Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T08:37:18.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflict Resolution and the National Model United Nations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2020

William A. Hazleton
William A. Hazleton*
Affiliation:
Miami University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The pedagogical value of experiential learning, or “learning-by-doing,“ has led to the widespread use of simulations and games in the social sciences and other disciplines. Despite some questions concerning the effective transmission of factual information through simulations and games, their value as heuristic devices in teaching is based on the experience gained by students in adopting strategies and making decisions in a group context, experiences so varied that they would be impossible to relate through conventional classroom techniques. The pressures and constraints of a simulated political environment challenge participants to (1) confront the limited availability of options and approaches for resolving problems; (2) develop a deeper understanding of the concepts, principles, and procedures involved; and (3) formulate and propose novel solutions that may not have otherwise occurred to them.

Type
Research Article
Information
News for Teachers of Political Science , Volume 40 , Winter 1984 , pp. 6 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Bredemeier, Mary E. and Greenblat, Cathy Stein, “The Educational Effectiveness of Simulation Games,” Simulation & Games, XII (September 1981), 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Schlenker, Barry R. and Bonoma, Thomas U., “Fun and Games: The Validity of Games for the Study of Conflict,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, XXII (March 1978), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Bredemeier and Greenblat, 322-24.

4 This report is based on 54 open-ended questionnaires administered to Miami University seniors who participated in NMUN simulations during the period 1979-83.

5 ln a survey of delegation heads and faculty advisors attending the 1S82 NMUN, 70% of the respondents ranked “enhancement of student knowledge and interest in international relations” as their most important objective in participating, with the “integration of the academic and practical aspects of the simulation and the study of international relations and organization into a coherent whole” being their second major objective. See Hazleton, William A. and Jacob, James E., “Simulating International Diplomacy: The National Model United Nations Experience,” Teaching Political Science, X (Winter 1982-83), 96–97.Google Scholar

6 See Dougherty, James E. and Pfaltzgraff, Robert L. Jr., Contending Theories of International Relations (2nd ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1981), 533-34.Google Scholar

7 During the period 1979-83, Miami University represented the following countries in the NMUN: Finland, Austria, Morocco, Venezuela, and Zaire.