Home

Mark Gadson, South Texas College
Deanne Repetto, Folsom Lake College
Sherri L. Wallace, University of Louisville

The 2008 Simulations and Role Play (S&RP) II track focused on issues in American politics and theory. Building on conversations in previous tracks (see S&RP track summaries from 2006 and 2007 in PS: Political Science and Politics), the 25 discussants focused the dialogue mainly on best practices with some discussion on faculty research. 

Papers Presented: Contributions and Considerations
The 11 presentations represented a myriad of best practices for S&RP in classroom teaching, from psychological decision-making tools to exercises for American politics, Congress, and the courts. There were a variety of S&RP designs and models to consider for achieving learning goals and facilitating students’ understanding of complex political concepts and ideals. Thus the question is no longer whether professors can or should use S&RP, but which S&RP can best suit their teaching needs? 

Emerging from the presentations and subsequent conversations were the following themes highlighting the benefits of balancing theory and practice via S&RP activities: 

• Students report that S&RP are effective, enjoyable, and generally underutilized. The various techniques available can be efficiently balanced with traditional information delivery methods. This was illuminated in a presentation by Joanna Sabo (Monroe County Community College) on expanding measurable student learning through an in-class, effective mock Congress exercise. Both in her track presentation and well-received conference workshop “Designing Classroom Activities that Meet Student Outcomes,” Sabo demonstrated that S&RP, from the simple to complex, can achieve learning objectives by engaging students in memorable and enjoyable exercises.  
• It is important to effectively balance types of S&RP with goals of the course, curriculum, and students’ academic skill level. Students learn differently, so a range of activities leads to the broader use, development, and acquisition of more universal skills that are transferable across disciplines and that also enhance student employability. Patricia O’Reilly (Ryerson University) found of the types of simulations she has used in her public policy courses, policy (content-oriented) simulations worked better than process (institutions-oriented) simulations in building students’ skills. Her S&RP assessments revealed that in-class negotiations via student interaction were most useful. Utilizing a three-day S&RP to replace the standard written MA thesis at the graduate level, G. Matthew Bonham (Syracuse University) reported, in his coauthored study, how S&RP activities can be more practical for students who wish to hone and combine demonstrable skills with more cultural knowledge and human interaction as preparation for a global workforce. This bold experiment has been positive for graduate students, but the challenge remains in determining how best to evaluate learning outcomes. 
• S&RP can be multipurpose tools used across several classes and/or in lower and upper division courses. Renee Bukovchik Van Vechten (University of the Redlands) found that combining (lower and upper division) courses enlarges the scope of players’ roles and the potential conflicts and challenges. Additionally such pairing can be used to teach course content, institutional rules, and procedures as well as encourage social interaction and learning across disciplines. More importantly when drawn out over a semester, S&RP activities become a little more realistic. Also cooperative learning increases social capital for students due to the various linkages formed. The results of students working together and interacting via groups are usually positive interdependence (or mutual dependence) and increased individual accountability to peers and professors. Additionally students who collaborate to learn in role-playing exercises tend to internalize lessons, have better information retention, and deepen their conceptual understanding of course material.  
• S&RP are effective methods of evaluating activity and student performance. Given that classroom pedagogy is shifting from information processing to incorporate many more experiential modes of learning, this is an assessment tool that can integrate different kinds of learners and students at different stages of learning, as George R. La Noue (University of Maryland-Baltimore County) demonstrated when using practical and detailed models for teaching the courts and constitutional law. Kathleen M. Perez (Wichita State University) presented a coauthored exploratory study on student performance for a midterm and final, both using the same essays and short questions. The study revealed that students performed much better on the final than the midterm due to participation in S&RP exercises before the final exam.  
• S&RP recognizes both internal and external influences on decision-making processes. When using an electronic decision-making experiment in devising a “route to the ocean,” Douglas C. Nilson (Idaho State University) found that many students were surprised to learn that their decisions were not always rational and can often be tempered by unintentional or undetected biases. John E. Transue (University of Illinois-Springfield), who teaches political psychology and public opinion courses, demonstrated three approaches for evaluating decision making: interference (Stroop Test), accessibility (media priming), and framing. He found overall that psychological (cognitive) issues may be more relevant to decision making when made under time constraints.  
• There is value in incorporating S&RP into courses and curricula. S&RP represent an invaluable learning experience that can increase the levels of authentic political engagement and participation by students. Rachel Paine Caufield (Drake University) and Angelo J. Gonzales (University of California, Berkeley) articulated that S&RP were not only useful for teaching students about process of politics (e.g., judicial politics), but also effective for teaching about the institutions (e.g., Congress). All students have to know the appropriate vernacular or vocabulary for the activity, but once that is achieved, students engage and become actively conversant about institutional features that may seem theoretically abstract, but are real, everyday practices.  
• S&RP techniques must consider clear objectives and measurable actions to balance, focus, and ensure students learn from the activities. This will involve initial (sometimes extensive) preparation in lecture and/or outside of class.  
• Faculty must balance role as both instructor and facilitator. All presenters agreed that is sometimes necessary for faculty to make students uncomfortable for the sake of learning. However priming by instructors matters because what we cue our students to learn or pay attention to will tend to be their focus. The use of S&RP allows for a critical examination of the role or goal of political scientists as educators. These activities, exercises, and experiments can address the often conflicting demands of providing students with a fundamental theoretical basis and framework for approaching the questions we as political scientists attempt to address in our research and scholarship. Not to mention S&RP research is an excellent way to bridge teaching and publishing.

Subsequently questions for research and scholarship exploration centered on how to measure learning outcomes. Discussants pondered which of these techniques are best to use given the S&RP utilized: priming vs. rubrics vs. reactions. Additionally how can S&RP be used in developing demonstrable job-ready skills? These are questions to explore further. Finally discussants mulled over the possibilities and advantages presented by multicourse participation in simulations. The viable solution would the establishment of a teaching/simulations lab connected with cross-curriculum opportunities.  

Lessons Learned: Resources and Recommendations
Overall the 2008 workshop reiterated some of the former S&RP track themes. The discussion lead to serious questions and possible solutions on how S&RP can and should be factored in merit evaluations for those faculty who engage in them. Last year discussants explored how such faculty could receive more FTEs while students could receive more credit hours for S&RP engagement when taking teaching and class loads into account. The possible solution could be the creation of simulation learning labs to supplement coursework (PS, July 2007, 583). This year Neal Allen (College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University) suggested that perhaps the APSA Standing Committee on Teaching and Learning could initiate a committee or research project to explore the topic of “Developing the Dedicated Lab in the Political Science Curriculum.” The purpose would be to conduct departmental surveys to gauge if existing teaching/simulations labs exists, and if so, what are the criteria in relation to student/faculty FTEs? The results of such a survey could be a mechanism by which the profession can advocate for learning labs in other institutions.  

As reported last year, to achieve these goals faculty engaging in S&RP must work to develop institutional standards for what simulations should accomplish through more collaboration on S&RP models, best practices within and across universities, as well as the organization and sharing between conferences via list servs, web blogs, and web site links. The suggested recommendation in 2007 was the creation of a list serv that linked the faculty engaging in S&RP within the discipline (PS, July 2007, 583). This initiative has come to fruition with the creation of a political science S&RP web site by Douglass Telling (Framingham State College): http://mysite.verizon.net/dtelling/Simulations%20Home%.

Note

Special thanks to the many workshop discussants who contributed additional written comments for this summary.