In a weekend of pedagogical fury, members of the Simulations and Role Play II track queried their peers to refine their ideas, presented data on the effectiveness of simulations as pedagogical tools, and shared methods of using simulations in the classroom. Paper presentations and discussions examined simulations from a variety of paradigmatic perspectives, including the use of simulations as summative assessment instruments, the role of competition in generating targeted learning outcomes, and the difficulty in balancing pedagogical objectives with design constraints.
These presentations spurred a series of debates about how the creation of fictional realms can be used to better understand empirically factual ones. The first debate explored whether simulations must incorporate some degree of competition in order to induce student engagement, and, if so, whether simulations can effectively showcase cooperative endeavors. The second debate focused on how instructors who use simulations must be careful of how students use and perceive them. Students can have a tendency to focus on the underlying processes upon which simulations are constructed rather than the concepts that the instructor wants the simulation to demonstrate. Students may regard simulations as exercises with little educational value or, conversely, as highly educational enterprises—though an instructor might lack the evidence that his or her simulation actually contributes to student learning in ways that match the instructor's rationale for using the simulation in the first place.
Participants also discussed the relationship between simulation design and assessment. At present, self-reported and empirical data on whether and how simulations generate learning is mixed; nevertheless, participants argued that the need for assessable outcomes should not overshadow the important role that simulations play in allowing students to develop professional skills such as team problem-solving, public speaking, and productive operation in environments with limited time and information. Track members agreed that simulations function as more than just replacements for lectures.
Finally, the broad range of simulations available for use generated discussion of the tensions that are inherent in simulation design. Simulations need to strike a balance between fun and function, complexity and simplicity, and instructor control and the degrees of freedom that students engaged in a simulation enjoy. Despite the difficulty that instructors can encounter in achieving proper balance in these areas, track members agreed that variations in class size, course content, semester length, student demographics, and other factors make the multiplicity of simulation designs welcome.
Participants identified potential areas for further scholarship. Political science faculty need to better understand assessment techniques and ensure academic rigor, since these two conditions are likely to affect whether faculty choose to implement simulations in the classroom. A more extensive literature on the subject of simulations would help fulfill these aims. Second, simulation designers and potential users would benefit from a framework that clearly delineates the different types of simulations and the qualities of each type. Finally, faculty should be encouraged to gather and publish pre- and postsimulation data—whether quantitative or qualitative—to allow those who use simulations to continue to refine their designs and improve the learning outcomes of students. Many faculty are already using markedly sophisticated measurement and assessment devices, but these efforts remain largely unknown to fellow political scientists engaged in teaching. Track participants noted that they lacked a collaborative database of resources that would help them achieve this goal.
