Simulations as Active Assessment?: Typologizing by Purpose and Source

Abstract

Assessment through simulation is something that political science pedagogy has yet to explore in a robust manner. This article advances analysis of social science simulation and assessment by laying out a typology of active-learning activities that isolates and examines their potential for assessment. In short, we argue that there are essentially two ideal types of games: organic and illustrative. The first calls on students to reveal behavior by making their own decisions while the second calls upon students to use knowledge gained through class content to guide their decisions. To this we add that, while we often use simulations for formative reasons (to help students understand and learn), we don't often consider that the summative or assessment function is also widely available to us. Across the disciplines, we know that business schools, language programs, and the military all actively use simulation and gaming not simply for formative purposes but also for assessment. Given this typology, this article explores how we might do so in the social sciences.

Keywords:

• active assessment
• assessment
• political science pedagogy
• simulation

Acknowledgments

The authors are extremely grateful to Jeannette Guellil for her assistance on this project.

Notes

See, for example, Wheeler (2006) and also Dougherty (2003), Galatus (2006), Larson (2004), Sands and Shelton (2010), Meleshevich and Tamashiro (2008), and Grummel (2003), Chapman Rackaway, and Brent J. Goertzen (2008) and Kahn and Perez (2009) amongst many others.

See, for example, Kanner (2007) where students with an introductory knowledge of international relations concepts are given fictional roles to play in a simulation of diplomacy. Their external knowledge of course concepts interacts with an internal process driven by the fictional nature of the game and the constraints of the rules.

Kollars in particular has had a couple cases of students with test-taking disabilities who do not opt out of these kinds of assessments. More research on this is necessary, however, since the number of cases is quite small.

The very act of taking an exam does increase learning, and therefore all summative simulations have a formative component (Karpicke and Blunt 2011). But the purpose of the exercise will have very different ramifications for how the simulation is designed and how performance and participation is assessed. Therefore, the formative components can be treated as a welcome side benefit, rather than the primary purpose of the activity.

We did not simply use an assigned grade as indicative of a summative exercise. While a grade is necessary for a summative simulation, it is not sufficient, as grades are used in formative exercises as well. The difference is that a grade in a summative simulation is purely external to the simulation itself; that is, the grade judges performance within the simulation but has no impact within the confines of the game itself. In formative games, grades (as extra credit, performance, or participation) are frequently used to motivate students to engage and to provide incentive structures for particular actions. Thus, the simple granting of a grade is inappropriate as a criterion for classification; instead, the purpose of the grade must be taken into account.

Although we use these examples, the reader should not come to interpret these specific examples as being in any way exhaustive.