Pedagogical Foundations

The importance of simulations for student learning has come out of the movement to employ active and cooperative learning techniques in the classroom. Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1991) have characterized cooperative learning as having five basic elements:

In order to fulfill these objectives, Rossetti and Nembhard (1998) argued, students need to utilize “the four main active learning modes”: reading, reflecting, writing, and talking/listening. Simulations are ideally suited for active learning: students must digest a body of information (class readings, background for the simulation itself, outside research), determine how they (or the role they are playing) would react to the circumstances of the simulation, produce some sort of position paper, interact extensively with other students, and begin the process over again as the simulation continues.

Active learning through simulations is also becoming an integral part of the political science classroom, with an increasing number of faculty conducting and writing about these exercises.³

Roni Linser, et al. (1999), discuss at length the pedagogical foundations of web-based simulations in political science and identify four “essential ingredients” of in-class simulations. First, they are inherently goal-based: by aiming to achieve certain objectives, students will acquire additional skills and hone those they already have. Second, by role-playing, students are not only having fun, but they acquire a personal stake in the outcome of the simulation. Third, the Internet provides a virtual space for communication and information. Finally, the in-class component of the simulation allows for the much needed face-to-face interaction between the student and the professor and amongst the students themselves.

In short, previous attempts at in-class, Web-based, political science simulations have proven successful in stimulating student learning and establishing a creative, interactive, and, ideally, fun classroom atmosphere.

The Independence of Dacia

In an effort to help students in my 400-level Ethnic Conflicts course better understand the causes of ethnic conflicts and the difficulties of consensus-building in ethnically divided societies, I have developed a simulation which transforms students into delegates at a constitutional convention for the fictitious country of Dacia. This simulation is tied to the first half of the course which examines the causes of ethnic conflicts and briefly covers a number of cases, including those of the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and the Indian subcontinent. All information for the simulation was provided online, including student-written position papers, proposed constitutional provisions, and, upon the completion of the simulation, the wrap-up exam. The in-class activities last at least two weeks and a final assessment of student learning is given.

According to the history provided to the students, Dacia has recently emerged as an independent country following the collapse of a larger multiethnic federation, the Federal Republic of Samartia. The population of Dacia is divided into two major ethnic groups—the Dacians (76%) and the Anarti (21%)—separated by ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and religious differences. Moreover, there is an economic or class element added to the simulation: the Anarti, though demographically a minority, are disproportionately wealthier than the Dacians.⁴

Students assume the roles of delegates at Dacia's constitutional convention. In previous exercises, five factions have been portrayed, three representing Dacians, one the Anarti, and one outside group:

In a more recent iteration of the exercise, two additional groups were added:

Students are assigned to groups (and, if applicable, factions within those groups)⁵

Simulation Creation

When conceiving of this (or any other) simulation, it was necessary to keep four things in mind during the creation stage:

Goals

The most important issue to consider is the set of goals to be accomplished through the exercise. Without this, the simulation will run into a number of problems; the worst of which is that it will waste classroom time without achieving clear objectives. The goals of the simulation are inherently tied to the course materials and could, for example, teach or reinforce theoretical concepts through active learning. Additional goals could include: exposing students to situations and choices not normally found in their daily experience; promoting cooperative learning from peers and enhancing students' ability to work in groups; or encouraging students to role play and thus increase their ability to empathize with different points of view.

For this simulation, my goals were three-fold. My primary goal was to provide students with a hands-on experience. Obviously, this is more difficult to do for ethnic conflicts than for other subjects. Building a model bridge which will hold a brick in an industrial engineering class, for example, is far more viable in a classroom setting than ethnically cleansing the classroom down the hall. Large scale, potentially violent, political events are difficult to scale down into the classroom. Moreover, I have found that students in the United States generally, and specifically in the Upper Midwest where I teach, usually do not conceive of ethnicity in the same way as those outside of the U.S.

American race relations, with its overlapping class, historical, and identity issues, is a possible approximation. However, this ultimately fails for the simple reason that the American national identity and political system has been able to deal with minority groups in such a way as to largely avoid the types of conflicts found outside of the United States.⁶

This is not to say that ethnic/racial relations in the United States are perfect, but the fact remains that ethnic politics in the U.S., with its recent emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism, are largely ‘accommodative' in nature, rather than ‘conflictual.' The issues involved are usually not based upon inherent differences of opinion, mutually exclusive positions, and zero-sum gain calculations. The debate is mostly over how and not whether we should accommodate ethnic differences. Older Americans may have memories of the latter debates in American politics (e.g., the debate over segregation), but the average student has grown up in a community and studies on a college campus that formally and officially celebrates diversity. Thus, it is necessary to overcome students' natural inclination to believe that all ethnic/racial differences can be handled through negotiations, mutual respect, and a desire to simply “get along.” While certainly not assuming automatic conflict between ethnic groups or precluding any possibility for interethnic peace, it is necessary to ensure that students do not simply export the American model overseas because to do so often makes ethnic conflicts incomprehensible.⁷

In short, I wanted to present to the students the difficulties of policy decisions in multiethnic situations—something that approximates the real world. Often, as my students found, they were selecting between a series of bad options, rather than between good and bad. Not only does this give them a better understanding of the problems facing multiethnic states, but it also provides them with insights into the dilemmas facing U.S. policymakers who attempt to navigate through ethnic conflicts. Moreover, this type of simulation, also aims to broaden students' understanding of the content and study of what comprises “politics.” At the high school and college levels, the study of politics tends to focus on institutions and the creation of laws. While this simulation is obviously about the creation of institutions, it includes a number of additional elements of “politics” including: the consequences of history in contemporary political debates; hierarchical relationships between ethnic groups; and the importance of symbolism in the political process.⁸

My secondary goal was to reinforce the readings from the first half of the course by having the students, in effect and sometimes unknowingly, act out the theories in the simulation. Rather than scripting processes or actions, the simulation itself usually brings out policy positions in line with previous approaches to ethnic conflicts. For example, the potential of territorial autonomy for an ethnic group eventually leading to secession was not discussed in class, but many students understood that any compromise of autonomy for the Anarti minority could lead to problems for Dacia's territorial integrity in the future.

Finally, by design, the simulation is based upon group work and coalition building. Students are required to work with their peers to establish a common position for their group and, since no group has the ability to establish a constitution on its own, groups must work together and reach compromises in order to pass constitutional provisions. These skills are necessary for the modern workforce and I have found that the students usually work well together.

Scale

The scale of any in-class simulation is dependent upon the constraints of the course, how much time the professor can spend on the exercise, and the inevitable trade-off between problembased/cooperative learning (PBL/CL) and content. Although some would argue that they can get through the same amount of content with PBL/CL, I have found that this is not the case. Instead, I have found that the trade-off is between the amount of content we get through in the course versus how well the students understand it. I have found that the students do seem to comprehend the material better through such a simulation. However, it is important to understand that less content can be covered in the class since a simulation such as this does take time. However, shorter, oneclass simulations are also possible.

In fact, when conducting this simulation, I have found that the students want a longer amount of time and that they sometimes feel rushed to adopt something at the end. This is obviously a problem, though not necessarily removed from the real world. For example, the European Community set a 23 December, 1991 deadline for any state seeking independence from the former Yugoslavia. Bosnia-Herzegovina had to decide very quickly whether to seek independence or stay within a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia. The time needed to seek consensus between all three ethnic groups simply did not exist (if such consensus was possible at all) and this ultimately led to the four-year civil war. Thus, artificial time constraints can, in some instances, approximate real-world situations.

Another problem, in terms of scale, is the size and the number of the groups. I have found that unless I want rather large groups (5–7), I needed to break the class into two, each running the simulation independently on separate days. This problem also can be resolved with the addition of more groups, as I have done in the most recent iteration of the exercise. However, one must be careful not to have too many groups since coalition-building can suffer as a result.

Creativity

In order to hold the students' interest and to create something approximating a real-world environment, the simulation must be rich enough to provide enough detail to make it believable and to allow students to role-play, but not so detailed that the students either get lost or the burden on the professor is too great. The Dacian simulation includes a historical account, demographic data, maps, and details of the positions of the various sides. What has helped tremendously is that I took a real-world case, added elements that the students might not be familiar with, and repackaged it as an alternate world. The Dacian simulation is loosely based on a mix of situations found in Romania, Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union. The party symbols (which I reproduced on name-tags to help build a sense of group coherence) were largely taken from symbols of Romanian nationalism and East European political parties found on the web. The quotes, likewise, are taken almost directly from Romanian and Serbian politicians. The country and regional names are largely Roman in origin. Thus, with a minimum amount of creativity, I was able to develop a complete world with names that are unfamiliar, but with a strong basis in reality.

I have found that students actually wanted more information, either historical or about the groups themselves. Between iterations I have been able to incorporate these requests into the information provided to the students at the simulation's outset, but during the simulation I have had to make these up as I go along. I think that the students' desire for more information is a reflection both of their interest in the simulation and their understanding of the complexities of the real world. This places a higher burden on the professor, who needs to anticipate students' informational needs, but it makes for a more satisfying experience for all involved.

Time Investment

The amount of time necessary to create an in-class simulation is directly related to one's overall creativity, skill with Web publishing, and the scope of the exercise. By utilizing pre-existing cases and modifying it for my needs, the amount of time taken for gathering information and placing it in a simulation format was greatly reduced. While one can certainly save time and energy by taking a pre-existing case wholesale and transferring it into a simulation format, this is potentially problematic. Students may come to the simulation with pre-conceived notions or additional information which can detract from the purpose of the exercise. For example, it might be difficult for students to realistically assume the position of a Bosnian Serb if they believe that the Bosnian Serbs were responsible for the war and that their political interests were illegitimate. Moreover, if one is running a historically accurate simulation of pre-WWII Europe, it is unlikely that the students will be willing to disregard their historical knowledge of Nazi Germany's expansionist aims and forego the opportunity to stop Germany in the Rhineland. While it is important not to underestimate the role-playing abilities of our students, truly hypothetical scenarios will make it easier for students to lose their own identities, preconceptions, and real-world knowledge. This many not be true for all students, however, and may likely be of increasing relevance for lower-division students.

Incorporating the Web into the Classroom

This simulation does not contain an online, interactive environment; e.g., chatrooms, electronic bulletin boards, etc. Instead, all student interaction is conducted face-to-face, either in in-class or out of class group meetings. The Web is used primarily as a resource for information distribution: either for the initial information for the simulation itself or for student-created constitutional provisions. Nevertheless, the entire simulation is placed on the Web and access to it during the simulation can be crucial since students will often wish to refer to the background information or the position papers of their peers. If this is not possible—e.g., by the lack of computer resources in the classroom–overheads of the web pages can work just as well.

Running the Simulation

The in-class portion of the simulation will obviously be different for each exercise, depending on the needs and content of the course. For this simulation, it begins with a call for any questions that the students may still have. After answering them, each group is provided with approximately 10 minutes to present their proposal. Each group designates a speaker or speakers. They are expected not to simply read their constitutional provisions (students are expected to have already read each other's provisions before the first class meeting), but rather to give an introductory speech in which they provide their group's vision for the future state of Dacia.

Negotiations on constitutional provisions are the bulk of the exercise's inclass portion. As the professor, I float in the classroom, listening in on conversations and offering any information that the students may require (e.g., helping with wording or providing additional real-world examples). When there are sufficient numbers or interest in voting on a given proposal, students are permitting to give a speech on their group's position before voting or entering into further negotiations. Once all (or most, depending on time) provisions have been passed, I place the constitution of Dacia online for the assessment portion of the exercise.

While this may not work for all classes or professors, I tend to replace a more structured or formal procedural outline with one containing greater flexibility. However, it is always necessary to ensure that the students stay on topic as much as possible and that the class simply does not flounder on inconsequential issues or degenerate into a purely social activity.

Student Assessment of Learning

After the constitutional provisions have been adopted, student assessment is conducted in two ways. First, there is a post-simulation meeting in which the students and I discuss the nature of the negotiations, any themes that arose, and the final outcome. I also gather student suggestions for how to improve the simulation. My goal in this session is to connect the processes and themes in the simulation to our earlier course readings. I have found that, through the simulation, students developed a better understanding of the theoretical dynamics found in ethnic conflict situations and in many cases had an intuitive sense for theories which we did not cover previously in the course.

The second assessment tool is a more structured attempt to get the students to connect their experiences in the simulation to the literature on ethnic conflicts. Students are given a take-home exam in which they must analyze the relative likelihood of an ethnic conflict erupting under the new Dacian constitution. In their essay, students are expected to address the following questions as they apply the course's readings to their case study:

This take-home essay constituted the students' midterm exam and served as a way to comprehensively cover the first half of the class.

Preliminary Conclusions

Overall I have been pleased with this particular simulation. Students have reported to me that they enjoyed the simulation, which has been reflected on the student evaluations. It is a positive and educational way to break up the ordinary pattern of student readings and lectures. I have found that most students take their roles quite seriously, with strategic thinking and creativity being important benefits to the class. In the final assessment portion of the exercise, students have demonstrated a better understanding of the causes of ethnic conflicts and the political processes of multiethnic polities than they did after doing the readings and attending the lectures. In short, inclass simulations can not only bring out the creative side of professors, but, more importantly, enhance student learning.