Engaging Students Through Extended Simulations

Abstract

This article describes a simulation that fulfills many of the goals of a scholar/apprentice model—one that requires a sustained period of time during which an apprentice practices a set of discipline-specific skills under the guidance of his or her mentor. Such an extended simulation differs from shorter exercises in several ways, such as the necessity of including numerous checkpoints for monitoring student progress and of utilizing objective and systematic assessment tools. In particular, students must know that they will be assessed on the basis of both group results and their individual contributions. The simulation discussed in this article pays explicit attention to these two issues—the importance of “deliverables” and the need for dual-pronged, objective assessment instruments—as well as to the desirability of coordinated college-wide instructional support.

Keywords:

• assessment
• comparative politics
• cooperative learning
• instructional support
• simulation

An earlier version of this article was presented at a Government Department research colloquium at Hamilton College. We would like to thank the participants in the seminar, two anonymous reviewers, Mack Mariani, and David Rivera for their comments on a previous draft. We are grateful to Joshua Meah for his research assistance, to Carl Pfranger for his assistance with the figures, and to Hamilton College for a Class of 1966 Career Development Award that provided support for the development of this simulation.

Notes

∗p < .10; ∗∗p < .05; ∗∗∗p < .001.

Source: Authors' Simulation Resources and Services Survey.

∗p < .10; ∗∗p < .05; ∗∗∗p < .001.

Source: Authors' Simulation Resources and Services Survey.

For a review of comparative politics instruction at the undergraduate and graduate levels, see Kurzer 2003.

The coalition formation exercise was adapted from Kaarbo and Lantis 1997; Shellman 2001; and Switky 2004; the party platform development assignment, general party descriptions, role assignments, and country background information were modeled after Kaarbo and Lantis 1997; and the campaign ad assignment and public debate were designed on the basis of Kathlene and Choate 1999. I used some of the debriefing questions from Smith and Boyer 1996; and Kaarbo and Lantis 1997.

The name of the fictitious country is a variation on Switky's “Europa” (Switky 2004). The complete simulation, “Elections in West Europa,” will be available through CQ Press in the fall of 2008.

Similarly, Asal and Blake (2006, 4) stress that when designing simulations that emphasize teaching concepts, one must decide “whether learning about process (e.g., decision making, negotiation, economic or power relations, the impact of constraints, interpersonal relations involved) or the content (the facts, history, or science that provides the context for the simulation) is more important.”

A copy of the course syllabus can be found at http://www.hamilton.edu/academics/government/srivera.html.

Interestingly, one of the roles that at first glance might appear to be less substantive actually seems to offer students the greatest learning potential. In a follow-up survey of the perceived utility of the simulation (described in the “Student Reactions” section below), the press secretaries consistently report learning the most from the simulation overall.

In cases where the party secretary is unable to produce the proper reports due to lack of cooperation on the part of his/her group, he/she is encouraged to interview group members individually about the processes involved in developing each separate component of the simulation.

Since the course typically has two sections, two separate debates are held—both on the same night.

For examples of the campaign ads and logos, as well as additional information on the simulation, see http://www.hamilton.edu/academics/showcase/cpaction.cfm?ProjectGroupID=12.

The flag then served as a resource for students to use when creating their party logos.

For more on Hamilton College's innovations in multimedia technology, see “Campus Technology Innovators 2005” (2005). Although many institutions may not offer coordinated support services in the same way that Hamilton College does, it is likely that many of the services described in this article can be obtained from the appropriate institutional departments.

Wikis are collaboratively constructed Web-based documents organized around the development of linked pages.

In the case of dysfunctional groups or recalcitrant group members, private communication with the instructor is also helpful.

Although this form does not fulfill one of the central functions of a rubric by defining quality work (Goodrich 1996–1997, 14), such criteria are communicated to the students in other handouts.

The audience also votes on which party won the debate, but this result does not affect the students' grades. During one semester, we used personal response systems for voting at the debate, as well as for providing instant feedback on party leaders' in-class presentations and other simulation-related events. On the benefits of interactive voting technology, see Damron and Mott 2005.

Since research has shown that students rate their academic performance more highly than that of their peers (Omelicheva 2005, 199–200), the numerical self-ratings are excluded from the calculations that constitute this portion of the simulation grade. However, relevant qualitative comments—such as an individual's comment that he/she fulfilled the responsibilities of an additional role—are given careful consideration.

In their evaluations of the simulation, students frequently comment that they desire more context, such as detailed histories of the parties, biographies of the party leaders, party voting records, public opinion data on the citizens of West Europa, economic trends, and recent legislation. In their view, this would increase interparty dialogue, empathy for West Europan citizens, their ability to write more in-depth party platforms, etc. While the lack of specificity is certainly one drawback to using a fictitious country, an advantage is that students are less constrained in their parties' stances than if they were simulating an election campaign in an existing country.

The very few students who answered “don't know” when asked to rate any of the eight simulation components were eliminated from the calculation.

Some of these questions were adapted from a Small Group Feedback Form modified by Julie C. Dunsmore, now in the Psychology Department at Virginia Tech, from materials presented by Tracey Manning, then at the College of Notre Dame of Maryland, at the August 1999 Psychology of Women Institute in Boston, MA, sponsored by Division 35 of the American Psychological Association and the Association for Women in Psychology.