This article was downloaded by: [University of York]On: 21 April 2013, At: 14:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Political Science EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upse20

Constructing International RelationsSimulations: Examining the Pedagogy ofIR Simulations Through a ConstructivistLearning Theory LensVictor Asal a & Jayson Kratoville aa University at Albany, SUNYVersion of record first published: 12 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Victor Asal & Jayson Kratoville (2013): Constructing International RelationsSimulations: Examining the Pedagogy of IR Simulations Through a Constructivist Learning Theory Lens,Journal of Political Science Education, 9:2, 132-143

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2013.770982

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Constructing International Relations Simulations:Examining the Pedagogy of IR Simulations Through

a Constructivist Learning Theory Lens

VICTOR ASALJAYSON KRATOVILLE

University at Albany, SUNY

Simulations are being used more and more in political science generally and ininternational relations specifically. While there is a growing body of literaturedescribing different simulations and a small amount of literature that empiricallytests the impact of simulations, scholars have written very little linking the pedagogictheory behind simulations to the strategies and tactics used to develop and deliverthem. Drawing insights from the existing pedagogic literature, material in IR simu-lation articles, and the small amount of existing literature on this subject, we seek toidentify patterns in how instructors use simulations to facilitate student learning.Using a constructivist learning theory approach, this article reviews existing theorieson the most effective ways to develop and use simulations. Our review of current IRsimulation articles indicates that effective simulations are designed to strike a bal-ance between students’ perceptions on what happened and existing theory as towhy it happened. Students are then able to use these simulations as a method tojudge the theories and to apply lessons from the simulations to current events.

Keywords games, international relations, pedagogy, simulations

Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mereintellectual play.

–Immanuel Kant

Introduction

The political science community has generally begun to accept that simulations, ifused correctly, can be effective tools in the classroom. In implementing simulationsmore broadly across the discipline, the conditional phrase, ‘‘if used correctly,’’ high-lights the need for a standardized, empirically tested baseline. Many studies that sup-port or question the benefits of using simulations to teach international relations(IR) are based on specific simulations that were developed with different standards;therefore, the results of any empirical test are not reliable when talking aboutsimulations in a broad sense. The IR community needs to define its collectiveunderstanding for the best ways to develop and implement simulations before wecan have an empirical discussion about simulations’ usefulness.

Address correspondence to Victor Asal, Department of Political Science, University atAlbany, Milne Hall, 135 Western Ave., Albany, NY 12222. E-mail: vasal@albany.edu

Journal of Political Science Education, 9:132–143, 2013Copyright # 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1551-2169 print=1551-2177 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15512169.2013.770982

132

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

4:02

21

Apr

il 20

13

We attempt a first cut at such an effort by using constructivist learning theoryand problem-based learning to frame what IR scholars have already written aboutthe effective use of simulations. These theories have been developed through anunderstanding for how students learn, focusing on the connection between theoryand practical application. In a previous study, Brown and King examine them usingthe University of Maryland’s International Communication and Negotiation Simu-lations (ICONS), concluding that they ‘‘work together to facilitate learning andenhance motivation in students’’ (2000, 252). In applying these constructs morebroadly across the discipline, we endeavor to provide context to IR instructors’observed success in using simulations as pedagogical tools.

We begin with a background discussion on the development of constructivistlearning theory and problem-based learning and how they can be applied in theclassroom. Specifically, we focus on goal setting and instructor facilitation as keysto successful implementation. We then bring together and summarize politicalscience scholars’ perspectives on effectively developing and using simulations inthe classroom, using the theories as a guide.

Blending Theory and Practice: Constructivist Learning Theory andProblem-Based Learning

Pedagogically, the use of simulations is based on constructivist learning theory,which, put simply, ‘‘predicts that by constructing external representations ofscientific phenomena, learners are building an internal mental model of the phe-nomena’’ (Richardson 2003; Soloway et al, 1996, 3). These mental models are defined,in large part, by experiences. If the established theory supports a student’s view on asituation to which it can be applied, the theory will resonate with that student. On theother hand, if the theory does not jibe with the student’s perception of real-life situa-tions, it will be difficult for the student to learn the theory (Brown and King 2000;Soloway et al. 1996). As we will explain in further detail later, well-designed simula-tions provide a believable, reality-based situation to which students can apply theory,thereby using theory to construct a mental model. This section briefly summarizes thedevelopment of constructivist learning theory and problem-based learning models aswell as basic guidelines for using the two effectively.

Origins

In the educational psychology community, there is a great deal of theoretical debateabout how individuals learn (Packer and Goicoechea 2000; Prawat and Floden1994). Characterizing this debate is outside the scope of this article; instead, weintend to focus on the success of simulations when applied to political science andinternational relations and the role of constructivist learning theory in that success.

The roots of constructivist learning theory can be traced back to ImmanuelKant’s integrative answer to the debate between empirical realism and transcen-dental idealism (Packer and Goicoechea 2000). Applied to learning, the formertheory essentially maintains that characterizations of individual objects or situationsare established and absolute. The latter theory seems to exist in contrast, focusing onthe role of human perception in defining an object or situation. Kant explains thatindividuals learn best when established theory and personal experience reinforceeach other1 (Allison 2004; Walsh 1903). Put into context, this means that students

Constructing International Relations Simulations 133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

4:02

21

Apr

il 20

13

will best understand the ways two countries will interact in a negotiation, forexample, when they combine theoretical knowledge of negotiation and the historybetween the two countries with experience negotiating as the two parties.

As constructivist theory has developed, different branches have grown. AsRichardson explains, however, these branches are all based on the same foundation:the existence of mental models. The two main ‘‘poles’’ of constructivist theory are‘‘social constructivism,’’ or the belief that knowledge frames are influenced by socialfactors such as politics, relative power, economics, etc., and ‘‘psychological construc-tivism,’’ or the idea that an individual’s own experience and experiences with otherindividuals influence how he or she frames information. While constructivist theor-ists have not been able to establish which of these two branches better explainshuman cognition, constructivist learning theory is derived mostly from the latterapproach (Richardson 2003).

Connecting Learning to Goals

It is important to note that this theory focuses on how students learn, not howinstructors should teach. Instead, instructors can use the theory’s insight into humanunderstanding to build classroom activities that help students better relate to the the-ories addressed in the course (e.g., simulations) (Richardson 2003). One of the mosteffective ways to do this is through learning objectives. Humans, by nature, areinformation seeking and goal following. Constructivist learning theory and the fra-meworks that come out of it seek to take advantage of this attribute (Bannan-Ritland, Dabbagh, and Murphy 2002). According to Honebein, ‘‘designers oflearning environments live by seven pedagogical goals:

1. Provide experience with the knowledge construction process. The role of theteacher is to facilitate this process.

2. Provide experience in and appreciation for multiple perspectives.3. Embed learning in realistic and relevant contexts.4. Encourage ownership [of] and voice in the learning process.5. Embed learning in social experience.6. Encourage the use of multiple modes of representation.7. Encourage self-awareness of the knowledge construction project’’ (1996, 11).

These goals create a learning environment that, in practice, is based on a combi-nation of instructors providing theory-based expertise and students applying thatexpertise in a practical way.

A specific way to use goal setting to develop a constructivist learning environ-ment is through problem-based learning, which was developed around the idea that‘‘most students will better learn information if they need it; need arises as they try tosolve problems. Such problems locate information in specific contexts and promptstudents to immediately use the knowledge they discover, to apply the information,and to explain it to others’’ (Burch 2000, 32). In other words, problem-based learn-ing allows students to understand why the concepts and strategies they are learningare important in a real-world context. It also creates an interactive environmentwhere students can share and build their knowledge cooperatively.

In evaluating ICONS, an IR simulation developed by theUniversity ofMaryland,Brown and King connect problem-based learning with ‘‘meaning-making’’ concepts

134 V. Asal and J. Kratoville

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

4:02

21

Apr

il 20

13

from constructivist learning theory. In doing so, they outline the following criteriafor using problem-based learning in an IR context:

. ‘‘Anchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem.

. Support the learner in developing ownership and control of the problem.

. Design an authentic task to reflect the complexity of the environment.

. Giver ownership of the solution process to the learner.

. Design the learning to challenge, as well as support the learner’s thinking.

. Encourage testing alternate views.

. Ensure reflection on both content and the learning process’’ (Brown and King2000, 248–249).

The Role of the Instructor

While constructivist learning theory is student centric, instructors serve an importantrole as facilitators of academic discourse. They act as a conduit between theory andpractice, providing guidance based on their knowledge of the subject matter(Richardson 2003). This is critical because, as the outcome of Raymond’s student-run simulation suggests, students may not automatically make the connectionbetween the activity and the theory the instructor is trying to convey (2010). Theinstructor can also respond to perceived disconnects between the theory and theactivity. If these inconsistencies go unaddressed, students may reject the theoryoutright.

The literature on problem-based learning provides more direct responsibilitiesfor the instructor. For these types of activities, instructors should yield direct controlover what is going on in the class and instead focus on facilitating the class through‘‘teachable moments’’ that arise during the course of the activity (Burch 2000). Thisprovides further weight to Richardson’s claim above that instructors need to have adeep understanding of the subject matter, as they need to be able to recognize thesemoments in order to capitalize on them. Teachers must also strike a balance betweenallowing the game play to run its course and providing guidance through questionsthat bring the activity back into focus (Burch 2000).

In further defining the instructor’s role in problem-based learning, Burch quotesWilkerson (1995, 1996) in outlining several criteria:

. ‘‘balance directions to students with assistance to them;

. contribute knowledge and experience to students’ research of a problem;

. stimulate a critical evaluation of ideas;

. translate knowledge and experience into terms readily understood by students;

. facilitate rather than deliver, observe rather than act, coach rather than command,offer constructive feedback rather than direction, challenge to excel rather thancriticize shortcomings; and

. create a pleasant learning environment by (a) encouraging diverse points of view,styles, preparation, and conclusions, (b) encouraging participation from allstudents, and (c) helping lower tensions in a combative group.’’ (2000, 38)

Burch (2000, 38) adds the caveat that instructors may take a more ‘‘directive’’ role ifthe situation or the instructor’s preferences warrant it.

In this section, we explained constructivist learning theory and problem-basedlearning background and summarized some basic guidelines from the literatureon implementing the two theories in a classroom setting. The theories are learner

Constructing International Relations Simulations 135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

4:02

21

Apr

il 20

13

centric, focusing on how instructors can facilitate understanding rather than directlyprovide it. They also highlight the importance of connecting theory to practicalapplications that allow for student participation. Students are able to ‘‘learn bydoing,’’ but with a theoretical compass.

Keys to Developing and Delivering Simulations for Political Science and IR

Thus far, the literature on simulation development has been based largely on scho-lars’ individual experiences using them in a classroom setting and empirical studiesbased on specific simulations. This discussion has borne fruit, resulting in many dif-ferent perspectives on creating and adapting simulations for use in international rela-tions education. The common thread in the literature is that there is no single correctway to develop a simulation. The nature of the activity heavily depends on theinstructor’s goals and audience. In light of this, recent frameworks for developingand using simulations have rightly discussed the decisions instructors need to makerather than establishing a ‘‘cookie-cutter’’ blueprint (Asal 2005; Asal and Blake2006; Wedig 2010). Despite the variety of options, there are several things all simula-tions need in order to be successful. This section approaches the discussion from thisperspective, focusing on the basic building blocks of the simulation and how theyimpact its development.

Establish Clear Theory-Based Goals and Build or Adapt the SimulationAround Them

Both constructivist learning theory and problem-based learning emphasize theimportance of goals in providing focus to active learning environments. The extantliterature in IR simulations supports this assertion (Asal and Blake 2006; Bernstein2008; Shellman and Turan 2006; Wedig 2010; Youde 2008). Instructors should becognizant of desired outcomes, that is, what they want students to get out of the acti-vity, whether it is a skill, a different perspective, a concept, or content (Asal andBlake 2006). This understanding is crucial because, as Wedig puts it, ‘‘simulationsthat are not well-integrated into the course (i.e., stand-alone or add-on activities) riskbecoming distractions by breaking the course’s momentum rather than reinforcinglearning objectives’’ (2010, 547). As the process of choosing and delivering the simu-lation progresses, instructors need to make many different decisions that will ulti-mately determine the success of the simulation, ranging from what type ofsimulation they will use to how they will interact with students throughout theactivity. Initial goals provide a compass for these decisions.

As mentioned, the decision-making processes instructors need to go through tobuild a simulation correctly have been well documented. The first step is choosingwhat the simulation is going to look like, that is, the delivery method and complexity(Asal and Blake 2006; Wedig 2010). Simulations can be delivered online or in a class-room setting. Because there are pros and cons to both options, the instructor’s goalsare crucial in this decision. For example, if the goal of the simulation is to teachface-to-face negotiations, online interaction misses the nuances of body languageand tone that can make or break a negotiation. If, on the other hand, the simulationis highly competitive and based on interteam discussions, online interaction affords alevel of privacy and impersonality that better simulates teams of actors that do notknow each other and are not coordinating strategy in the same room (Wedig 2010).

136 V. Asal and J. Kratoville

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

4:02

21

Apr

il 20

13

With online simulations, students can also interact outside of the classroom, whichgives the instructor a great deal of flexibility in timing the balance between activitiesand lectures.

Simulations can also be developed with varying levels of complexity based onthe course goals. While long and involved simulations can immerse students in theactivity, they are can be cost and=or time prohibitive and are often not necessaryto convey a particular point (Glazier 2009). For example, consider the prisoner’sdilemma and other game-theory-based activities that can easily be played in classesin a variety of ways (Ehrhardt 2008). This is a very low-cost, low-time, low-complexity approach that is effective. Here again, we see that goals play an impor-tant role in an instructor’s decision making. If an instructor wanted to apply classicalrealism to a real-world event, he or she would need to build in more levels of com-plexity so that he or she could teach both the context of the real-world situation andthe tenants of classical realism. When deciding on the simulation’s complexity, adesigner should keep in mind that a simulation need only be as complicated as theeducational goal demands (Asal 2005).

Next, instructors need to determine how students will interact, including wherethey will play, how they will communicate, and what types of roles they will beassigned. The first consideration is mostly logistical, though it still applies to theinstructor’s goals. If students are playing as individual actors, one classroom is suf-ficient; however, if students are playing on teams, it may be necessary for the instruc-tor to set up breakout rooms where the individual groups can strategize (Wedig2010). How the students will communicate is also an important decision based onthe instructor’s goals. Wedig explains that communication can be synchronous (backand forth discussion in real time) or asynchronous (formal statements back and forthwith time for group or individual reflection in between). There are advantages anddisadvantages to both depending on what you are trying to do (Wedig 2010). Groupnegotiations, for example, can lend themselves to either depending on whether youare trying to simulate a face-to-face negotiation or one that occurs via e-mail.

A third consideration in this category is what kind of roles students will play in asimulation. At the highest level, students can either have an individual role on theirown team or on a team with other players (Wedig 2010). From there, how theinstructor uses the roles depends entirely on his or her goals. For example, whenthe simulation includes roles that have varying influence over how it moves forward,rotating the roles can be helpful in balancing experiences. Students who are in lesspronounced roles in a simulation generally get less out of it than those in positionsof power (Baranowski and Weir 2010).

Bernstein’s (2008) experience with his introductory political science coursefurther illustrates the importance of goals in determining the types of roles studentswill play. The original goal of Bernstein’s simulations was to enhance students’understanding of the concepts discussed in class and ability to connect them withreal-world events. During the simulation, students each took the role of a sittingelected official and interacted as such. When he decided to shift the main goal ofthe class to promoting civic engagement, Bernstein decided that specific role assign-ments stifled students’ ability to inject their own opinions into the process; therefore,the original roles were no longer helpful considering the new goals of the simulation(Bernstein 2008).

The different perspectives roles can generate can also be important. Baylounydiscusses how she uses simulations to teach the different perspectives on conflict

Constructing International Relations Simulations 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

4:02

21

Apr

il 20

13

in the Levant. The goal was to help the class, which was largely composed of militaryofficers, gain greater empathy for the civilian populations in the region. In this case,each student was assigned the role of a civilian from different ethnic or politicalgroups living in the Levant. Students reported a better understanding for the civilianperspective of conflicts in the Levant, which was further reflected in their final papers(Baylouny 2009). Williams (2006) notes similar success in teaching different perspec-tives on the US’s domestic political climate during the Cold War.

Instructors also need to consider how they are going to present students’ roles tothem in a way that clearly communicates the goals of the simulation. One option forpresenting roles to students is the use of ‘‘role sheets,’’ which include general infor-mation on all of the roles in the simulation and specific information on the indivi-dual’s role. If it suits the goals of the simulation, the instructor can also include apoint system based on the role’s individual goals. This encourages the students tostay in character while providing incentives for performing well in the simulation(Asal and Blake 2006). Enterline and Jepsen (2009) suggest that when delivering theirgroup-based simulation, the instructor should provide a role sheet to one student inthe group and have the student read it aloud to his or her group-mates. This pro-motes collaborative discussion about the different roles and how they fit together(Enterline and Jepsen 2009).

Challenge Students to Apply Theory Before, During, and After the Simulation

In discussing the University of Maryland’s ICONS simulation as an example ofproblem-based learning in practice, Brown and King (2000) stressed the importanceof continually tying what is going on in the simulation to the applicable theory.Further discussion on this topic also revealed that simulations are not an opport-unity for instructors to say ‘‘ready . . . go’’ and then observe. Scholars’ experienceswith simulations indicate that students do a significantly better job of connectingtheory to the simulation they are involved in if the professor helps that effort in someway. Wedig explains that, generally speaking, the ratio of lecture time to simulationtime should be about 1:1 and defines three roles the instructor can take in the simula-tion: facilitator, control team, and=or observer. He notes that instructors almostalways take on the facilitator role and that their most important function in anyof the three is to observe and respond to what is going on in the simulation in realtime (Wedig 2010). Bernstein, Scheerhorn, and Ritter (2002) note that in a morecomplex simulation with multiple groups and breakout rooms, it might be prudentfor the instructor to bring in multiple facilitators who are familiar with the simula-tion to monitor and guide student activity. In all of these cases, it is important thatthe instructor take note of the times during the simulation that the applicable theoryis most salient and ensure that the students are aware of it.

Presimulation preparation is the first opportunity for student learning in a simu-lation. Students need to go into the simulation with a basic understanding for thetheory and a firm grasp on the situation and what is expected of them (Asal 2005;Bernstein 2008). The time span and rigor of the preparation period varies dependingon the instructor’s goals and the complexity of the simulation. Papers outlining stu-dents’ policy opinions, strategic goals, and the tactics they plan to use to furtherthem are valuable tools in framing the simulation. The guidelines for students’ prep-aration, whether written or otherwise, should be tied back to the instructor’s goalsfor the simulation so students begin to think theoretically about the simulation (Asal

138 V. Asal and J. Kratoville

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

4:02

21

Apr

il 20

13

2005). This type of written engagement allows students to make initial observationsabout the theory and serves as a marker for their level of knowledge at the beginningof the simulation, which can then be measured against their progress as the simula-tion unfolds.

For reality-based simulations, films related to the topic at hand can be pairedwith presimulation research to help get students up to speed on the context of thesituation before they begin. While the historical content in films is not always accu-rate, films are often effective at framing the discussion or debate while providing abasic understanding of the players and their motivations. For example, an instructorcould supplement a simulation on the Cuban Missile Crisis with the movie ThirteenDays to explain how the myriad of different motivations and opinions on both theUS and Soviet sides affected both the negotiation and the outcome (Simpson andKaussler 2009). Just like all other aspects of the simulation, however, it is importantto consider your goals before first choosing to use a film, then choosing which film touse and how and when to use it.

It is also useful for the instructor to stop the simulation if one (a) notices a‘‘teachable moment,’’ where one can tie something that happened in the simulationdirectly to the theory being discussed, or (b) needs to ‘‘act as an agent provocateur’’to speed up the simulation or prevent students from getting stuck on something thatdoes not further the goals of the simulation. This is an especially useful tactic becauseit takes advantage of what is happening at the moment to make the desired point(Asal 2005). Even if the instructor debriefs the simulation directly after it is finished,one risks losing the mood the students are in at the moment that one would havecaptured if one interrupted the simulation.

Following the simulation, oral debriefings (or ‘‘hot washes,’’ as they are some-times referred to) are a critical point in the students’ learning process (Asal 2005; Asaland Blake 2006; Enterline and Jepsen 2009; Shellman and Turan 2006; Van Dyke,Declair, and Loedel 2000; Wedig 2010; Youde 2008). They allow students and instruc-tors to interact outside of the constraints of the simulation, actively connecting theoryto what happened. A useful guide to debriefing is Lamy’s Describe, Explain, Predict,Prescribe, and Participate approach described in Cusimano (2000). This processshould occur right after the simulation so that it is still fresh in students’ minds.

Written debriefings are useful in getting students to think more seriously and ana-lytically about the simulation and how it connects to theory (Asal 2005; Bernstein2008). Students can also tie their experience to related real-world situations, enhancingtheir buy-in to the theory. Students benefit similarly from referencing the simulationwhen responding to long answer, theory-based exam questions (Asal 2005). This alsodrives home the point that the simulation was not simply an anecdotal explanation oftheory but instead an empirical example of the theory in motion.

Actively Encourage Everyone to Participate

For constructivist learning theory and problem-based learning environments towork, all students need to be engaged in the activity on a relatively equal scale.One of the dangers of using a simulation is the potential for some students to get lessout of the simulation than others. To an extent, it is the individual student’s res-ponsibility to take an active role in all classroom activities; however, if a simulationis built incorrectly, some students may be assigned roles that prevent them from par-ticipating as dynamically as others (Asal 2005; Wedig 2010; Youde 2008). Further,

Constructing International Relations Simulations 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

4:02

21

Apr

il 20

13

the structure of the simulation should prevent students from being free-riders; that is,depending on others to design strategy for and represent their group (Wedig 2010).Instructors should actively work to prevent this from happening.

The most basic way for instructors to encourage participation is through thecourse’s grading scheme. For a course that uses multiple simulations, the instructorshould consider making class participation a substantial portion of students’ grades.For most IR simulations, involvement in the activity is considerably more importantthan success; students should take the same lessons away from the simulationwhether they won or lost. Participation grades allow instructors to grade studentengagement rather than success. Students should never think (and instructors shouldnever allow) that poor performance in a simulation will have an adverse effect ontheir grades (assuming, of course, they put sufficient effort into it). This can leadto unnecessary tension. Rewarding students for winning through bonus pointsallows students to become competitive without having anyone ‘‘lose’’ concretereal-world value at the hands of another that might create hostility (Asal 2005).

The use of student assistants to facilitate simulations is also useful in promotingstudent involvement. As Bernstein, Scheerhorn, and Ritter point out, ‘‘the presenceof student assistants in the classroom makes the atmosphere more relaxed for ques-tioning. Much as an instructor might try to establish an easy rapport with the stu-dents, the age gap and the fact that one party in the relationship is grading theother imposes a barrier’’ (2002, 10). Further, student assistants who have partici-pated in the simulation in the past can provide guidance and confidence to studentsthat they can be successful (Bernstein, Scheerhorn, and Ritter 2002).

Youde’s tactics to keep the simulation moving in his Darfur simulation serve asan example of how the instructor can actively keep students involved. He used asimulation on Darfur to temper student idealism surrounding IR issues through per-spective and theory-driven experience. He explains that ‘‘in class discussions abouthumanitarian intervention, a student would almost invariably at some point assert,‘we should just go in there and fix it’—a position that resonated with many of thestudents’’ (Youde 2008, 350). Youde’s goal, therefore, was to demonstrate howthe complexity of both the international system and the situation in Darfur itself cre-ates multiple roadblocks in the path to an effective solution. To do so, he had hisstudents take the role of different internal and external actors in an effort to createa peace agreement. During the simulation, when the pace began to slow down, hewould introduce a ‘‘news flash’’ that slightly changed the dynamics of the situationat hand (Youde 2008). This allowed him to (a) engage different roles by shifting thegroup’s focus and (b) to increase the pace of the simulation.

Conclusion

The above quote by Immanuel Kant suggests that theory is considerably more usefulif students can tie it to practical experiences. The goal of this article was to summar-ize what IR scholars have learned about using simulations to achieve this in theirclassrooms. In doing so, we have discussed two concepts, both having to do withtying our collective theoretical knowledge to practical applications. On one level,we discussed simulations as mechanisms for strengthening students’ understandingof IR theory through simulated experience. On another, we discussed simulationsas tools for applying what we know about how students learn through constructivistlearning theory and problem-based learning models to what we do in the classroom.

140 V. Asal and J. Kratoville

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

4:02

21

Apr

il 20

13

Table 1 provides a summary of our keys for developing and delivering simulationsfor IR and political science.

In synthesizing the academic literature on constructivist learning theory,problem-based learning, and IR simulations, we have found that goal setting, relat-ing the simulation back to theory as it progresses, and keeping students engaged arethe keys to developing an effective simulation. Future studies should use these com-mon threads, as well as the practical frameworks they were based on, in empiricallyexamining simulations’ applicability to the IR classroom. Effective simulationsapplied appropriately in the classroom on a wider scale can further students’ appreci-ation of the oft-complex international system.

Note

1. This is a narrow application of Kant’s theory to the way individuals learn. Kant’s con-structivist theory is a broader attempt to understand human cognition in general that appliesto many different disciplines and topics.

References

Allison, Henry E. 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Asal, Victor. 2005. ‘‘Playing Games with International Relations.’’ International StudiesPerspectives 6(3): 359–373.

Asal, Victor and Elizabeth Blake. 2006. ‘‘Creating Simulations for Political Science Edu-cation.’’ Journal of Political Science Education 2(1): 1–18.

Table 1. Keys for developing and delivering simulations

Establish clear, theory-based goals and buildor adapt the simulationaround them.

Goals should be based on desired outcomes. These goalsshould define the complexity, length, student roles,and logistical design of the simulation the instructorchooses or develops.

Challenge students toapply theory before,during, and after thesimulation.

The instructor should familiarize students with thetheory before the simulation, refer to it at teachablemoments during the simulation and connect it to theoutcomes when the simulation is completed.

Actively encourageeveryone to participate.

The instructor should prevent a situation where somestudents get more out of a simulation than others.Ways to encourage participation include:

. Consider student participation in the course’s gradingscheme (Note: the grade should not be based onperformance).

. Balance roles (vis-a-vis participation) as best aspossible.

. Use student assistants as facilitators.

. Insert tools into the simulation’s design the instructorcan use to shift the focus while it is progressing.

Note. Sources can be found in the text.

Constructing International Relations Simulations 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

4:02

21

Apr

il 20

13

Bannan-Ritland, Brenda, Nada Dabbagh, and Kate Murphy. 2002. Learning Object Systemsas Constructivist Learning Environments: Related Assumptions, Theories, and Applications.The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Bloomington, IL: Association for EducationCommunications and Technology.

Baranowski, Michael and Kimberly Weir. 2010. ‘‘Power and Politics in the Classroom: TheEffect of Student Roles in Simulations.’’ Journal of Political Science Education 6(3):217–226.

Baylouny, Ann Marie. 2009. ‘‘Seeing Other Sides: Nongame Simulations and AlternativePerspectives of Middle East Conflict.’’ Journal of Political Science Education 5(3):214–232.

Bernstein, Jeffrey L. 2008. ‘‘Cultivating Civic Competence: Simulations and Skill Building inan Introductory Government Class.’’ Journal of Political Science Education 4(1): 1–20.

Bernstein, Jeffrey L., Sarah Scheerhorn, and Sarah Ritter. 2002. ‘‘Using Simulations and Col-laborative Teaching to Enhance Introductory Courses.’’ College Teaching 50(1): 9–12.

Brown, Scott W. and Frederick B. King. 2000. ‘‘Constructivist Pedagogy and How We Learn:Educational Psychology meets International Studies.’’ International Studies Perspectives1(3): 245–254.

Burch, Kurt. 2000. ‘‘A Primer on Problem-Based Learning for International RelationsCourses.’’ International Studies Perspectives 1(1): 31–44.

Cusimano, Maryann. 2000. ‘‘Active Case Teaching Without Cases.’’ In Teaching, ActiveLearning: The New International Studies Classroom, eds. J. S. Lantis, L. M. Kuzmaand J. Boehrer. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Ehrhardt, George. 2008. ‘‘Beyond the Prisoners’ Dilemma: Making Game Theory a UsefulPart of Undergraduate International Relations Classes.’’ International Studies Perspec-tives 9(1): 57–74.

Enterline, Andrew J. and Eric M. Jepsen. 2009. ‘‘Chinazambia and Boliviafranca: A Simula-tion of Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy.’’ International Studies Perspectives 10(1):49–59.

Glazier, Rebecca. 2009. ‘‘Running Simulations Without Ruining Your Life: Simple Ways toIncorporate Active Learning into Your Teaching.’’ Paper presented in Toronto, Ontario.SSRN eLibrary.

Honebein, Peter C. 1996). ‘‘Seven Goals for the Design of Constructivist Learning Environ-ments.’’ Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Packer, Martin J. and Jessie Goicoechea. 2000. ‘‘Sociocultural and Constructivist Theories ofLearning: Ontology, Not Just Epistemology.’’ Educational Psychologist 35(4): 227–241.

Prawat, Richard S. and Robert E. Floden. 1994. ‘‘Philosophical Perspectives on ConstructivistViews of Learning.’’ Educational Psychologist 29(1): 37–48.

Raymond, Chad. 2010. ‘‘Do Role-Playing Simulations Generate Measurable and MeaningfulOutcomes?: A Simulation’s Effect on Exam Scores and Teaching Evaluations.’’ Inter-national Studies Perspectives 11(1): 51–60.

Richardson, Virginia. 2003. ‘‘Constructivist Pedagogy.’’ Teachers College Record 105(9):1623–1640.

Shellman, Stephen M. and Kurad Turan. 2006. ‘‘Do Simulations Enhance Student Learning?:An Empirical Evaluation of an IR Simulation.’’ Journal of Political Science Education 2(1):19–32.

Simpson, Archie W. and Bernd Kaussler. 2009. ‘‘IR Teaching Reloaded: Using Films andSimulations in the Teaching of International Relations.’’ International Studies Perspec-tives 10(4): 413–427.

Soloway, E., S. L. Jackson, J. Klein, C. Quintana, J. Reed, J. Spitulnik, S. J. Stratford, et al.1996). ‘‘Learning Theory in Practice: Case Studies of Learner-Centered Design.’’ In Pro-ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CommonGround, CHI ’96, ed. Michael J. Tauber. New York, ACM: Elsevier.

142 V. Asal and J. Kratoville

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

4:02

21

Apr

il 20

13

Van Dyke, G. J., E. G. Declair, and P. H. Loedel. 2000. ‘‘Stimulating Simulations: Makingthe European Union a Classroom Reality.’’ International Studies Perspectives 1(2):145–159.

Walsh, C. M. 1903. ‘‘Kant’s Transcendental Idealism and Empirical Realism.’’ Mind, NewSeries, 12(48): 454–472.

Wedig, Timothy 2010. ‘‘Getting the Most from Classroom Simulations: Strategies for Maxi-mizing Learning Outcomes.’’ PS: Political Science & Politics 43(03): 547–555.

Wilkerson, LuAnn. 1995. ‘‘Skills for the Problem-Based Tutor: Student and FamilyPerspectives.’’ Instructional Science 22: 303–315.

Wilkerson, LuAnn. 1996. ‘‘Tutors and Small Groups in Problem-Based Learning: Lessonsfrom Literature.’’ In Bringing Problem-Based Learning to Higher Education: Theory andPractice, pp. 23–32, eds. LuAnn Wilkerson and Wim H. Gijselaers. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Williams, Victoria C. 2006. ‘‘Assuming Identities, Enhancing Understanding: Applying ActiveLearning Principles to Research Projects.’’ Journal of Political Science Education 2(2):171–186.

Youde, Jeremy 2008. ‘‘Crushing Their Dreams?: Simulations and Student Idealism.’’ Inter-national Studies Perspectives 9(3): 348–356.

Constructing International Relations Simulations 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

4:02

21

Apr

il 20

13