genuinely enjoy the exercise and anecdotal evidence suggests that is it working as a recruitment tool for departmental majors, an unintended benefit.
